to protect their subjects and to enforce the payment of certain claims.* Though they expressly disavowed any intention to secure territory or coerce the nation respecting the form of government, the three countries nevertheless sent a combined military and naval force to Vera Cruz. The United States was asked to join the intervening powers but refused, and Secretary Seward warned them against an attempt to acquire territory or to interfere with the government of Mexico.†

The British and Spanish governments soon discovered the designs of the French and left the latter to carry their plans through to completion as best they might. The French, though Louis Napoleon repeatedly assured our government to the contrary, then proceeded to make a practical conquest of the country. The Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian, of Austria, was placed on the throne with the title of Emperor and supported by French bayonets alone.§

413

pily terminated, a large army under General Sheridan was sent to the Rio Grande frontier prepared for any emergency. General Sherman was also sent as an escort to the American minister accredited to Juarez, the constitutional president of Mexico. Early in 1866 Secretary Seward informed the French emperor that the presence of his troops in Mexico was distasteful to the United States, and demanded their withdrawal. The demand was complied with in December, 1866, and in January, February and March, 1867, and there was no occasion for bringing the army into action. The French emperor then deserted Maximilian, who, after struggling against the native republican government for a while, was captured and shot, June 19, 1867. His wife, the Empress Carlotta, not long afterward became a hopeless maniac.*

In March, 1867, as Russia had signified her desire to sell her American possessions, negotiations for the purchase of Alaska and the islands ad

* Diplomatic Correspondence, 1862, Mexican Affairs, pp. 134-135.

Foreign Affairs, 1863, p. 709; 1868, p. 726; Globe, 37th Congress, 3d session, App., p. 94; 38th Congress, 1st session, p. 1408; Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia, 1864, p. 528; 1865, p. 321; Hay and Nicolay, Abraham Lincoln, vol. vi., chap. xi.

Lord Edmond George Fitzmaurice, The Life of Granville George Leveson Gower, Second Earl Granville, vol. i., pp. 440-441; George F. Tucker, The Monroe Doctrine, pp. 93-97.

Diplomatic Correspondence, 1862, p. 348; 1863, pp. 96-109; F. W. Seward, Seward at Washington, vol. ii., p. 189.

§ John B. Henderson, Jr., American Diplomatic Questions, pp. 389-397 (The Macmillan Co.); Seward, vol. ii., pp. 190-191.

Secretary of State Seward. After several conferences the price of $7,200,000 was agreed upon and a treaty was signed by Seward and by Stoeckl,

*House Ex. Doc. No. 93, 39th Congress, 1st session; Henderson, American Diplomatic Questions, pp. 397-407; Seward, Seward at Washington, vol. ii., pp. 361-366; T. K. Lothrop, William H. Seward, pp. 387-394; Bancroft, Life of Seward, vol. ii.; Hay and Nicolay, Abraham Lincoln, vol. vii., chap. xiv.; Grant's Memories, pp. 545546; Badeau, Grant in Peace, pp. 52-55, 180-189; Sheridan's Memoirs, vol. ii., pp. 210-228; W. T. Sheridan's Memoirs, vol. ii., pp. 414-420; Schofield, Forty-six Years in the Army, pp. 378-393.

414

the Russian minister at Washington." On March 30 it was submitted to the Senate and sent to the Committee on Foreign Relations, of which Sumner was chairman. On April 1, after the special executive session of Congress had convened, the bill was favorably reported and was debated for several days. Though there was much adverse criticism, because many thought Alaska a barren and worthless country and not worth the price asked, still the Senate ratified the treaty April 9 by a vote of 37 to 2, and it was proclaimed, June 20. The House then debated the matter for more than a year and it was not until July 27, 1868, that a bill appropriating the necessary funds for payment was passed and signed.†

Seward at this time also attempted to pass through Congress a treaty for the purchase of the islands of Saint Thomas and Saint John in the Danish West Indies. His negotiations were brought to a conclusion on October 26, 1867, when a treaty was signed at Copenhagen transferring ownership to the United States for the sum of $7,500,000 in gold. But when the treaty was sent to the Senate in December for ratification it received unfavorable consideration, the House passing a two-thirds vote against the acquisition of the islands. The Senate

*For text of treaty see Freeman Snow, Treaties and Topics in American Diplomacy, pp. 135-138.

Pierce's Sumner, vol. vi., pp. 325-328; Storey's Sumner, pp. 338-340; Sumner's Works, vol. xi.; Seward, Seward at Washington, vol. ii., pp. 346– 350, 383; John W. Foster, A Century of American Diplomacy, pp. 404-410; Blaine, vol. ii., pp. 334340; Bancroft's Seward, vol. ii., p. 477 et seq.

laid the treaty over for the consideration of another administration. It was not finally acted upon until the second year of Grant's administration when it was rejected.*

Before the adjournment of Congress in December, 1868, for the recess, the Senate ratified an important treaty with China, which Anson Burlingame, the former American minister in that country, had negotiated with Secretary Seward July 28, 1868. Mr. Burlingame had won the entire confidence of the Chinese government, and after his resignation from the United States service had been appointed by the Chinese emperor commissioner to the western powers. He came attended by high officials of the Chinese empire and negotiated the treaty which established mutual intercourse between the citizens of the United States and those of China, and secured to each mutual privileges of trade, travel, education and religion. This was a concession never before made by the Chinese to any nation.

