band. On the 3d of September Walker was brought to trial and condemned to be shot. The courage with which he met his fate has half redeemed his forfeited fame, and left aftertimes in doubt whether he shall be called fanatic or hero.*

At this period occurred the celebrated international episode known as the Martin Koszta affair. Martin Koszta had been a leader in the Hungarian rebellion of 1849. When that insurrection was suppressed he fled to Turkey, whence he was demanded as a traitor by the Austrian government. Turkey refused to render up the fugitive, but agreed that he might go for refuge to some foreign land never to return. Koszta chose the United States, came hither and took out his papers of intention, but not papers of completed naturalization. In 1854, contrary to his former promise, he returned to Smyrna, where he received a passport from the American consul and went ashore.

The Austrian consul at Smyrna, having no power to arrest Koszta on shore, instigated some bandits to seize him and throw him into the waters of the bay; there a boat which lay in wait picked him up and put him on board an Austrian frigate. The American officials immediately demanded the release of Koszta, and the captain of the sloop St. Louis loaded his guns, pointed them at the Austrian vessel, and was about to make quick work, when it was agreed by all parties that the prisoner should be put in charge of the French government until his nationality should be authoritatively decided. Then began a long and complicated international correspondeuce, in which the American Secretary of State, William L. Marcy, prevailed

*The poet Joaquin Miller, claiming to have been a member of Walker's band in the first invasion of Central America, has affectionately embalmed the memory of his brave leader in a poem, With Walker in Nicaragua," which might well conciliate the good opinion of posterity.

in argument, and Koszta was remanded to the United State. Of so much importance is the life of one man when it involves the great question of human rights.

After the descent of Lopez upon Cuba the relation of the United States and Spain were strained for a season. President Pierce entertained the belief that on account of the financial embarrassments of the Spanish government Cuba might now be peaceably purchased and annexed to the United States. The purpose of gaining Cuba had been covertly entertained by several Democratic Presidentsthis, with the ulterior design of extending the slave territory of the United States. The desire to purchase Cuba was one of those devices by which it was hoped to keep up the equipoise of the South and of the system of slave labor on the one side, as against the growing North and the system of free labor on the other.

The pending question was submitted to a commission having for its chairman James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania. A convention of ambassadors from the various governments interested was held at Ostend and an important instrument was there drawn up, chiefly by Mr. Buchanan, known as the Ostend manifesto. The document was devoted for the most part to a statement of the arguments in favor of the annexation of Cuba to the United States by purchase. Nothing, however, of practical importance resulted from the conference or the manifesto. The logic of events was against the purchase and the question was allowed to lapse.

Now had come, under the forward movement of civilization, the time and necessity for the territorial organization of the great domains lying west of Minnesota, Iowa and Missouri. Already into those vast regions the tides of emigration were pouring, and a government of some kind was necessary for the protection of the ever-increasing frontier communities. One must needs see in the retrospect the

inevitable renewal under these conditions of the slavery question as the most important issue which was likely to affect the creation of new Territories and new States.

It was in January of 1854 that the real agitation began. In that year Senator Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, introduced into the Senate of the United States a proposition to organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. In the bill reported for this purpose the author inserted a clause providing that the people of the two Territories in forming their constitutions should decide for themselves whether the new States should be free or slaveholding. Should this clause obtain, it would constitute a virtual repeal of the Missouri Compromise, for both of the new Territories lay north of the parallel of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, above which line it had been provided in the Missouri compact that slavery or involuntary servitude should not exist.

The ulterior motive of Senator Douglas, in thus opening anew a question which had been settled with so great difficulty thirty-three years before, cannot well be ascertained. The friends of that statesman have claimed that his action was based on the theory that all the Territories of the Union should, as an abstract and general proposition, be left entirely free to decide their domestic institutions for themselves. The opponents of Douglas held that his object was covertly to open in this manner the vast domain of Kansas and Nebraska to the institution of slavery, and by this policy he hoped to secure the everlasting gratitude of the South. To that section it was alleged that he looked in his aspirations for the Presidency. However this may be, the result of his measure in the Senate was inevitable. The old settlement of the slavery question was suddenly undone.

With the introduction of the so-called Kansas-Nebraska Bill violent debates began in Congress and continued from

January to May of 1854. All the bitter sectional antagonisms of the past were aroused in full force. It was as though a literal Pandora's Box had been opened in the halls of government. The bill was violently opposed by a majority of the Northern and Eastern representatives; but the minority from the North and East, combining with the Congressmen of the South, enabled Douglas to carry his measure through Congress, and in May the bill was passed and received the sanction of the President.

With this act the struggle which had been waged in Congress had been transferred to Kansas. Should the new State admit slavery or exclude it? The decision of the question now lay with the people or so-called squatters of the Territory. Douglas's theory was named Squatter Sovereignty, and the opposite view National Sovereignty. FreeState men and Slave-State men both made a rush for the Territory. Both parties were backed by strong factions throughout the Union. Kansas was soon filled with an agitated mass of people, thousands of whom had been sent thither to vote. The Free-State partisans gained the advantage in immigration; but this was counterbalanced by the proximity of the great Slave State of Missouri. With only a modest river between her western borders and the plains of Kansas she might easily discharge into the Territory a large part of her floating population, to be remanded whenever the purpose for which it was sent across the boundary had been subserved.

The Territorial election of November, 1854, resulted in the choice of a pro-slavery delegate to Congress. In the general election of the following year, the same party was triumphant. A pro-slavery State legislature chosen at this time assembled at the town of Lecompton, organized a government and framed a constitution permitting slavery. The Free-Soil party, however, declared the general election

invalid on account of the large imported vote from Missouri and other frauds. A Free-State convention was held at Topeka, and a constitution adopted excluding slavery. The rival governments were organized, and civil war broke out between the two factions.

For about a year (1855-56) the Territory was the scene of turmoil and violence. In September, 1855, the President appointed John W. Geary, of Pennsylvania, military governor of Kansas, with full powers to restore order and punish lawlessness. On his arrival, warlike demonstrations ceased, and the hostile parties were dispersed. By this time, however, the agitation, having its center in the afflicted Territory, spread to all parts of the Union. Out of this complex and stormy condition of affairs the political issues were evolved for the presidential election of 1856.

James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, appeared as the candidate of the Democratic party. As for the Whig party, that was in a state of dissolution. The greater part had espoused the cause of Free Kansas. Clearly and distinctly these partisans put forward their doctrine of unequivocal opposition to slavery in the Territories of the United States. They nominated, as the candidate of the new People's or Republican party, John Charles Frémont, of California, known popularly as the "Pathfinder of the Rockies." Meanwhile a considerable part of the Whigs and many Democrats, anxious to avoid or ignore the question of slavery, formed themselves into a secret organization which became a political party under the name of the Know-Nothings.* The Democratic doctrine was the support of the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, or what was known as Squatter or popular Sovereignty. The Republicans boldly an

* The origin of this apparently absurd name is found in a part of the pledge which the members took on initiation. They promised to know nothing but the Union, and to know nothing but "America for Americans."