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 36
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
* Annals of Congress.
r
F
!
4
.
358
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
the condition on which the treaty should be ratified." These explanations were courteously given by the United States. She also insisted as a condition of the ratification "that the United States should abandon the right to recognize the revolutionary colonies in South America or to form other relations with them," which demand was positively refused by the United States. On the other hand, the United States insisted that certain grants of land, embracing nearly all of West Florida and much of East . Florida, should be absolutely null and void. In the meantime, Spain held possession of the Floridas. Early in 1820 Mr. de Onis, owing to ill health, was recalled, and was succeeded by Gen. Don Francisco Dionisio Vives, who insisted on further explanations before the treaty would be ratified by Spain. There is no doubt that much assistance was furnished by citizens of the United States to the revolting colonies of Mexico and South America. This was well known at New Orleans, which seemed to. ke the principal point from which hostile expeditions were dispatched. Spain therefore rightfully demanded that some provision should be adopted by the United States to prevent such hostile proceed- ings against a friendly power. After giving what he considered full explanations to the demands of Spain, Mr. Adams, who had become tired of the delay, wrote to General Vives as follows:' "But it is proper to apprise you that, if this offer be not accepted, the United States, besides being entitled to resume all the rights, claims and pretensions which they had renounced by. the treaty. can no longer consent to relinquish their claims of indemnity and those of their citizens from Spain for all the injuries which they have suffered and are suffering le the delay of His Catholic Majesty to ratify the treaty. The amount of claims of the citi- zens of the United States which existed at the time when the treaty was signed far exceeded that which the United States con- sented to accept as indemnity. Their right of territory was and yet is to the Rio del Norte. I am instructed to declare that if any finther delay to the ratification by His Catholic Majesty of the treaty should occur, the United States could not hereafter accept either of five millions of dollars for the indemnities due to their citizens by Spain, nor of the Sabine for the boundary between the United States and the Spanish territories." But this threat did not seem to disconcert General Vives in the least, for he proceeded coolly to discuss the differences. Finally, a com- mittee of the house of representatives submitted a bill "to author- ize the President of the United States to take possession of East and West Florida and establish a temporary government therein." The committee also stated that inasmuch as the crown lands in
359
THE FLORIDA AND TEXAS BOUNDARIES.
the two Floridas would probably be insufficient to pay the indem- nities due the citizens of the United States, the latter would be under the necessity of looking to the dominions of Spain to the westward to supply the deficiency. Finally, on the 24th of Octo- ber, 1820, the treaty was duly ratified by the Spanish monarch. The senate again ratified it February 19, 1821.
In the month of April, 1820, previous to the ratification, Henry Clay, who favored heroic measures in regard to the Floridas, and particularly in regard to the treatment of Spain, introduced into the house the following resolution: "Resolved, That the Consti- tution of the United States vests in Congress the power to dis- pose of the territory belonging to them, and that no treaty pur- porting to alienate any portion thereof is valid without the concurrence of Congress ; that the equivalent proposed to be given by Spain to the United States in the treaty conchided between them on the 22d of February, 1819, for that part of Louisiana lying west of the Sabine was inadequate; and that it would be inexpedient to make a transfer thereof to any foreign Power or renew the aforesaid treaty."*
Mr. Clay, who favored the occupation of West Florida by the United States said, in support of his resolution: "In the peace of 1783 Great Britain surrendered the country ( West Florida) to Spain, who for the first time came into the actual possession of it. She re-annexed it to the residue of Louisiana ; extended the jurisdiction of that Government to it, and subjected the Gov- ernors or commandants of the districts of Baton Rouge, Feliciana, Mobile and Pensacola to the authority of the Governor of Loui- siana residing at New Orleans; whereas the Givenog ai Fast Florida was placed wholly without hi control and was made amenable directly to the Governor of the Havana. I have been credibly informed that all the concessions or grants of land made in West Florida under the authority of Spain, run in the name of the government of Louisiana. . West Florida, then, not only as France has held it, but as it was in the hands of Spain, made a part of the province of Louisiana, as much so as the jurisdiction or district of Baton Rouge constituted a part of West Florida. France in 1762 transferred Louisi- ana west of the Mississippi to Spain, and at the same time con- veyed the eastern portion of it, exclusive of New Orleans, to Great Britain. Twenty-one years after, that is, in 1783, Great Britain ceded her part to Spain, who thus became possessed of the entire province -- one portion by direct cession from France,
* Annals of Congress.
