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 6
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
Sammel Huntington, president of congress, in a letter dated May 28, 1781, revealed to Mr. Jay the object of receding from the claim to navigate the Mississippi. He said: "Congress have little doubt that the great obstacle to your negotiations will be removed, and that you will not only be able without further delay to conclude the proposed alliance with his Catholic Majesty, but that the liberality and friendly disposition manifested on the part of the United States by such a cession will induce him to afford them some substantial and effectual aid in the article of money.'
The original articles of instruction to Mr. Jay were drafted by Mr. Madison. After the fall of Charleston the danger to the colonies seemed so great and the aid of Spain seemed so essential, that congress had receded somewhat from the original instructions. In addition to this, Mr. Jay was given greater discretion in regard to details; but this he did not relish, because, should he make a mistake, he would suffer severe criticism regardless of his honest intentions. He said in his letter to congress, May 19, 1781. "The cession of this navigation will, in my opinion, render a future war with Spain unavoidable, and I shall look upon my subscribing to the one as fixing the certainty of the other."
. Narrative and Critical History of America: Winsor.
-
63
EARLY NAVIGATION OF THE MISSISSIPPI.
But time passed and Spain seemed no nearer accepting the advantages under the revised instructions than she had been under the former. Mr. Jay informed the Spanish minister that the United States could do no more and said: "Even. if a desire of gratifying his Majesty (the King of Spain ) should ever incline congress to yield a point so essential to their interests yet it still remained a question whether new delays and obstacles to a treaty would not arise to postpone it." He complained to congress that the United States assumed the attitude of a petitioner, and that, accordingly, Spain treated her as such, Ile reiterated that the modified instructions of February 15, 1781, should have been secret. The Spanish statesmen came to the conclusion, by reason of the suppliant attitude of the states, that another effort on their part would secure the navigation of the Mississippi. Mr. Jay could accordingly do nothing. He was told that the surrender of the Mississippi absolute and without reservation would remove the only bar to a treaty similar to that with France.
The modified proposition of February 15, 1781, was no addi- tional inducement to Spain to conclude the treaty. The right of the United States to navigate the Upper Mississippi would prove an entering wedge to the navigation of the whole river and the Gulf. That advantage nmist never be conceded. Spain thus far had received from the United States "nothing but good words and fair assurances." The friendly disposition of Spain toward the United States should influence congress to grant the navigation of the Mississippi. The king regarded the navigation of that river more important than the possession of Gibraltar ; all nations must be excluded from the Mississippi and the Gulf ; that was the immemorial policy of Spain ; the king would never recede; Amer- ica had done nothing to assist Spain ; the latter had refused tempt- ing offers from Great Britain to turn against the United States ; the blindness of congress prevented the conclusion of a treaty ; the relinquishment of the Mississippi would remove the only bar to the treaty. This was the position of Spain in the summer of 1781. Nothing short of the absolute relinquishment of the Mis- sissippi would satisfy Spain. This meant that the western boundary of the United States would be established east of the Mississippi, and Louisiana would accordingly embrace the whole course of that noble stream. There were no railways then ; the river was the only commercial carrier; it meant the enslavement of the western country by Spain. So thought Mr. Jay ; so thought
. Remarks of the Spanish Minister of State.
1
!
1
64
THE PROVINCE IND THE STATES.
congress. However, Mr. Jay followed his instructions and sub- mitted the following proposition to the Spanish ministry :
"1. The United States shall relinquish to his Catholic Majesty, and in future forbear to use, of attempt to use, the navigation of the river Mississippi from the thirty-first degree of north lati- tude-that is, from the point where it leaves the United States- down to the ocean.
"2. Ilis Catholic Majesty shall guarantee to the United States all their respective territories.
"3. The United States shall guarantee to his Catholic Majesty, all his dominions in North America.
"4. Spain shall at once acknowledge the independence of the United States, and so long as she continued to do so the first article should be binding upon the United States.
"5. The King of Spain himself shall specify what goods shoul.l be considered contraband in Louisiana."
