Page images
PDF
EPUB

204

COMMISSIONERS SENT TO SPAIN.

sunken, and unfit for cultivation, except in some instances on the margin of the rivers, on which by improvement rice might be cultivated, its chief value depending on the timber fit for the building of ships, with which it is represented as abounding.

'While it is thus circumstanced on the one hand, it is stated by the Creeks on the other to be of the highest importance to them as constituting some of their most valuable hunting grounds."

In the meantime diplomatic negotiations had been progressing, though with only indifferent success. It will be remembered that as early as August 2, 1790, Jefferson, as Secretary of State, had written a letter to William Carmichael, American chargé at Madrid, instructing him to impress the Spanish ministry "with the necessity of an early and even an immediate settlement of this matter." Negotiations were not to be opened, however, unless, as a preliminary consideration, the complete freedom of navigation of the Mississippi were conceded. Carmichael was to demand also "a port where the sea and river vessels may meet and exchange loads and where those employed about them may be safe and unmolested." Jefferson urged the immediate consideration of the subject, saying: "It is impossible to answer for the forbearance of our western citizens. We endeavor to quiet them with an expectation of an attainment of their ends by peaceable means. But should they, in a moment of impatience, hazard others, there is no saying how

* Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. i., pp. 78-79.

far we may be led; for neither themselves nor their rights will ever be. abandoned by us."*

In December of 1791 the American government received intimations that the Spanish king was willing to make some arrangement respecting the Mississippi, if negotiations were conducted at Madrid;† as this suggestion appealed strongly to both Washington and Jefferson, the former, on January 11, 1792, nominated Carmichael and William Short "to be commissioners plenipotentiary for negotiating and concluding, with any authorized by his Catholic Majesty, a person or persons who shall be duly convention or treaty concerning the navigation of the river Mississippi by the citizens of the United States." I Jefferson further recommended that the scope of the negotiations be widened so as to include the Florida boundary and the regulation of commerce. On March 18, 1792, Jefferson transmitted to the President a paper in which he set forth the American arguments on behalf of the free navigation of the Mississippi,§ and in which

* American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., p. 247; Washington's ed. of Jefferson's Works, vol. iii., p. 173; Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. v., pp. 216-218; also the letter of August 11, pp. 225-231.

† American State Papers, vol. i., pp. 130-131. Ibid, p. 131. See also Winsor, Narrative and Critical History, vol. vii., p. 476.

|| American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., pp. 134, 252; Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. v., p. 456.

§ American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., pp. 252-257; Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. v., pp. 460-481. Portions of it are

66

RESTRICTIONS ON WESTERN TRADE.

he recommended that the American right be acknowledged of navigating the Mississippi, in its whole breadth and length, from its source to the sea, as established by the treaty of 1763." The commissioners met at Madrid in February of 1793, but the new Spanish ministry was in no mood to consider such terms as the American commissioners had been authorized to offer. Gardoqui, the Spanish commissioner, thought it unlikely that the United States would attempt to enforce their claims. In a despatch to the Secretary of State, May 5, 1793, Carmichael and Short say:

*

"He [Gardoqui] still sees them [the States] divided among themselves and without efficient government. He saw some individuals of the western country, or going to settle there, who treated their adhesion to the rest of the Union as visionary. From hence he has formed opinions, which he has not concealed from us, that the United States do not desire this navigation or the limits we ask, or at least do not

205

sion was finally dissolved on the return of Carmichael to the United States.*

Meanwhile the Westerners were becoming restive under the commercial restraints imposed upon them by the Spanish in Louisiana. Every packet which sailed down the river with produce for Atlantic ports ran the risk of being confiscated as soon as it crossed the line 30° 31', or, if it escaped confiscation, had to run a gauntlet of innumerable annoyances, delays, and taxes. The vessels would be stopped at New Madrid and searched, and the captain compelled to purchase a pass to New Orleans. At the latter place the produce had to be landed on a levee and a duty of 15 per cent. ad valorem paid on it, besides, the goods could not be sold at the port, but was to be reloaded, for which another duty of 6 per cent. was

desire it so generally as that they could be brought charged.† Just at this time the

to make any general effort to obtain it,

He did not conceal from us that he thought it impossible the Northern, Middle, and Southern States should ever be brought to act in concert with respect to a foreign enemy out of their territory; and even if they should, that they had no means of acting efficaciously until they should have a marine- an event he regarded as never to take place, or at least to be so far off as not to be worthy of present consideration." *

As a result, no progress was made in the negotiations, and the commis

quoted in Lyman, Diplomacy of the United States, vol. i., pp. 236-241, and a summary is given by Ogg, Opening of the Mississippi, p. 447. See also Schuyler, American Diplomacy, pp. 272-273; Jefferson's letter of March 7, 1792, in State Papers, vol. i., pp. 134–135.