360
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
and the residue by indirect cession. Spain then held the whole of Louisiana under France and in virtue of the title of France. The whole moved or passed from France to her. When, there- fore, in this state of things, she says in the treaty of St. Ilde- fonso that she retrocedes the province to France, can a doubt exist that she parts with and gives back to France the entire colony? To prechide the possibility of such a doubt, she added that she restored it, not in a mutilated condition, but in that precise condition in which France had, and she herself, possessed
· it. By the act of the 24th of February, 1So4, for laying duties on goods imported into the ceded territories, the President is empowered whenever he deems it expedient, to erect the bay and river Mobile, &c., into a separate district and to estab- lish therein a port of entry and delivery. By this same act the Orleans Territory is laid off and its boundaries are so defined as to comprehend West Florida. Never could a more propitions moment present itself for the exercise of the discre- tionary power placed in the President of the United States, and had he failed to embrace it he would have been criminally inat- tentive to the dearest interests of this country. It cannot be too often repeated, that if Cuba on the one hand and Florida on the other, are in the possession of a foreign maritime Power, the' immense contry belonging to the United States, watered by streams discharging themselves into the Gulf of Mexico-that is, one-third, nay, more than two-thirds of the United States, com- prehending Louisiana, is placed at the mercy of that Power. The possession of Florida is a guarantee absolutely necessary to the enjoyment of the navigation of these walls. .
It is conceived as ungenerous that we should at this moment, when Spain is encompassed and pressed on all sides by the immense power of her enemy, occupy West Florida. Shall we sit by, passive spectators, and witness the interesting transactions in that country-transactions which tend to jeopardize in the most imminent degree our rights without interference? Are you pre- pared to see a foreign Power seize what belongs to us? I have heard in the most credible manner that about the period when the President took his measures in relation to that country, the agents of a foreign Power were intriguing with the people there to induce them to come under his dominion. Whether this be the fact or not, it cannot be doubted that if you neglect the present auspi- cious moment -- if you reject the proffered boon, some other nation profiting by your errors, will seize the occasion to get a fatal footing in your southern frontier. I have no hesitation in saying that if a parent country will not or cannot maintain its
361
THE FLORIDA AND TEXAS BOUNDARIES.
authority in a colony adjacent to us, and there exists in it a state of misrule and disorder menacing our peace, and if, more- over, such colony by passing into the hands of any other Power would become dangerous to the integrity of the Union and mani- festly tend to the subversion of our laws, we have a right upon eternal principles of self-preservation to lay hold of it. This principle alone, independent of any title, would warrant our occu- pation of West Florida. But it is not necessary to resort to it, our title being in my judgment incontestably good. . But if Great Britain persists in a denial of justice to us, or if she avails herself of the occupation of West Florida to commence war upon us, I trust and hope that all hearts will unite in a bold and vigorous vindication of our rights. . . I am not in favor of cherishing the passion of conquest. But I must be permitted to concluide by declaring my hope to see ere long the new United States (if you will allow me the expression), embracing not only the old thirteen States, but the entire country cast of the Mississippi, including East Florida, and some of the territories to the north of us also."
