Did Douglas envision this? His Kansas-Nebraska Act stipulated Kansas's northern border at precisely the height that, if replicated, would yield the tier of states that resulted. Yet he never expressed this geometric logic in the Senate debate. Likewise, if he foresaw the future Arizona and New Mexico by virtue of where he located the Texas-New Mexico boundary, he never expressed that either. Perhaps for good reason. Both debates were filled with suspicion regarding future slave and free states. For Douglas to add projected states to the debate would have added fuel to the fire he was seeking to tamp down. Though his intentions for future boundaries cannot be ascertained from what he didn't say, a pattern emerges from the added facts that he also made no mention of his colleague's plan to extinguish Indian treaties, and that his prized policy of "popular sovereignty" was never expressed as such in the 1850 legislation that initiated it.

Kansas: southern boundary shift While Douglas was successful in winning popular sovereignty in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, popular sovereignty proved less than successful in Kansas. Proslavery settlers drafted a Kansas const.i.tution at Lecompton; antislavery settlers drafted an opposing Kansas const.i.tution at Topeka. Both const.i.tutions were sent to Washington for approval. Congress approved neither, but Senator Douglas favored the antislavery Topeka const.i.tution over its proslavery rival from Lecompton: Is there a man within the hearing of my voice who believes the Lecompton const.i.tution does embody the will of a majority of the bona fide inhabitants of Kansas? ... We are told that it ... has been submitted to the people for ratification or rejection. How submitted? In a manner that allowed every man to vote for it, but precluded the possibility of any man voting against it. We are told that there is a majority of about five thousand five hundred votes recorded in its favor under these circ.u.mstances.... On the other hand, we have a vote of the people, in pursuance of law, on the 4th of January last, when this const.i.tution was submitted by the Legislature to the people for acceptance or rejection, showing a majority of more than ten thousand against it.

Though he could not know it at the time, Douglas had just ended his chances to become president. As the 1860 campaign neared, the cost of Douglas's choice surfaced. Southerners denounced Douglas along the lines stated by former congressman and diplomat William Stiles of Georgia: In 1854, Mr. Douglas, to curry favor with the South ... brought forward his measure for the repeal of the Missouri [Compromise] restriction. The South was enchanted and shouted paeans to the "Little Giant." ... But would they have shouted those paeans ... had they supposed it covered, as Mr. Douglas now claims, his odious squatters sovereignty doctrine? Never! Never!! Has not Stephen A. Douglas, then, cruelly deceived and wantonly betrayed the South? Did he not bring forward a measure which he induced us to believe was for our benefit, and does he not show us now and boast that it was for our ruin!2 The Democrats split into two parties during their 1860 convention, both claiming to be the true Democratic Party. The Northern party nominated Douglas; the Southern party chose John C. Breckenridge. By dividing its supporters, the Democrats enabled Republican Abraham Lincoln to win the White House with less than 40 percent of the popular vote.

One month after Lincoln's election, Southern states began seceding from the Union. Douglas made a final plea to avert the hemorrhage. "Are we prepared for war?" he beseeched his colleagues. "I do not mean that kind of preparation which consists of armies and navies, and supplies, and munitions of war; but are we prepared in our hearts for war with our own brethren and kindred? I confess, I am not."

The long fuse leading to the Civil War detonated at Fort Sumter in April 1861. Whichever side won, Douglas had lost. On the Sunday following the firing on Fort Sumter, he (after some coaxing from his wife) went to the White House to speak with President Lincoln. The two longtime rivals exchanged pleasantries, then Lincoln read to Douglas his draft of a speech summoning the nation to war. Douglas offered only one criticism, recorded by a mutual friend who was present. "Instead of the call for 75,000 men," Douglas advised, "I would make it 200,000. You do not know the dishonest purposes of those men as well as I do."3 He then asked to see a map. Standing next to the president, the man who knew the American map as well as anyone-and who had sought to avoid war as much as anyone-pointed out the geographic weak points in the South.

Six weeks later, he was dead, having fallen ill with typhoid fever. A large monument marks his grave in Chicago. But perhaps the most meaningful monument to Stephen A. Douglas is on the map itself: the equally s.p.a.ced lines in the middle of the nation. They, and the gap that became Oklahoma's Panhandle, are enduring monuments to a visionary who dreamed of equality but accepted imperfection.

THE ALMOST STATES OF AMERICA.

JOHN A. QUITMAN.

