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. II > Part 23
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 | Part 48
By this act Louisiana was to be paid for in certificates of stock amounting to eleven million two hundred and fifty thousand dol- lars, bearing six per cent interest, to be paid in installments from a sinking fund created for that purpose. The certificates were to be delivered to a representative of France within three months after the ratification of the treaty and after Louisiana had been formally delivered to the United States. On the same date an act was approved to appropriate three million seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars, thus making a total of fifteen million dol-
232
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
lars provided for, to be used in paying the American claims stip- ulated in the cession treaty. Both of these acts were approved November 10, 1803. In providing for the payment of these amounts, and in paying the same, the United States was prompt and punctilious, because it was desired that no cause whatever on that score should be given to France to evade or renounce the bargain.
During the debate in the senate Mr. White, of Delaware, said,* "It is now a well-known fact that Spain considers herself injured by this treaty, and if it should be in her power to prevent it, will not agree to the cession of New Orleans and Louisiana to the United States. She considers herself absolved from her contract with France, in consequence of the latter having neglected to comply with certain stipulations in the treaty of San Ildefonso, to be performed on her part, and of having violated her engagement never to transfer this country into other hands. I have no hesitation in saying that if, in acquiring this territory under the treaty, we have to fire a single musket, to charge a bayonet, or to lose a drop of blood, it will not be such a cession on the part of France as should justify to the people of this country the payment of any, and much less so enormous a sum of money. What would the case be, sir? It would be buying of France authority to make war upon Spain; it would be giving the First Consul fifteen millions of dollars to stand aloof until we can settle our differences with Ilis Catholic Majesty. . I wish not to
be understood as predicting that the French will not cede to us the actual and quiet possession of the territory. I hope to Gold they may, for possession of it we must have-I mean of New Orleans and of such other positions on the Mississippi as may be necessary to secure to us forever . the complete and uninter- rupted navigation of that river. This I have ever been in favor of; I think it essential to the peace of the United States and to the prosperity of our western country. But as to Louisiana, this new, immense, unbounded world, if it should ever be incorporated into this Union, which I have no idea can be done but by altering the constitution, I believe it will be the greatest curse that could at present befall us; it may be productive of innumerable evils. . We have already territory enough, and when I contem- · plate the evils that may arise to these states from this intended incorporation of Louisiana into the Union, I would rather see it given to France, to Spain, or to any other nation on the carth,
. Annals of Congress.
·
233
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CESSION.
upon the mere condition that no citizen of the United States should ever settle within its limits, than to see the territory sold for an hundred millions of dollars and we retain the sovereignty. But however dangerous the possession of Louisiana might prove to us, I do not presume to say that the retention of it would not have been very convenient to France, and we know that at the time of the mission of Mr. Monroe, our administration had never thought of the purchase of Louisiana, and that nothing short of the fullest conviction on the part of the First Consul that he was on the very eve of a war with England; that this being the most defenceless point of his possessions, if such they could be called, was the one at which the British would first strike, and that it mmst inevitably fall into their hands, could ever have induced his pride and ambition to make the sale. Hle judged wisely that he had better sell it for as much as he could get than lose it entirely. And I do say that under existing circumstances, even supposing that this extent of territory was a desirable acquisition, fifteen. millions of dollars was a most enormous sum to give."
Mr. Wells of Delaware said, "The bill on your table gives to the president this power (of paying for Louisiana). I am for our retaining and exercising it ourselves. I may be asked, why not delegate this power to the President? Sir, I answer by inquiring why we should delegate it? To us it properly belongs; and unless some advantage will be derived to the United States, it shall not be transferred with my consent. Congress will be in session at the time that the delivery of the ceded territory takes place ; and if we should then be satisfied that the French have executed with fidelity that part of the treaty which is incumb. it upon them first to perform, I pledge myself to vote for the pay ment of the purchase money. I am strongly impressed with an opinion that even if possession is rendered to us, the ter- ritory will come into our hands without any title to justify our holding it. Is there not on the face of this instrument itself some mark of suspicion? You find in the treaty not a single word relating to any substantial consideration to be paid by the United States. . It is true you perceive in the ninth article of the treaty a general reference to two conventions, signed at the same time with the treaty, with respect to the payment of money by the United States to France, and which we regard as the only consideration for the territory ceded to us. The con-
vention here referred to is said to be 'relative to a definitive rule between the contracting parties.' Why these dark, obscure and unintelligible expressions? Is a consideration a.'definitive mule?"
