USA > Louisiana > The province and the states, a history of the province of Louisiana under France and Spain, and of the territories and states of the United States formed therefrom, Vol. I > Part 25
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47
As a matter of fact, the French inhabitants were grievously and almost criminally at fault in not promptly accepting the pacific overtures of D'Ulloa, unless they expected to gain their inde- pendence. He would have been abundantly justified in resort- ing to severe, if not lieroic, measures to enforce the authority of Spain ; but he had undoubtedly been instructed to render the transfer to Spain as agreeable as possible to the inhabitants. All the surroundings show this to have been his instructions. Spain could have had no other object than to gain the confidence and good will of her new subjects. An arbitrary and abusive policy would not only have been the height of folly, but would have been an insult to France, the friend and ally of the crown of Spain, whose subjects the Louisiana people were and had always been. Of course, it is popular in order to condone the mistake of the French residents of New Orleans, to magnify their undoubted loyalty and devotion to France and to dwell on the brutality and savagery of the second Spanish governor. But the truth demands the emphatic statement that the inhabitants were in the first instance openly hostile to Spain, that their insubordina- tion would have been crushed by France herself, and that the failure to welcome the pacific administration of D'Ulloa was an act of blindness or independence that could have had but one outcome under the government of any European country. The wisdom of D'Ulloa's mild measures was wholly lost, upon the insubordinate and independent leaders of the revolutionary move-
-
-
248
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
ment, who should either have wholly thrown off the Spanish yoke, or placed their necks with the best grace possible within the bur- densome loop.
Dating from the preliminary treaty of November 3, 1762, France endeavored to cast upon Spain the burden of sustaining Louisiana; but previous to possession being taken by the latter she advanced thie amounts necessary, only, however, until 1766, at which time colonial drafts were no longer honored at the treas- ury of France. In May, 1766, a decree of the Spanish govern- ment opened the ports of Louisiana to the commerce of the other Spanish American colonies under severe restrictions, in order to prevent smuggling and other evasions. Corn, lumber, tobacco, rice, etc., upon which an export duty of five per cent was laid, were permitted to pass out of Louisiana in French ships, and flour, wine, fruits, etc., were permitted to pass in. Among the import- ant conditions of the commercial decree was one that no ship should unload until a bill of lading had been signed by D'Ulloa, and until the price at which the commodity was to be sold had been defined and recorded. Merchants were required to accept the cur- rency of the country for their merchandise, and to receive one- third of their return cargo in lumber or other colonial production. Although this order, as a whole, was fair and for the manifest benefit of the colony, it was promptly denounced by the merchants and ship-owners, who had adopted the popular fashion of oppos- ng everything suggested under Spanish auspices. Petitions were prepared both by the merchants and by the ship-owners, remon- strating against the execution of the order; and for a time, to secure their good will, it was partially suspended.
There was never a duty, ordinance, or law laid down that did not restrict some man's business or ambition. It is the order of civilization that the good of the few must yield, if necessary, to the benefit of the many. The consumers of Louisiana were certain to be greatly benefited by these reasonable Spanish requirements ; and the merchants and ship-owners could soon have shaped their businesses to the new conditions without serious loss. The tem- porary suspension of the decree was but another concession to the element that opposed everything Spanish. It cannot be said that the opposition was actuated by the belief that the cession would yet be annulled, because it was known that all of Louisiana east of the river was already in the possession of the British; and the continuance in the colony of D'Ulloa, the promulgation and execution of his many orders, the refusal of France to pay the current expenses of the colony, the opening of trade with the
-
249
1
D'ULLOA AND O'REILLY.
Spanish Gulf colonies, and the actual construction of various posts and forts by the Spanish soldiers, gave ample proof that the cession was an irrevocable finality. Neither was the exceed- ing loyalty to France the cause of the hostility to Spain; nor the sale of the colony "like a flock of sleep" so unusual and mon- strons as to kindle the fires of defiance and open resistance. In almost every war of ancient or modern times, sections of inhabited country have passed from the vanquished to the victor upon the conclusion of peace, and no agonized cry been raised of "a sale like a flock of sheep."
