and innuendoes of Mr. Douglas, and vindicated the Republican party from the aspersions the latter had so freely cast upon it. But he made the damaging admission that previous to 1850 the country was quiet upon the slavery question; damaging, because during the decade preceding 1854 had been enacted those fearful aggressions of the Slave Power which had excited so much alarm and such indignant protest. The annexation of Texas, the compromise measures, the Fugitive Slave Act, had all been crowded into those ill-fated and illfreighted years. And yet, said Mr. Fessenden, the country was "quiet," and the great parties had "determined there should be no more trouble on the subject." Notwithstanding all the antislavery agitations and teachings of a quarter of a century, and all the outrages committed at the behests of slavery, and all its inroads upon the domain of freedom, this was the statement volunteered in the very presence of those who had led on those aggressive movements.

Mr. Hunter spoke, or rather delivered an elaborate oration, on the slavery question. He began, by a laborious examination of the figures afforded by the commerce between the Northern and Southern States, to show that "these vast interests are not hostile, but of mutual assistance to each other," and that the disturbance threatened by the antislavery agitation would be reciprocally disastrous; these common interests "constituting a mighty arch," he said, "while the very keystone of this arch consists in the black marble block of African slavery. Knock that out, and the mighty fabric, with all that it upholds, topples and tumbles to the ground.”

Concerning the assumption that the South could be "whipped into the Union," he said: "It might be provoking, if it were not so absurd." "Sir," he confidently affirmed, "this coercion of which you speak is impossible." He contended that slavery was "the normal condition of society," and in harmony with the Divine requirement, "Do as you would be done by." Those acquainted with Southern society must have doubted the sanity, as well as the candor, of one who could make declarations like these. Other Senators participated in the debate; but nothing came of the resolution, as no vote was reached.

republics.
hostility and purpose.

Congress at Panaina. - Southern

- Randolph, Berrien, and Floyd. — Championship of slavery. Van Buren's despatch. - Change of feeling.Efforts to purchase. - Filibustering expeditions. - Taylor's proclamation. - Propositions of England and France. Refusal. Ostend manifesto. General surprise. — Buchanan's message. - Slidell's bill. — Action thereon. - Brown's speech. Position of the administration. - Designs on Central America. expedition. Purpose. Failure. - Democratic sympathy.

Walker's

THE proximity of Cuba to the mouth of the Mississippi River and its commanding position in the Gulf of Mexico made that island a matter of interest and importance to the people of the United States, whether it was held by Spain or was independent, slave or free. Here, however, as everywhere else, the interests of slavery were made paramount, and the Slave Power controlled the action of the government, a fact detrimental alike to the well-being and to the honor of the Republic.

When the Spanish colonies in America became independent, they abolished slavery. Apprehensive that the republics of Mexico and Columbia would be anxious to wrest Cuba and Porto Rico from Spain, secure their independence, and introduce into those islands the idea, if they did not establish the fact, of freedom, the slave-masters at once sought to guard against what they deemed so calamitous an event. Soon after the inauguration of John Quincy Adams, Mr. Clay, Secretary of State, wrote to Alexander H. Everett, minister to Spain, instructing him to press upon that government the importance of acknowledging the independence of those colonies. Among the reasons assigned was the fact that the "fortunes" of those islands "have such a connection with the people of the United States," that, in case of a protracted war, of which they should

"become the object and theatre," this government "might not be at liberty to decline" intervention. Though the despatch was couched in diplomatic phrase, and the real object of this caution and menace was not explicitly stated, it was understood then, and more distinctly avowed afterwards, to have been slavery and its defence; and that to guard against abolition in those islands was the main, if not the exclusive, motive of this extreme solicitude.

