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 24
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
2.41
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CESSION.
I ask, is this 'certain tenure' to be acquired but by conquest or a purchase of the soil? Did not gentlemen intend when they urged its seizure that the United States, if successful, should hold it in absolute sovereignty? Were any Constitutional diffi- culties then in the way? And will they now be so good as to point out that part of the Constitution which authorizes us to acquire territory by conquest, but forbids us to acquire it by treaty ? Have the gentlemen who intend to vote against this measure well weighed the state of things which will result in case they should be successful in their opposition? Is not the national honor pledged to procure this right? What course do gentlemen mean to pursue to attain it? Or do they mean to abandon near a million of your western citizens to ruin and despair? If you reject this treaty, with what face can you open another negotiation ? What President would venture another mission, or what minister could be prevailed on to be made the instrument of another negotiation? You adopt the treaty, direct possession to be taken of the country, and then refuse to pay for it! What palliation can we offer to our west- ern citizens for a conduct like this?"
Mr. Cocke, of Tennessee, represented the semiments of the Western settlers when he said, "What must we think of gentlemen in whom this sudden change has taken place and who now exclaim against the passage of this bill, when we recollect that last winter they were ready to storm the Spanish garrisons, and who then promised by their valor to secure ns a free trade down the Mis- sissippi and to make New Orleans and the Floridas their own>
Did the Constitution then for a banner against theen? The have not only voted against the treaty that secures to ns more than they could have contemplated by their arms and their valor, but they have also voted against the law for carrying the objects of that treaty into effect after the treaty has been ratified and the exchange of ratifications taken place in due form ; and now we hear those warlike spirits expressing their fears that the westem country will soon become too powerful for the East, and that a separation must inevitably take place between us. I ask gentle- men the ground on which they build their fears? It cannot be that we have paid less respect to the laws of the Union than any other portion of our fellow citizens; or have we in any instance shown less regard for our Government or its honest administra- tion. Is it then that gentlemen had determined in their own minds to treat us with such marked indifference or injustice as 11 --- 16
·
242
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
should rouse us to just resentment ? When that shall be the case, I agree with my friend from Kentucky, that there is a point beyond which we cannot go. Let not gentlemen be alarmed at the acquisition of Louisiana, this New World as they please to call it. and which they seem at so great a loss to know what to do with. I hope gentlemen will excuse me if I again repeat a desire to know the extent of their objects when they so loud! clamored for war. Were I as suspicious as themselves I might ' readily indulge a belief from the present state of things, that they wished to check the rising growth of the Western people by getting them into a war, make them a handsome bow and leave them to fight their battles. But happily our treaty secures again -! all such apprehensions. . . And I again assure gentlemen that I am not among those who believe that France, Spain or even the British government would govern the Western country more to our interest than we do; nor do I credit a doctrine so absurd as to believe the people of the Western country will abandon their interest and prostitute their honor to create dangers so imminent as the gentleman from Connecticut ( Mr. Hillhouse) seems to apprehend, and who is so fearful of the day in which the Western . people shall give laws to the Union ; but if ever it should so hap . pen, I hope they will be at least as just and salutary as they were when this honorable gentleman and his friends formed the politi- cal majority in this House."
The remarks of Mr. Adams, of Massachusetts, voiced perhaps better than those of any other speaker the real sentiments and opinions of the senators. He said, "Ter my own part I am free to confess that the third article and more especially the seventh, con tain engagements placing us in a dilemma, from which I see no possible mode of extricating ourselves but by an amendment, or rather an addition to the Constitution. The gentleman from Con- nectient (Mr. Tracy) both on a former occasion and in this day's debate, appears to me to have shown this to demonstration. But what is this more than saying, that the President and Senate bound the nation to engagements which require the cooperation of more extensive powers than theirs to carry them into execution ? Nothing is more common in the negotiations between nation and nation than for a minister to agree to and sign articles beyond the extent of his powers. This is what your ministers in the very case before you have confessedly done. It is well known that their powers did not authorize them to conclude this treaty; but they acted for the benefit of their country, and this house by a large majority has advised to the ratification of their proceedings.