234
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
The first article speaks of the cession as being made 'from a desire to give to the United States a strong proof of the friendship of the First Consul, and when you turn to the convention, which is said to establish the 'definitive rule' you find a provision binding the United States to the payment of money to the French Repub- lic, but not a word is said about its being the consideration of the cession. Suspicion hang's over the whole of this business."
In reply to the remarks of Senators White and Wells, Mr. Jackson, of Georgia, said, "But the honorable gentleman (Mr. Wells) has said that the French have no title, and having no title herself, we can derive none from her. Is not, I ask, the King of Spain's proclamation, declaring the cession of Louisiana to France, and his orders to his governor and officers to deliver it to France a title? Do nations give any other? I believe the honorable gentleman can find no solitary instance of fcoffment or conveyance between states. The treaty of San Ildefonso was the groundwork of the cession, and whatever might have been the terms to be performed by France, the King of Spain's procla- mation and orders have declared to all the world that they were complied with. The honorable gentleman, however, insists that there is no consideration expressed in the treaty, and therefore it must be void; if he will but look attentively at the ninth article, I am persuaded he will perceive one : the conventions are made part of the treaty ; they are declared to have execution in the same manner as if they had been inserted in the treaty; they are to be ratified in the same form and in the same time, so that the one shall not be distinct from the other. What inference can possibly be drawn, but that the payments to be made by them were fall consideration for Louisiana. . I do not believe that Spain will venture war with the United States. I believe she dare not : if she does she will pay the cost. The Floridas will be immediately ours ; they will almost take themselves. The inhab- itants pant for the blessings of your cqual and wise government; they ardently long to become a part of the United States."
Mr. Pickering, of Massachusetts, said, "I never doubted the right of the United States to acquire new territory, either by pur- chase or by conquest, and to govern the territory so acquired as a dependent province ; and in this way might Louisiana have become a territory of the United States, and have received a form of gov- ernment infinitely preferable to that to which its inhabitants are now subject. . By the treaty of San Ildefonso France acquired a right to demand an actual cession of the territory, pro- vided she fulfilled all the conditions on which Spain promised to
235
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CESSION.
1 cede. But we know Spain declares that those conditions have not been fully performed; and by her remonstrances warns the United States not to touch Louisiana. Now we, standing (as some gentlemen have expressed themselves) in the shoes of France, can have only the same right relative to the subject in question. We can ask of Spain an actual cession or a confirma- tion of the claim we have purchased of the French Republic, pro- vided we will and can fulfill the conditions of the treaty of San Ildefonso; and what are these conditions? We cannot tell. I believe our executive knew not what they were; and I believe too that even our envoys who negotiated the treaty for Louisiana were alike uninformed. I believe that they never saw (for they had not intimated that they had ever seen ) any other part of the treaty of San Ildefonso than what is recited in the first article of our treaty with France; and this defeet has not been supplied by any guaranty of the territory on the part of France. She had not stipulated, nor is under any obligation, to procure the assent of Spain, as a confirmation of the cession to the United States. Such is the nature of our title to Louisiana.
Another honorable gentleman has entertained us with an account of the animating address of the French Prefect to the inhabitants of Lonisiana, the largest portion of whom are French; and of the cordiality with which they received and echoed in their answer the sentiments of the Prefect. But what were the feelings and con- duct of the Spanish officers on seeing these French proceedings? I have heard from an honorable gentleman in my eye ( Mr. Day- ton of New Jersey), that they sent for the printer and forbade all further promulgation of the address and answer on pain of his being sent to the dungeon or to the mines for life. Thus tenacious was Spain in her right to Louisiana, and thus severe in her prohi- bition of whatever might disparage her title. It is like- wise supposed that the Spanish officers in Louisiana will not dare to refuse obedience to that order (to deliver the province to France) ; and one gentleman has expressed his opinion, in case such refusal should happen, that the American troops whom the President should send thither would be justified in compelling them to obey. But what if a subsequent royal order had been issued requiring those officers not to deliver up Louisiana to France, or to the United States? We have some reason to think that such is the fact ; and resistance I presume was apprehended. Why else all this parade of war? Why had the President been authorized to cinploy the army and navy of the United States and to call forth any portion of eighty thousand militia? I
.
236
THIE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
believe that this whole transaction has purposely been wrapped in obscurity by the French government. The boundary of Louisi- ana, for instance, on the side of Florida was, in the treaty, really unintelligible, and yet nothing is easier to define. The French government, however, would find no difficulty in the construction. An honorable gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Dayton ) has informed us that the French Prefect at New Orleans told him that as soon as General Victor should arrive with the French troops he should extend Louisiana far into West Florida."
