Spain, which still held possession of Louisiana, withdrew the right of deposit, and the western country was thrown into great excitement. In 1803 the whole matter of the navigation of the Mississippi was settled by the purchase of Louisiana by the United States, but then a new set of questions was opened. In the treaty of 1795 Spain had acknowledged the parallel of 31° as the boundary of Florida from the Mississippi to the Chattahoochee, although she had been slow about surrendering posts held by her north of this line and east of the Mississippi. Hence there had been complaints and bad feeling. Now a new question arose as to how far Louisiana extended east of the Mississippi river, and this question was of great importance to the Gulf territories, because if, by the Louisiana purchase, the United States had become owner of the territory east as far as th Perdido, then the Gulf coast, with the valuable harbor of Mobile, was available for the whole. Southwest. Spain denied that Louisiana included anything east of the Mississippi except the city of New Orleans, and the bit of territory south and west of the Iberville and the two lakes.1 The territory remained in dispute, and the relations between the two countries continued to be bad, until Florida was purchased in 1819. In 1802 a treaty was made with Spain for the payment by her of claims held by American citizens, but Spain

1 See the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Foster v. Neilson, 2 Peters, 253.

did not ratify the treaty until 1818. She had her grievances also, at first about Miranda's expedition, and afterwards about aid to her revolted colonies. In 1810 the President ordered the Governor of Orleans to occupy the territory as far as the Perdido, and to hold it in peace and order, subject to the final decision of the pending controversy with Spain. In 1812, Congress, by two acts, divided the country east as far as the Perdido into two parts, and added one part to Louisiana, which was admitted as a State, and the other part to the Mississippi territory.

It has seemed convenient to pursue these proceedings up to this point, because future reference to them will be necessary. To return now to Burr and his expedition: - It will be understood what were the relations of the United States to Spain in 1805 and 1806, and especially what part of those relations peculiarly affected the people of the Southwest at that time. Their collisions with Spain no longer concerned New Orleans, but West Florida and Mobile. It is still a mystery what Burr really intended.1 Napoleon's career had fired the imagination of men of a military and romantic turn all over the world. It is quite as reasonable an explanation of Burr's scheme as any other that he was reserving all his chances, and meant to do much or little, according to the turn of events. and that he did not himself define to himself ▾ he was aiming at. His project had an unmi

1 Safford's Blennerhasset; 2 Amer. Whig Rev. No. 2.

able kinship with the old plans for setting up a republic of the Mississippi, with its capital at New Orleans.1 For that, however, he was ten years too late. If he had intended to go on a filibustering expedition against the Spaniards in Mexico, he would have obtained secret aid and sympathy in Kentucky and Tennessee, and the aid which he did get was given under that belief.2 If his scheme. was aimed in any manner against the United States he could not find any aid for it. Since the purchase of Louisiana, and the accession to power in the Union of the party to which the great majority of the western people belonged, there was no feeling for Burr to work on.3

In 1805 Burr found a cordial welcome and aid. He was evidently trying to use Jackson without startling him. His letter of March 24, 1806, which Parton gives, is a very crafty letter, for the purpose of engaging Jackson's name and influence to raise troops for his enterprise without defining it. In 1806 Burr was again in Nashville. His proceedings then aroused suspicion. It appears that Jackson was mystified. He did not know whether he ought to aid Burr or oppose him, or aid him secretly and oppose him openly. It seems to be very clear, however, that he took sides against Burr, if Burr was against the United States. Jan

1 2 Wilkinson, 196; Gayarré, Louisiana under Spanish Dominion; 2 Pickett, ch. xxix.

22 Amer. Reg. (1807) 103, note.

3 Cf. Jefferson's Message of January 22, 1807.

4 1 Parton, 313.

uary 15th he wrote to Campbell, member of the House of Representatives, and gave November as the time when he first heard of a plan to seize New Orleans, conquer Mexico, carry away the Western States, and set up a great empire.1 He says that he was indignant at being the dupe of such an enterprise, and that he called Burr to account. Burr denounced and ridiculed the notion that he intended anything hostile to the United States.2 He claimed to have the secret countenance of the Secretary of War. It seems that Jackson must have been convinced afterwards that Burr had been calumniated and unjustly treated. He was at Richmond as a witness in Burr's trial. He there made a public speech against Jefferson. Jackson had previously been ill-disposed towards Jefferson because Jefferson did not give him the office of Governor of Orleans. Jackson's strong personal contempt and dislike for General Wilkinson, the commander at New Orleans, who appeared as Burr's accuser, also influenced his judgment.3 Throughout his life he was unable to form an unbiassed opinion on a question of fact or law, if he had any personal relations of friendship or enmity with the parties.

From 1806 to 1811 Jackson appears to have led

1 Telegraph Extra, 481 et seq.

2 When Burr was arrested in Kentucky he gave his word of honor to his counsel that he intended nothing against the United States. Kendall's Jackson, 120.

3 His hatred of Wilkinson was greatly strengthened afterwards, but he shows it, and the influence of it, in his letter to Campbell.

the life of a planter without any noticeable incident. The next we hear of him, however, he is committing another act of violence. Silas Dinsmore, the Indian agent, refused to allow persons to pass through the Indian country with negroes, unless they had passports for the negroes. It was his duty by law to enforce this rule. There were complaints that negroes ran away or were stolen. His regulation, however, interfered with the trade in negroes. This trade was then regarded as dishonorable. It has been charged that Jackson was engaged in it, and the facts very easily bear that color. He passed through the Indian country with some negroes without hindrance, because Dinsmore was away, but he took up the quarrel with the agent, and wrote to Campbell to tell the Secretary of War that, if Dinsmore was not removed, the people of West Tennessee would burn him in his own agency. There is a great deal of fire in the letter, and not a little about liberty and free government.1 Dinsmore was suspended, and things took such a turn that he lost his position and was reduced to poverty. Parton gives a story of an attempt by Dinsmore, eight years later, to conciliate Jackson. This attempt was dignified, yet courteous and becoming. Jackson repelled it in a very brutal and low-bred manner. Dinsmore did not know until 1828, when he was a petitioner at Washington, and the papers were called for, that Jackson had been the cause of his ruin.2

1 34 Niles, 110.

2 8 Adams, 61.