1
2.43
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CESSION.
Suppose then not only that the ministers who signed, but the Pres- ident and Senate who ratified this compact, have exceeded their powers. Suppose that the other House of Congress who have given their assent by passing this and other bills for the fulfillment of the obligations it imposes on us, have exceeded their powers. Nay, suppose even that the majority of States competent to amend the Constitution in other cases, could not amend it in this without exceeding their powers-and this is the extremest point to which any gentleman on this floor has extended his scruples-suppose all this and there still remains in the country a power competent to adopt and sanction every part of our engagements and to carry them into execution. For notwithstanding the objections and apprehensions of many individuals, of many wise, able and excel- lent men in various parts of the Union, yet such is the public favor attending the transaction which commenced by the negotiation of this treaty and which I hope will terminate in our full, undis- turbed and undisputed possession of the ceded territory, that I firmly believe if an amendment to the Constitution amply suffi- cient for the accomplishment of everything for which we have con- tracted shall be proposed as I think it ought, it will be adopted by the Legislature of every State in the Union."
'The bill providing for the issuance of stock to be used in pay- ing for Louisiana passed the senate -- yeas 26, nays 5, those voting in the negative being James Hillhouse, Timothy Pickering, Uriah 'Tracy, William H. Wells and Samuel White, the latter two of Delaware. Senators Adams, Olcott and Plummer, who had voted against the bill authorizing the president to the passion of Louisiana, voted in favor of this bill. The following is the text of the act in full, authorizing the president to take possession of Louisiana, as passed by the senate with the house amendments :*
"An Act to enable the President of the United States to take possession of the territories coded by France to the United States, by the treaty concluded at Paris on the thirtieth of April last, and for the temporary government thereof.
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to take possession of, and to occupy the territories ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty concluded at Paris on the thirtieth day of April last, between the two nations, and that he may for that purpose, and in order to maintain in the said terri-
· Annals of Congress.
-
244
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
tories the authority of the United States, employ any part of the army or navy of the United States, and of the force authon.s .! by an act passed the third day of March last, entitled An Vet directing a detachment from the militia of the United States, and for erecting certain arsenals, which he may deem necessary : and so much of the sum appropriated by the said act as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated for the purpose of carrying il. act into effect ; to be applied under the direction of the President - of the United States.
"Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That until the expiration of the present session of Congress, unless provision for the tem- porary government of the said territories be sooner made by Con- gress, all the military, civil and judicial powers exercised by the officers of the existing government of the same, shall be vested in such person and persons, and shall be exercised in such manner. as the President of the United States shall direct, for maintaining and protecting the inhabitants of Louisiana in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and religion."
"Approved, October 31, 1803."
In order to understand the attitude of the senators toward these bills, a consideration of previous political occurrences will be necessary. Near the close of Washington's administration two parties were developed-the Federalists led by Adams, Hamilton, and others, and the Republicans, of whom Jefferson was the leader. In 1708, when war with both France and Spain seemed inevitable, the Federalists were changed by d. Rope ans with the responsibility of the dangerous and deplande state of affairs. This charge, of course, was unfounded, because it was well known that the anger of France was kindled by what she considered the violation of the treaty of 1778 in the refusal of the United States to encourage her in her war against Great Britain and in preventing her from sending out privateers to prey on British commerce from the ports of America, both of which stipulations, the French min- ister argued, were incumbent upon the United States to perform under that treaty. In retaliation for this unfounded charge, the Federalists, when the interdiction of the deposits at New Orleans was promulgated and the western country thrown into an uproar, demanded the forcible occupation of that city and the lower Mis- sissippi ; and when their demands were rejected by congress they endeavored to cast the responsibility for the distress upon the administration. But the policy of negotiation instead of war pre- vailed, and finally the interdiction was revoked. When France
2.45
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CESSION.