Mr. Dayton in his speech remarked, "When I said that there existed an essential difference between the French and Spanish officers at New Orleans as to the real boundaries of the province of Louisiana, I did not mean to insinuate that this disagreement extended so far as an opposition to the French taking possession. It was a question of limits only, varying however so much in extent as would have produced a serious altercation between those two countries although closely allied. The Spanish governor had " taken it upon himself to proclaim that the province lately ceded and about to be given over to France would be confined on the east of the Mississippi to the river Iberville and the lakes Maure- pas and Pontchartrain or in other words to the island of New Orleans ; but the French Prefect on the contrary declared that he neither had nor would give his assent to the establishment of those limits, which would be regarded no longer than until the arrival of their troops." *
Mr. Taylor, of Virginia, sustained the bill and discussed two features of the question : 1st. the constitution dity of the United States to acquise territory; and 2d. the treaty stipulation of the admission of a new state into the Union. He said, "Before the confederation, cach State in the Union possessed a right, as attached to sovereignty, of acquiring territory, by war, purchase, or treaty. This right must be either still possessed, or forbidden both to each State and to the General Government, or transferred to the General Government. It is not possessed by the States separately, because war and compacts with foreign powers and with each other are prohibited to a separate State; and no other means of acquiring territory exist. By depriving every State of the means of exercising the right of acquiring territory, the con- stitution has deprived each separate State of the right itself. Neither the means nor the right of acquiring territory are for- bidden to the United States; on the contrary, in the fourth article
· Annals of Congress.
237
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CESSION.
of the constitution, congress is empowered 'to dispose of and reg- ulate the territory belonging to the United States.' This rec- ognizes the right of the United States to hold territory. The means. of acquiring territory consist of war and compact; both are expressly surrendered to Congress and forbidden to the sev- eral States ; and no right in a separate State to hold territory with- out its limit is recognized by the Constitution, nor any mode of effecting it possible, consistent with it. The means of acquir- ing and the right of holding territory, being both given to the United States and prohibited to each State, it follows that these attributes of sovereignty once held by each State are thus trans- ferred to the United States; and that if the means of acquir- ing and the right of holding are equivalent to the right of acquiring territory, then this right merged from the separate States to the United States, as indispensably annexed to the treaty-making power and the power of making war; or indeed is literally given to the General Government by the Constitu- tion. The third article declares that 'the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States.' And these words are said to require the terri- tory to be erected into a State. This they do not express, and the words are literally satisfied by incorporating them into the Union as a territory and not as a State. The Constitution recognizes and the practice warrants an incorporation of a Territory and its inhabitants into the Union without admitting either as a State. And this construction of the first member of the article is neces- sary to shield its two other members from a charge of surplus- age and even absurdity :. For if the world. the 1. the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the lion of the United States' intended that Louisiana and its inhabitants should become a State in the Union of States, there existed no reason for proceeding to stipulate that these same inhabitants should be made citizens as soon as possible according to the principles of the Federal Constitution. Their admission into the Union of States would have made them citizens of the United States. Is it not then absurd to suppose that the first member of this third article, intended to admit Louisiana into the Union as a State, which would instantly entitle the inhabitants to the benefit of the articles of the Constitution declaring that 'the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the federal States,' and yet to have gone on to stipu- late for citizenship under the limitation 'as soon as possible according to the principles of the Federal Constitution' after it
1
·
?
238
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
had been bestowed without limitation? Again : the concluding member of the article is to bestow 'protection in the meantime ;' incorporating this stipulation and the stipulation for citizenship with the construction which accuses the treaty of unconstitution- ality, the article altogether must be understood thus: The inhab- itants of the ceded territory shall be taken into the Union of States, which will instantly give them all the rights of citizen- ship, after which they shall be made citizens as soon as possible ; and after they are taken into the Union of States, they shall be protected in the interim between becoming a State in the Union and being made citizens in their .liberty, property and religion."
Mr. Tracy, of Connecticut, opposed the bill. He said, "The paragraph in the Constitution which says that new States may be admitted by Congress into this Union,' has been quoted to justify this treaty. To this two answers may be given, either of which is conchisive in my favor. First, if Congress have the. power collectively of admitting Louisiana, it cannot be vested in the President and Senate alone. Second, Congress have no power to admit new foreign States into the Union, without the consent of the old partners. The article of the Constitution, if any person will take the trouble to examine it, refers to domes- tic States only, and not at all to foreign States ; and it is unrea- sonable to suppose that Congress should, by a majority only admit new foreign States, and swallow up by it the old part- ners, when two-thirds of all the members are made requisite for the least alteration in the Constitution. The words of the Con. stitution are completely satisfied by a construction which shall include only the admission of domestic States, who were all parties to the Revolutionary war and to the compact; and the spirit of the association seems to embrace no other. . . The seventh article admits for twelve years the ships of France and Spain into the ceded territory free of foreign duty-this is giving a commercial preference to those ports over the other ports of the United States; because it is well known that a duty of forty-four cents on tonnage and ten per cent on duties is paid by all foreign ships or vessels in all the ports of the United States. If it be said, we must repeal those laws and then the preference will cease, the answer is that this seventh article gives the exclusive right of entering the ports of Louisiana to the ships of France and Spain, and if our discriminating duties were repealed this day the preference would be given to the ports of the United States against those of Louisiana, so that the pref-
.
