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 30
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
The authority of D'St. Denis is shown in the following letter : "We, Antoine de la Motte Cadillac, Seigneur of Davaguet and Monderet, Governor of Dauphin Island, Fort Louis, Bilovi, and of the country and province of Louisiana, do hereby authorize the Sieur D'St. Denis and the twenty- four Canadians of hus party, to take with him any number of Indians, whom he thinks neces- sary, to the Red River, or wherever else he may choose to go, in search of the mission of the Recollet, Father Francisco Hidalgo, agreeably to the letter written by him, on the 17th of April, 1711, for the purpose of buying horses and cattle for the colony and province of Louisiana ; and we request all whom it may concern, to suffer the said Sieur D'St. Denis and his party to pass without impediment. In faith whereof, we have signed this, and seal it with the seal of our arms, and have caused it to be countersigned by our secretary, at Fort Louis, Louisiana, this 12th of Septem- ber, 1713."t
.
. Narrative and Critical History of America: Winsor.
t Annals of Congress
300
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
Don Pedro Cervallos in his note of February 24, 1805, to the American envoys said, "The first thing which calls our attention in explaining the said article is the expression retrocede, and which also serves to denominate the treaty of St. Ildefonso, called the treaty of retrocession. The sense of this expression is obvions; it cannot be misinterpreted or confounded; its meaning is evidently this: That His Catholic Majesty returns to France the territory which he ( France) had received from her (Spain) . Now let us examine if France put Spain into possession of the territory which occasions the present discussion. It is without doubt that by the treaty of 1763, it was agreed that the separation between France and England of their possessions in that quarter, should be by a line through the middle of the rivers Mississippi and Iberville and the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain to the sea ; consequently France ceded to England the river and port of Mobile, as well as all her other possessions on the cast of the Mississippi, the island and city of New Orleans excepted. * From that time this territory formed a part of the possessions of the English under the name of West Florida, and France lost all claim and title to it. Thus it became an English possession ; and during the war of 1779 Spain conquered from England all that the latter possessed by the title of West Florida; and in the definitive treaty of 1803 ( 1783), England ceded to Spain under a guaranty both Floridas. It is then seen that the title by which Spain holds possession of West Florida was acquired by the right of conquest and also by the cession made by England under the treaty of 1783. From that time the title of Spain to that tiritory is entirely independent of France and of the cessam of Louisiana made by her; and consequently Spain could not give back to France what she did not receive from her. It is said in the third article that His Majesty retrocedes Louisiana 'with the same extent of territory which it now has in the hands of Spain.' This expression confirms most explicitly the right which Spain preserves over the said territory to the east of the Mississippi ; because it is well known that Spain possesses West Florida, not as Louisiana but as Florida. This is confirmed by the title of the Governors of Havana-Captain Generals of the tavo Floridas; and the treaty of 1795 where we read the following conclusive words, that the southern limits of the United States, which separate them from the Spanish colonies of East and West Florida.' etc. 11 is clear that if in the treaty of St. Ildefonso it had been wished to include West Florida. it would have been expressly mentioned by the name which authenticated it and under which it is generally
301
THE FLORIDA AND TEXAS BOUNDARIES.
