CHAPTER VI.

1853-1856.

BRITISH ENLISTMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES—RECALL OF THE ENGLISH MINISTER AT WASHINGTON—THE OSTEND CONFERENCE.

Two topics entirely unexpected by Mr. Buchanan when he accepted the mission to England must here claim some attention. The first relates to an occurrence which brought upon the United States the necessity of demanding a recall of the British minister who then represented the queen’s government at Washington. This was Mr. John F. Crampton, a well-meaning and amiable gentleman, who had long resided in this country as secretary of the British legation, and had been made minister some time previously, but whose zeal in the service of his government had led him into a distinct violation of our neutrality in the war between England and Russia. It is altogether probable that in his efforts to promote enlistments of men to serve in that war, Mr. Crampton did not keep within the letter of his instructions. It was, at all events, somewhat difficult, for a good while, to convince Lord Clarendon that Mr. Crampton was personally implicated in the unlawful acts which were undoubtedly done. But there was but one course for the American government to pursue. The history of this affair is somewhat curious.

When in April, 1854, Mr. Marcy had occasion to acknowledge the receipt from Mr. Crampton of a note stating the new rule that would be observed by Great Britain, in the war with Russia, towards neutrals, after expressing his gratification, and, at the same time, saying that the United States would have been still more gratified if the rule that “free ships make free goods” had been extended to all future wars to which Great Britain should be a party, he took the precaution to remind Mr. Crampton in courteous terms of the severe restrictions imposed by our laws against equipping privateers, receiving commissions, or enlisting men within our territories to take any part in a foreign war. Lord Clarendon, too, at a later period (April 12, 1855), wrote to Mr. Crampton that “the law of the United States, with respect to enlistment, however conducted, is not only very just but very stringent, according to the report which is enclosed in your despatch, and her Majesty’s government would on no account run any risk of infringing this law of the United States.”[18] For a time, Mr. Crampton acted cautiously, but in the course of the summer of 1855, Mr. Marcy received evidence which convinced him that the British minister was personally implicated in carrying out arrangements for sending men to Nova Scotia, under contracts made in the United States to enlist as soldiers in the British army after their arrival in Halifax; and that the means for sending them had been supplied by him and other British functionaries. Mr. Buchanan was first instructed to bring this matter to the attention of Lord Clarendon, before Mr. Crampton’s direct agency in it had become known to our Government. His letter of July 6, 1855, to Lord Clarendon, was a forcible presentation of the grounds on which the United States complained of such doings as an infraction of their laws and a violation of their sovereignty. A long correspondence ensued, which was conducted at times with some approach to acrimony, but which never actually transcended the limits of diplomatic courtesy. At length the proofs that Mr. Crampton was a party to this unlawful proceeding became so forcible that the British government yielded to the request that he might be recalled, and he was transferred to another diplomatic post. The whole affair was attended at one time with serious risk of an interruption in the friendly relations of the two countries. Mr. Marcy’s course in the correspondence was greatly tempered in its tone by the advice which he received from Mr. Buchanan, although the hazard of an unfortunate issue of the trouble was much enhanced by the sending of an unusual naval force to the coasts of the United States, which the British government ordered while this affair was pending, but without any special reference to it.

Footnote 18:

A copy of this note was delivered to Mr. Marcy in the course of the month of May, 1855.

The so-called “Ostend Conference,” which at the time it occurred made a great deal of noise, and in which Mr. Buchanan was directed by his Government to participate, requires but a brief explanation. It was not a meeting in any sense suggested by him, nor was there anything connected with it which should have given rise to alarm. When in the summer of 1856 he had become the nominee of the Democratic party for the Presidency, as is usual on such occasions, biographical sketches of his public and private character were prepared and circulated. Among them was a small volume in duodecimo form of 118 pages, written with far greater ability and precision than was common in such ephemeral publications intended for electioneering purposes. Its account of the whole matter of the “Ostend Conference” is so exact and lucid that I do not hesitate to quote it as a true history of that proceeding:[19]

Footnote 19:

The copy of this little biography which is before me is entitled, THE LIFE AND PUBLIC SERVICES OF JAMES BUCHANAN of Pennsylvania. Twentieth thousand. New York: Published by Livermore & Rudd, 310 Broadway, 1856. It was published anonymously, but I am informed that the name of the author was Edward F. Underhill.