*American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., pp. 262–263.

French Revolution began and the Spanish governor at Louisiana was busy restraining the enthusiasm of the French element for "liberty, equality, and fraternity." Only by the greatest exertion was an uprising against the rule of the Bourbons frustrated. This presented to the people of Kentucky and Tennessee a favor

See Washington's communication to Congress, April 15, 1794, American State Papers, vol. i., pp. 432-446; Schuyler, American Diplomacy, pp. 273274; Trescot, Diplomatic History of the Administrations of Washington and Adams, pp. 226-233; Lyman, Diplomacy of the United States, vol. i., pp. 236-251; Spears and Clark, History of the Mississippi Valley, pp. 372-373.

† Ogg, Opening of the Mississippi, pp. 449–450.

206

GENÊT'S PROPOSED EXPEDITIONS.

able opportunity for a demonstration the Mississippi." The avowed pur

of force in defence of their rights on the Mississippi.

In 1793 Genêt landed in the United States and was enthusiastically received. He proceeded to fit out privateers to prey upon English commerce, and in other ways endeavored to violate Washington's proclamation of neutrality. Emissaries despatched by Genêt soon aroused the indignation of the people of the southwest at the neutral policy of the administration and at the failure of the government to relieve the distressed conditions of their commerce. Genêt's emissaries fanned the flames of indignation and easily persuaded the Westerners to wage war against the Spanish in Louisiana.* Genêt planned three expeditions: one against Louisiana from the Canadian frontier, another against East Florida from the Georgia border, and a third against New Orleans which was to proceed down the river from Kentucky. All were to be composed of men from the States, and it is said that more than 3,000 men had been enlisted for the Florida and Louisiana expeditions. George Rogers Clark was commissioned major-general in the French service and "Commander-in-Chief of the French Revolutionary Legions on

* F. J. Turner, The Origin of Genêt's Projected Attack on Louisiana and the Floridas, in American Historical Review, vol. iii., no. 4.

† Bassett, Federalist System, p. 79. See also the report of the committee of the South Carolina Legislature, in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., pp. 309-311.

pose was to capture Spanish posts on the Mississippi and to open the river to free trade.* Genêt proposed, also, to appoint André Michaux, the botanist then in America, a French Consul in Kentucky, but Jefferson refused to recognize such an officer.† He gave Michaux a letter, however, to the governor of Kentucky, and the botanist began to negotiate covertly in the interests of the French. Jefferson told Genêt that we were negotiating with Spain, giving him to understand that a little explosion in the West might aid the Americans by convincing Spain that it would be advantageous to conclude a treaty with the United States. No attempt was made at concealment, and soon the Spanish authorities at New Orleans and the gov-. ernment at Philadelphia were cognizant of the warlike preparations. Governor Shelby, of Kentucky, was ordered to prevent the consummation of Clark's plans, but public sentiment in his State compelled him to evade the order.|| Governor St. Clair of the Northwest Territory, and Governor Blount, of Tennessee, forbade citizens

* Roosevelt, Winning of the West, vol. iv., pp. 174-179. See also The Correspondence of George Rogers Clark and Genêt, 1798-1794, in Report of the American Historical Association, for 1896, p. 930.

†Thwaites, Brief History of Rocky Mountain Exploration, pp. 73–79.

Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. i., p. 235; vol. vi., pp. 158-161.

|| Gilmore, Advance-Guard of Western Civilization, pp. 317-319. See also American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., pp. 455–460.

66

GENET CONDEMNED; WESTERN UNREST.

to join the expedition, the latter saying that all who joined Clark's forces would lay themselves liable to heavy Pains and Penalties, both pecuniary and corporal, in case they ever returned to their injured country," * Furthermore, General Wayne erected a fort at the mouth of the Ohio to prevent the passage of Clark's flotilla, and in 1794 Genêt was recalled, whereupon the whole affair collapsed. † In February of 1794 Genêt's successor, Fauchet, arrived in the United States, bringing with him assurances that the French government condemned Genêt's conduct. He avowed also his determination to pursue a course

Ogg, Opening of the Mississippi, pp. 452 453. See also A. H. Chappell, Miscellanies of Georgia, p. 43.