0
239
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CESSION.
erence by any regulation of commerce or revenue which the Constitution expressly prohibits from being given to the ports of one State over those of another, would be given by this treaty in violation of the Constitution. I acknowledge if Louisiana is not admitted into the Union and if there is. no promise to admit her, then this part of our argument will not apply. . . I shall be asked, sir, what can be done? To this question I have two answers: One is, that nothing unconstitutional can or ought to be done; and if it be ever so desirable that we acquire foreign States and the navigation of the Mississippi, etc., no excuse can be formed for violating the Constitution; and if all those desirable effects cannot take place without violating it, they must be given up. But another and more satisfactory answer can be given. I have no doubt but we can obtain terri- tory either by conquest or compact and hold it, even all Loui- siana and a thousand times more, if you please, without violating the Constitution. We can hold territory ; but to admit the inhab- itants into the Union to make citizens of them and States, by treaty, we cannot constitutionally do; and no subsequent act of legislation or even ordinary amendment to our constitution can legalize such measures. If done at all they must be done by universal consent of all the States or partners to our political association. And this universal consent I am positive can never be obtained to such a pernicious measure as the admission of Louisiana, of a world, and such a world, into our Union."
Mr. Breckenridge of Kentucky spoke eloquently in favor of the bill and said among other things that "The so much scouted process of negotiation was persisted in the the acquirement of rights on the Mississippi), and instead of restoring the right of deposit and securing more effectually for the future our right to navigate the Mississippi, the Mississippi itself was acquired and everything which appertained to it. I did suppose that those gentlemen who at the last session so strongly urged war measures for the attainment of this object, upon an avowal that it was too important to trust to the tardy and less effectual process of negotiation, would have stood foremost in carrying the treaty into effect, and that the peaceful mode by which it was acquired would not lessen with them the importance of the acquisition. If my opinion were of any consequence, I should be free to declare that this transaction from its com- mencement to its close, not only as to the mode in which it was pursued, but as to the object achieved, is one of the most splen- did which the annals of any nation can produce. To acquire an
2.10
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
empire of perhaps half the extent of the one we possessed, fre; the most powerful and warlike nation on earth without blood-he.1. without the oppression of a single individual, without in the heart embarrassing the ordinary operations of your finances, and ali this through the peaceful forms of negotiation, and in despite. too, of the opposition of a considerable portion of the commu- nity, is an achievement of which the archives of the products. sors at least of those now in office, cannot furnish a parall 1. Why not acquire territory on the west, as well as on the east side of the Mississippi? Is the Goddess of Liberty restrained by water courses? Is she governed by geographical limits? Is her dominion on this continent confined to the cast side of the Mississippi? So far from believing the doctrine that a Republic ought to be confined within narrow limits, I believe on the contrary that the more extensive its dominion the more safe and more durable it will be. In proportion to the number of hands you intrust the precious blessings of a free government to, in the same proportion do you multiply the chances for their preservation. I entertain, therefore, no fears for the Confeder- acy on account of its extent., The American people too well know the art of governing and of being governed to become the victims of party factions or of domestic tyranny. They not only understand the true theory of a free government, but as well understand a much rarer thing, the true art of practicing it. . . It is evident, as this country had passed out of the hands of Spain, that whether it remained with France, or should be acquired by England, its population would have been attempted. Such is the policy of all nations but Spain. From whence would that population come? Certainly not from Europe. It would come almost exclusively from the United States. The question then would simply be, Is the Confeder- acy more in danger from Louisiana when colonized by American people under American jurisdiction than when populated by Americans under the control of some foreign, powerful and rival nation? Or, in other words, whether it would be safer for the United States to populate this country when and how she pleased, or permit some foreign nation to do it at her expense ? . The gentlemen admit, if I do understand them, that the acqui- sition of a part, at least, of this country is essential to the United States and must be made. That this acquisition must extend to the soil; and to use the words of their resolutions last ses- sion, 'that it is not consistent with the dignity of the Union to hold a right so important by a tenure so uncertain.' How,
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.