To Shining Sea - Chapter 33
The Ratification of the Louisiana Treaty, October 20th 1803
The Unveiling of Canadian History, Volume 4.
To Shining Sea – Ireland, Haiti, and Louisiana, and the Idea of a Continental Republic, 1797 – 1804.
Part 3 – The Louisiana Frontier
Chapter 33 - The Ratification of the Louisiana Treaty, October 20th 1803
While the treaty with France was approved by the Senate, the next question - over admitting Louisiana into the Union, and over whether or not it was constitutional, began to be debated. And it is at this time, that we see the entrance into politics of the young John Quincy Adams, as a ‘federalist’ Senator, who supported the ‘republican’ President on the Louisiana Purchase.
John Quincy Adams, by John Copley (1796)
On August 18th 1803, President Jefferson wrote to Madison that he had just received a (June 2nd) letter from Livingston, warning that Bonaparte was ‘less pleased’ with the treaty now, and that ‘if he could conveniently get off he would’ because he insists that ‘our whole debt does not exceed four millions and that we have got twenty’ and that ‘if the stock is not delivered in the time prescribed the treaty is void’.
Livingston warned President Jefferson that:
“you will see the object of this is to guard you against any delays but above all against any change in the form of the ratification, for be assured that the slightest pretence will be seized to undo the work … it is necessary you should know this. It is equally necessary that those who oppose the administration should not know it as it will be a trump card in their hands.”
Livingston laid the blame for the French opposition to the treaty with Talleyrand, who had wanted that instead of Marbois, that he had negotiated the treaty, (and also could have taken more bribes). Livingston wrote that:
“this has not been forgiven by [Talleyrand] … and I doubt not that every possible objection and insinuation has been made use of to disgust the first Consul with it.”
The President wrote to Madison that:
“I infer that the less we say about constitutional difficulties respecting Louisiana the better, and that what is necessary for surmounting them must be done sub silentio.”
And so, Jefferson’s constitutional amendment (as well as his principles) got thrown out the window with the bath water – because of necessity!
To complicate matters, Madison received two letters from Yrujo (on September 4th and 27th) that insisted that France did not have the power ‘to sell or alienate’ the province of Louisiana ‘without the approbation of Spain’.
To that, Madison replied on October 4th that he had a (May 4th) letter from Cevallos that said that:
“the United States can address themselves to the French government to negotiate the acquisition of territories which may suit their interest.”
That same day, at a cabinet meeting with President Jefferson, it was unanimously agreed that the United States would take forcible possession of New Orleans if Spain refused, and that a force should be prepared ‘so as to have it ready the moment Congress authorises it’.
Following this plan, on October 17th, President Jefferson sent a message to Congress that he had recalled them early, and presented his administration’s story line, that:
“matters of great public concernment have rendered this call necessary … Congress witnessed, at their late session, the extraordinary agitation produced in the public mind by the suspension of our right of deposit at the port of New Orleans … but, reposing just confidence in the good faith of the Government whose officer had committed the wrong, friendly and reasonable representations were resorted to, and the right of deposit was restored …
The enlightened government of France saw, with just discernment, the importance to both nations of such liberal arrangements as might best and permanently promote the peace, interests, and friendship of both; and the property and sovereignty of all Louisiana, which had been restored to them, has, on certain conditions, been transferred to the United States …”
On October 20th, the Senate (needing a 2/3 majority) gave their advice and consent to the treaty by a vote of 24 to 7 (including the two senators from Ohio, that entered into the Union as the 17th state on March 1st 1803) - with only one ‘federalist’ senator (Dayton, New Jersey) voting in favor.
Louisiana was to become the 18th state in the Union. or maybe not?!?
Note: John Quincy Adams had been appointed the United States Senator from Massachusetts, in the spring of 1803. ‘A series of unavoidable delays prevented the new Senator’s arrival at Washington in time to vote on the Louisiana treaties in the special session of Congress … he was the only Federalist member from New England in either house of Congress to support the acquisition of Louisiana.’
On October 22nd, the President sent a message to Congress to inform them that with the advice and consent of the Senate, the treaty and conventions made with France had been ratified, but that:
“some important conditions cannot be carried into execution, but with the aid of the Legislature; and that time presses a decision on them without delay.”
Senator Breckenridge (Kentucky) brought in a bill ‘to enable the President of the United States to take possession of the territories ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty concluded at Paris, on the 30th of April last, and for the temporary government thereof’ – that could employ any part of the Army and Navy, which the President may deem necessary.
On October 26th, this bill passed by a vote of 26 to 6, [with J. Q. Adams voting nay] and it was sent to the House, amended, and passed by both houses on October 31st.