In presenting this proposition Mr. Jay said, he "could conceive of nothing in the power of congress to do which could more fully evidence their disposition to gratify his Majesty than their having offered to recede from their claim to the navigation of the Missis- sippi though the preservation of it was deemed of the highest importance to their constituents." But the proposition fell far short of what Spain desired and so no progress was made: On October 3, 1781, Mr. Jay wrote to congress, "I think it is their design ( Spain's ), therefore, to draw from us all such concessions as our present distress and the hopes of aid may extort, and by protracting negotiations about the treaty endeavor to avail them- selves of these concessions at a future day when our inducements to offer them shall have ceased. As this would evidently be unjust, I think the limitation in question can give them no offense." The limitation referred to was embraced in article four above. The refusal or neglect of Spain to accept the modified proposition spurred congress, April 30, 1782, to pass the follow- ing resolution :
"Resolved, That the minister plenipotentiary of the United States at the court of Madrid be informed that congress entirely approves of his conduct as detailed in his letter of the 3d of Octo. ber last ; and that the fintitation fixed by him to the proposed sur- render of the navigation of the Mississippi in particular corre- spouds with the views of congress; that they observe, not without Surprise and concern, that a proposition so liberal in itself, and which removed the only avowed obstacle to a connection between the United States and his Catholic Majesty, should not have pro-
Old Maps Showing the Extent of Louisiana
108°
113
1030
98°
SANTAFE
Red
-
Ark
35°
Red
1659
No.I.
204012018
2700
Gulf of Mexico
NoVI 275
No 8. R.E . M.
GULF OF MEXICO No I. 1703 Paris By De List Geographer of the Royal Academy Old Maps of America . Vol. I.
RIO G
103º
No6. 1746. A.G Boehme ...
2800
98°
280°
275-0
65
E.IRLY NAPIG.ITION OF THE MISSISSIPPI.
duced greater effects on the counsel of the latter ; that the surren - der ot the navigation of the Mississippi was meant as the price of the advantages promised of an early and intimate alliance with the Spanish monarchy ; and that if this alliance is to be procrasti- nated till the conclusion of the war the reason of the sacrifice will no longer exist ; and that as every day which the proposed treaty is delayed detracts from the obligation and inducement of the United States to adhere to their overture, it is the instruction of congress that he urge to the ministry of his Catholic Majesty the obligation it imposes on Spain to make the treaty the more liberal on her part, and that in particular he use his endeavors to obtain in consideration of such delay either an enlargement of her peci- iary aid to the United States, a facilitating of the use of the Mis- sissippi to the citizens thereof or some peculiar indulgences in the commerce of the Spanish colonies in America."#
In Angust, 1782, Mr. Jay, who was then in Paris, held an important interview with the Count de Aranda, the Spanish ambassador to France, on which occasion the latter asked what the United States claimed as their boundaries. Mr. Jay replied, down the river to the thirty first degree of north latitude and thence east over the old course to the ocean. Whereupon, the , count interposed the following objections: That the western country had never belonged to, nor been claimed by, the ancient colonies; that previous to 1703 it had belonged to France; that it had then passed to Great Britain, but during the present war Spain had won it by conquest, having established posts at Natchez and at several places in the Upper Mississippi country; that if Spain's right did not extend over all of that country, it was held by the Indians ; and that, therefore, the western boundary of the United States should be far east of the Mississippi. Later, he indicated on a map such boundary "from a lake near the confines of Georgia, but east of the Flint river to the confluence of the Kanawha with the Ohio, thence round the shores of Lakes Erie and Iluron and thence round Lake Michigan and Lake Superior." Both Mr. Jay and Mr. Franklin ( who was present) insisted that the Mississippi was the western boundary and that the United States possessed the right to navigate that stream. They stated, in effect, that this was the ultimatum of the United States. The Count de Vergennes, French minister of state, expressed the opin- ion that the United States claimed too much. He maintained that England herself, by the king's proclamation of October 7, 1763,
i
. Diplomatic Correspondence, secret
11-5
-
66
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
had excluded the western country from her possessions when she spoke of the country between the Mississippi and "the ancient English establishments," meaning the Atlantic colonies. But both Mr. Jay and Mr. Franklin asserted that the proclamation, as a whole, would sustain no such contention. The Count de Ver- gennes further expressed his opinion that Spain could not claim any country above Natchez; that the western boundary of the United States should be on a line up through Alabama to the Cumberland river and down the same to the Ohio; and that Spain was entitled to the Mississippi river. This was one of many sim- ilar interviews between the statesmen of France, Spain and the United States. The navigation of the Mississippi was the bone of contention. The attempt of Spain to establish the boundary far east of the Mississippi was only to give her a stronger claim to that stream. The French court favored the claims of Spain. At this point the discussion was temporarily postponed by . the conclusion of the preliminary articles of peace between the United States and Great Britain.