Almost every order or movement made by D'Ulloa was opposed, derided or thwarted. Bound by his instructions of paci- fication, he was not authorized to use harsh measures ; but he saw that his rule had not been beneficial to the colony nor honorable to Spain. He reported all that had taken place, or had not taken place, in the colony since his arrival, to the Spanish ministry, and in September, 1766, left New Orleans and took up his abodle at the Balize, where he remained during the succeeding fall and winter, leaving the colony pretty much to its own devices. Hav- ing made his report, he was simply waiting for the next step of his government, and did not care to live longer at New Orleans, where his orders were disobeyed and himself and his country ridiculed and abused. He also went there to meet his lady love, to whom he was there married in the following spring, a perform- ance afterward complained of as of questionable legality under the rules of the Catholic churchi.
In March, 1767, steps were taken at the Balize by D'Ulloa to assume possession of the Province, but the next day were revoked, the whole of which proceeding kindled the ridicule of the opposi- tion at New Orleans. In the meantime not a Spanish vessel liad come to Louisiana with merchandise ; all ocean traffic thus far had been done in French ships. Spain was in no hurry "to run after an onerous burden." She had agreed to accept the colony for the same reason that France wanted to get rid of it-"to prevent its being possessed by another nation." It was thought to be in less danger in the hands of Spain than in those of France; and so the latter had agreed to assume the burden of $250,000 to $300,000 per annum in order to save the colony from the clutches of England; but she refused to pay the expenses of the colony previous to the arrival of D'Ulloa.
The arrival of Jean Milhet from France late in 1767, with the final report that his mission to secure the annullinent of the ces- sion to Spain had failed, was the occasion of pronounced hostil-
1
1
250
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
ity to every attempt of Spain to govern the colony. "There seemed to be a fixed determination to construe into an offense anything that D'Ulloa could say or do."* The leaders of the opposition had been apprised of the reasons which induced, per- haps compelled, France to cede the colony to Spain, and which obliged the latter, against her will, to accept it. They now learned that the cession was irrevocable. Why then their bitter opposition ? Was it because they preferred to become a colony of England rather than one of Spain? Was it because of their determination to attain their independence? Or was it because of a lack of good judgment-just as mobs are led by their enthus- iasm to follow hot-headed and eloquent captains. It would seem the two former, because it afterward became known that they opened communication with the British commander at Pensacola and tendered him the colony if he would take possession and afford them protection. There could have been no object for their course but revolution. In no way had they been oppressed by Spain ; the reverse was true. Every change made, though for the general benefit, was turned to sport and mockery. Every act, public and private, of D'Ulloa was burlesqued and caricatured, and his conversations and household customs ( for he had returned with his wife to New Orleans) became the object of satire and disrespect, all without the slightest justification.
But D'Ulloa was not without his supporters. All the Spanish officials-Loyola, the commissary and intendant; Navarro, the treasurer ; Gayarre, the comptroller; Piernas, the commander of the small Spanish force-stood stanchly by the governor. In addition such men as Aubry, Grandpre, Grandmaison, Bellevue, Roche, St. Protais, Vaugine, D'Vezin, Maxent, D'Lachaise, Reg- gio, Dreux and others gave him their respectful consideration and moral support. By January, 1768, the transfer of possession was an accomplished fact, although Aubry still governed and the for- malities of taking possession were yet to be observed. The Span- ish flag was flying in Missouri, at the Balize, over the post opposite Natchez, and on the bank of the Manshac, at which four places forts had been built and Spanish garrisons placed. But the French flag was also kept flying over all of Louisiana, although many Spanish subjects had come in since 1763. In fact so many Spanish innovations had been introduced that Aubry wrote to France, "When 'Spain shall take formal possession, I shall feel
* Charles Gayarre.
25L
D'ULLOA AND O'REILLY.
authorized to say to Mr. D'Ulloa that I deliver into his hands a Spanish colony."
