1869-1873 thought $5,000,000 a reasonable price, but after a brief discussion they compromised on $7,200,000. On the evening of March 27, 1867, while Seward was enjoying a game of whist, the Russian minister called to inform him of the receipt of a dispatch announcing the Czar's acceptance and suggested that the treaty be prepared and signed the next day. Seward replied: "Why wait till to-morrow, Mr. Stoeckel? Let us make the treaty to-night." The necessary clerks were called in, the treaty was drawn up and by four o'clock in the morning it was completed and ready to be laid before the Senate, which was done a few hours later, to the great surprise of every member except Sumner, who knew of what had taken place.30 The treaty, however, did not meet with general popular favor. Although a vast area of 577,000 square miles had been acquired, it was popularly believed to be only a dreary frozen region of polar bears and glaciers and inhabited only by savages. It seemed an utter waste of money to buy such an inhospitable country. But there was one consideration which probably turned the scales in favor of ratification; namely, the friendly attitude of Russia toward the United States during the Civil War. She refused Napoleon's proposition of intervention in 1862, and in the following year sent a fleet to America on a friendly visit not to aid the United States in case of war with France or Great Britain, as is often asserted.31 It was largely out of gratitude to Russia, therefore, that her offer to sell Alaska was accepted, although Seward and Sumner fully appreciated its enormous strategic and economic value to the United States. The treaty was ratified with only two dissenting votes, and the House, after much opposition, made the appropriation. The purchase removed a possible source of dispute between the two countries, since it put an end to Russian dominion on the American continent. The price paid was then considered large, but in view of the valuable fisheries and furs, as well as the immense natural resources of the country subsequently discovered, there is no longer any doubt that it was an excellent bargain. The receipts of the government from the sealing industry of the Pribylov Islands alone have amounted to more than $12,000,000.32 30 Bancroft, "Life of Seward," vol. ii. p. 477. 31 Read O. W. Holmes' poem, Our Foe?" 66 Who was Our Friend when the World was 32 Foster, "Century of American Diplomacy," p. 410. 1869-1873 The purchase of Alaska was the beginning of a general but premature expansion movement which followed the Civil War. Indeed, Seward declared that he wished to see the Union extended from the Pole to the Tropics. Before Lincoln's death negotiations had been opened, and later a treaty was concluded with Denmark, for the cession of the Danish West India Island of St. Thomas for $7,500,000; but the treaty, although approved by a plebiscite of the inhabitants and ratified by the Danish Riksdag, did not meet the approval of the Senate, partly on account of a sudden change of sentiment as to the value of the island as a naval station, caused by a destructive earthquake and hurricane on the island while the treaty was pending, and partly because of a feeling that no further acquisitions of foreign territory were desirable. After the rejection of the treaty the House adopted a resolution declaring that "in the present financial condition of the country any further purchases of territory are inexpedient, and this House will hold itself under no obligation to vote money to pay for any such purpose. An effort was then made by President Grant to bring about the annexation of the Dominican Republic, the “African Republic" of the Ostend Manifesto, comprising the eastern portion of the Island of San Domingo, altogether about 28,000 square miles in area. The President took the greatest interest in the project and seemed unable to understand why anyone should oppose it. "33 In May, 1869, he sent one of his private secretaries, General Babcock, in a man-of-war to San Domingo to inquire into the condition and resources of the island. In September Babcock, acting without instructions, concluded a treaty with one Baez for the annexation of the island, the United States to assume the Dominican debt of $1,500,000. The President transmitted the treaty to the Senate, with a message setting forth the resources of the island in exaggerated terms, as was then thought, but which it is now believed were within the limits of reason. But the project aroused strong opposition in the Senate, partly on account of the belief among some of the Senators that the negotiation had been tainted with corruption, and partly because the little negro republic, then as now a hot-bed of revolution, was not wanted. Besides, the manner of negotiation, doubt as to the authority of Baez, and the arbitrary use of the navy by Babcock added much to the 33 "Congressional Globe," 1867, p. 792. 1869-1873 opposition. The treaty accordingly failed to receive the necessary two-thirds vote of the Senate. At the opening of the next session of Congress the President again recurred to the subject in his annual message and made an earnest plea for the ratification of the treaty, but the most that Congress would do was to provide for a commission to visit the island and inquire into its political condition and natural resources. As members of the commission the President appointed Benjamin F. Wade, of Ohio, Andrew D. White, of New York, and Samuel G. Howe, of Massachusetts, all men of high character and ability. They made an exhaustive investigation and reported that the President's claim that the island could supply the United States with all the sugar, coffee and other tropical products needed for its own consumption was well founded, and they recommended annexation. But the Senate took no action, and the President did not again press the matter, although he referred to the subject in his last annual message nearly six years after the project was first broached, and asserted that if his views in the matter had been followed the country would have been in a more prosperous condition. An unfortunate