Senator Pope of Kentucky said: "Before 1762-3 Louisiana extended cast to the river Perdido. France and Spain by the treaty of 1719 established this boundary between Florida now called East Florida and Louisiant. Thus France prior to 1762-3 claimed the river Perdido as their eastern limit, nor does this fact appear to have been contested by the British min- ister. . . The cession of West Louisiana with the island of New Orleans to Spain and of East Louisiana, since called West Florida to Great Britain, were made at the same time in the your 1762-3. It is, however, well known that france made the ces- sion to Great Britain at the instance and for the benefit of Spain, to enable her with the cession of Florida, now called East Flor- ida, to obtain a restitution of Cuba. The whole of Louisiana not conquered by Great Britain, may with propriety be said to have been given up or ceded to Spain. By the treaty of 1803, we acquired Louisiana as fully and in the same manner as it had been acquired by France from Spain in virtue of the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, of the first of October, 1800. . . I do not, however, think it difficult to account for the conduct of Spain. My conjecture is that France, after she had sold Louisiana to the United States and received the price stipulated, secretly advised Spain not to surrender it, having at that time formed the project which she is now attempting to execute of acquiring the whole Spanish empire. Her interest was, therefore, identified with that of Spain, and she was no doubt willing to unite with
362
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
. Spain in giving the most limited construction to the cession to the United States. Why should our sympathies be awakened in favor of Spain? What claim has the Spanish Gov- ernment upon our moderation and forbearance? What has been her conduct? From the moment we became an independent nation, she has been intriguing to separate the Western country from the Atlantic States. She has made at different periods and as late as the year 1797, in violation of her treaty of 1795 with this country, direct propositions to the Western people to secede from the Union ; and, to accomplish her object, at least attempted the use of means the most corrupt. If the French arms shall be successful in Spain, of which I believe few entertain much doubt, and the Junta shall be driven from Old Spain to any of the colonies, their political character must cease and they can no longer claim the exercise on any jurisdiction or sovereignty over the colonies. The colonies are not bound together by any political bond unconnected with the mother country ; they are sub- ject to the mother country, but the moment she is conquered they are at liberty to provide for themselves; unless, indeed, the Emperor of France or King Joseph can claim them. France in an official expose and King Joseph by proclamation have declared their willingness that the colonies should become independent, provided they do not connect themselves with Great Britain. If France, therefore, shall conquer the country, which is probable, we are fully authorized by her public declaration to the world to acquire with the consent of the inhabitants not only West but East Florida, Cuba or any other province we shall drem it expedient to connect with the Ritual ERales."
The views of Mr. Clay and Mr. Pope were combatted by Mi. Horsey of Delaware, who said : "I cannot admit that France has acquired a legitimate title to the crown and colonies of Spain. Was not the royal family decoyed by artifice from Mad- rid to Bayonne? Was not the old Monarch compelled to resign his crown to Ferdinand the Seventh, and was not that Prince a prisoner of Bonaparte, and while in this conditon and, for aught we know, the bayonet at his breast or the cup to his lips, constrained to resign his crown to the Emperor of France?" Sir, what sort of title is this? Upon the eternal principles of justice, upon the principles of common law and common sense, an instru- ment thus obtained is not obligatory on the party executing it. But have the people of Spain acquiesced? No, sir, the instant publicity was given to the transaction, they became indignant and with one voice rose resolved to resist this usurpation. To this hour they have not submitted. But the gentleman has said that
1
363
THE FLORIDA AND TEXAS BOUNDARIES.
Spain is no longer able to hold Florida; that foreign emissaries will take it if the United States do not, and that it may be law- fully taken by the United States on the ground of the law of occu- pancy ; but to obtain a title in this way the country must be vacant, uninhabited and not claimed by another proprietor, which is not the case with West Florida. It appears that in 1761 when the whole of Louisiana with the island and town of New Orleans was delivered to Spain, Great Britain was in the peaceable possession of all the country on the cast of the Mis- sissippi ; that with respect to Florida particularly Great Britain was in possession, and nobody dreamed at that time that Flor- ida, either East or West, was any part of Louisiana. Had it been so considered, under the orders of the French King to deliver the whole of the province to Spain, undoubtedly Florida would have been delivered. The Treaty of St. Ilde- fonso of ISoo is a mere treaty of retrocession. The translation purports to be a treaty of cession, it is true, but acknowledged on all sides to be erroneous. The original treaty was in the French language, and it is by that we are to be governed. The expression in the original is, 'Sa Majesté Catholique promit et s'engage, de son cote, à retroceder à la Republique Française,' &c. A retroceder, signifying to retrocede, to restore, or, to use a term familiar in the State I have the honor to represent, reconvey the colony of Louisiana to France as it was when France con- veyed it to Spain. The honorable gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Pope), pressed by his argument, could only get round by alleging that the original treaty between France and Spain was dated in 1701. prior to the settlement of the line and the co- sions to Great Britain. But unfortunately, he could not produce one title of authentic evidence to establish his position.
