Part 156

"It was the fate of the Creoles—possibly a climatic result—to be slack-handed and dilatory. Month after month followed the October uprising without one of those incidents that would have succeeded in the history of an earnest people. In March, 1769, Foucault [French intendant] covertly deserted his associates, and denounced them, by letter, to the French cabinet. In April the Spanish frigate sailed from New Orleans. Three intrepid men (Loyola, Gayarre, and Navarro), the governmental staff which Ulloa had left in the province, still remained, unmolested. Not a fort was taken, though it is probable not one could have withstood assault. Not a spade was struck into the ground, or an obstruction planted, at any strategic point, throughout that whole 'Creole' spring time which stretches in its exuberant perfection from January to June. … One morning toward the end of July, 1769, the people of New Orleans were brought suddenly to their feet by the news that the Spaniards were at the mouth of the river in overwhelming force. There was no longer any room to postpone choice of action. Marquis, the Swiss captain, with a white cockade in his hat (he had been the leading advocate for a republic), and Petit, with a pistol in either hand, came out upon the ragged, sunburnt grass of the Place d'Armes and called upon the people to defend their liberties. About 100 men joined them; but the town was struck motionless with dismay; the few who had gathered soon disappeared, and by the next day the resolution of the leaders was distinctly taken, to submit. But no one fled. … Lafrénière, Marquis, and Milhet descended the river, appeared before the commander of the Spaniards, and by the mouth of Lafrénière in a submissive but brave and manly address presented the homage of the people. The captain-general in his reply let fall the word seditious. Marquis boldly but respectfully objected. He was answered with gracious dignity and the assurance of ultimate justice, and the insurgent leaders returned to New Orleans and to their homes. The Spanish fleet numbered 24 sail. For more than three weeks it slowly pushed its way around the bends of the Mississippi, and on the 18th of August it finally furled its canvas before the town. Aubry [commanding the small force of French soldiers which had remained in the colony under Spanish pay] drew up his French troops with the colonial militia at the bottom of the Place d'Armes, a gun was fired from the flagship of the fleet, and Don Alexandro O'Reilly, accompanied by 2,600 chosen Spanish troops, and with 50 pieces of artillery, landed in unprecedented pomp, and took formal possession of the province. On the 21st, twelve of the principal insurrectionists were arrested. … Villeré [a planter, of prominence] either 'died raving mad on the day of his arrest,' as stated in the Spanish official report, or met his end in the act of resisting the guard on board the frigate where he had been placed in confinement. Lafrénière [former attorney-general and leader of the revolt], Noyan [a young ex-captain of cavalry], Caresse [a merchant], Marquis, and Joseph Milhet [a merchant] were condemned to be hanged. {2048} The supplications both of colonists and Spanish officials saved them only from the gallows, and they fell before the fire of a file of Spanish grenadiers." The remaining prisoners were sent to Havana and kept in confinement for a year. "'Cruel O'Reilly'—the captain-general was justly named. … O'Reilly had come to set up a government, but not to remain and govern. On organizing the cabildo [a feebly constituted body—'like a crane, all feathers,' 'which, for the third part of a century, ruled the pettier destinies of the Louisiana Creoles '], he announced the appointment of Don Louis de Unzaga, colonel of the regiment of Havana, as governor of the province, and yielded him the chair. But under his own higher commission of captain-general he continued for a time in control. He established in force the laws of Castile and the Indies and the use of the Spanish tongue in the courts and the public offices. … Spanish rule in Louisiana was better, at least, than French, which, it is true, scarcely deserved the name of government. As to the laws themselves, it is worthy of notice that Louisiana 'is at this time the only State, of the vast territories acquired from France, Spain, and Mexico, in which the civil law has been retained, and forms a large portion of its jurisprudence.' On the 29th of October, 1770, O'Reilly sailed from New Orleans with most of his troops, leaving the Spanish power entirely and peacefully established. The force left by him in the colony amounted to 1,200 men. He had dealt a sudden and terrible blow; but he had followed it only with velvet strokes."

_G. W. Cable, The Creoles of Louisiana, chapter 10-11._

ALSO IN: _G. E. Waring, Jr., and G. W. Cable, History and Present Condition of New Orleans (United States Tenth Census, volume 19)._

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1779-1781. Spanish reconquest of West Florida.

See FLORIDA: A. D.1779-1781.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800. The question of the Navigation of the Mississippi, in dispute between Spain and the United States. Discontent of settlers in Kentucky and Tennessee. Wilkinson's intrigues.