Annexing Cuba: Liberty, Security, Slavery

I believe that the inst.i.tution of slavery is not only right and proper, but the natural and normal condition of the superior and inferior races, when in contact.... That the preservation of the inst.i.tution of slavery in Cuba ... is essential to the safety of our own system.... That it is consistent with the designs of Providence, and our right and duty, not to restrain but to encourage the white Caucasian race to carry humanity, civilization and progress to the rich and fertile countries south of us, which, now in the occupation of inferior and mixed races, be undeveloped and useless.

-JOHN A. QUITMAN1 During the early 1850s Mississippi Governor John A. Quitman raised a private army for the purpose of invading Cuba and offering it to the United States. His primary reason was to preserve slavery on the island (ruled, at the time, by Spain) and thereby add an additional slave state to the Union.2 Quitman's involvement commenced in 1850, when he was introduced to Narciso Lpez, leader of a group of Cuban revolutionaries. Lpez and his followers were wealthy landowners and merchants who turned against Spain when a key element of their wealth-slavery-was threatened by changes in colonial policy.

John A. Quitman (1798-1858) (photo credit 30.1) Spain, greatly weakened by the loss of nearly its entire empire, was seeking to ally itself with the nation whose empire was most rapidly growing: England. England, for its part, was seeking to undermine the nation whose borders were most rapidly growing: the United States. By allying with Spain, England could establish a naval presence in Cuba, thereby dominating the intersection of commerce between the Gulf of Mexico and the sea.

The United States, needless to say, was well aware of these moves. Two years before Quitman met Lpez, Senator Lewis Ca.s.s stated, "Doubts have been expressed here as to the designs of England upon Cuba.... It has been repeatedly said that she has demanded the island, either in absolute conveyance, or as a mortgage for the payment of the debts due to her people." Ca.s.s avoided domestic controversy by not mentioning another aspect of England's maneuver. If England could get Spain to end slavery in Cuba, the island would become a beacon to American slaves-if nothing else, as a haven of escape; possibly, as encouragement to revolt. No matter how it played out, emanc.i.p.ation in Cuba might well derail the American express.3 Governor Quitman knew the impact it would have on his and all other slave states if Cuba came under British domination. Still, when approached by Lpez in 1850, he did not accept the offer of command. Having risen to the rank of major general in the Mexican War, the governor recognized both the political and the military risks. So too had Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, other distinguished veterans of the Mexican War, both of whom had already rejected Lpez's offer.

Narciso Lpez (1797-1851) (photo credit 30.2) While Quitman did not accept the offer, neither did he completely reject it. Rather, he cited his current commitments as governor. In addition he told Lpez that he could only come to his aid after a revolution had commenced under Cuban leaders. This stipulation reflected Quitman's concern about violating the Neutrality Act of 1818, which prohibited any person "within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States ... to set on foot, or provide or prepare the means for any military expedition or enterprise to be carried on from then against the territory or dominions of any foreign prince or state or any other colony, district, or people with whom the United States are at peace."

Lpez was indeed on the verge of launching the revolution Quitman stipulated. Or something similar-because Cuban forces were hard to come by (nearly half the island's young men being slaves, disinclined to fight for slavery), he had been recruiting Americans to fight for Cuban independence from Spain. The same month when he met Governor Quitman, Washington's Daily National Intelligencer reported, "[An] invasion of Cuba is contemplated. This new expedition we are told is to rendez-vous somewhere in the island of Haiti, under Gen. Lopez, and attempt a landing at some port on the south side of Cuba.... Our information from Havana is that the government there has been made aware of every movement." Two months later, the Cuban revolution began. A correspondent for the Missouri Courier ably covered the historic event: The expedition ... landed at Cardenas on the 19th [of May 1850], lost some in landing ... entered the town, [and] attacked the jail, supposing it to be the barracks. The jail was guarded by 15 men who stood the fire well.... After this, some soldiers went to the Governor's house.... The house was well defended.... The invading troops, having lost time in getting off their wounded and procuring fuel for the steamer, Creole, which was to return for reinforcements, became disheartened and insisted on going to Key West. They were closely pursued by the Spanish war steamer Pizarro but happily escaped.

The invaders were home in time for dinner.

Confirming Quitman's legal concern, Lpez was arrested for violating the Neutrality Act. But he had become so popular with Americans as a "freedom fighter" that, after three hung juries in the trial of a coconspirator, the government opted not to pursue the case. The fact that politics had trumped the law on this issue was not lost on Governor Quitman.