known : for it would have been ridiculous to have given the name of Louisiana to that territory because it had once formed a part of that province, as much so as it would be at present to call the State of Ohio Louisiana. The second clause, 'and which it had when France possessed it,' alludes only to the man- ner in which France possessed it in 1763 when she delivered it to Spain ; for if any other sense is given to it that expression cannot be consistent with the anterior which says, 'with the same extent which it now has in the hands of Spain,' for if in the second clause a greater extent should be given to Louisiana than that which it had in the hands of Spain, how could it be 'with the same extent it had in the hands of Spain? . The third clause is still more decisive, 'such as it ought to be according to subsequent treaties between Spain and other Powers.' The treaties here alluded to are not nor can be others than those of 1783 between Spain and England, and 1795 between Spain and the United States. By the first His Majesty acquired the terri- tory cast of the Mississippi under the name of West Florida, and consequently to be 'as it ought to be' since the treaty of 1793 ( 1783) is with the exclusion of a territory acquired at that period and with a name so different. By the second His Majesty per- mitted the deposite and fixed the limits between Louisiana, the Floridas and the United States 'to be as they ought to be' after the treaty of 1795, is with the exclusion of France to the rights of the United States in this treaty. And thus as the treaty of St. Ildefonso could not affect the rights which the United States acquired by that of 1795, so neither did it alet not could it affect the rights acquired by the Catholic Majesty by the treaty of 1783 with England. The celebrated geographer of the United States, Mr. Ellicott, appointed to run the line of division between the said States and the Spanish provinces, in his work published in 1803, says, 'It does not appear by the cession of Louisiana to the United States we obtain the whole of both sides of the Mis- sissippi, for it will be seen that the island of New Orleans, which lies on the east side of the Mississippi only extends north of Manshak, from thence northerly along the east side of the river to the southern boundary of the United States, is still held by His Catholic Majesty as a part of West Florida' He again says, 'the important and safe harbors in both the Floridas still remain in the possession of His Catholic Majesty.'
The treaty of retrocession of 1800 was a contract between Spain and France, and consequently it was for France to have repre- sented in case she had not received all the territories expressed in
302
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
that stipulation. And it is certain that the Prefect Laussat, charged to carry the treaty into effect, being perfectly instructed in it, and being possessed with the intentions of his Government, has expressed himself satisfied with the manner in which it was carried into effect, without his having been put into possession of the territory in question."
On the 12th of May, 1805, the Americans submitted the follow- ing proposition to the Spanish court : "That upon condition that His Catholic Majesty will cede to the United States all of his possessions eastward of the Mississippi and arbitrate the claims of the citizens of each Power according to the deferred treaty of August 11, 1802, we will make the Colorado the boundary between Louisiana and Spain. We will relinquish the claims to spoliations which were committed by the French within the jurisdiction of Spain in the course of the last war, . . . and we will also relinquish all claim to compensation for the injuries which were received by the suppression of the deposit at New Orleans."
In reply to this proposition, Mr. Cervallos said that he could not see anything therein to induce Spain to accept ; that "although His Majesty has the power to bargain for the Floridas as owner of them, and also has the right if he pleases to ratify the conven- tions of August 11, 1802, which is suspended for the reason your excellencies know, there are wanting equal right and power in the United States to make the cession your excellencies mention. The United States have no right to demand of Spain compensation for damages occasioned by the French privateus, neither have they to the claim for minties by the suppression of the deposit at New Orleans. And as to the claim to fix the limit of Louisiana at the Rio Bravo, from which flows the assertion that the fixing it at the Colorado is to be considered as a cession, it is equally necessary for me to observe to your excellencies that the Spanish Government has made it appear and is equally ready to show more and more by the most irrefragable proof that the limit which sepa- rates Louisiana and the Spanish possessions is a line which, begin- ning in the Gulf of Mexico between the river Caracut or Carcase and the Armienta or Marmentao, ascends toward the north between the Adais and Natchitoches until it cuts the Red river; and as from this point they are doubtful and little known the limits which ought to be marked on the northern side appear to be proper subjects for reference to the prudential investigations of com- missioners of limits to be named by both parties. .. . It cannot be concealed that, as a consequence of the propositions you
303
THE FLORIDA AND TEXAS BOUNDARIES.
have made in your note of the 12th, Spain would cede to the United States, not only the territories which indisputably belong to her to the cast of the Mississippi, that is the two Floridas, but also others equally her own in the interior province of New Spain withont receiving anything in return but the renunciation of a right which she does not acknowledge in the United States, which is to reclaim for the damages arising from the suspension of the deposite and for those occasioned by the French privateers on the coast end in the ports of Spain during the last war."