THE OSTEND CIRCULAR.

It is the rare good fortune of Mr. Buchanan to have sustained a long career of public life with such singular discretion, integrity, and ability, that now, when he is presented by the great national party of the country as their candidate for the highest dignity in the Republic, nothing is seriously urged by political hostility in extenuation of his merit, save the alleged countenance to filibuster enterprise and cupidity, inferred by his enemies from a strained interpretation of the recommendations and views of the Ostend Conference. The political opponents of Mr. Buchanan call upon his supporters to vindicate the claim they assert in behalf of Mr. Buchanan to conservatism, by reconciling that assumption with his participation in the American Diplomatic Conference at Ostend and Aix la Chapelle, and with his adoption and endorsement, jointly with the ministers of the United States to France and Spain, of the views and recommendations addressed by the three ambassadors to the Department of State, on the 18th of October, 1854, in the letter commonly known as the Ostend Manifesto. The circumstance that the opposition meet the nomination of Mr. Buchanan with no other objection impugning his qualifications for the Presidential trust, cannot fail to confirm the popular belief in the justice and wisdom of the judgment that governed the Cincinnati convention in selecting a statesman so unassailable in the record of his political life, and so little obnoxious to personal censure and distrust, as the candidate of the great national party of the Union for the highest dignity in the Republic. For it is demonstrable that an erroneous impression exists as to the purport of the Aix la Chapelle letter; and that the policy therein declared by Mr. Buchanan and his associates, is identical with that which has uniformly been regarded and avowed as the policy of the United States in respect to the Island of Cuba. And a belief endeavored to be inculcated, that the policy of the Ostend conference was adopted in consultation or co-operation with the Red Republicans of Europe, is equally erroneous. This belief has originated in another supposition equally unfounded, that Mr. Soulé was in league with the leaders of the European revolutionary movement. The truth is, that fundamental differences existed between the policy of Mr. Soulé and Mazzini, Ledru Rollin, Kossuth, and Louis Blanc; and besides which fact it is well known that these revolutionary leaders themselves were agreed only upon one point, the necessity of revolution, and that they seldom speak to one another. The policy of the revolutionary party of Europe in reference to Cuba was this. They desired the United States to assist the Democratic party of Spain in creating a revolution at Madrid, which should dethrone the queen, and place the Democratic party in power, by the establishment of a republic, and then leave Cuba at her option to either remain a portion of the Spanish republic, or seek annexation to the United States. This concession to the United States was to be in return for material aid furnished in effecting the Spanish revolution. The revolution thus accomplished was intended to be the initiative of further revolutions on the Continent. The Pyrenees range of mountains which forms the boundary line between France and Spain are populated on either side by the most liberal men in either empire, the great mass of the inhabitants being Republican; and could a republic be established in Spain, the Pyrenees would not only furnish points from which to begin their revolutionary designs against France, but would form a barrier behind which they could defend themselves against any attack which Louis Napoleon might make. The revolution accomplished in France, Kossuth and Mazzini would have but little difficulty in overthrowing the power of Austria in Hungary and Italy. Such were the objects which the revolutionary leaders of Europe had in view in endeavoring to secure the influence of the United States Government in support of their policy.

It is needless to say, that neither the Ostend conference nor the cabinet at Washington gave any countenance to this policy. The Ostend conference looked at the Cuba question solely from an American point of view, and quite disconnected from the conflicts and interests of European politics, or the aspirations of revolutionary leaders. On this account, so far from that policy receiving the favor of the Red Republicans, they were as pointed in their hostility to it as any of the monarchical organs of Europe, and did not hesitate to privately, and sometimes publicly, denounce Mr. Soulé for having signed the Ostend circular, as recreant to the expectations which they had formed in regard to him. Mr. Buchanan from first to last opposed the policy which would lead to the United States becoming involved in the European struggle, and held strictly to the American view of the question, in accordance with which the Ostend letter was framed.