On October 24th, the debate on Louisiana began in the House of Representatives, when R. Griswold (Connecticut) proposed a resolution that:
the President provide the House with a copy of the treaty between France and Spain of October 1st 1800;
a copy of the deed of cession conveying Louisiana from Spain to France;
any correspondence between the United States and Spain that showed Spain’s assent or dissent to the purchase;
and any documents in any department that showed whether the United States had, in fact, acquired any title to Louisiana.
Mitchill (New York) argued against it, saying that:
“graver subjects demanded our immediate attention, and there might be danger in delay. The operation of the resolution, if adopted, would certainly be to procrastinate and embarrass …”
Randolph (Virginia) wondered aloud about this change in attitude:
“how are we to reconcile this reluctant caution to the doctrine of forcible possession … At one time it was necessary to possess ourselves of the key of the Mississippi, on any terms, and in any way. There was no waiting to examine into the title of other nations, or scarcely into our own. The Mississippi must be had at every hazard, and in any mode. Now that it was offered to us, gentlemen can devise no mode of getting it …”
But Goddard (Connecticut) countered, pointing out that:
“is it … of no importance to learn whether or not France has a good title? Are we to be satisfied with the mere declaration of France to this effect? Suppose we pay France the fifteen millions, and Spain afterwards demands the territory, and we call on France to refund the money – France will assuredly say, you made the purchase with your eyes open, we recited to you the title under which we ceded the territory, and you accepted it at your peril …”
The resolution was narrowly defeated 59 to 57, even though the ‘republicans’ controlled over three-fourths of the House!
The next day, on October 25th, the debate began on the treaty’s constitutionality, when G. Griswold (New York) asked:
“where was to be found the Constitutional power of the Government to incorporate the territory, with the inhabitants thereof, in the Union of the United States” [i.e. article #3]
and he contended that:
“the power to incorporate new territory did not exist.”
Elliot (Vermont) warned that:
“it is a rule of law, that in order to ascertain the import of a contract, the evident intention of the parties, at the time of forming it, is principally to be regarded … if the treaty be extremely pernicious, or has not been made by sufficient authority, or has been made for unjust purposes, it is void by the laws of nation.”
R. Griswold (Connecticut) replied that the reason why he was opposed to the treaty was to maintain a balance ?!? - [this is something that will be brought up again, between ‘free’ states’ and ‘slave’ states], stating that:
“a new territory and new subjects may undoubtedly be obtained by conquest and by purchase; but neither the conquest nor the purchase can incorporate them into the Union. They must remain in the condition of colonies, and be governed accordingly … the vast and unmanageable extent which the accession of Louisiana will give to the United States; the consequent dispersion of our population, and the destruction of that balance which is so important to maintain between the Eastern and the Western States, threatens, at no very distant day, the subversion of our Union …”
Rodney (Delaware) referred to the Constitution, and made the point that:
“by the Constitution, Congress have power to … provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. To provide for the general welfare! … I cannot perceive why, within the fair meaning of this general provision is not included the power of increasing our territory, if necessary for the general welfare or common defence …”
And Mitchill (New York) pointed out that:
“we are constantly in the practice of receiving territory by cession from the red men of the West, the aborigines of our country … and the sovereignty acquired by treaty or purchase to our Government was derived from the title which the natives transferred to them as grantees in a fair bargain and sale.”
The House then resolved, by a vote of 90 to 25, that a provision ought to be made for carrying into effect the treaty, and Randolph brought in a bill ‘authorizing the creation of a stock to the amount of $11, 250,000 for the purpose of carrying into effect the convention of the 30th of April 1803, between the United States and the French Republic’ and it was passed by the House on October 29th, and passed by the Senate on November 2nd - with J. Q. Adams voting aye.