This positive refusal of the Spanish government to accede to the American propositions or to concur in the views of the Amer- ican envoys, terminated the negotiations which Mr. Monroe had been specially sent to Madrid to conduct in conjunction with Mr. Pinckney. They returned a brief answer May 18, 1805, to the letter of Mr. Cervallos, in which they said, "We consider the negotiation concluded, and have therefore only to remark that we shall hasten to communicate the result to our Government, . who will not fail to bestow on it the attention which is due to a concern of such high importance to the United States." Mr. Monroe asked for his passports, in order to repair to London, to which post he had been assigned, as soon as the Spanish negotia- tions should be ended. In their report to the department of state, the envoys said, "We experienced on the part of Spain neither a spirit of candor nor conciliation in the management of the busi- ness nor of accommodation in the conditions. In this latter point it has disclaimed our right in every question on which it was pos- sible that a difference of opinion could qvist ; it has pashed the pretentions of Spain to the most extravagant extent in each ; and insisted finally in a tone not a little iinperious that those exag- gerated pretensions should be the standard by which the subsist- ing differences and their future relations should be regulated."
During the negotiations to effect a settlement with Spain, the department of state informed Mr. Monroe on May 23, 1805, that "it appears that France has arranged herself on the side of Spain in such a manner that Spain will neither be disposed nor he per- mitted to bend to our claims either with respect to West Florida or the French spoliations. What part France may take in rela- tion to the western boundary of Louisiana seems not to have been disclosed. From the silence on that point in Talleyrand's note of November 8th in answer to yours, in which the claim of the United States to the Rio Bravo is expressly asserted, and from the confidential acknowledgment of that boundary by M. Laussat to Governor Claiborne and General Wilkinson, it might be
304
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
expected that on this important point France would side with us against Spain." But it was realized that, owing to pending events, no reliance could be placed on France to substantiate the American claims. Spain seemed wholly averse to any conces- sions and France seemed more than willing to support her. With this view of the situation Mr. Madison wrote, "The alternative presented by this event is that of war, or a state of things guard- ing against war for the present and leaving in vigor our claims to be hereafter effectuated. Against war if to be safely and hon - orably avoided the considerations are obvious and powerful." Two essential articles were to be insisted upon : "That Spain should not strengthen her armaments within the disputed limits, and that she should not obstruct the free navigation of the Mobile and other rivers passing from the United States through the Floridas to American vessels."
'Tlms the views of both countries were presented with the strongest possible arguments, during which time the diplomats exhibited surprising skill in the art of expression, presentation, attack and defense. Severe and apparently traducing statements by one were countered by mollifying observations of the other; thrust was followed either by parry or by dodging. The argu- ments advanced in subsequent stages of the diplomatic contest did not vary materially from those already given ; but they were vastly elaborated and extended. The instructions to the American envoys required them to secure West Florida under the claim to Louisiana if possible, which meant if they could out-argue or out- maneuver the Spanish ministry. They dorefor sought every pretense that favored the acquisition of West Floralaan a part of Louisiana. On the other hand, the Spanish ministry adroitly evaded the snares prepared by the Americans, and held vigorously against the spoliation claims, the deposit indemnifications and the boundaries demanded by the envoys of the United States.
In an note written by Gen. John Armstrong in a pamphlet entitled a "Review of Adams's Eulogium upon James Monroe," occurs the following statement : "Mr. Adams asserts that much ability was shown in this abortive negotiation by Mr. Monroe and his colleague, Mr. Pinckney. Does he forget, or had he over- looked, the admission to be found in Mr. Monroe's preliminary letter to Talleyrand, 'that we had bought from France only what France had bought from Spain?' By this admission the question became one, not of construction, but of fact. It was no longer what the terms of the treaty of St. Ildefonso would warrant us in demanding, but how those terms were understood by the parties
-
1
-
4
-
0
Orageballons
10
No.X.X.
súvous
Sonhaskitons
Nadoucssanyo
Tintonha 0 0
West Schious
AGreat Fall f
Tahuglucks
LAKE OF THOYAGO
Mozemlak
Crasitares
sadawassy
Echoros.
coo
R. MITOLHO YOUR OR THE INDING RIVER
9 MOLYGA
A
Pratotantes
assoluaires
O
Outententes
Schahasa
Upper Part of Coxe's Map of Carolana
305
THE FLORIDA AND TEXAS BOUNDARIES.