The political landscape shifted further in this direction when Lpez launched another invasion of Cuba the following year. On August 12, 1851, he successfully landed and entered the interior of the island with, according to his records, 400 troops-forty-nine of whom were Cubans. The following morning, Spanish soldiers in the vicinity attacked a contingent of Lpez's recruits. But the recruits not only repelled the Spaniards, they pursued them-right into a much larger force of Spanish soldiers. That same morning, other recruits, with whom Lpez himself was based, were also attacked by a Spanish division. Many managed to retreat with Lpez into the mountains, but they were left nearly depleted of supplies and weaponry. By August 16 those still alive were either captured or, like Lpez, surrendered.4 Once again, the fate of Cuba fired up Americans. Though Lpez had failed, he remained a hero in the United States-front-page news in the September 8, 1851, Boston Daily Atlas: General Lopez was condemned to be garroted on Monday, the 1st of September ... at the entrance of the [Havana] harbor, directly opposite the Moro [old Spanish castle]. There were on the ground at the time 5,000 troops, 3,000 infantry, and 1,000 cavalry, and about 8,000 citizens.... Lopez was brought forward and ascended a platform, about fifteen feet high, on which was the chair of execution.... His last words were, "I die for my beloved Cuba." He then took his seat, the machine was adjusted, and at one turn of the screw his head dropped forward.

Because most Americans believed public execution was barbaric, wresting Cuba from Spain was now elevated to an even loftier plane. The death of Narciso Lpez also left only one credible commander at that time: John A. Quitman.

The political landscape shifted further in Quitman's favor when Franklin Pierce was elected president in 1852. Pierce made plain from the outset his expansionist views. "The policy of my Administration will not be controlled by any timid forebodings of evil from expansion," he stated in his inaugural address. "Indeed, it is not to be disguised that our att.i.tude as a nation and our position on the globe render the acquisition of certain possessions not within our jurisdiction eminently important for our protection."

Four months later, Quitman agreed to organize an invasion of Cuba. His efforts took him to New York, where he sought funds from business interests connected to cotton, tobacco, and other Southern products. He then headed to Washington to secure the private political support needed for his venture. There he met not only with influential Southern politicians but also with Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas, whose backing, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories, would be vital to the annexation of Cuba. The meeting went well, as Quitman likely expected, since Douglas's views on Cuban annexation were well known: Whenever the people of Cuba shall show themselves worthy of freedom by a.s.serting and maintaining their independence and establishing republican inst.i.tutions, my heart, my sympathies, my prayers, are with them for the accomplishment of the object.... When that independence shall have been established, if it shall become necessary to their interest or safety to apply as Texas did for annexation, I shall be ready to do by them as we did by Texas, and receive them into the Union.5 In Cuba, meanwhile, Spain sought to preempt American designs by issuing a number of decrees regarding slavery and race. One freed those slaves illegally imported from the United States. Another established a procedure enabling slaves to purchase their freedom. A third allowed Cubans of any color to join the militia. And a fourth legalized interracial marriage. Journalists in the United States referred to these decrees as the "Africanization" of Cuba.

With Quitman recruiting troops, stockpiling armaments, and raising funds through the issuance of Cuban bonds bearing his signature as "Commander-in-Chief," the Senate took up consideration of a proposal to suspend the Neutrality Act. The legislation was sent to the Foreign Relations Committee, but Quitman's quest suddenly became an uphill effort when Senator Douglas proposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Because Douglas's bill would end federal regulation of where slavery could and could not exist, the annexation of Cuba became embroiled in rumors that the Kansas-Nebraska Act was part of a grand Southern conspiracy. Senator Thomas Hart Benton brought those rumors out in the open: I must now ... look out for [the bill's] real object-the particular purpose for which it was manufactured, and the grand movement of which it is to be the basis. First, the mission of Mr. Gadsden to Santa Anna. It must have been conceived about the time that this bill was. Fifty million dollars for as much Mexican territory on our southern border as would make five or six states.... Secondly, the mission of [Amba.s.sador] Soule to Madrid-also a grand movement in itself ... two hundred and fifty million dollars for Cuba.... I only call attention to them as probable indexes to this grand movement ... and my own belief [that] this Nebraska bill is only an entering wedge to future enterprises-a thing manufactured for a particular purpose-a stepping stone to a grand movement which is to develop itself in this country of ours.

Senator Benton's fear The "grand movement" that Benton suspected consisted of Cuba being annexed as a slave state, Kansas becoming a slave state, James Gadsden acquiring the regions of Mexico he sought, a slave state being created from the southern half of the New Mexico Territory, and a slave state being created from the southern half of California. Taken together, these possibilities would have made the slave-holding South indomitable. Such a movement had in fact been suggested by Lpez in a letter to Governor Quitman the day after their initial meeting. Lpez had linked the annexation of Cuba to a "union of the Southern States ... [that] could never be broken."