"Settlers in considerable numbers had crossed the mountains into Kentucky and Tennessee while the war of Independence was in progress. … At once it became a question of vital importance how these people were to find avenues of commerce with the outer world. … Immigration to the interior must cross the mountains; but the natural highway for commerce was the Mississippi River. If the use of this river were left free, nothing better could be desired. Unfortunately it was not free. The east bank of the river, as far south as the north boundary of Florida [which included some part of the present states of Alabama and Mississippi, but with the northern boundary in dispute—see FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787], was the property of the United States, but the west bank, together with the island of Orleans, was held by Spain. That power, while conceding to the people of the United States the free navigation of the Mississippi as far down as the American ownership of the left bank extended, claimed exclusive jurisdiction below that line, and proposed to exact customs duties from such American commerce as should pass in or out of the mouth of the river. This pretension if yielded to would place all that commerce at the mercy of Spain, and render not merely the navigation of the river of little value, but the very land from which the commerce sprung. It was inconceivable that such pretensions should be tolerated if successful resistance were possible, but the settlers were able to combat it on two grounds, either of which seemed, according to recognized rules of international law, conclusive. First, As citizens of the country owning one of the banks on the upper portion of the stream, they claimed the free navigation to the sea with the privilege of a landing place at its mouth as a natural right; and they were able to fortify this claim—if it needed support—with the opinions of publicists of acknowledged authority. Second, They claimed under the treaty of 1763 between Great Britain and France, whereby the latter, then the owner of Louisiana, had conceded to the former the free navigation of the Mississippi in its whole breadth and length, with passage in and out of its mouth, subject to the payment of no duty whatsoever. … Thus both in natural right and by treaty concession the claim of the American settlers seemed incontrovertible, and perhaps it may fairly be said that the whole country agreed in this view. When Mr. Jay, while the war of independence was still in progress, was sent to Spain to negotiate a treaty of amity and assistance, he was specially charged with the duty to see that the free navigation of the Mississippi was conceded. All his endeavors to that end, however, resulted in failure, and he was compelled to return home with the American claim still disputed. In 1785 the negotiation was transferred to this country, and Mr. Jay renewed his effort to obtain concessions, but without avail. The tenacity with which Spain held to its claim was so persistent that Congress in its anxiety to obtain a treaty of commerce finally instructed Mr. Jay on its behalf to consent that for twenty-five years the United States should forbear to claim the right in dispute. The instruction was given by the vote of the seven Northern States against a united South; and the action was so distinctly sectional as to threaten the stability of the Union. … In the West the feeling of dissatisfaction was most intense and uncompromising. The settlers of Kentucky already deemed themselves sufficiently numerous and powerful to be entitled to set up a state government of their own, and to have a voice in the councils of the Confederation. … In Tennessee as well as in Kentucky settlements had been going on rapidly; and perhaps in the former even more distinctly than in the latter a growing indifference to the national bond was manifest. … One of the difficult questions which confronted the new government, formed under the Federal constitution, was how to deal with this feeling and control or remove it. Spanish levies on American commerce were in some cases almost prohibitory, reaching fifty or seventy-five per cent. ad valorem, and it was quite out of the question that hardy backwoodsmen trained to arms should for any considerable time submit to pay them. If the national government failed to secure their rights by diplomacy, they would seek redress in such other way as might be open to them. … Among the most