to that instrument. Spain denied that she had ceded West Florida to France, and France denied that she had either sold, or intended to sell to us, more than she had bought from Spain. Such was the Pons Asinorum> which stopped the progress of Mr. Monroe and his colleague at Madrid. By the way, the construc- tion given to the treaty of St. Ildefonso, on which the United States so long and pertinaciously relied and which Mr. Madison's ingenuity made so plausible, was a suggestion of Mr. Livingston's, submitted by him to his Government and adopted by it, but to which Mr. Madison for some time refused his assent. See Mr. Livingston's official correspondence with Mr. Madison in the spring of 1803."
When stripped of all unnecessary verbiage, the important points in the controversy over the castern boundary of Louisiana nar- rowed down to, ist, the meaning and intended application of the term "retrocession ;" and, 2d, the Louisiana that was intended to be conveyed by the retrocession of 1800 to France and of 1803 to the United States, or in other words, the Louisiana as held by France prior to 1762, or as held by Spain subsequent to 1762, the latter with or without West Florida attached. The heading of the treaty of St. Ildefonso concluded October 1, 1800, is in French as follows: "Traite préliminaire ct secret entre la république Française at Sa Majesté Catholique, touchant l'agrandissement de Son Altesse Royale le Duc de Parma, en Italie, et la rétrocession de la Louisiane;" and in the third article the word "retrocede" is employed. In many translations of this treaty the word "restore" is used, as being the nearest equivalent of the world "rettorale" Some translators employ the words "recode" and "recession." The admitted meaning in the original was, to give back what had been previously received. West Florida was never received by Spain from France; consequently it was contended by both France and Spain that the treaty of retrocession of October 1, ISoo, gave back only the Louisiana which Spain had received from France in 1762 and which extended no farther castward than the Mississippi and the Iberville. West Florida was secured to Spain by conquest from Great Britain in 1783. After 1783. upon which date Spain secured West Florida from Great Brit- ain, it was not attached to Louisiana but remained a separate province ; consequently, never after 1762 was West Florida a part of Louisiana. If, then, the Louisiana conveyed by Spain
. A Latin expression meaning un ass's bridge or a help to dull pupils.
11 --- 20
1
306
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
to France in iSoo and by France to the United States in 1803, embraced West Florida, the conveyance must have meant the Louisiana as it existed in the possession of France . prior to 1762. In the treaty of St. Ildefonso the Louisiana con- veyed was "in the same extent which it now has under the dominion of Spain and of other States," and in the treaty conveying the province to the United States the language was, "with the same extent that it now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it, and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other States." Under the language of the treaty of St. Ilde- fonso, the Louisiana referred to could have been no other than the one extending no farther to the eastward than the Missis- sippi and the Iberville, because that was the limits of "now." The same is true under the first of the three clauses above in the treaty of 1803. The second clause, "with the same extent that it had when France possessed it," is conformable, because France possessed it from 1800 to 1803 no farther than the Iberville. The last of the three clauses above is conformable to the Spanish-French contention. So that neither of the clauses disfavors the claim that Louisiana extended no farther cast- ward than the Mississippi and the Iberville. Thus all of the leading points seem to favor the Spanish construction. It should be said that although the American envoys presented strong and adroit arguments, they never succeeded in conclusively answering the position of the Spanish ministry, backed with emphasis by the opinions of the French government The strength of this position was fully rougnized is the total States ; and by reason of the fact that the people very much wanted West Florida, and as the "wish is father to the thought," the judgment of many was guided by their wants and accordingly they thought they had a right to the possession of West Florida. It was easy to look on the popular side-the one favoring the United States. It was hard to see anything in favor of the Spaniards, whom nearly everybody disliked.
.
The views of Spain and of the United States are well stated by the historian MeMaster, who says: "Spain in 1783 received the two Floridas from England. never having received either of them from France. When, therefore, in 1800, by the secret treaty of San Ildefonso, Spain bound herself to return Louisiana to france, she bound herself to give back what France had given her in 1962 and not what England had given her in 1783." In regard to the views of Jefferson and Madison he said, first
.