Despite Senator Benton's misgivings, President Pierce signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act and, the following day, sought to mitigate Northern anger by issuing a proclamation regarding Cuba: Whereas information has been received that sundry persons, citizens of the United States and others residing therein, are engaged in organizing and fitting out a military expedition for the invasion of the island of Cuba; and Whereas the said undertaking is contrary to the spirit and express stipulations of treaties between the United States and Spain, derogatory to the character of this nation, and in violation of the obvious duties and obligations of faithful and patriotic citizens....

I do issue this proclamation to warn all persons that the General Government ... will not fail to prosecute with due energy all those who ... presume thus to disregard the laws of the land and our treaty obligations.

Privately, Pierce confided to Louisiana Senator John Slidell and others that he would not seek to enforce the Neutrality Act if Quitman's expedition could be kept under wraps. But Quitman's luck was running out. Eleven days after the presidential proclamation, the New York Express revealed that "many of the Northern members [of Congress], and several from the slaveholding states ... are convinced that there is plan on foot to get Cuba-peaceable or otherwise.... The Administration, it is believed, will favor the scheme." As rumors mounted in the press, Supreme Court Justice John A. Campbell ordered that a grand jury be presented with charges against Quitman for violating the Neutrality Act. The grand jury, however, refused to issue an indictment for a crime not yet committed. Judge Campbell then sought to torpedo the commission of the crime by ordering that Quitman be held in prison until he had posted bond as a.s.surance that he would not enter Cuba. The order triggered widespread condemnation as unconst.i.tutional, given that Quitman had not been charged with any crime.

While his lawyers navigated the legal obstacle course, Quitman struggled with other obstacles. Many of his recruits and backers were now having second thoughts in the wake of the court's actions. Seeking to bolster their commitment, he traveled again to Washington in April 1855, hoping he could somehow obtain a meeting with President Pierce. In a case of fact being stranger than fiction, a correspondent for the New York Herald witnessed the president and Quitman unexpectedly encountering each other on Pennsylvania Avenue. "During the past six weeks, [President Pierce] has been seen but once on the avenue," the correspondent wrote. When Pierce next ventured out for a rare stroll, "in front of the Milkwood house he met General Quitman.... There was no chance to dodge, and they stood face to face.... With slight tremor in the voice, I heard him say, 'General, why haven't you been to see me? Call in the morning.' "

The following morning, Pierce shared with Quitman intelligence he had received regarding Spain's military buildup in Cuba. Troop levels were being increased, fortifications upgraded, and its naval presence bolstered. With Quitman's recruits and dollars dwindling, the bottom line was clear: he had no chance. Six weeks later, Quitman resigned as revolutionary Cuba's commander in chief.

Though he gave up the t.i.tle, he did not abandon the dream. Six months after resigning from the Cuban expedition, Quitman won election to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he sought further opportunities to pursue his agenda. The opportunity presented itself when William Walker, who had previously raised a private army that he unsuccessfully led into Mexico, raised another private army that he more successfully led into Nicaragua. Like Quitman's venture, Walker's acts violated the Neutrality Act. Upon Walker's arrest, Congressman Quitman resumed his quest. "A resolution calling upon the President for information relative to the arrest of Gen. Walker ... has pa.s.sed the House by a large majority, and Gen. Quitman made an attempt to introduce his bill for the repeal of certain sections of the neutrality laws," the New York Herald reported in January 1858.

Quitman's efforts, however, were cut short. The following month, the press reported on a disease that only affected patrons of the National Hotel in Washington. In July the Charleston Mercury wrote, "The telegraph announces the decease of General Quitman.... [T]he intelligence is not a surprise; for, under the effects of the mysterious National Hotel disease, his vital powers have been slowly but surely failing." The mysterious disease turned out to have resulted from backed-up sewage in the hotel's bas.e.m.e.nt, emitting toxic bacteria.

Though John A. Quitman failed to put Cuba on the U.S. map, he himself is on the map. His name is preserved in the towns of Quitman, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, and Texas.

KANSAS.

CLARINA NICHOLS.

Using Boundaries to Break Boundaries

The debate [on women's rights] was quite an animated one on the various modes to dispose of it.... Motions were made to hear Mrs. Nichols before the Convention or before the [elective franchise] committee. The hall was finally granted to Mrs. Nichols on Wednesday evening, to discuss this "vexed question."

-NEW YORK HERALD, JULY 20, 1859 In the states created after the Revolutionary War, proposals for boundaries often originated at statehood conventions, embedded in the state const.i.tution being drafted for approval by Congress. At the Kansas statehood convention, Clarina Nichols spearheaded the first effort to dispute certain boundaries within a proposed state boundary, among them the boundary around the voting booth that kept women (and African Americans, American Indians, and Chinese Americans) out.