In voting for the bill, Adams laid out his reasoning for the need for a constitutional amendment (that Jefferson had initially supported by then pragmatically jettisoned), saying that:
“when the country has been formally surrendered to us, when all the military posts are in our hands, and when all the troops, French or Spanish, have been embarked, what possible adverse conditions can there be to contend against ours? Until all these conditions shall have been fulfilled on the part of France, neither the convention nor the bill before us requires the payment of money on ours; and we may safely trust the execution of the law to the discretion of the President of the United States … his own interest and the weight of responsibility resting upon him, are ample security to us, against any undue precipitation on his part, in the payment of money … and I see no purpose of utility that can be answered by postponing the determination on the passage of this bill …"
But it has been argued that the bill ought not to pass, because the treaty itself is an unconstitutional, or to use the words of the gentleman from Connecticut, an extra constitutional act … But, allowing even that this is a case for which the Constitution has not provided, it does not in my mind follow, that the treaty is a nullity, or its obligations, either on us or on France, must necessarily be cancelled. For my own part, I am free to confess, that the third article and more especially the seventh, contain engagements placing us in a dilemma, from which I see no possible mode of extricating ourselves but by an amendment, or rather an addition to the constitution …
Such is the public favor attending the transaction which commenced by the negotiation of this treaty, and which I hope will terminate in our full, undisturbed and undisputed possession of the ceded territory, that I firmly believe if an amendment to the Constitution, amply sufficient for the accomplishment of everything for which we have contracted, shall be proposed, as I think it ought, it will be adopted by the legislature of every state in the Union. We can therefore fulfil our part of the conventions, and this is all that France has a right to require of us …”
Adams would meet with Madison on October 28th and again on December 9th, when he made a motion to appoint a committee ‘to inquire whether any … further measures may be necessary for carrying into effect the treaty between the United States and the French Republic’, where he intended to introduce an amendment to the Constitution that:
“Congress shall have the power to admit into the Union the inhabitants of any territory which has been or may be hereafter ceded to or acquired by the United States”,
but only 2 other senators supported him, and the motion was defeated. The ‘republicans’ had felt that there was no need for an amendment, but, in truth, the reason was simple necessity (!!!), that:
“the tedious process of adopting an amendment could not be completed before the time within which the purchase money must be paid to France.”
And so, President Jefferson got what he ‘necessarily’ wanted - Louisiana, but no amendment.
On October 31st, Madison wrote to William Claiborne, governor of the Mississippi Territory, authorizing him and General James Wilkinson to hasten to New Orleans and to receive or take possession of Louisiana from the French Commissary, Pierre Laussat. After receiving this letter, on December 1st, Claiborne left Natchez with 100 militia and sailed about 40 miles down the Mississippi to Fort Adams, where he met up with Wilkinson.
A month later, on December 8th, Claiborne wrote to Madison that yesterday he had received a letter from Laussat announcing the peaceful transfer of Louisiana from Spain to France, and urging the American commissioners to hasten their arrival so that he could convey the territory from France to the United States. Claiborne and Wilkinson left the next day, with 200 militia and 450 regular army troops and arrived at New Orleans on December 17th.
On December 20th, Claiborne and Wilkinson wrote to Madison that:
“we have the satisfaction to announce to you, that the province of Louisiana was this day surrendered to the United States by the commissioner of France; and to add, that the flag of our country was raised in this city amidst the acclamation of the inhabitants”;
and they enclosed a proclamation by Claiborne - that Congress had enacted that all military, civil, and judicial powers be vested and exercised as the President shall direct, and that the President had charged him with maintaining and protecting the inhabitants of Louisiana in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion; and that:
“I do hereby exhort and enjoin all the inhabitants, and other persons within the said province, to be faithful and true to the allegiance to the United States, and obedient to the laws and authorities of the same, under full assurance that their just rights will be under the guardianship of the United States, and will be maintained from all force or violence from without or within.”
This news would reach Washington City on January 14th 1804.
On December 19th, the Senate received a bill that was passed by the House ‘giving effect to the laws of the United States within the territories ceded to the United States’ and on December 30th, Breckinridge (Kentucky) introduced a bill to divide Louisiana into two territories and to provide the territories with a temporary government.
On January 10th 1804, Adams (Massachusetts) made a motion to adopt two resolutions:
‘that the people of the United States have never in any manner delegated to this Senate the power of giving its legislative concurrence to any act for imposing taxes upon the inhabitants of Louisiana without their consent’, and
‘that, by concurring in any act of legislation for imposing taxes upon the inhabitants of Louisiana without their consent, this Senate would assume a power unwarranted by the Constitution, and dangerous to the liberties of the people of the United States’.
The Senate voted against both resolutions by a vote of 22 to 4.
On January 24th, the Senate now debated whether to include the Louisiana territories in the act of February 1803, that prohibited the importation of slaves into the United States.
While Jackson (Georgia) claimed that:
“slaves must be admitted into that territory, it cannot be cultivated without them”,
and while Dayton (New Jersey) [the one ‘federalist’ senator that approved the Louisiana purchase] stated that:
“slavery must be tolerated, it must be established in that country, or it can never be inhabited”,
Smith (Ohio) opposed them, replying that:
“I have traversed many of the settlements in that country. I know that white men labour there – they are capable of cultivating it.”
Other southern senators favored banning the foreign importation of slaves but wished to keep the importation of slaves from other states within the United States.
Hillhouse (Connecticut) introduced an amendment that banned the bringing slaves into Louisiana ‘except by a citizen of the United States, removing into said territory for actual settlement’ that passed by 18 votes to 11.