307
THE FLORIDA AND TEXAS BOUNDARIES.
stating their position : "Spain in 1800 owned West Florida. West Florida was once a part of Louisiana. Spain in 1800 receded Louisiana to France. She therefore receded West Florida. Hlad such reasoning been applied to a real estate transaction in private life, the folly would have been at once apparent. The treaty of 1800 was a treaty of retrocession. Spain then gave back to France what France had given to her in 1762, and noth- ing more nor less. In 1762 Spain did not own West Florida. She could not, therefore, in 1800 have receded it to France."* As a matter of fact, it required the skill of such men as Jeffer- son and Madison to make a case of any moment whatever in favor of the contention that Louisiana included West Florida.
Although it does not seem that Spain deliberately closed all negotiations, and although it seems clear that she simply insisted on nor yielding any of her rights to the American envoys, the United States viewed the matter in an altogether different light. The most that can be said is that the negotiators were so far apart in their views and so unwilling to yield any mate- rial claim, that the Americans were as much to blame as the Spaniards that an adjustment of the differences could not at that time be effected. Early in 1866, it was determined by the president :+ "ist. That the manner in which the negotiations at Madrid had been closed by Spain forbade any application whatever to her for a renewal of them; 20, That the case should be presented to Congress for such provision as it might be thought to require on their part; 3d, That in the meantime you (Gen. John Armstrong, minister to France) should be charged! to place before the French Government the necessity to which Spain, by refusing to concur in a diplomatic adjustment of her controversies with the United States, had reduced the latter of seeking justice by those ulterior measures which the occasion called for." General Armstrong was told to reach Spain with the views and intentions of the United States through the medium of the French government. At the same time he was sent the draft of a treaty to be concluded with Spain, which embraced the claims of the United States already mentioned herein. He was told that the French government should be informed that the United States would make no open overtures to Spain ; that the rejection by Spain of the special overtures lately concluded, "followed by her military and menacing indications within and near the
" History of the People of the United States; McMaster.
f American State Papers.
1
1
308
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
controverted territories, the United States, though ready to meet Spain in negotiation under the auspices of a common friend, do not consider it belonging to them to court a further negotiation in any form; that consequently the steps necessary on the part of Spain must be the resuh either of her own reflections, or of the prudent counsel which France may undertake to give her;" that the methods of accomplishing this object must be left to the sound discretion of General Armstrong; that France should be made to see that an amicable adjustment of the dif- ferences between Spain and the United States would be much more preferable to Napoleon than a resort to arms; that the United States were bent on an early settlement of those differ- ences ; and that in this favorable crisis matters should be pressed within reasonable limits. The objects were to secure West Florida certainly, cither as already ceded to the United States as a part of Louisiana or otherwise, to purchase East Florida, to obtain the indemnities claimed, and to establish the bound- ary between Louisiana and Texas on the Colorado, or farther westward if possible. It was stipulated that, as a last resort, the Sabine might be fixed as the western boundary of Louisi- ana. It was also provided: "ist, That the sum to be made payable to Spain for her cession is not to exceed five millions of dollars; 2d. That as little as possible and in no event more than two millions are to be paid prior to the delivery of pos- session or the ratification; 3d, That as ample a provision as possible be made for indemnities, which claim is not less than four millions of dollars: 4th. That the agreement be made to cover cases where both French and Spanish subjects are the wrong-doers, &c."
It was difficult for the United States to see what object Spain had in rejecting the offers of the American envoys. Mr. Madi- son wrote, May 25, 1807. to Mr. Bowdoin, that "the conduct of Spain is not easily explained. Several causes have probably united in producing her obstinate repugnance to meet our rea- sonable overtures ; perhaps the most powerful may have been a calculation that she would have in any event the support of one or the other of the two great rivals of Europe; and that her dexterity would be able to connect her with whichever of them should ultimately be ascendant. It would seem to be impossible, however, that a crisis can be much longer procrastinated. The obstructions which are thrown in the way of the trade through the Mobile, and even the use of the river by the United States
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.