ceded Louisiana to the United States, the men who had previously advocated taking forcible possession of New Orleans, were the ones to oppose the necessary proceedings under the stipulations of the cession treaty to place the province under American control. Very few, if any in earnest, opposed the acquirement of Louisiana ; the opposition was, in almost every instance, based upon other grounds. It was a political maneuver against proceedings ema- nating from the majority party and the administration, and not an attempt to prevent the acquirement of Louisiana. In addition, individual senators, particularly of the New England states, entertained lukewarm sentiments toward the western section of the country, through mistaken notions, and notably toward the nexplored and almost wholly unknown wilderness of Louisiana and its Spanish, French and mixed inhabitants. Jefferson himself was a strict constructionist of the constitution, but changed his views in order to secure Louisiana and thus add a magnificent domain to the territory of the United States. This expansion applied to the constitution has since been several times repeated, to the advantage, credit and glory of the country.
The policy of Jefferson and of the Republicans was to limit instead of to extend the powers of the general government. The Republicans had their origin mainly during the second term of Washington when centralization went so far as to threaten the assumption of other governmental functions by the president. Thus intrenched, the Federalists surrendered vast privileges to Great Britain, thus kindling the jealousy and hostility of both France and Spain. The election of Jefferson to the presidency was a protest against the concentration of so much power in the hands of the president. The Republicans favored a strict con- struction of the constitution ; the Federalists the reverse. When the Louisiana question came up for immediate settlement, the leaders of the administration saw that they must either abandon their policy of strict construction or adopt an amendment to the constitution. Both eventualities were hurriedly yet amply con- sidered. While the necessary amendment would undoubtedly carry, it would consume too much time. It was necessary to make the greatest haste for two reasons: 1. France might get sick of the bargain and back out ; 2. England might take possession of New Orleans. In this extremity, be it said to the undying credit of the American statesmen, partisanship was sunk out of sight, and the broad and accurate foresight of seventy-six, which saw only the prosperity and glory of the republic, dictated the correct course to be pursued. The partisan disappeared and the states-
· :
F ·
:
246
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
man rose triumphant. The magnificent province was promptly accepted. But it should be noted that, in the senate debates, the Federalists were the strict constructionists, while the Republican- ridiculed their views.
The proceedings in the house on the Louisiana treaty were interesting and memorable. On October 17, the president's mes- sage was received, read and referred to the committee of the whole house on the state of the Union. The president's second message (see supra for a summary of both messages) was received, read and referred to the same committee on Saturday, October 22, with an order for its consideration the following Monday. On that date the following resolution was introduced by Roger Gris- wold of Connecticut, the leader of the opposition in the house :+
"Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be laid before this House a copy of the treaty between the French Republic and Spain, of the first of October, one thou - sand eight hundred, together with a copy of the deed of cession from Spain, executed in pursuance of the same treaty, convey- ing Louisiana to France (if any such deed exists) ; also copies of such correspondence between the Government of the United States and the Government or minister of Spain (if any such correspondence has taken place), as will show the assent or dissent of Spain to the purchase of Lonisiana by the United States ; together with copies of such other documents as may be in the department of State, or any other department of this Government, tending to ascertain whether the United States have. in fact, acquired any tide to the province of Louisiana to the front. . with France, of the thirtieth of April, one thousand eight hundred and three."
In support of his resolution, Mr. Griswold offered the following remarks: "In the treaty between Spain and France ( October 1, 1800) the former stipulated to cede to the latter, upon certain con- ditions, the province of Louisiana. The treaty between the United States and the French Government does not ascertain whether these terms have been complied with by France, or whether the cession has been actually made by Spain to France. All that appears is a promise made by Spain to cede. If the terms stipn. lated by France have not been complied with, and Spain has not delivered the province to France, then it results that France has no title, and of a consequence that the United States has acquired no title from France. If this be correct, the consequence will be
· Annals of Congress.