prominent of the Kentucky settlers was General James Wilkinson, who had gone there as a merchant in 1784. He was shortly found advocating, though somewhat covertly, the setting up of an independent State Government. {2049} In 1787 he opened trade with New Orleans, and endeavored to impress upon the Spanish authorities the importance of an amicable understanding with the settlers in the Ohio valley. His representations for a time had considerable effect, and the trade was not only relieved of oppressive burdens, but Americans were invited to make settlements within Spanish limits in Louisiana and West Florida. A considerable settlement was actually made at New Madrid under this invitation. But there is no reason to believe that genuine good feeling inspired this policy; the purpose plainly in view was to build up a Spanish party among the American settlers and eventually to detach them from the United States. But the course pursued was variable, being characterized in turn by liberality and by rigor. Wilkinson appears to have been allowed special privileges in trade, and this, together with the fact that he was known to receive a heavy remittance from New Orleans, begat a suspicion that he was under Spanish pay; a suspicion from which he was never wholly relieved, and which probably to some extent affected the judgment of men when he came under further suspicion in consequence of equivocal relations with Aaron Burr. In 1789 a British emissary made his appearance in Kentucky, whose mission seemed to be to sound the sentiments of the people respecting union with Canada. He came at a bad time for his purposes; for the feeling of the country against Great Britain was then at its height, and was particularly strong in the West, where the failure to deliver up the posts within American limits was known to have been influential in encouraging Indian hostilities. The British agent, therefore, met with anything but friendly reception. … Meantime Spain had become so far complicated in European wars as to be solicitous regarding the preservation of her own American possessions, then bordered by a hostile people, and at her suggestion an envoy was sent by the United States to Madrid, with whom in October 1795 a treaty was made, whereby among other things it was agreed that Spain should permit the people of the United States for the term of three years to make use of the port of New Orleans as a place of deposit for their produce and merchandise, and to export the same free from all duty or charge except for storage and incidental expenses. At the end of the three years the treaty contemplated further negotiations, and it was hoped by the American authorities that a decisive step had been taken towards the complete recognition of American claims. The treaty, however, was far from satisfying the people of Kentucky and Tennessee, who looked upon the assent of Spain to it as a mere makeshift for the protection of her territory from invasion. Projects for taking forcible possession of the mouth of the Mississippi continued therefore to be agitated. … The schemes of Don Francisco de Miranda for the overthrow of Spanish authority in America now became important. Miranda was of Spanish-American birth, and had been in the United States while the war of Independence was pending and formed acquaintance among the American officers. Conceiving the idea of liberating the Spanish colonies, he sought assistance from England and Russia, but when the French Revolution occurred he enlisted in the French service and for a time held important military positions. Driven from France in 1797 he took up his old scheme again: looking now to England and America for the necessary assistance. Several leading American statesmen were approached on the subject, Hamilton among them; and while the relations between France and the United States seemed likely to result in war, that great man, who had no fear of evils likely to result from the extension of territory, listened with approval to the project of a combined attack by British and American forces on the Spanish Colonies, and would have been willing, with the approval of the government, to personally take part in it. President Adams, however, frowned upon the scheme, and it was necessarily but with great reluctance abandoned. And now occurred an event of highest interest to the people of the United States. Spain, aware of her precarious hold upon Louisiana, in 1800 retroceded it to France."