It is said that when France ceded Louisiana to Spain in 1762, the country exended on the west of the river Sabine, and that prior to the treaty of iSoo detached from Louisiana the territory south of the waters emptying into the Red river and erected it into a new province under the name of the Province of Texas. Sir, the operations on the Sabine are memorable. It is well known how mysteriously they were suspended by an arrangement in 1806, by which it was agreed that the Spaniards should not cross the Sabine and that the Americans should not extend their settlements as far as that river. And for this purpose, to prevent collisions until the difference should be settled, instructions were given that no surveys should be made west of a meridian passing by Natchitoches. . When possession was originally delivered by France to Spain, Florida was not delivered or con-
1
1
364
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
sidered any part of the cession. When Louisiana was restored to France, Florida was not delivered. When the province was delivered to the United States, Florida was not comprehended. Indeed the Government then treated the country west of the Mississippi, including the town and island of New Orleans, as the whole of Louisiana, by receiving it and paying the purchase money, which by the terms of the treaty they were not bound to do, and which by the Act of Congress creating the Louisiana stock they were not authorized to do, till after full and entire * possession had been delivered."
Many minor questions of importance with which these volumes are not concerned were settled by the treaty of ISig between Spain and the United States. The object of this and the previous chapter has been to follow the steps taken by the two governments in establishing the Florida and the Texas boundaries. No person of this day can correctly assert that the Lonisiana ceded to the United States was bounded on the southwest by the Rio Grande, or the Colorado, or the Sabine. The truth is, the boundary was undetermined. When it is declared that the claims of the United States to the country westward to the Rio Grande or the Colorado were better than those of Spain, that is another question. It then becomes a question of fact to be determined by evidences. All the ' evidences in existence were duly considered at the time, and the boundary was established on the Sabine. In securing an exten- sion on the north to the Pacific ocean, the United States was ceded territory to which at the time of obtaining Louisiana it laid no claim. This had been no part of the Louisiana coded by France and retroceded by Spain and finally acquired by the United States in 1803. No claim had been made to territory westward of the Mississippi watershed. Therefore, the country west of the mountains, so far as Spain owned it, was ceded by that Govern- ment in 1819 to the United States. But Great Britain claimed a part of it, and it therefore took another treaty to finally settle the ownership.
There was no necessity for a treaty with any nation to warrant the United States in claiming as the western boundary of Louisi- ana north of the forty-second degree of latitude, the highlands separating the Upper Missouri valley from the river basins descending to the Pacific. That claim was never disputed until the Spanish commissioner in 1818-19 attempted to locate such boundary farther to the eastward as hereinbefore narrated. This contention by Spain was wholly unfounded, because no sound evi- dence was ever produced to disprove the justice of the claim that Louisiana in the northwest extended to the height of land beyond
THE FLORIDA AND TEXAS BOUNDARIES. 365
the sources of the Missouri. But the treaty of 1819 with Spain, may for all that, be said to have settled definitely this line, par- ticularly its southern point where the forty-second parallel inter- sected the principal chain of the Rocky mountains. And in the same manner, it may be said that the northern point was definitely settled by the treaty with England in 1818, when the forty-ninth parallel from the Lake of the Woods to the Rocky or Stony moun- tains was agreed on as the northern boundary of the United States.
:-
366
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
CHAPTER IX
The Northern Boundary
U NDER the liberal charters granted by the kings of England to the carly navigators who discovered the Atlantic coast claims were at first made to extensions of territory west- ward to the Pacific ocean, or the South Sea as it was then gener- ally called. The practice of making such claims was common to every colony on the Atlantic seaboard; and the claims were usually extended westward along parallels of latitude correspond- ing to the northern and southern limits of each colony." This was the custom of the English, but not that of the French nor the Spanish. Nor had the pope previously paid any atten- tion to such parallels in his famous bull which divided the whole of the western hemisphere between Spain and Portugal. The practice of both France and Spain was to take formal posession of the mouth of a river, and then in consequence claim the entire basin of that stream. As is well known, the custom of the Eng- lish in making such claims encountered vigorous opposition when attempts were made to extend their limits westward of the Alle- ghany mountains. It was then that the practices of colonial expan- sion which had been adopted by France and Great Britain resulted in distinct and bloody conflict and in an aggravation of the ancient jealously and hostility, with which each of those countries regarded the other.
Still, these parallels continued to be important factors in the settlement of disputes over questions of boundary throughout the interior of the continent, even after the colonial period had ended. France presented the first serious obstruction to the King- lish pretensions by extending Canada to the westward over the
. History of the United States: Bancroft.
.