But the revolution was vigilant and undying. It assumed the form of a conspiracy to eject everything Spanish from the col- ony. Among them were the arch-conspirator, "the head and front of the offending," Lafreniere, the attorney-general; Fou- coult, the intendant; Masan, a retired captain; Marquis, a cap- tain ; Noyan, a captain ; Bienville, a lieutenant, and the nephew of Governor Bienville ; Doucet, a prominent lawyer ; Jean and Joseph Milhet, wealthy merchants ; Boisblanc, who had been a member of the Supreme Council; Villere, commander at the German Coast ; and Petit, Caresse and Poupet, prominent merchants. Soon the revolutionists met in secret to deliberate and plan their course of action against the Spanish control of the colony, and very prob- ably to consider the question of joining the English colonies, after having first gained their independence. Neither Aubrey nor D'Ulloa knew of the existence of the secret movement until Qcto- ber, 1768. In the meantime the insurrectionary course had spread its roots throughout all of Louisiana. Every settlement, even as far up the river as Missouri, had been tampered with by the agents of the movement, and everywhere adherents were found, by reason mainly of misrepresentations as to the strength of the revolutionists. By pre-arrangement the guns of New Orleans were spiked on the night of October 26; and early the next day a large force of insurgents, at the head of whom was Marquis in supreme command. and Noyan and Villere, subordinates, entered the city and took possession of the public places. Aubry took immediate steps to protect D'Ulloa and Spanish interests gener- ally. In the conference which followed, no conciliation was effected ; whereupon, by the advice of Aubry, D'Ulloa and his wife went on board the Spanish frigate for security, while the Spanish officers barricaded houses and prepared to resist to the last. The intense excitement prevailing bewildered everybody. The streets were thronged with citizens crying "Vive la Roi," and attacks upon the barricades seemed imminent, but were diverted by the leaders of both factions.
At a meeting of the so-called Supreme Council, though really of the insurgent leaders. held on the 28th, a petition signed by about six hundred persons was prepared, in which were demanded the restoration of previous rights and privileges and the expulsion from the colony of D'Ulloa and the other Spanish officials. This result was accomplished by the burried election of extra-superior members of the Council, amid the vigorous and vehement
252
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
addresses of the rebellious leaders. It was declared that D'Ulloa had departed from the instructions of the Spanish crown by issu- ing orders and decrees which contravened the existing laws and customs of the colony, though guaranteed to the inhabitants by the act of cession. Lafrenière took the lead and prescribed the course that should be taken, and his views were listened to with enthusiastic attention and approbation. On the 29th about one . thousand armed insurgents, bearing a white flag, congregated on the public square, prepared to carry into execution the provisions of the petition which demanded the expulsion of the Spaniards.
The repeated remonstrances of Aubry were unavailing. He . indicated the consequences certain to follow the revolution ; but his remarks fell upon deaf ears, because no ears are so deaf as those that won't hear. All the violent measures advocated by Lafrénière were adopted, and D'Ulloa was ordered to leave Louis- iana within three days .* The other Spanish officials were per- mitted to remain long enough to settle their affairs. On the street it appeared that everybody was wild with enthusiasm. Many who were perfectly willing to shout "Long live the King," were not at all in sympathy with the insurrectionary movement. Many were led into the maelstrom, because the Supreme Council apparently headed the rebellion. When so august a body sanc- tioned the proceedings, what could the mass of the people do but follow where they led? Rousing acclamations and protracted festivities crowned these extraordinary proceedings. The colony was now in the hands of the Supreme Council; the authority even of Aubry had vanished. The Spanish administration was wholly uprooted and scattered to the four winds. Both sides now began to see what was to follow, and their representatives were dis- patched to France with voluminous memorials, manifestoes and what-nots. While D'Ulloa was pained and humiliated, he saw the coming storm and could afford to be generous. Remarkable to say, he directed the Spanish commissary to continue to pay the French troops. To him the revolution was but an episode, some- what exciting, perhaps dangerous and certainly inconvenient, yet a knot which the sword of Spain would sever without the slightest doubt, On November 1, he departed in a French vessel for Havana.
His expulsion was succeeded by an elaborate manifesto which attempted to justify the revolution and recapitulated the alleged grievances of the colonists. Almost every article of this instru-
* Char'es Gayarre.