incident of the controversy was a break between the President and Senator Sumner. Sumner was chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and led the fight against the treaty, although it had been chiefly through his powerful support that the Alaska treaty was ratified. For some reason he had conceived a strong dislike for Grant, and in the course of the debate delivered a severe attack upon the President, charging him with personal corruption - a charge which even Grant's own enemies rejected. The language of the speech was undignified, intemperate, and totally unworthy of the Massachusetts senator. After that the President never had any personal intercourse with him, and caused his removal from the chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee.34 In obeying the executive mandate to drop Sumner from his position many senators, says Blaine, committed an act against their conception of right and justice, as well as against what they believed to be sound public policy.35 As a fur 34 Storey, "Life of Charles Sumner," p. 396. Storey denies that Sumner entertained a personal dislike of Grant, but see Blaine, "Twenty Years of Congress," vol. ii. p. 460. 35" Twenty Years of Congress," vol. ii. p. 461. 1869-1873 ther punishment of the Massachusetts senator the President removed his intimate personal friend, Mr. Motley, from the position of minister to England. But the chief diplomatic event of President Grant's administration was the amicable adjustment of the irritating dispute growing out of Great Britain's failure to observe strictly the rules of neutrality during the Civil War. Her chief offense had been in allowing vessels intended for the Confederate service to be built and fitted out in British shipyards. The most noted of these Confederate cruisers was the Alabama, built by Messrs. Laird and Sons, of Birkenhead. While the ship was in course of construction the United States minister to Great Britain, Mr. Charles Francis Adams, protested to the British Government that the vessel was being built for the Confederate service, and produced what he considered the necessary evidence to sustain his allegation. But the Crown lawyers uniformly advised Her Majesty's Government that a sufficient case against the vessel had not been made, for the terms of the British Foreign Enlistment Act were rather uncertain. This act prohibited " the fitting out, equipping, and arming of vessels for warlike purposes," but did not, they asserted, prevent the building of a warship as one operation and the purchase of arms and munitions to equip such vessel when built, as another operation.36 Mr. Adams demanded that the government detain the Alabama, but he was put off with excuses and delays until at last she escaped from British waters upon the pretense of making a trial trip and made her way to the Azores. Here she was met by two British vessels, which supplied her with the necessary armament and other equipment. Hoisting the Confederate flag in August, 1861, she started out under the command of Raphael Semmes upon her wonderful career of destruction, creating consternation and terror wherever she went. Sweeping across the Atlantic and capturing over twenty United States vessels, she turned southward through the Gulf of Mexico and the West Indies, passed along the coast of Brazil, thence sailed to the region of South Africa, and finally to Cherbourg, France, where, in the summer of 1864, after a sharp engagement, she was sunk by the Kearsarge. Altogether, the Alabama had destroyed sixty vessels, aggregating ten million dollars' worth of property.37 "It is clear," said Seward, 36 C. F. Adams, Jr., "Life of C. F. Adams, Sr.,” p. 307. 1869-1873 38 in a dispatch to Adams, "that there will be no commerce left to the United States if the transaction of the 290' [the alias of the Alabama] is to be repeated without check and with impunity." 3 Among other vessels built in English shipyards and which played havoc with the American merchant marine were the Shenandoah, which made thirty-six captures; the Florida, which made thirtyseven, and the Tallahassee, which made twenty-nine. A number of other Confederate commerce destroyers were built in British ports, only to be abandoned or wrecked soon after, though some were detained by the British authorities on evidence of their hostile character. At the close of the war Mr. Adams laid before Earl Russell, the British Minister of Foreign Affairs, a statement of the American losses occasioned by the depredations of the English built Confederate cruisers, and proposed that the claims of the United States be submitted to arbitration. This proposition Earl Russell met with a flat refusal, saying that the British Government disclaimed all responsibility for the acts of the Confederate cruisers and that it would neither make reparation nor permit the question to be referred to the arbitration of any foreign state.39 Earl Russell was succeeded in the Foreign Office, in 1867, by Lord Stanley, who, although more kindly disposed toward the United States, would not consent to recognize the claims which as then presented were rather exaggerated. In the following year Mr. Adams retired from the British. mission and was succeeded by Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, a man eminent in law and in politics. Mr. Johnson speedily concluded a treaty in February, 1869, with Lord Clarendon, who had in the meantime succeeded Lord Stanley as Minister of Foreign Affairs; but the treaty proved to be very unsatisfactory on account of the extraordinary concessions which it made to Great Britain, and on account of the mode provided for the choice of an umpire. It was, therefore, almost unanimously rejected by the Senate, and indignation was expressed by some members at the thought of acceptance. "It offered not one word of regret," said Senator Sumner, or even of recognition," nor any "semblance of recognition," and was, in fact, only a convention for the settlement of private claims. "Nothing was said," he continued, "of the in 66 38 Bancroft, "Life of Seward," vol. ii. p. 386. 39 Moore, "International Arbitrations," vol. i. p. 496. |