367
THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY.
valley of the St. Lawrence river, including the Great Lakes, to the Mississippi river. Thence, by expanding her dominions southward to the Gulf of Mexico, she completely checked the progress of the English colonies to the westward, at least as far to the westward as the Mississippi. This result was premeditated by the French, who expressly designed to obstruct the territorial growth of the English American colonies .* At first it seemed that the Eng- lish were thus prevented from rightfully extending their limits to the westward of the Alleghanies; but later it became apparent that they had the better right to the upper Ohio valley at least. In consequence of the rival claims, the conflict at Fort Duquesne, the present site of Pittsburg, formed one of the momentous pre- liminaries to the bloody "Seven Years War."
During the early stages of the dispute over American territory, Great Britain did not claim sovereignty of the country much if any to the westward of the Wabash river. Her claims were mainly confined, and rightfully so, to the tract of country embraced by the upper branches of the river Ohio. The French for many years previous, possessed settlements at Vincennes, on the Illinois river, at Kaskaskia, and elsewhere, which were not disputed by the Eng- lish colonies; but there was nothing, in the judgment of the Eng- lish, whose colonial policy of expansion differed so essentially from that of the French, to prevent their occupancy of the upper Ohio valley, disclaiming as they did the right of France to the ownership of the whole valley of the Mississippi (including the upper Ohio) by simply taking possession of the mouth of that river and in reality not occupying with setlements immense tracts of country on its upper sources. Such pretensions by the French were therefore emphatically denied by the English, and in conse- quence contests of the bitterest character were resorted to by those nations to settle the question of ownership of the upper Ohio valley. Aside from this valley, the French had cemented their right to the remainder of the country to the westward of the Alle- ghanies by the stipulations of the treaty of Utrecht, concluded April 11, 1713; and at that period it must be admitted that France had the better right to the territory extending from the Alle- ghanies to the Wabash river; but they slept on their rights and made very little effort to form settlements in that great expanse of country. Later, the English gained footholds therein by form- ing settlements, which the French soon attempted to dislodge or destroy.
One of the articles of the treaty of Utrecht provided that the
.History of New France: Shea.
368
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
English possessions on Hudson bay, captured by France during the war, should be restored, the following being the language used : "The said Most Christian King shall restore to the King- dom and Queen of Great Britain, to be possessed in full right for- ever, the bay and straits of Hudson, together with all lands, seas, seacoasts, rivers and places situate on the said bay and straits and which belong thereunto, no tracts of land being excepted, which are at present possessed by the subjects of France." The . French duplicate of the provision was worded as follows: "Quant aux limites entre la Baie de Huidson et les lieux apparte- nans à la France, on est convenu reciproquement qu'ie sera nommé incressamment des Commissaires, qui les détermineront dans le terme d'un an ; . les mêmes Commissaires auront le pouvoir de régler pareillement les limites entre les autres col- onies Françaises et Britainuques dans ce pays-la." This treaty left France in possession of her territory on the St. Lawrence and the Mississippi rivers, and left England in possession of her terri- tories on Hudson bay and along the Atlantic coast south of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In addition she acquired Novo Scotia and Newfoundland as a result of the war. In Article X of this treaty the following language was used : "But it is agreed on both sides to determine within a year by Commissaries to be forthwith named' by each party, the limits which are to be fixed between the said bay of Hudson and the places appertaining to the French ; which limits both the British and French subjects Shall be wholly forbid to pass over or thereby to go to each other by sea or by land. The same Connaissances shall also have orders to describe and settle in like manner the boundaries between the other British and French colonies in those parts." The Latin duplicate read as follows: "Ex utraque antem parte consensuin est de Funbus, inter dictum Sunum de Hudson, a loca ad Gallos spectantia statuendis, per Commissarios, utriuque quantocius nominandos, inter annum decernere; quos quidem Limites Subditis tam Brittanicis quan Gallicis pertransire, aut alterntros sive Mari sive Terra adire, prohibitum omnino crit. Lisdem quoque Commissariis in Man- datis crit datum, ut Limites paritir inter alias Britannicas Gal- licasque Colonias iis in Oris describant, statuantque." It was the intention of both parties to the treaty, as shown by the language above, that the boundary between the Hudson bay country and Canada should be the highlands separating the waters flowing into Hudson bay from those flowing into the St. Lawrence river. This line approximately, at the date of the treaty, was assumed
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.