at Ostend, Belgium, and after some discussion issued what is known as the "Ostend Manifesto," a document in which they said that the possession of Cuba was a necessity for the United States; that if Spain persisted in refusing to sell the island, the United States would be justified in seizing it. This paper occasioned considerable comment abroad, but the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill and the threatening aspect of home affairs, prevented any further agitation of the subject.

285. Troubles in Kansas. (1854–1858.) (1854-1858.) The principle of "squatter sovereignty" having been made the rule for the new territories, it was evident that to whichever party the greatest number of settlers belonged, that party would be able to make the territory, and the subsequent state, free or slave, as the case might be. Accordingly, as soon as the bill was signed, both North and South began to pour settlers into the new territories, but especially into Kansas. In this struggle the North had the decided advantage, for the slaveholders hesitated about taking their slaves where there was a risk of losing them. In the eastern states great interest was taken in western emigration, and societies were organized for encouraging and aiding it. In order to escape passing through Missouri, the emigrants from the free states took the roundabout way through Iowa. The settlers who opposed slavery were soon in the majority; but as all the settlers were near the Missouri boundary, the pro-slavery party was reinforced by men from the latter state, who crossed the line and voted more than enough ballots at every election to counterbalance the free vote; sometimes, indeed, the number of ballots counted was more than the whole number of voters in the territory. The free settlers declined to recognize legislatures so chosen or laws made by them, but, hold

TROUBLES IN KANSAS.

261

ing elections of their own, chose legislatures and framed constitutions in accord with their own views. Of course, the pro-slavery element refused to acknowledge these actions, and unfortunately the trouble did not stop with words and elections. Men were attacked and shot, and houses and whole villages were destroyed by the "Border Ruffians," as they were called. The settlers from the East and North, feeling that their just rights were invaded, met force with

force, and retaliated with a severity perhaps quite equal to that which they themselves experienced. The whole territory was in a state of actual war. The administration at Washington generally sided with the pro-slavery party; but though governor after governor was sent out, it seemed impossible to preserve peace. It was not long before the free settlers had so increased in numbers as to be warranted in asking that the territory should be admitted to the Union as a state, but though petitioning Congress more than once, their request was not granted until 1861.

CHAPTER XIV.

INCREASE OF SECTIONAL FEELING.

REFERENCES.

General. - James Schouler, History of the United States, v. 335-512; James F. Rhodes, History of the United States, ii. 131-502; Bryant and Gay, Popular History of the United States, iv. 418-447; W. Wilson, Division and Reunion (Epochs of American History), pp. 194–218; James G. Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress, i. 138-312; E. Channing, The United States, pp. 247-257; Horace Greeley, The American Conflict, i. 251-449; John G. Nicolay and John Hay, Abraham Lincoln, vols. ii.-vi.; Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, i. 1-85, 199-318; Alexander H. Stephens, The War between the States, ii. 263-370; Henry A. Wise, Seven Decades of the Union, Chaps. xiii.-xv.; Goldwin Smith, The United States, pp. 215-253; Edward Ingle, Southern Side Lights.

Biographies. See references for Chaps. xii. and xiii. H. von Holst, John Brown; F. B. Sanborn, Life of John Brown; J. T. Morse, Jr., Abraham Lincoln.

Special.Alex. Johnston, American Politics, Chaps. xviii., xix.; E. Stanwood, History of Presidential Elections, Chaps. xix., xx.; Edward McPherson, Political Text-book for 1860, Political History of the Rebellion (these contain the most important documents); James S. Pike, First Blows of the Civil War, pp. 301-520. For Sumner and Brooks: Alex. Johnston, American Orations, ii. 256-314. Dred Scott Decision: G. T. Curtis, Memoir of Benjamin R. Curtis; The Nation (New York), April 7, 21, 1892; Alex. Johnston, American Orations, iii. 3–33; M. W. Cluskey, Political Text-book (decision given in full); J. J. Lalor, Cyclopædia, i. 838-841. James Buchanan Buchanan's Administration; James Russell Lowell, Political Essays, and articles in Atlantic Monthly and North American Review, 18601866. Secession: Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, i. 86-198; Alex. Johnston, American Orations, iii. 49–124; Ordinances, etc., relating to Secession, American History Leaflets, No. 12; Washington in the Winter of 1860-61, Atlantic Monthly, August, 1893. Lincoln's Inaugural, Old South Leaflets, No. 11.; Alex. Johnston, American

:

REPUBLICANS; CHARLES SUMNER.

263

Orations, iii. 141-156. Jefferson Davis's Inaugural, etc.: Alex. Johnston, American Orations, iii. 157-175. Atlantic Cable: H. M. Field, Story of the Atlantic Telegraph (Revised edition).

286. "Anti-Nebraska Men"; Republicans; Charles Sumner. (1854-1856.) The Kansas trouble caused intense excitement in the country and on the floors of Congress, and "bleeding Kansas" was a phrase often used in the North. In the election following the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill the opponents of the measure united and elected enough members to control the House of Representatives. These at first were called Anti-Nebraska men; but it was not long before they took the name of Republicans, and formed the Republican party. This party, since so well known, was composed chiefly of the old northern antislavery Whigs, with whom were joined many of those who held antislavery views in the Free-soil, the American, and the Democratic parties. The new party had few sympathizers in the South, except among the Germans of Missouri and among the inhabitants of western Virginia.

During the debate in Congress Charles Sumner, a senator from Massachusetts, spoke very severely of one of the South Carolina senators. Preston S. Brooks, a member of the House of Representatives from South Carolina, and a nephew of the aggrieved senator, came into the Senate chamber after the adjournment of that body, and, attacking Sumner while seated at his desk, beat him about the head with a heavy cane, injuring him so severely that for nearly four years he was unable to resume his place. For this assault Brooks was censured by the House of Representatives, of which he was a member, and fined by a Washington court of justice. He at once resigned his place, but was almost unanimously re-elected, only six votes being cast against him. This incident contributed greatly to the bitter

feeling already existing between the great sections of the country.

287. Presidential Nominations and Election of 1856. — The Presidential election of 1856 was one of the most important that had yet been held. The Democrats nominated James Buchanan of Pennsylvania, and John C. Breckenridge of Kentucky, both supporters of the Kansas-Nebraska bill; the American party ignored the slavery question, and nominated Millard Fillmore of New York, and Andrew J. Donelson of Tennessee. The new Republican party met for the first time in a convention, and nominated John C. Frémont of California, and William L. Dayton of New Jersey. The cry of the new party was, "Free soil, free speech, free men, and Frémont." In the election which followed, Buchanan and Breckenridge were chosen; but the new party, hardly two years old, had carried eleven out of the fifteen free states, and polled a popular vote of nearly a million and a half. The Americans only carried the state of Maryland, and from this time ceased to exist as a party. The signs of the times clearly indicated that, in another four years, an antislavery President might be chosen.

288. "Dred Scott Case"; Fugitive Slaves. (1856–1857.) — Curiously enough, the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise (sect. 205) had never been brought up before the United States Supreme Court until 1856. Though the case had been argued, the decision of the court was not made public till after the inauguration of Buchanan. When pub lished, the "Dred Scott decision" created great indignation in the North, for it upheld the extreme southern view of slavery in almost all respects. It said, in short, that negroes could not be citizens; that they were property, and therefore slaves could be taken anywhere in the United States in the