Adams (Massachusetts) voted against the provisions introduced to prohibit and lessen slavery! But he did so because, although he was opposed to slavery, he was opposed to legislating at all for that country, stating that:
“this bill is to establish a form of government for the extensive country of Louisiana. I have from the beginning been opposed to it – and I still am. It is forming a government for that people without their consent and against their will. All power in a republican government is derived from the people. We sit here under their authority. The people of that country have given no power or authority to us to legislate for them …
the first thing Congress ought to have done in relation to that country, should have been to propose an amendment to the constitution, to the several states to authorize Congress to receive that country into the Union – we ought to have applied to the inhabitants of Louisiana to recognize our right to govern them. This we ought to have done, and there is no doubt that the States and that territory would have given the authority before the next session.”
The bill to provide a government for Louisiana passed by 20 votes to 5.
On February 24th, President Jefferson signed into law ‘an act for laying and collecting duties on imports and tonnage within the territories ceded to the United States’ and on March 26th, President Jefferson signed into law ‘an act erecting Louisiana into two Territories and providing the Temporary Government thereof’.
Note: At that time, the estimated population of all of Louisiana was under 20,000 people:
8000 in New Orleans – 4000 whites (French, Spanish and Americans), 2700 slaves and 1300 free persons of colour;
and 9500 in the rest of Louisiana (from the Arkansas river to the Missouri river) – 8000 whites and 1500 slaves.
On March 9th & 10th, another ceremony was conducted in St. Louis, to transfer ownership of Upper Louisiana from Spain to the French Republic, and to the United States. Present as the chief official witness for the United States of America was Meriwether Lewis!
After leaving Washington City on July 4th 1803, Lewis had arrived at Pittsburgh on July 15th and checked on the arrival of his supplies from Philadelphia and the arrival of his arms and weapons from Harpers Ferry. But he had to wait, because of the delay in the completion of his keelboat, that he had personally designed and that he now oversaw the construction of, until it was finally ready to sail on August 31st. The expedition proceeded slowly due to the low level of the Ohio river and the need for portages and finally reached Louisville on October 15th.
At Louisville, Lewis met and shook hands with William Clark, who was living with his brother General George Rogers Clark. Clark agreed to ‘cheerfully’ join in the undertaking and to ‘partake of the dangers, difficulties, and fatigues’ and to ‘anticipate the honors and rewards of the result of such an enterprise’.
They left Louisville on October 26th and arrived at the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers on November 13th, where they remained a week, making measurements of the rivers and conducting celestial observations.
On November 20th, the expedition headed out into the Mississippi river and turned upstream, proceeding up the Mississippi river until it arrived at the U.S. army post at Kaskaskia, on the east side of the river, 60 miles south of St. Louis. Lewis travelled by horseback to Cahokia, then crossed the river to reach St. Louis on December 8th and met the Spanish Lieutenant-governor of Upper Louisiana, Colonel Carlos Dehault Delassus. But Delassus denied Lewis permission to travel up the Missouri river until the official transfer of sovereignty had occurred!!!
Lewis then crossed back to Cahokia, met up with Clark and the boat party and proceeded upstream a few miles to the mouth of Wood river – directly opposite the mouth of the Missouri river, where they made winter camp.
On March 9th, Colonel Delassus, acting as the representative for Spain, transferred Upper Louisiana to Captain Stoddard, the American representative, who was also acting as the agent for France. The mostly French-Canadien population of St. Louis asked Stoddart if the French flag could fly for one night. Stoddard agreed and the next day, March 10th, the transfer was made from France to the United States, (with Meriwether Lewis as the official witness), and Stoddard assumed command as the governor of Upper Louisiana.
On May 21st, Captain Lewis and Captain Clark would begin their expedition up the Missouri river, with their Corps of Discovery – consisting of 3 sergeants and 22 privates; George Drouillard, a French-Canadien Metis interpreter; and York, Clark’s slave.
[next week - chapter 34 - General Hamilton’s Defence of the Truth, February 14th – 15th, 1804]
For those who may wish to support my continuing work on ‘The Unveiling of Canadian History’, you may purchase my books, that are available as PDFs and Paperback (on Amazon) at the Canadian Patriot Review :
Volume 1 – The Approaching Conflict, 1753 – 1774.
Volume 2 – Forlorn Hope – Quebec and Nova Scotia, and the War for Independence, 1775 – 1785.
And hopefully,
Volume 3 – The Storming of Hell – the War for the Territory Northwest of the Ohio, 1786 – 1796, and
Volume 4 – Ireland, Haiti, and Louisiana – the Idea of a Continental Republic, 1797 – 1804,
may also appear in print, in the near future, while I continue to work on :
Volume 5 – On the Trail of the Treasonous, 1804 - 1814.