1
253
D'ULLOA AND O'REILLY.
ment seems unsound and untenable. Every complaint made has a pardonable counterpart in the government of every civilized country of the present day. Almost every strike of modern times is based upon sounder justice and broader humanitarianism. The matters complained of were either trifling in the extreme or abundantly excusable from the surroundings. It is evident that the revolution was endeavoring to patch up a truce or divert the approaching hurricane. The manifesto was more of a causeless attack upon the personality of D'Ulloa than an exposition, based upon reason and fairness, of his usurpations and wrong-doings. In other respects, it is a laudatory stump-speech, delivered to the king of France, glorifying his lecherous person and his profligate court. Aubry wrote as follows to the French minister: "I was waiting only for the arrival of the Spanish troops, to deliver up the colony and to return to France to render an account of my conduct, when a general rebellion of the inhabitants of this Prov- ince against the Spanish governor and his nation, and which . occurred on the 28th and 29th of October, destroyed in a moment the work of four years, and all the dispositions which I have taken on behalf of the crown of Spain. An audacious petition, insult- ing to the Spanish nation, rebellious against the king of France, whose orders it set at naught, and signed by six hundred planters and other inhabitants, was presented to demand D'Ulloa's expul- sion."
The Germans and Acadians were prevailed upon to go to New Orleans partly upon the representation that they would be reim- bursed for their Canadian bonds, and upon their arrival arms were placed in their hands, much to their surprise. The mer- chants of New Orleans were willingly pressed into the revolution on the ground of securing the revocation of the objectionable com- mercial decree. But nearly all regretted their action as soon as the rebellion had triumphed. Many of the residents were induced through fear to side temporarily with the insurgents. Lafre- nière was the unquestioned leader of the revolution. Though unpolished, he possessed much persuasive power and eloquence. He it was who prepared the monster petition addressed to the throne ; and he it was who swayed the proceedings of the Supreme Council and the enthusiastic assemblages of the insurrection. Previously, under Governor D'Kerlerec, he had advocated in secret the independence of the colony from France, and his intrigues then had disturbed the tranquillity of the inhabitants at a time when France and England were engaged in war. The spirit of independence breathing through all his utterances is singularly
-
254
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
like that which at the same time was appearing in the English American colonies. He continued the same tactics under D'Abbadie, who complained to the French ministry of his revo- lutionary influences. In his addresses there is shown a spirit of opposition to all governmental restraint-a spirit that could have but one fate under either France or Spain, one which demanded practical independence, while requiring assistance and protection from the home government. Of course, the demands were illog- ical and inconsistent, because they would have made the Supreme Council superior in authority to the throne of either France or Spain.
Immediately succeeding the expulsion of D'Ulloa, the revolu- tionists, as before stated, prepared their defense in the form of a manifesto and forwarded it to the king of France; but in the meantime they did not delay to take other steps to complete the work of revolution. They prepared a petition addressed to the Council, now the governing body, soliciting Aubry to "invite the captain of the Spanish frigate, the Volante, to hasten his departure in the interest of public tranquillity." The prayer of the peti- . tioners was granted, and the frigate was required to leave New Orleans. Report of what had happened at New Orleans was sent to the other settlements, and the small squads of Spanish troops agreed quietly to depart from the colony. Aubry summed up the situation admirably in a letter to the French minister : "I find myself under the sad necessity of speaking and of telling all, in spite of my reluctance to do so. The Council behaved badly. The attorney-general, Lafrenière, is one of the principal leaders. Mr. D'Ulloa committed several faults, but never perpetrated crimes, and, setting aside his rank and his character, did not deserve the treatment which he underwent. It is necessary to send here a battalion and a new council. The one to drive out of the country from ten to twelve fire-brands, who rule it as they please and are the causes of all the harm done ; the other to admin- ister justice, which is almost entirely set aside. Should this revo- lution produce no change in the arrangements between France and Spain in relation to this colony, would it not be proper that his Majesty should transmit his orders here as soon as possible and announce his ultimate and irrevocable will on the cession to Spain, promising pardon and oblivion, save to a few who are guilty and whom it is absolutely necessary to punish? Besides, it is probable that the guiltiest will take refuge among the Eng- lish, when they shall learn of the arrival of troops. . · · Should the province remain to France, its inhabitants would be
0
,
255
---
D'ULLOA AND O'REILLY.