The course of Spain is thus shown to have been vacillating and selfish from beginning to cud. At the commencement of the rev- olution there is nothing to show that she expected to gain any accession of territory on the American continent as a result of the war. The straits of the struggling colonies suggested to her the opportunity to gain the Floridas either from the United States or Gre: Britain. She first endeavored to gain them from Great Britain, but the latter would not relinquish them because she expected to retain them. She then declared war against Britain for the purpose of wresting the Floridas from the English crown, but would not join the alliance of France and the United States because she expected by maneuvering to gain the exclusive navi- gation of the Mississippi from the latter. Toward the close of the war slie was in possession of the Floridas, and had made every effort to extend her claims eastward of the Mississippi in the upper portion of the valley of that stream. She had taken pos- session of the Natchez, had sent troops to the Walnut Hills (Vicksburg) and to the Chickasaw Bluffs ( Memphis), had strengthened with her colonists the French settlements in the Illinois country, had taken possession of the country across the Mississippi opposite the post of the Arkansas, and had captured St. Joseph, Michigan, by an excursion in midwinter from St. Louis. And she managed to do all this without incurring the least opposition from the Americans. The latter were too busily engaged chewhere to observe the encroachments of Spain upon
67
EARLY NAVIGATION OF THE MISSISSIPPI.
their probable preserves. But the Spanish design was to render as strong as possible her claims to the territory as far eastward as the Alleghany mountains. This was her demand as early as the year 1780. The concessions by congress, the practical sur- render of the navigation of the Mississippi, the yielding policy of many of the American statesmen, particularly Mr. Morris; and the desperate straits of the colonies, were coldly employed by Spain to stretch her claims in America to the utmost. France, in order to gain her assistance in the struggle against Britain, yielded to her solicitations to favor her claims in America as against the United States.
1
1
1 1
1
68
THE PROVINCE IND THE STATES.
CHAPTER H
The Navigation of the Mississippi River, 1783-1799
A FTER having signed the treaty of Paris of 1783, the Span- ish minister, Count de Aranda, addressed a secret memoir to the king, declaring his belief that the American colonies, which had just secured their independence from Great Britain through the assistance of France and Spain, would some day menace the Spanish-American possessions, and that both France and Spain, in espousing the cause of the colonies, acted in oppo- sition to their best interests. He said :
"This federal republic is born a pigmy, if I may be allowed so to express myself. It has required the support of two such pow- erful states as France and Spain to obtain its independence. The day will come when she will be a giant, a colossus, formidable even in these countries. She will forget the services she has received from the two powers and will think only of her own aggrandizement. The liberty of conscience, the facility of estab- lishing a new population upon immense territories, together with the advantages of a new government (meaning free), will attract the agriculturalists and mechanics of all nations, for men ever run after fortune; and in a few years we shall see the tyrannical existence of this very colossus of which I speak. The first step of this nation after it has become powerful, will be to take posses- sion of the Floridas in order to have command of the Gulf of Mexico, and after having rendered difficult our commerce with New Spain, she will aspire to the conquest of that vast empire, which it will be impossible for us to defend against a formidable power established on the same continent and in its immediate neighborhood. These fears are well founded ; they must be real-
69
LITER N.W'IG.ITION OF THE MISSISSIPPI.
ized in a few years if some greater revolution even more fatal does not sooner take place in our Americas. f.