Delegates to the 1859 convention at Wyandotte, Kansas, received, among the numerous citizens' pet.i.tions submitted to such bodies, one that began with the usual frilly phrasing, but in this case lured the reader to a most unfrilly point: We, the undersigned citizens of Kansas Territory, do respectfully submit to your honorable body that, whereas the women of the State have individually an evident common interest with its men in the protection of life, liberty, property and intelligent culture ... and whereas, in virtue of these common interests and responsibilities, they have pressing need of all the legal and const.i.tutional guarantees enjoyed by any cla.s.s of citizens; and whereas, the enjoyment of these guarantees involves the possession of equal political rights: Therefore we, the undersigned, being of full age, do respectfully pet.i.tion and protest against any const.i.tutional distinctions based on difference of s.e.x.1 Clarina Nichols (1810-1885) (photo credit 31.1) As the representative of Kansas's Women's Rights a.s.sociation, Clarina Nichols sat among the spectators at the convention, dutifully knitting during each session and, during any recess, collaring delegates. What brought this woman, who had lived happily and prosperously with her husband and children in New England, to this place at this point in time? Was it that, as she said, "I commenced my life with the most refined notion of women's sphere.... But I could, even then, see over the barriers of that sphere, and see that, however easy it might be for me to keep within it, as a daughter, a great majority of women were outside its boundaries."2 Perhaps. But it was not until Nichols found herself outside the boundaries of "women's sphere" that she became an activist on behalf of equal rights.

She was born Clarina Howard in 1810 to a family that lived modestly, despite being among the wealthiest in West Townshend, Vermont. Her parents adhered to strict Baptist beliefs that included opposition to slavery and abstinence from alcohol. During her childhood, these two tenets formed into separate organized social movements: abolitionism and temperance. The early feminist movement in the United States was, in many respects, a result of women's becoming involved (and politically educated) in these two movements. But a third issue provided the catalyst, one that affected all women: the absence of equal rights regarding property and child custody. Not all American women sympathized with the abolitionist or temperance movements. But the more a woman subscribed to one or both of those movements, the more likely she was to perceive a pattern of empowerment that favored white men over all others.

Nichols's first husband, Justin Carpenter, who came from a family of similar values and affluence, did not seem to fit that pattern when she married him. He and his bride settled in Brockport, New York, where Carpenter partnered with a like-spirited man to open a private school and lending library. There they became deeply involved with the Temperance Society of Brockport. But it was also there that she found herself facing the dilemmas all women of that era faced when their husbands turned out to be different persons than they had at first appeared. Clarina never revealed the causes of her failed marriage, although she once described their love as "one-sided."3 What is known is that Carpenter suddenly ended his business partnership and later closed his school. When he then left his wife, he took the children. Doing so, at that time, was his legal right.

Fortunately for Clarina, Carpenter's father secured her children's return to her. Carpenter then opted to have no further contact with his children, nor to provide support. The injustice of this law became her primary concern. "I have asked learned judges why the state decrees that the father should retain the children, thus throwing upon the innocent mother the penalty which should fall upon the guilty party only," she stated in an address to a women's rights convention. "Say they, 'It is because the father has the property; it would not be just to burden the mother with the support of his children.' "4 Clarina was fortunate not only to have had sympathetic in-laws to help her regain her children, but also parents who had previously provided her with an education and self-esteem and who later offered a home to which she could return. All this support enabled her to get back on her feet. Soon she was making a living for herself and her children through her skills as a seamstress and by writing articles for the local newspaper. Her gifts for writing and public speaking quickly propelled her to the front ranks of the newly forming women's movement. Her talents also drew the attention of the paper's publisher, George Nichols, who became her second husband.

Twelve years into their marriage, the second precursor of the women's movement, abolitionism, propelled George and Clarina Nichols to move to Kansas. The 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act had replaced the Missouri Compromise with "popular sovereignty," allowing a state or territory to decide for itself whether or not to allow slavery. As a result, among the droves of people moving to Kansas and Nebraska for economic opportunity, many opted for Kansas in an effort to create a majority vote for or against slavery. A key reason Kansas was more inviting to slaveholders was its adjacency to the slave states of the South. Though its immediate neighbor to the south, present-day Oklahoma, was then the Indian Territory, there were slave owners among the Cherokees and among the region's spa.r.s.e white population.