_T. M. Cooley, The Acquisition of Louisiana (Indiana Historical Society Pamphlets, no. 3)._

ALSO IN: _W. H. Safford, The Blennerhassett Papers, chapter 5._

_H. Marshall, History of Kentucky, volume 1, chapters 12-15._

_J. H. Monette, Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi, book 5, chapter 6 (volume 2)._

_J. M. Brown, The Political Beginnings of Kentucky._

_T. M. Green, The Spanish Conspiracy._

LOUISIANA: D. 1798-1803. The last days of Spanish rule. The great domain transferred to France, and sold by Napoleon to the United States. The bounds of the purchase.

"During the years 1796-97 the Spanish authorities exhausted every means for delaying a confirmation of the boundary line as set forth in the treaty of 1783. By one pretext and another, they avoided the surrender of the Natchez territory and continued to hold the military posts therein. Not until the 23d of March, 1798, was the final step taken by which the Federal Government was permitted to occupy in full the province of Mississippi. … Soon after this we find the newly made territory of Mississippi occupied by a Federal force, and, strange to say, with General Wilkinson in command. The man who but lately had been playing the rôle of traitor, spy, insurrectionist and smuggler, was now chief commander on the border and was building a fort at Loftus Heights just above the boundary line. The new governor of Louisiana [Gayoso de Lemos], seeing the hope of detaching Kentucky and Tennessee fall dead at his feet, finally turned back to the old policy of restricting immigration and of discriminating against Protestants. By the treaty signed at Madrid in 1795, it had been stipulated that the citizens of the United States should not only have free navigation of the Mississippi River, but that they should also have the right to deposit in New Orleans all their produce during the space of three years. This limit, it was agreed, was to be extended by the Spanish Government, or, instead of an extension of time, a new point on the island of New Orleans was to be designated for depot. But at the expiration of the three years Morales, the Spanish intendant at New Orleans, declined to permit further deposits there, and refused to designate another place in accordance with the stipulation. This action aroused the people of the West; a storm of resentment broke forth and the government of the United States was forced to make a threatening demonstration in the direction of Louisiana. {2050} Three regiments of the regular army were at once dispatched to the Ohio. The people flew to arms. Invasion appeared imminent." But the Spanish authorities gave way, and a new intendant at New Orleans "received from his Government orders to remove the interdict issued by Gayoso and to restore to the Western people the right of deposit at New Orleans. These orders he promptly obeyed, thus reviving good feelings between his province and the United States. Trade revived; immigration increased. … The deluge of immigration startled the Spaniards. They saw to what it was swiftly tending. A few more years and this tide would rise too high to be resisted and Louisiana would be lost to the king, lost to the holy religion, given over to freedom, republicanism and ruin. … On the 18th of July … [1802] the king ordered that no more grants of land be given to citizens of the United States. This effectually killed the commerce of the Mississippi River, and the indignation of the Western people knew no bounds. … Rumors, apparently well founded, were afloat that the irresistible genius of Napoleon was wringing the province from Spain and that this meant a division of the territories between France and the United States. To a large majority of Louisiana's population these were thrillingly welcome rumors. The very thought of once more becoming the subjects of France was enough to intoxicate them with delight. The treaty of Ildefonso, however, which had been ratified at Madrid on the 21st of March, 1801, had been kept a secret. Napoleon had hoped to occupy Louisiana with a strong army, consisting of 25,000 men, together with a fleet to guard the coast; but his implacable and ever watchful foe, England, discovered his design and thwarted it. But by the terms of the treaty, the colony and province of Louisiana had gone into his hands. He must take possession and hold it, or he must see England become its master. Pressed on every side at that time by wars and political complications and well understanding that it would endanger his power for him to undertake a grand American enterprise, he gladly opened negotiations with the United States looking to the cession of Louisiana to that Government. … Napoleon had agreed with Spain that Louisiana should not be ceded to any other power. … Diplomacy very quickly surmounted so small an obstacle. … The treaty of cession was signed on the 30th of April, 1803, the United States agreeing to pay France 60,000,000 francs as the purchase price of the territory. … In addition, the sum due American citizens … was assumed by the United States. The treaty of April was ratified by Napoleon in May, 1803, and by the Senate of the United States in October. … Pausing to glance at this strange transaction, by which one republic sells outright to another republic a whole country without in the least consulting the wishes of the inhabitants, whose allegiance and all of whose political and civil rights are changed thereby, we are tempted to wonder if the republic of the United States could to-day sell Louisiana with the same impunity that attended the purchase! She bought the country and its people, just as she might have bought a desert island with its goats."

_M. Thompson, The Story of Louisiana, chapter 6, with foot-note._

"No one could say what was the southwest boundary of the territory acquired; whether it should be the Sabine or the Rio del Norte; and a controversy with Spain on the subject might at any time arise. The northwest boundary was also somewhat vague and uncertain, and would be open to controversy with Great Britain. [That] the territory extended west to the Rocky Mountains was not questioned, but it might be claimed that it extended to the Pacific. An impression that it did so extend has since prevailed in some quarters, and in some public papers and documents it has been assumed as an undoubted fact. But neither Mr. Jefferson nor the French, whose right he purchased, ever claimed for Louisiana any such extent, and our title to Oregon has been safely deduced from other sources. Mr. Jefferson said expressly: 'To the waters of the Pacific we can found no claim in right of Louisiana.'"

_Judge T. M. Cooley, The Acquisition of Louisiana (Indiana History Society Pamphlets, number 3)._

"By the charter of Louis XIV., the country purchased to the north included all that was contiguous to the waters that flowed into the Mississippi. Consequently its northern boundary was the summit of the highlands in which its northern waters rise. By the tenth article of the treaty of Utrecht, France and England agreed to appoint commissioners to settle the boundary, and these commissioners, as such boundary, marked this summit on the 49th parallel of north latitude. This would not carry the rights of the United States beyond the Rocky Mountains. The claim to the territory beyond was based upon the principle of continuity, the prolongation of the territory to the adjacent great body of water. As against Great Britain, the claim was founded on the treaty of 1763, between France and Great Britain, by which the latter power ceded to the former all its rights west of the Mississippi River. The United States succeeded to all the rights of France. Besides this, there was an independent claim created by the discovery of the Columbia River by Gray, in 1792, and its exploration by Lewis and Clarke. All this was added to by the cession by Spain, in 1819, of any title that it had to all territory north of the 42d degree."

_Rt. Rev. C. F. Robertson, The Louisiana Purchase (Papers of American Historical Association, volume 1, page 259)._