He suggested, as the best means of averting this danger, that Spain should surrender the Americas, retain Porto Rico and Cuba, and establish three of the infantas, one to be king of Mexico, one of Costa Firme and the other of Peru. The correctness of this prediction seems almost unaccountable. Everything, and more, which he predicted has come to pass. All the possessions of Spain bave in tum through one canse or another been swept away- the Floridas, Mexico, Central America, Peru, Porto Rico and Cuba. The young republic has become a colossus far higher than even he dared to dream, and Spain has become correspondingly a pigmy where once she strode with queenly dignity and power. It is interesting to note his opinion that the colonies owed their independence to the assistance of both France and Spain. The inhabitants of the Great Republic take pride in the thought that their ancestors, the colonists, achieved their independence princi- pally through their own courage and hardihood; but it is the opinion of many students of history that, had not France assisted with both men and money, the rebels would have been conquered and the leaders probably shot or hung: Indeed, it is probable that, had France not previously agreed to assist the rebels, they would not have inaugurated war to gain their independence.
The terms of the treaty of peace between Great Britain and the United States at the conclusion of the revolution precipitated anew the discussion over boundary rights and the navigation of the Mississippi The inhabitants of Louisiana were greatly con- cerned in this discussion, and from the start, as they had done before, took deep interest in the outcome. The preliminary treaty between the two countries was signed at Paris November 30, 1782, and in the caption it was stated that such treaty "is not to be concluded until terms of a peace shall be agreed upon between Great Britain and France and his Britannic Majesty shall be ready to conclude such treaty accordingly."+ This proviso was due to the agreement to that effect between France and the United States in their treaty of February 6, 1778 ( see supra). A prelim- inary treaty of peace having been agreed to at Versailles Jannary 20, 1783, between France and Great Britain, the congress of the United States was at liberty under this proviso to conclude and ratify the definitive treaty with Great Britain which was accord . ingly done, on September 3, 1783.
t Diplomatie Correspondence, secrel.
. Treaties of the United State".
-
1
i
1
1
!
-
70
THE PROVINCE AND THE STATES.
At the date of signing the preliminary treaty of peace between the United States and Great Britain, a separate article agreed upon was as follows: "It is hereby understood and agreed that in case Great Britain, at the conclusion of the present war, shall recover, or be put in possession of. West Florida, the line of north bound- ary between the said Province and the United States shall be a line drawn from the month of the river Yassous ( Yazoo), where it unites with the Mississippi, due east to the river Apalachicola."*
It was provided in the treaty that the southern boundary of the United States should be "a line to be drawn due cast from the determination of the line last mentioned (in the middle of the Mississippi river and at the northernmost part of the thirty-first degree of north latitude), in the latitude of thirty-one degrees north of the equator, to the middle of the river Apalachicola or Catahouche, thence along the middle thereof to its junction with the Flint river; thence straight to the head of St. Mary's river; and thence down along the middle of St. Mary's river to the Atlantic ocean."
Article VIII of the definitive treaty was as follows : "The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States."
The treaty of January 20, 1783, between Spain and Great Britain, not resulting in the acquisition of West Florida by the latter, as she had hoped, rendered null and void the separate article agreed upon between the United States and Great Britain (sce sapra). . At the conclusion of the revolution, Spain was in possession of West Florida and Great Britain of East Florida. In the preliminary articles of peace between those two countries it was provided that, "Ilis Britannic Majesty shall cede to his Cath- olic Majesty East Florida, and His Catholic Majesty shall keep West Florida." But in the definitive treaty of September 3, 1783, between those two countries the following language was used : "His Britaunic Majesty likewise cedes and guarantees, in full right to his Catholic Majesty East Florida as also West Florida." In neither the preliminary nor the definitive treaty between Spain and Great Britain was anything said concerning the right to navi- gate the Mississippi or the boundary between the United States and West Florida.
The iuk had scarcely become dry on the treaties between Eng- land and the United States and France on one side and England
.Treutles of the United States.