When the South-Americans proposed the congress at Panama, President Adams recommended that this government should be represented there. The debate on this proposition disclosed the real animus of the Southern members, who did not hesitate to avow that their apprehensions, purposes, and actions were all in the interests of slavery. John Randolph, after asserting that a war would be for the independence of those islands, with the purpose and the "principle, of universal emancipation," asked: "Then, sir, what is the situation of the Southern States?" Berrien of Georgia asked and answered the question: "Can you suffer these islands to pass into the hands of buccaneers drunk with their newborn liberty? "The vital interests of the South demand its prevention," was his response. Floyd of Virginia, for the same avowed reason, declared that he "would rather take up arms to prevent than accelerate such an occurrence." Thus clearly and unequivocally did this Republic step forth the champion of slavery, and boldly insist that those islands should remain under the hateful despotism of Spain rather than gain their independence by means that should inure to the detriment of its cherished system. Indeed, it would fight to fasten more securely the double bondage on Cuba and the slave. With less circumlocution and more directness, Mr. Van Buren, during the administration of General Jackson, urged upon the American minister at Madrid to press upon the Spanish court the same policy, for the reason, as he expressed it, that "the sudden emancipation of a numerous slave population ""could not but be very sensibly felt upon the adjacent shores of the United States." It seems hardly credible that a Northern man, even "with Southern principles," could have thus boldly

and coldly given such reasons. But such was the purpose of the hour, and such the animating spirit of the national administrations.

But after the annexation of Texas, there was a change of feeling and purpose, and Cuba, from being an object of dread, became an object of vehement desire. The propagandists, strengthened and emboldened by that signal triumph, now turned their eyes towards this beautiful "isle of the sea," as the theatre of new exploits; and they determined to secure the "gem of the Antilles " for the coronet of their great and growing power. During Mr. Polk's administration an attempt was made to purchase it, and the sum of one hundred million dollars was offered therefor. But the offer was promptly declined. What, however, could not be bought, it was determined to steal, and filibustering movements and expeditions became the order of the day. For no sooner was President Taylor inaugurated than he found movements on foot in that direction; and, in August, 1849, he issued a proclamation, affirming his belief that an "armed expedition" was being fitted out" against Cuba or some of the provinces of Mexico," and calling upon all good citizens "to discountenance and prevent any such enterprise." In 1851 an expedition, consisting of some five hundred men, sailed from New Orleans under Lopez, a Cuban adventurer. But though it effected a landing, it was easily defeated, and its leader and a few of his followers were executed. Soon afterward, a secret association, styling itself the "Order of the Lone Star," was formed in several of the Southern cities, having a similar object in view; but it attracted little notice and accomplished nothing.

So long as the separation of Cuba from Spain involved or threatened harm to slavery, this government was profuse in its expressions of satisfaction at its continued connection with that power. But when, in 1852, England and France made a proposition designed to assure its continuance, and, disclaiming all desire or intention of securing Cuba for themselves, proposed that the three governments should unite in guaranteeing the island to Spain, this government declined the proffered convention in a very long and elaborate despatch from Mr.

Everett, Secretary of State. Among the reasons assigned was one, in which slavery, though not specifically mentioned, was undoubtedly meant; and the apprehended danger thereto from the proposed arrangement was urged as one consideration why it should not be consummated.

In August, 1854, President Pierce instructed Mr. Marcy, his Secretary of State, to direct Buchanan, Mason, and Soulé, ministers respectively at the courts of London, Paris, and Madrid, to convene in some European city and confer with each other in regard to the matter of gaining Cuba to the United States. They met accordingly, in October, at Ostend. The results of their deliberations were published in a manifesto, in which the reasons are set forth for the acquisition; and the declaration was made that the Union could never enjoy repose and security" as long as Cuba is not embraced within its boundaries." But the great source of anxiety, the controlling motive, was the apprehension that, unless so annexed, she would be Africanized and become a second San Domingo," thus "seriously to endanger" the Union.

This paper attracted great attention and caused much astonishment. It was at first received with incredulity, as if there had been some mistake or imposition practised. Both continents were astounded at the shameless audacity which would thus commit this government to the conservation of slavery as a national necessity, and boldly avow the atrocious doctrines which were so fitly characterized by the Republican national convention of 1856, as "the highwayman's plea, that 'might makes right."" But there was no mistake, there was no imposition practised, except as involved in the document itself. It was the deliberate utterance of the conference, and it received the indorsement of Mr. Pierce and his administration. The Democratic national conventions of 1856 and of 1860 were quite as explicit, as were the authors of the Ostend manifesto," in favor of the acquisition of Cuba." Democratic politicians and presses, too, everywhere vindicated its sentiments, and advocated a similar policy. Nor were they much less explicit in the avowal of their motives than in the statement of their specific purpose. That purpose and that motive were to conserve and strengthen human slavery.