2.47
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CESSION.
that we have acquired no new territory or new subjects, and that it is perfectly idle to spend the time in passing laws for possessing the territory and governing the people. This point not being ascertained by the language of the treaty, it may be important to obtain documents that may satisfy the House whether the United States have acquired either new territory or new subjects. In the treaty lately concluded with France, the treaty between France and Spain is referred to; only a part of it is copied. The treaty referred to must be a public treaty. In the nature of things it must be the title-deed for the province of Louisiana. The Gov- ernment must have a copy of it. As there is but a part recited, it is evidently imperfect. It becomes therefore necessary to be furnished with the whole, in order to ascertain the conditions relative to the Duke of Parma; it also becomes necessary to get the deed of cession ; for the promise to cede is no cession. This deed of cession, it is to. be presumed, is in the possession of the government. It is also important to know under what circum- stances Louisiana is to be taken possession of, and whether with the consent of Spain, as she is still possessed of it. If it is to be taken possession of with her consent, the possession will be peace- able and one kind of provision will be necessary ; but if it is to be taken possession of in opposition to Spain, a different provision may be necessary. I believe it will be admitted that, by the express terms of the treaty, the United States has neither acquired new territory nor new subjects. I therefore consider it my duty, before the House goes into a consideration of the resolutions laid on the table, to submit this resolution."
In answering these remarks. Mr. Randolph said, ' The the us which we are now called upon to sanction, has been hasled by the acclamation of the nation. It is not difficult to foresce, from the opinions manifested in every quarter, that it will receive the cordial approbation of a triumphant majority of this House. If such be the general opinion -- if we are not barely satisfied with the terms of this treaty, but lost in astonishment at the all-impor- tant benefits which we have so cheaply acquired, to what purpose do we ask information respecting the details of the negotiation? Has any one ventured to hint disapprobation of the conduct of the Ministers who have effected this negotiation? Has any one insinvated that our interests have been betrayed? li then we are satisfied as to the terms of this treaty and with the conduct of our Ministers abroad, let us pass the laws necessary for carrying it into effect. To refuse-to delay upon the plea now offered is to jeopardize the best interests of the Union. Shall we take excep-
248
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
tion to our own title? Shall we refuse the offered possession ? Shall this refusal proceed from those who so lately affirmed that we ought to pursue this very object at every national hazard? 1 should rather suppose the eagerness of gentlemen would be ready to ontstrip the forms of law in making themselves masters of this country, than that now when it is offered to our grasp, they shouldi display an unwillingness or at least an indifference for that which so lately was all-important to them. After the message which the President has sent us, to demand if indeed we have acquired any new subjects, as the gentleman expresses it, which renders the exercise of our legislative functions necessary, would be nothing less than a mockery of him, of this solemn business and of our- selves. Cautionary provisions may be introduced into the laws for securing us against every hazard, although from the nature of our stipulations we are exposed to none. We retain in our own hands the consideration money even after we have possession. If I could for a moment believe that even a minority, respectable as to numbers, required any other evidence of the fact of our having acquired new territory and people to govern than the extract from the treaty which has just been read, I would readily concur with the gentleman from Connecticut in asking of the executive whether indeed we have a new accession of territory and of citizens, or as the gentleman has been pleased to express himself, subjects to govern. I hope the resolution will not be agreed to."
Mr. Goddard of Connecticut spoke in favor of the resolution and said, "There is no evidence that France has at incons stille title to louisiana. If in virtue of this treaty we purchase a prom ise on the part of his Catholic Majesty to cede, and not an incon- testible title, I will ask if the promise constitutes a title? This and this only is the language of the treaty of October 1, 1800. li this is the case, is it not proper to inquire whether there are other acts by which Spain has ceded Louisiana to France? Such acts may exist. 'Certain stipulations were made by France. to Spain on which the cession depended. Do we not then wish to know whether these stipulations have been fulfilled and whether they are binding, or whether Spain has waived them? Are there in existence any documents to that effect? It has been hinted that such documents exist in the newspapers; but are we, in an affair of this magnitude, to be referred to the dictum of a newspaper? I apprehend that this is a novel mode of legislation. What is the Commissary to be sent by the Government of France to Louisiana to do? He is in the first instance to receive the province from
2.49
CONSTITUTION.ILITY OF THE CESSION.