71
LATER NAVIGATION OF THE MISSISSIPPI.
and Spain on the other, both concluded September 3, 1783, and ratified January 14, 178%, ere the question of navigating the Mis- sissippi and of the boundaries between Spain and the United States came up for settlement. In a letter dated February 19, 1783, from the Marquis de Lafayette to the Count de Florida Blanca, the former asked permission to lay before congress the fol- lowing as having been the language of a previous date between the two: "With respect to the limits, his Catholic Majesty had adopted those that are determined by the preliminaries of the 30th of November between the United States and the court of London. The fear of raising an object of dissension is the only objection the King has to the free navigation of the Mississippi." To this the Count replied of February 22, as follows: "You have perfectly well understood whatever I have had the honor to com- municate to you with respect to our disposition towards the United States. I shall only add, that, although it is his Majesty's inten- tion to abide for the present by the limits established by the treaty of the 30th of November, 1782, between the English "and" the Americans, the King intends to inform himself particularly whether it can be in any ways inconvenient or prejudicial to settle that affair amicably with the United States." Later it was declared that the marquis had misunderstood the court. No doubt the marquis was correct in his recollection, but the views of the Spanish ministry had undergone a great change .*
On the 3d of June, 1781, congress passed the following : "Resolved, That the ministers plenipotentiary of the United States, for negotiating commercial treaties with foreign powers, be and they are hereby instructed, in any negotiations they may enter upon with the court of Spain, not to relinquish or cede, in any event whatsoever, the right of the citizens of these United States, to the free navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean."f In a letter dated December 19, 1784, M. Marbois chargé d'affairs of France, communicated to congress the contents of a letter from Francisco Rendon, a Spanish gentleman, who had acted as charge for Spain, residing in Philadelphia, in which the latter stated that the king of Spain "is persuaded that congress will admit the justice of a claim, which is founded on all the rights which an entire conquest and an uninterrupted possession can give to any power; and that they ( congress) will agree that the ces- sion of the navigation of the Mississippi, made by the King of
. Dodou dic Correspondence.
t Diplomatie Correspondence.
i
!
--
72
THE PROVINCE IND THE STATES.
Great Britain to the United States in the treaty of 1783, can have no real force, unless the Catholic King, my master, to whom the navigation of that river belongs, shall think proper to ratify it." This letter from Mr. Rendon embraced the substance of instruc- tions to him from Don Joseph de Galvez, Spanish minister to the department of the Indies, dated June 26, 1784, the following lan- guage being used : "Give the States and congress to understand that they are not to expose to process and confiscation the vessels which they destine to carry on commerce on the river Mississippi, inasmuch as a treaty concluded between the United States and England, in which the former ground their pretentions to the navi- gation of that river, could not fix limits in a territory which that power did not possess, the two borders of the river being already conquered and possessed by our arms the day the treaty was made, namely, the 30th of November, 1782."
In response to the above communication, congress, on Decem- ber 15, 1784, passed the following resolution : "That congress have a high confidence in the justice of his Catholic Majesty, and rely that he will submit the mutual rights of Spain and the United States of America to amicable discussion without adopting meas- ures which may prejudice those rights ;" and on December 17, it was further resolved, "That it is necessary a minister be com- missioned to represent the United States at the court of Madrid, for the purpose of adjusting the interfering claims of the two nations respecting the navigation of the Mississippi." Spain objected to the assumption by which Great Britain and the United States, in their treaty of 1783, provided for the navigation of the river Mississippi ( vide, supra, Article VIII). Hence the protests above mentioned.
It was learned from Oliver Pollock, in a letter to Mr. Jay, dated June 3.1785, ( and previously intimated in his letter of Feb- ruary 10, 1785,) that General Calvez and Don Diego de Gar- doqui, chargé d'affaires to the United States on his way there, had intimated in several conferences at Havana, the right of Spain by reason of conquest, not only to the territorial limits claimted by her, but to the exclusive right to navigate the Mississippi as well, but were doubtful of the admissibility of her claim by the United States. General Galvez stated at these conferences that the Natchez settlement fell within the limits of Florida, and that, therefore, Great Britain had no right to cede such region to the United States, nor to grant the latter the right to navigate the
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.