The conference at Ostend had its origin in the recommendation of Governor Marcy, who justly conceived that the mission with which Mr. Soulé was charged at the court of Spain might excite the jealousy of other European powers, and that it was important for the purpose of facilitating the negotiations there to be conducted, that explanations should be made to the governments of England and France, of the objects and purposes of the United States in any movement that events might render necessary, having in view the ultimate purchase or acquisition by this government of the Spanish Island of Cuba. The object of the consultation suggested by Mr. Marcy was, as stated in a letter to Mr. Soulé, “to bring the common wisdom and knowledge of the three ministers to bear simultaneously upon the negotiations at Madrid, London and Paris.” These negotiations had not necessarily in view the transfer of Cuba to this country; though that was one of the modes indicated, and seemingly the most effective, of terminating the constantly recurring grievances upon the commerce of the United States, upon the honor of its flag, and the personal rights of its citizens, which disturbed the cordial relations of the two countries, and infused acrimony into their intercourse connected with the prosecution of commerce. Another expedient which Governor Marcy regarded with favor, was the independence of the Island under the Creole sovereignty. At that time, in the summer of 1854, apprehensions of some important change in the social and political condition and relations of Cuba, were generally felt in this country. Rumors prevailed, founded on the then recent decrees and modifications of law pertaining to the servile condition, that it was in contemplation to establish the domination of the blacks in the Island; that the slaves were to be freed and armed, and that an extensive introduction of native Africans was to be resorted to as a means of re-enforcing the strength of the dominant party.

Such, indeed, was the policy of Great Britain; first, to keep alive the slavery agitation in the United States, not from motives of philanthropy, but, by thus inciting internal discord between the people of different sections of the Union, the United States would be prevented from turning its attention to further schemes of territorial extension; and second, to flood Cuba with negroes under a system of apprenticeship, in order to render it valueless to the United States. The execution of such a scheme was regarded as eminently dangerous to the peace and safety of this country, and was one which the United States could not suffer, as the inevitable effects of such a policy, carried out, would be, sooner or later, to induce a servile insurrection in the Southern States. With a colony containing a million and a half of free negroes, immediately off our shores, an expedition could at any time be organized under European aid, and sent from Cuba to our Southern States to incite a rebellion, with all its attendant horrors, among the slaves. Mr. Soulé was instructed to ascertain whether it was in contemplation, and, if so, to seek to prevent it from being carried out, and to avert its baleful consequences to ourselves, by negotiating, first, for the purchase of Cuba, and if that were impracticable, then for the independence of the Island. It was not the greed of territorial expansion that prompted the instructions which convoked the Ostend conference; nor was that sentiment the controlling one that prompted the adoption by its members of the recommendations embodied in the Aix la Chapelle letter. The document is too long to publish at length, but the material passage which contains the doctrines which the opposition would fain lead the people to believe are dangerous, is subjoined:

“But if Spain, deaf to the voice of her own interest, and actuated by stubborn pride and a false sense of honor, should refuse to sell Cuba to the United States, then the question will arise, what ought to be the course of the American Government under such circumstances? Self-preservation is the first law of nature with states as well as with individuals. All nations have at different periods acted upon this maxim. Although it has been made the pretext for committing flagrant injustice, as in the partition of Poland, and other similar cases which history records, yet the principle itself, though often abused, has always been recognized. The United States has never acquired a foot of territory except by fair purchase, or, as in the case of Texas, upon the free and voluntary application of the people of that independent state, who desired to blend their destinies with our own. Even our acquisitions from Mexico are no exception to the rule, because, although we might have claimed them by the right of conquest, in a just war, yet we purchased them for what was then considered by both parties a full and ample equivalent. Our past history forbids that we should acquire the Island of Cuba without the consent of Spain, unless justified by the great law of self-preservation. We must, in any event, preserve our own conscious rectitude and our own self-respect.

“While pursuing this course, we can afford to disregard the censure of the world, to which we have been so often and so unjustly exposed. After we shall have offered Spain a price for Cuba far beyond its present value, and this shall have been refused, it will then be time to consider the question, does Cuba in the possession of Spain seriously endanger our internal peace and the existence of our cherished Union? Should this question be answered in the affirmative, then, by every law, human and divine, we shall be justified in wresting it from Spain, if we possess the power. And this, upon the very same principle that would justify an individual in tearing down the burning house of his neighbor if there were no other means of preventing the flames from destroying his own home. Under such circumstances, we ought neither to count the cost nor regard the odds which Spain might enlist against us.

“We forbear to enter into the question whether the present condition of the Island would justify such a measure. We should, however, be recreant to our duty—be unworthy of our gallant forefathers, and commit base treason against our posterity, should we permit Cuba to be Africanized and to become a second St. Domingo, with all its attendant horrors to the white race, and suffer the flames to extend to our neighboring shores, seriously to endanger or actually to consume the fair fabric of our Union. We fear that the course and current of events are rapidly tending towards such a catastrophe....