Spain. Can he transmit it to the United States before he receives it from Spain? We require to know, if Spain refuses to deliver Louisiana to France, can France transmit it to us? We desire to know whether there is any prospect of a refusal on the part of Spain. Suppose we shall receive the colony from France, under the dictation of the First Consul to Spain, without experiencing any opposition from her. May not the time arrive, on a revolu- tion in the affairs of Europe, when she will inquire by what title we hold it? Is it not proper then for us to obtain papers, by which our title may be fully understood ?"
Mr. Thatcher, of Massachusetts, said, "The first article of the Louisiana treaty goes to say that Spain may have altered the boundaries of that province differently from what they were when France before possessed it. And for what we know she has done so. Ilence the importance of seeing the papers asked for. If we obtain the bare possession, it is one thing ; the legal possession is another thing. It is one thing to govern the colony with a . corps of civilians, and another and a different thing to govern it with an army. The President may perhaps have considered it a good bargain to obtain, for the payment of fifteen millions, the mere quit-claim of France to the province. At any rate it is proper that we should act with our eyes open ; and therefore the importance of having a copy of the treaty entered into between the Governments of Spain and France, or evidence that Spain has acquiesced in the cession to the United States."
The resolution was opposed by Mr. Nicholson. of Maryland, who said, "I agree with gentlemen that if a majority of the House entertain any doubt as to the validity of the title we have acquired, they ought to call for papers ; and I have no doubt, if there is any dissatisfaction, they will call. I should have no objection to vote for the resolution if it was confined to proper objects, not indeed to satisfy myself, for l am already fully satisfied, but to satisfy other gentlemen ; to satisfy the American people that the insinua- tions thrown out about the title are totally without foundation. The resolution in its present shape, however, is highly improper; it looks to extrinsic circumstances and contemplates an inquiry into subjects totally unconnected with the treaty with France. What has Spain to do in this business? Gentlemen ask if she has acquiesced in our purchase and call for her correspondence with our Government. What is the acquiescence of Spain to us? If the House is satisfied from the information laid on the table, that Spain has ceded Louisiana to France, and that France has since ceded it to the United States, what more do they require? Are
0
250
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
we not an independent nation? Have we not a right to male treaties for ourselves without asking leave of Spain? What is it to us whether she acquiesces or not? She is no party to the treaty of cession ; she has no claim to the ceded territory. Are we to pause till Spain thinks proper to consent, or are we to inquire whether like a cross child she has thrown away her rattle and cries for it afterward? The treaty itself and the conventions attached to it, furnish all the necessary information. Louisiana . is ceded to the United States with the same boundaries that it had before been ceded with by Spain to France; and France has obliged herself to send a commissary to New Orleans to receive the possession from Spain and to transfer it to us. For this the United States are to pay fifteen millions of dollars to the French Government. But how and when ? Not immediately ; not till we have actually acquired the possession. And if France shall fail to put us into actual possession, the United States are not bound to pay a single dollar. So that the call for papers can be of no possible use. I shall have no objection to have the treaty of San Ildefonso laid before the House, if it is in the possession of the Executive. In all probability, however, this is not the case, as it is known to be a secret treaty on other subjects of great importance between France and Spain. If there are any other papers which can give gentlemen more information, I have no objection either that these shall be laid before them for their satisfaction. One very important paper, I know from high authority, is certainly in existence and possibly may be in the power of the Executive. This is a formal cales, under the road signature of Spain, commanding the Spanish officers at New Orleans to deliver the province to the French Prefect, which 1 consider equal perhaps superior to any deed of cession; for it is equal to an express recognition on the part of Spain that France has performed all the conditions referred to in the Treaty of St. Ildefonso. It is an acknowledgment that Spain has no fur- ther claims upon Louisiana and will show that any interference on her part ought to have no influence on the American Government. To call for the correspondence between Spain and the United States, if there is any such, I shall not assent to, as it can be of no possible importance."
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.