The droves arriving in Kansas for the purpose of creating a proslavery majority were followed by droves seeking to counter this effort. George and Clarina Nichols were among this second wave of arrivals, though Clarina, being female, had no vote. When not establishing their homestead or coping with a near-fatal accident that befell one of her sons, or her husband's illness and subsequent death in 1855, Nichols worked as a journalist and activist. As the Moneka Woman's Rights a.s.sociation strategized for the statehood convention, Nichols opposed the suggestion that they attach their quest for equality to the more formidable quest for racial equality. Doing so, she feared, could result in more harm than good for both.

Reflecting the turmoil over the question of slavery in Kansas, the Wyandotte convention was the territory's fourth const.i.tutional const.i.tution. The geographic boundaries of the proposed state were not at issue; the demographic boundaries were. The lines defining the status of human beings collided in the efforts to create Kansas. Finally, at Wyandotte, a bloodied and exhausted territory produced a const.i.tution that both the territory's voters and Congress approved.

The boundary barring women from the voting booth was only one of several boundaries Nichols sought to eliminate in the proposed const.i.tution at Wyandotte. More immediately important to her were the boundaries that preserved child custody and all property for men. As in the later civil rights movement, Nichols kept her eyes on the prize, but she focused her initial efforts on these specific, indisputable injustices. In her 1841 speech, she explained: Now, my friends, you will bear me witness that I have said nothing about woman's right to vote or make laws.... When I listen to Fourth of July orations ... tributes of admiration paid to our fathers because they compelled freedom for themselves and sons from the hand of oppression and power. I have faith that when men come to value their own rights as means of human happiness, rather than of paltry gain, they will feel themselves more honored in releasing than in retaining the "inalienable rights" of woman.5 With custody and property rights as her priorities, Nichols was able to persuade the men at the Wyandotte convention to embed in the const.i.tution equality regarding these two issues. Article 15 stated, "The Legislature shall provide for the protection of the rights of women in acquiring and possessing property, real, personal, and mixed, separate and apart from the husband; and shall also provide for their equal rights in the possession of their children." The same article also provided protection for a woman's home (or a man's, for that matter) by declaring it to be "exempted from forced sale under any process of law, and shall not be alienated without the joint consent of husband and wife." These two clauses rendered the Kansas const.i.tution a historic doc.u.ment in the American struggle for women's rights.

The abolitionist and feminist movements scored partial victories at the Wyandotte convention. In addition to gender-neutral property and custody protections, the delegates voted to prohibit slavery in the state. But both African Americans and women lost when it came to voting rights.

The outbreak of the Civil War resulted in a hiatus for the women's movement, as its members turned their attention to the crisis at hand. Nichols moved to Washington, DC, where she worked in the Army Quartermaster Department and, with the end of the war, became the matron of a home operated by the National a.s.sociation for the Relief of Dest.i.tute Colored Women and Children. She returned to Kansas in 1866, then moved in 1871 to California, where her grown children had migrated.

Nichols did not live to see voting rights extended to women. Throughout her life, women's influence resided primarily in their persuasive skills or, for some, the power of their beauty. Nichols's persuasive skills combined her keen wit and her ability to reveal (in the words of her pet.i.tion) "common interest" with those she sought to persuade. One such common interest-surprising, perhaps, in an ardent feminist-was her valuing of feminine beauty. But Nichols's sense of beauty was beautifully insightful: Can it be that we have no more lasting claims to admiration than that beauty and those accomplishments which serve us only in the springtime of life? Surely our days of dancing and musical performances are soon over, when musical instruments of sweeter tone cry, "Mother."... Has not G.o.d endowed us with some lasting hold upon the affections? My sisters ... cultivate your powers of mind and heart, that you may become necessary to his better and undying sympathies.... Then will his soul respond to your worth, and the ties that bind you endure through time, and make you companions in eternity!6 Clarina Nichols pa.s.sed away in Mendocino, California, in 1885. Her viewpoints continue to be pa.s.sed on.

WASHINGTON STATE.

LYMAN CUTLER'S NEIGHBOR'S RIG

The British-American Pig War

Lyman A. Cutler, being duly sworn, deposes and says ... that on or about the 15th of last June he shot a hog belonging to ... Mr. Griffin, and immediately informed him of the fact, stating it was done in a moment of irritation, the animal having been at several times a great annoyance, and that morning destroyed a portion of his garden.... That same afternoon, Mr. Griffin, in company with [Alexander Dallas, of the Hudson's Bay Company] came to his house.... Mr. Dallas stated this was British soil, and if Cutler did not [pay] ... one hundred dollars he would take him to Victoria ... for trial.

-DEPOSITION OF LYMAN CUTLER, SEPTEMBER 7, 18591 In 1859 Lyman Cutler affected a border in today's state of Washington by shooting a pig. Because it was a particular pig, at a particular place, at a particular time, its demise brought the United States and Great Britain to the brink of war.