transported with joy. It would be the most agreeable news they could receive, as they generally have French hearts. But I am certain that at present they would prefer passing under the Eng- lish domination than the Spanish, unless his Catholic Majesty should be disposed to grant them some privileges and advantages, to induce them to live under his flag." Thus in the opinion of Aubry himself it was "absolutely necessary to punish" some of the leaders of the revolution. He doubtless meant that the spirit of insubordination, of independence, manifested would have to be crushed by the punishment of the leaders. It is to be noted, also, that Aubry was of the opinion that the colonists would rather pass to the English than to the Spanish. This contingency had been taken into consideration by the revolutionists, but had not been carried into effect because they still hoped, if they could not . gain their independence, to be retained under the flag of France, as is shown by their fulsome praises of the French king.
D'Ulloa duly reached Havana, and there found eight hundred Spanish troops on their way to New Orleans, under the com- mand of D'Urissa, who had in his possession one million of dol- lars to be used in paying the expenses of Louisiana. Had this sum of money and this force reached Louisiana before the out- burst of rebellion, it is probable there would have been no revolu- tion. It required about forty days for the news to reach Spain ; then a cabinet session was promptly called to consider all features of the situation, the meeting being held February 11, 1769. Among the council were men who had been, and were afterward, famous in the diplomatic contortions of Europe. All were given time to consider and were required to make their reports in writ- ing to the minister of state, D'Grimaldi. Their opinions were submitted in March. The Duke of Alba advocated the retention of the colony in order to define the western limits of the English domain ; the subjugation of the people by striking all disorders at the root ; a complete change in the form of government so that future revolutions would be impossible ; a reduction in the inhab- ited limits so that the cost of maintenance might be as light as possible ; "but finally what to my judgment appears to be of more importance than all the rest, is that it be seen throughout the world and particularly in America, that the king knows and is able to repress any attempt whatever derogatory to the respect due to the royal majesty." Jaime D'Lima recommended about the same course, and favored "the most severe and rigorous pun- isliment" for the inhabitants guilty of the revolution. He thought a thorough understanding with France should be arrived at with-
-
-
256
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
out delay regarding all steps of the cession, and finally said, "The better to provide for the future, I recommend a stipulation by which it should be understood that France shall never cede that province, either to the English or to the colonists themselves, reserving its reversion to us, whenever France shall feel disposed to part with it." This important observation was called out by the consideration of the question whether, on the one hand, Eng- land should gain the colony, or, on the other, it should remain with either France or Spain ; and if France should retain it what should be the status of Spain .*
Juan D'Arriaga recommended the retention of the province, not because it might become profitable, but because the Mississippi defined the western bounds of the English beyond cavil. He advised a suitable government for the colony, because, as D'UNloa had said, it was "made up of all sorts of people, without fealty, without law, and without religion." He further recommended that the "most vitiated portion of the population" should be cut off and removed. The Marquis St. Juan D'Piedras Albas joined in advocating the retention of Louisiana. He thought it of "extreme importance" that Spain should keep it; that the "vol- untary donation" of the colony by France imposed upon Spain the duty of maintaining her authority there; and that the inso- lence of the inhabitants should be suitably resented. Miguel D'Muzquiz favored the abandonment of the colony by Spain. He gave as his reasons the conflicts that were sure to result from the free navigation of the Mississippi; the disagreements proba- ble between the French inhabitants and the Spanish, as shown by the revolution ; the enormous expenses of maintaining the col- ony ; the additional burden of sustaining it in case of war; and that if the colony were retained by France, the Spanish province of Texas would be bounded on the east by the domain of an ally and a friend instead of a foe, such as Great Britain was. Juan Gregorio Muniain believed that Spain should take possession of the colony because the Mississippi established a definite boundary ; because Louisiana could be used as a barrier to protect the com- merce of Mexico; because the cultivation of wheat, etc., was sure to be of great benefit to Havana and the other Spanish Gulf cities; and because the encroachments of France upon Texas, or for that matter of England, would be wholly obviated.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.