After the war the government more vigorously pressed the claim against Great Britain for damages inflicted on our commerce by the Confederate

* Pierce's Sumner, vol. iv., pp. 328-329, 613624; Seward, Seward at Washington, vol. ii., pp. 344-345, 369-372, 375; Bancroft's Seward, vol. ii., p. 485; Eugene Schuyler, American Diplomacy, p. 23 (Charles Scribner's Sons).

Diplomatic Correspondence, 1868, part i., pp. 493, 502, 601; 1870, pp. 317, 332; 1871, p. 166; Snow, Treaties and Topics, pp. 162-163; Foster, American Diplomacy in the Orient, pp. 257–266; Seward, Seward at Washington, vol. ii., pp. 379382; A. C. Coolidge, The United States as a World Power, p. 327 et seq.; and histories of China by Speer, Douglas, Williams, Nevins, etc.

cruisers Alabama, Florida, Shenandoah and others. These cruisers had been built in England during the war with the knowledge of the British authorities and had been allowed to depart on their careers of depredation without the slightest attempt at hindrance. The question as to whether the escape was due to sympathy for the Confederates or laxity in government circles and as to who was guilty of the negligence are not for us to discuss here. It is sufficient to say that

While English statesmen strenuously fought against the submission of the "Alabama claims" to arbitration, many of them were willing to admit that they were at fault. The detention of the Alabama by the British authorities could easily have been accomplished had they chosen to act promptly. But not until after the horse had been stolen were attempts made to lock the barn door. "If orders had been given to detain her at any port which she entered, her necessities must sooner or later have placed her in the hands of the British authorities. Lord Russell was ready to take this course; he actually drafted a dispatch directing the detention of the vessel. But no member of the cabinet except the Duke of Argyle approved the proposal. The Chancellor was 'vehement' against it and it was given up"-Spencer Walpole, Life of Lord John Russell, vol. ii., p. 355 (Longmans, Green & Co.). The Duke of Argyle in a letter to Lord Russell (p. 355) says: "If this order had gone forth, one great plea of the Americans could never have been urged against us; and the American claims would perhaps have never been made at all. *** America had reason and right in complaining that the 'Alabama' was received in all our ports, and so far we were in the wrong." Russell nevertheless claimed that America had no cause for damages against Great Britain and strongly objected to submitting the claims to arbitration, but later he said that the failure to detain the Alabama was his own faultp. 361 footnote. There is much dispute as to the person guilty of the laxity. Stuart J. Reid, in his Lord John Russell, p. 363 et seq., says that "Lord Russell, in spite of the generous admission which he himself made in his 'Recollections,' was in reality not responsible for a blunder which almost led to war." Reid says that

營

*

#

415

these vessels created havoc with our merchant marine and the government sought to force the British government to reimburse us for the losses sustained, all the claims being bulked under the general title "Alabama claims.''* Minister Adams had been unable to effect a settlement and the negotiations drifted along seemingly without prospect of definite results. On the retirement of Adams, Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, was sent to England (July, 1868) to negotiate a treaty. On January 14, 1869, he concluded with the English government what is known as the Johnson-Clarendon convention, by the terms of which all claims arising since July 26, 1853, were to be submitted to four commissioners, two for each country, and to an umpire in case of a disagreement. The treaty was then submitted to the Senate, but after a long speech by Sumner it was rejected on April 13, 1869, by a vote of 54 to 1.

owing to the illness of the Queen's advocate, the opinion as to the legal points asked for by Lord Russell was delayed for four days and in the meantime the Alabama escaped.

*

For the history of these claims and the early attempts to settle them see Charles C. Beauman, Jr., The National and Private Alabama Claims and Their Final and Amicable Settlement, pp. 1298 and the works mentioned in the following pages.

For negotiations and copy of this treaty see Claims Against Great Britain, vol. iii., pp. 692789; John Bassett Moore, International Arbitrations, vol. i.; Bancroft's Seward, vol. ii.; Seward, Seward at Washington, vol. ii., p. 390 et seq.; C. F. Adams, Jr., The Treaty of Washington, in Lee at Appomattox and Other Papers, p. 92 et seq.

Pierce's Sumner, vol. iv., p. 385; Sumner's Works, vol. xiii.; Dawes's Sumner, pp. 283-287; Storey's Sumner, pp. 364-368, and pp. 241-250,