This particular pig lived on an island whose possession was disputed by the United States and Britain. The San Juan Islands, named by Spanish explorers prior to the arrival of British settlers, are a cl.u.s.ter of small islands between Canada's Vancouver Island (then under British rule) and the state of Washington. Possession of the islands was unspecified in the 1846 treaty that divided the Oregon Country, a region mutually claimed by the United States and Britain. The land was divided by an extension of the 49th parallel from the crest of the Rocky Mountains "to the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island, and thence southerly through the middle of the said channel" (see "James K. Polk" in this book). Though the negotiators were informed that islands in the waterway could result in ambiguity regarding "the middle of the channel," neither side knew the geography well enough, nor wanted to wait for information that might crack a fragile treaty that had taken decades to negotiate.2 The pig (image based on available data) (ca. 1856-1859) (photo credit 32.1) Disputed San Juan Islands As it turned out, there were two comparable channels. The Haro Strait pa.s.sed between the San Juan Islands and Vancouver Island; the Rosario Strait pa.s.sed between the San Juan Islands and the United States. A British-American boundary commission was formed, but its members were unable to agree as to which channel const.i.tuted the boundary and thus which nation possessed the islands. The reason they couldn't agree was because the islands were of strategic value to both nations.

That the particular time was significant is borne out, first, by the fact that there had already been an event similar to that involving the pig-this one involving sheep-which did not escalate to the brink of war. It had occurred in 185354, when the Hudson's Bay Company landed 1,300 sheep on San Juan Island to provision its personnel on the mainland and Vancouver Island. The company a.s.sumed that the island was part of Britain's Canadian territory under its proprietorship. When the Hudson's Bay Company was informed by the Territory of Washington that it had failed to pay the tariff for the sheep it had imported into the United States and that the company owed property tax for the land it used on the San Juan Islands, Britain disputed the Americans' claim to jurisdiction. In response, the Washington Territory sent a sheriff, who seized thirty some sheep that were then sold to recover the unpaid taxes.

Not surprisingly, Britain's regional governor, James Douglas, had some words for Isaac Stevens, the governor of the Washington Territory. "A person named Barnes, who styles himself Sheriff of Whatcomb County," he wrote to Stevens, "did abstract a number of valuable sheep, which they put into boats, and were about to depart with the same when Mr. Griffin returned and, demanding rest.i.tution of his property, was menaced with violence."3 Mr. Griffin turned up again in the 1859 dispute. Charles J. Griffin, the Hudson's Bay Company's manager of the livestock on San Juan Island, was the neighbor whose pig Lyman Cutler shot. Like the sheep, Griffin's pig was the property of the Hudson's Bay Company. The element that had prevented the sheep incident from spiraling out of control surfaced as Governor Douglas's letter proceeded to calm down: "Wisdom and sound policy enjoin upon us the part of leaving the question to the decision of the supreme governments, and of abstaining from enforcing rights which neither party is disposed to acknowledge."

Five years later, however, the parties involved did not calm down. This difference resulted in large part from the arrival, in 1858, of General William S. Harney as the new commander of the U.S. military in the region. General Harney had shown himself to be effective in war, but, as an earlier news report ill.u.s.trates, he was not a man disposed to calm down. "A fellow by the name of Harney ... murdered a Negro woman [his slave, Hannah] by whipping her to death in St. Louis," the Boston Liberator reported in September 1834. "It has been stated by ... the coroner's inquest that, from the circ.u.mstantial evidence and the testimony of individuals to Harney's own confessions to them, that this horrible act was committed ... for successive days.... Harney is ... an officer connected with the army and has fled to Washington." Over the course of his military career, Harney was court-martialed four times: twice for insubordination, once for refusing to return a stolen horse, and once for maliciously flogging a soldier.4 General William S. Harney (1800-1889) (photo credit 32.2) Harney learned of the pig incident three weeks after it had happened and even then by chance. In early July 1859, having paid a courtesy call on Governor Douglas at Vancouver Island, Harney noticed an American flag flying on nearby San Juan Island. Knowing the island's possession to be under dispute, he went to investigate. It turned out that the flag had not yet been lowered from the American residents' Fourth of July celebration-but not entirely by accident. There was considerable excitement among the islanders, Harney discovered, about a recent dustup over a pig. Harney was told about Cutler, the produce-poaching pig, the confrontation with Griffin, and the Hudson's Bay Company bigwig who had threatened to have Cutler arrested and put on trial.

