Confederate Military History. Jabez Lamar Monroe Curry

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ for the assumption by the United States of claims due from France to American citizens. The whole sum was equivalent to $18,738,268.98, exclusive of interest. The area of the whole province was 1,182,752 square miles. (Pub. Domain, p. 12.)

      When the treaty was signed the ministers shook hands and pronounced this the noblest act of their lives. Yet they were not without apprehensions. They had, indeed, done a work which deserved the gratitude and applause of their countrymen, but they had exceeded their authority. How would their action be received at home? The joint letter of Monroe and Livingston, announcing the treaty, reads more like a letter of apology and explanation than a letter of triumph.

      Let us see how it was received at home. At this day we can hardly believe that this acquisition met with active and violent opposition; yet such was the case. Jefferson and the Republican leaders received the news with delight. The policy of negotiation had triumphed beyond their most sanguine expectations. War was averted and the West was bound to them by new ties of gratitude. Their party had laid the foundations of future greatness for the United States and of political power for themselves. Yet there was one source of disquietude. In the contests in Washington's cabinet, between Jefferson and Hamilton, both of these great men had gone to extremes which both were afterward compelled to abandon. Jefferson had maintained that the general government had no powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. The power to acquire foreign territory was not so enumerated. He foresaw the opposition of the Federalists. He felt secure of the ratification of the treaty, but he was sensitive to the charge of inconsistency in reference to the construction of the Constitution, which he knew would be brought against him. He wished to preserve the strict construction, which he believed to be the safeguard of the rights of the States. Yet Louisiana was ‘an opportunity snatched from fate.’ It secured the expansion of the United States and the triumph of the Republican party. The opportunity must not be lost. The treaty must be ratified. Cobwebs must be brushed away.

      He wrote to the members of his cabinet and to the Republican leaders, suggesting arguments and proposing a constitutional amendment to the effect: ‘Louisiana, as ceded by France, is made a part of the United States.’ His letter to Senator John Breckinridge, of Kentucky, explains his views (Jefferson's Complete Works, H. A. Washington, vol. 4, pp. 499, 500):

      ‘Objections are raising to the eastward against the vast extent of our boundaries, and propositions are made to exchange Louisiana, or a part of it, for the Floridas. But, as I have said, we shall get the Floridas without, and I would not give one inch of the waters of the Mississippi to any nation.’ * * * ‘These Federalists see in this acquisition the formation of a new confederacy, embracing all the waters of the Mississippi, on both sides of it, and a separation of its western waters from us.’ * * * ‘The Constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, still less for the incorporation of foreign nations into our Union. The Executive, in seizing the fugitive occurrence which so much advances the good of their country, have done an act beyond the Constitution. The Legislature, in casting behind them metaphysical subtleties and risking themselves like faithful servants, must ratify and pay for it and throw themselves on their country for doing for them, unauthorized, what we know they would have done for themselves had they been in a situation to do it. It is the case of a guardian investing the money of his ward in purchasing an important adjacent territory, and saying to him when of age, “I did this for your good; you may disavow me, and I must get out of the scrape as I can. I thought it my duty to risk myself for you.” But we shall not be disavowed by the nation, and their act of indemnity will confirm and not weaken the Constitution, by more strongly marking out its limits. We have nothing later from Europe than the public papers give. I hope yourself and all the Western members will make a sacred point of being at the first day of the meeting of Congress; for, vestra res regitur.’

      Congress was convened by proclamation October 17, 1803. Jefferson, as we have seen, advised a constitutional amendment. This advice was not accepted by his party associates. They thought that the Constitution already gave sufficient power. Under this theory they proceeded to confirm the treaty, and to introduce the legislation necessary to occupy and organize the territory. Upon this ground the Federalists attacked them, and memorable debates ensued. It would be outside of our purpose to follow these debates through a detailed discussion of the constitutional questions involved. They come within our purview only so far as they furnish testimony of public sentiment and locate the influences which aided or opposed the acquisition of Louisiana and the policy of territorial expansion. A general glance at the attitude of the two parties on the constitutional questions will, however, conduce to a clear comprehension of the sectional aspects of the contest.

      The first battle came in the Senate. (Annals of Congress, 1803-1804, p. 308.) The treaty was confirmed in executive session, October 20th, by a vote of 24 to 7. Those voting against confirmation were Messrs. Hillhouse and Tracy, of Connecticut; Pickering, of Massachusetts; Wells and White, of Delaware; Olcott and Plumer, of New Hampshire; all Federalists and from the Northeast.

      The public debates occurred on the resolutions and acts for taking possession of the territory, providing for the expenses of the treaty, and establishing a temporary government. (Ibid, p. 488.) The test vote in the House was taken October 25th, on the resolutions to provide for carrying out the treaty. The resolutions were adopted by a vote of go yeas to 25 nays. Of these 25 nays 17 were from New England, 3 from New York, 1 from Maryland, and 4 from Virginia. Hot debates ensued in the Senate and in the House, turning largely on the constitutional questions; the Federalists denying and the Republicans affirming the power of the government to make a treaty annexing foreign territory to the United States. All shades of opinion were expressed, but the two parties have been criticized as substantially reversing their positions as to the powers of the general government. The student of history is never surprised to find two political parties shifting their positions on theoretical questions. General theories, followed out to their logical consequences, invariably lead to the reductio ad absurdum. Political theories form no exception. Limitations are as necessary to theories as to all other human productions. What is sometimes mistaken for inconsistency is the necessary adaptation and amendment of opinion to new environments. Yet it does seem strange to view the Federalist party posing as the champion of strict construction and State rights, while the party of Thomas Jefferson is aggressively demanding a liberal construction of the Constitution and the extension of the powers of the general government.

      By common consent and general custom the right of being inconsistent and of throwing rocks at the majority is accorded to the minority party, as a sort of political license, for which they are not held responsible until they come again into power. The party in power, however, is subject to indictment for inconsistency, and thus the Republican party has been the party on trial.

      Whatever inconsistency there may have been was apparent rather than real, and was applicable to the arguments used rather than to the course pursued. The previous contests in behalf of strict construction had been directed to protecting the States, in their domestic relations and individual rights, from encroachments on the part of the general government. In the domestic relations between the general government and the several States, the Republicans regarded a strict construction as the palladium of freedom. It did not follow that the same strict construction should be applied for enfeebling the operations of the general government within its own sphere. The citizens who constituted the Republican party had aided in establishing the Constitution. They helped to create the general government for general purposes, and they could have no interest in an insane and unpatriotic effort to render it incapable of performing its functions. Expressed in homely phrase, they did not wish to tie the hands of the general government, but they did wish to keep its hands off the States.

      There is no inconsistency in maintaining, on the one hand, a rule of strict construction, as applied to conflicts between the general government and the individual States, concerning the powers which the United States can exercise within the several State jurisdictions; and, on the other hand, a rule of liberal construction for exerting the powers of the general government in its unquestioned constitutional sphere, outside of the States. If there be any real inconsistency in these two positions, СКАЧАТЬ