“JAMES BUCHANAN, “JOHN Y. MASON, “PIERRE SOULÉ.

“Aix la Chapelle, October 18, 1854.”

One brief sentence in the above describes the purport and substance of the whole document: “Our past history forbids that we should acquire the Island of Cuba without the consent of Spain, unless justified by the great law of self-preservation.” If the acquisition of the Island should become the very condition of our existence, then if Spain shall refuse to part with it for a price “far beyond its present value,” we shall be justified “in wresting it” from her, “upon the very same principle that would justify an individual in tearing down the burning house of his neighbor, if there were no other means of preventing the flames from destroying his own home.”

This doctrine is not original with the Ostend conference, nor did it emanate from filibustering cupidity, nor is it a mere party issue. It has been as broadly asserted, and as confidently and ably advocated, by a Whig statesman and administration, as in the Ostend manifesto. Mr. Everett, United States Secretary of State, in his letter to the British and French ministers declining the alliance tendered by them to guarantee the possession of Cuba to Spain for all coming time, defends his refusal, on the ground that the United States have an interest in the condition of Cuba which may justify her in assuming dominion over it—an interest in comparison with which that of England and France dwindles into insignificance.

The truth is, that its doctrines are the reverse of filibusterism, which means an unlawful, unauthorized depredation of individuals on the territory of countries with which we are at peace. The Ostend circular recommends no suspension or repeal of the neutrality laws, no modifications of the restrictions imposed by our traditional policy and statutes upon the acts of individuals who choose to filibuster; but it declares that, whenever an occasion arrives for a hostile act against the territory of any other nation, it must be by the sovereign act of the nation, through its regular army and navy. So inconsistent are the doctrines of the Ostend circular with filibusterism, that the publication of that document resulted in the cessation of all filibustering attempts against Cuba. But this is not the only result. The acts of aggression upon our citizens and our commerce, by the authorities in Cuba, prior to the Ostend conference, were of a character to seriously imperil the relations between the two countries. But since the Ostend conference, most of those difficulties have been settled, and the remainder are now in the course of settlement; and as the legitimate result of the bold and determined policy enunciated at Ostend, there has not since been a single outrage against the rights of our citizens in Cuba. A vacillating or less determined course on the part of our ministers would have only invited further aggression.

Thus it will be seen that the letter upon which the charge is based by no means justifies the imputation. It only proves that, under circumstances threatening actual danger to the Republic, and in order to preserve its existence, the United States would be “justified, by the great law of self-preservation,” in acquiring the Island of Cuba without the consent of Spain. In its careful preclusion of filibustering intent and assumption, it shows the predominance of a conservative influence in the Congress, which the country may safely attribute to the weight of Mr. Buchanan’s counsels and character. It is obviously manifest from the tenor of the document, that the construction so sedulously contended for by the opponents of Democratic rule, is that which was most earnestly deprecated by the prevailing sentiment of its framers. Events were then in progress, and a perilous catastrophe seemed to impend, that asked of American statesmanship the exercise of all the decision, prudence and energy at its command, to regulate and guide the one in such a way as, if possible, to stay or avert the other. The local administration in Cuba had become alarmed for its safety, and, influenced by apprehension and terror of American filibusters, had already adopted measures of undiscriminating aggression upon the United States Government, by dishonoring its flag and violating the rights of its citizens, which, if persisted in, would inevitably have led to war. Nor was this the only danger; for it was industriously affirmed by those in the interests of Spanish rule, that the Island was to be “Africanized,” and delivered over to “an internal convulsion which should renew the horrors and the fate of St. Domingo”—an event to which, as Mr. Everett truly declares in his letter to the British and French ministers, declining the proposed alliance to guarantee Cuba to Spain, both France and England would prefer any change in the condition of that Island—not excepting even its acquisition by the United States. Under the circumstances, nothing less than so decided a manifestation of determined energy and purpose as was made through the instrumentality of the Ostend conference, would probably have prevailed to prevent that very struggle for the conquest of Cuba, which it is now alleged to have been its purpose to precipitate. And thus, as often happens in the conduct of affairs, the decision and firmness which seemed aggressive and menacing, facilitated a pacific and satisfactory solution of difficulties that threatened war.