Harney knew that such a trial, if it took place uncontested by the United States, would undermine American claims to the San Juan Islands. He therefore issued orders to his aide, Captain George Pickett, stating that he was to land a company of men on San Juan Island: First: to protect the inhabitants of the island from the incursions of the northern Indians.... Second: ... [T]o afford adequate protection to the American citizens ... and to resist all attempts at interference by the British authorities.... This protection has been called for in consequence of the chief factor of the Hudson's Bay Company, Mr. Dallas, having recently ... threatened to take an American citizen by force to Victoria for trial by British laws.

On July 27 Pickett landed on the island with sixty men. But Harney's orders hadn't stopped there: The steamer Ma.s.sachusetts will be directed to transport your command.... [T]ake into consideration that future contingencies may require an establishment of from four to six companies retaining the command of San Juan harbor.

Meanwhile British Governor Douglas also knew that, if no effort were made to prosecute Cutler or to object to the presence of American troops, it would undermine Britain's claim to the San Juan Islands. He therefore issued orders to his aide, John de Courcy, to arrest Cutler.

Upon Courcy's arrival on the island, he and Pickett drew their lines in the sand and reported back to their respective superiors. This time Governor Douglas did not calm down, most likely because, this time, the USS Ma.s.sachusetts was lurking in the harbor with additional troops. Consequently, Douglas matched that move and upped it. He ordered the arrival of two warships, with a combined total of fifty-two guns, and a third ship with a detachment of troops.

General Harney responded by ordering the arrival of additional American ships and troops. Within eight weeks, one man's shooting of a pig had escalated to sixty heavily fortified American troops, backed by 400 offsh.o.r.e reinforcements, facing British battleships aiming 167 cannons at them and transporting some 2,000 troops.

Hotheadedness, however, was only one of the elements that had turned Cutler's bullet into a diplomatic bomb. Another difference between the 1854 and 1859 incidents was that in 1859 the United States was on the verge of its Civil War. Though General Harney was a slave owner, and a brutal one at that, he strongly opposed secession. There is reason to believe that, with the nation on the brink of implosion, he saw both political and military value in the San Juan Islands.

Militarily, if the United States possessed the San Juan Islands, it could control the shipping channels between Vancouver Island and the mainland of Canada. With that control, commerce in western Canada would be at the mercy of the United States. Should the United States seek to acquire Canada, taking possession of the San Juan Island would provide an excellent military wedge.

Harney may have sought to drive that wedge of conquest at that point in time for political reasons as well. Historians have speculated that he hoped to divert Southern secessionist pa.s.sions into American expansionist pa.s.sions.5 This view is b.u.t.tressed by his selection of Captain Pickett to lead the landing force on San Juan Island. George E. Pickett came from a long-prominent Virginia family. His buoyant personality added popularity to prominence. In the years ahead, Pickett would become a Confederate general most known to posterity for Pickett's charge at Gettysburg, that charge being the high-water mark of the Confederacy. If this wild idea of invading Canada was Harney's intention, he would not have been the only high-ranking government official to entertain it. Secretary of State William Seward would soon propose it to President Lincoln as a last-ditch effort to avoid the Civil War.

Once Harney's reports arrived in Washington, cooler heads prevailed. President James Buchanan dispatched Adjutant General Winfield Scott to a.s.sess the situation firsthand, with the aim of preventing war. "Harney considers San Juan Island as part of the Washington Territory," General Scott reported to his superiors. "If this does not lead to a collision of arms, it will again be due to the forbearance of the British authorities, for I found both Brigadier General Harney and Captain Pickett proud of their 'conquest' of the island." In response, the secretary of war sent General Scott a one-sentence message: "The Adjutant General will order Brigadier General Harney to repair to Washington city without delay."

The War Department officially censured General Harney. The Washington Territory, on the other hand, nominated him for president of the United States. General Scott, meanwhile, working with British governor Douglas, stabilized the military situation by agreeing to a troop presence by both nations on the island.

With the military standoff carefully managed, diplomats were able to take control of the dispute. As they did so, the number of British and American troops was steadily reduced to a token presence. Those remaining came to exchange pleasantries, play cards, share adult beverages, and even celebrate Christmas together at a large dinner while waiting for the diplomats to complete their task.6 The wait lasted twelve years. In 1872, under arbitration headed by Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm, the San Juan Islands were deemed to lie within the boundaries of the United States. The decision was based on the records of the original 1846 boundary negotiations, during which England had sought to have the boundary along 49th parallel turn south through the channel only to keep Vancouver Island in British possession, never mentioning any possession of the San Juan Islands.

Today this segment of Washington State's boundary remains on the map, an artifact of Lyman Cutler's triggering the Pig War, the only casualty of which was the pig.

COLORADO.

ROBERT W. STEELE.