See Thomas M. Green, The Spanish Conspiracy: a Review of Early Spanish Movements in the Southwest; N. P. Langford, The Louisiana Purchase and Preceding Spanish Intrigues for Dismemberment of the Union, in Minnesota Historical Society Collections, vol. ix., pp. 453-508; James A. Robertson, Louisiana under the Rule of Spain, France and the United States, 1785-1807 (1911); Winsor, The Westward Movement, chap. xxiii.; W. H. English, Conquest of the Northwest, vol. ii., chap. xx.; Roosevelt, Winning of the West, vol. iv., pp. 179-184; Gayarré, History of Louisiana, vol. iii., chap. vi.; the collections and articles by F. J. Turner, as follows: The Mangourit Correspondence in Respect to Genêt's Projected Attack upon the Floridas, 1793–1794, in Report of the American Historical Association, for 1897, p. 569; Correspondence of the French Min

207

of action which would be acceptable to the President and in accord with the policy which the latter had resolved upon respecting the belligerent powers. For a while Fauchet acted up to the spirit of these professions.

The Westerners now again came substantially into their former relations with the Spaniards. To the Westerners one thing was settled, however: inasmuch as the government would not let them vindicate their rights, it was the undeniable obligation of the government itself to do the work. In October of 1793, at a meeting of the Democratic Society, in Lexington, Kentucky, this sentiment was avowed in unmistakable terms.* A committee was appointed to open correspondence with the inhabitants of the entire West, with the object of uniting them in asserting their rights and of preparing a remonstrance to Congress to be expressed "in the bold, decent and determined language, proper to be used by injured freemen when they address the servants of the people." They said that they were to be congratulated on having abstained so long from using the means they possessed to assert "a natural and unalienable right," but they declared that this forbearance could not long They demanded the use of

isters to the United States, 1791-1797, in Report continue.

of the American Historical Association for 1903, vol. ii.; Carondelet on the Defence of Louisiana, 1794, in American Historical Review, vol. ii., p. 474; Documents on the Relations of France to Louisiana, in ibid, vol. iii., p. 490; The Origin of Genêt's Projected Attack on Louisiana and the Floridas, in ibid, vol. iii., p. 650; France and the United States in the Mississippi Valley, in ibid, vol. x., p. 249.

the river as a natural right and

* Marshall, History of Kentucky, vol. ii., p. 92; Shaler, Kentucky, p. 128; Phelps, Louisiana, p. 169.

† McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 143-144. See also Roosevelt, Winning of the West, vol. iv., p. 197 et seq.

208

WASHINGTON'S MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.

charged the government with being under the influence of a sectional policy which had resulted in withholding from

from the Westerners those rights essential to their prosperity. It was hinted even that, should they not be satisfied on this vital point, the Union was in danger of dismemberment.* The President's apprehensions that hostilities with Spain were imminent were strengthened by private

communications. Intelligence had been received from American representatives in Europe that Spain had made some underhanded overtures to the English government concerning the United States. The exact nature of these propositions could not be ascertained, but it was understood that their tendency was far from friendly. Writing to the Secretary of War in June, therefore, Washington said that it was important that the strength of the Spanish forces in the Floridas be ascertained and that such other information be obtained as was necessary in view of a possible outbreak of hostilities with Spain.†

* See also Randolph's letter quoted in Chadwick, Relations of the United States and Spain, p. 36. Washington had always believed that the free navigation of the Mississippi was essential to the welfare of the United States and particularly of the Western States. Writing to Lafayette about a year after he became President, he said: "Gradually recovering from the distresses in which the war left us, patiently advancing in our task of civil government, unentangled in the crooked politics of Europe, wanting scarcely anything but the free navigation of the Mississippi, which we must have, and as certainly shall have, if we remain a nation," etc.- Lodge, George Washington, vol. ii., p. 162.

On December 16, 1793, a few days after the first session of the Third Congress had opened, Washington sent a confidential message to Congress respecting the critical situation of affairs with Spain.* Spain was inclined to ignore Washington's proposal that each nation should, in good faith, promote the peace of the other with the neighboring Indian tribes. Spain affected to suspect the agents of the United States of inciting the Indians to making incursions along the Florida borders.† The Spanish king, claiming to be the patron and protector of those Indians, assumed the right to mediate between them and the United States and to interfere in the settlement of their boundaries. After complaining of the aggressions of the American citizens on the Indians, it was declared "that the continuation of the peace, good harmony and perfect friendship of the two nations, was very problematical for the future, unless the United States should take more convenient measures, and of greater energy, than those adopted for a long time past."

Resolutions were passed in both Houses of Congress expressing the belief that Washington was urging the claims of the United States to the

* Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. i., pp. 147-148. See also American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., p. 247 et seq., for the papers submitted.

Regarding this, see the letter of Carmichael and Short, and the Spanish officials, in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., p. 435 et seq.

« PreviousContinue »