Confederate Military History. Jabez Lamar Monroe Curry

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ party and its successor, the Democratic party, to the present day.

      Among those who have blamed both parties for inconsistency, the able and brilliant author of the ‘Winning of the West’ has arrived at the happiest conclusion. After scoring the Federalists of 1803 for their present part of the ‘inconsistency,’ and the Republicans for their past part of the ‘inconsistency,’ he says of the ‘Jeffersonian Republicans’: ‘Nevertheless, at this juncture they were right, which was far more important than being logical or consistent.’

      The reader who desires to pursue the investigation of the constitutional questions involved is referred to the Annals of Congress, 1803-1804, which contain a record of the debates in the Senate and in the House on the various questions connected with the acquisition of Louisiana.

      From these debates it plainly appears that whatever inconsistency may be chargeable to the Federalists was incurred in opposition to the acquisition of foreign territory; and whatever inconsistency may be chargeable to the Republicans was incurred in defense of the policy of foreign acquisition and territorial expansion. The following extracts from the speeches delivered in the Senate during this famous debate will serve to locate the center of opposition to the policy of territorial expansion, and to present some of the reasons of that opposition. The seven votes against the confirmation of the treaty were all from the Northeast. All the opponents urged constitutional objections. Some of them also expressed strong objections to the treaty on the grounds of public policy and sectional interests. (Annals of Congress, 1803-1804, pp. 33, 34.) Said Mr. Samuel White, of Delaware: ‘But as to Louisiana, this new, immense, unbounded world, if it should ever be incorporated into this Union, which I have no idea can be done, except by altering the Constitution, I believe it would be the greatest curse that could at present befall us * * * Louisiana must and will become settled, if we hold it, and with the very population that would otherwise occupy part of our present territory. * * * We have already territory enough, and when I contemplate the evils that may arise to these states from this intended incorporation of Louisiana into the Union, I would rather see it given to France, to Spain, or to any other nation of the earth upon the mere condition that no citizen of the United States should ever settle within its limits. * * * Supposing that this extent of territory was a desirable acquisition, $15,000,000 was an enormous sum to give.’ What would Senator White say if he were now living and could read the tax lists of the states erected from this territory for just one year?

      Mr. Uriah Tracy, of Connecticut, said: ‘And this universal consent can never be obtained to such a pernicious measure as the admission of Louisiana, of a world, and such a world, into our Union. This would be absorbing the Northern States and rendering them as insignificant in the Union as they ought to be if, by their own consent, the measure should be adopted.’

      These extracts serve to illustrate the sentiment largely prevailing in the Northeast. There was a determined and obstinate hostility to Southern or Western expansion of territory, a feeling that such a policy would lessen the influence of the Northeastern States in the Union, and would retard their growth in population and wealth. They especially feared that the unimpeded navigation of the Mississippi would injure their commercial interests.

      This sentiment was no sudden ebullition of party zeal. The jealousy was seen in the efforts of several of the States of this section, in the formation of the Union, to claim an interest in the Western lands as ‘a common stock,’ secured by ‘the blood and treasure of all.’ Having been ceded and made ‘a common stock,’ its settlement and organization into states formed from this territory were now in alliance with the South, and had just aided in the triumph of the new party. Political power seemed to be slipping away from the Northeast. Ohio had just entered statehood and brought reinforcements to the Republicans, and now the Mississippi was crossed and the westward extension was boundless. Thus, in 1803, the feeling at the Northeast had reached a high point of irritation.⁷

      That it was not suddenly allayed is established upon testimony which cannot be doubted. The continued opposition to everything connected with the Louisiana purchase found eloquent expression in the famous words of Josiah Quincy, on the floor of Congress, as late as 1811, when speaking on the bill for the admission of the Territory of Orleans as the State of Louisiana.

      But this sentiment was not unanimous in New England. There were a few men of influence who favored the treaty and its policy of expansion. The people of the Northeast generally were opposed to western acquisitions, and were dissatisfied with the present state of political affairs, but were too conservative and too much attached to the United States to be hurried into any rash act. Conspicuous among the first class was John Quincy Adams. Worthy of his illustrious father, who had borne a leading part in 783 in extending the territorial limits, and himself possessed of vigorous intellect and patriotic instincts, he looked beyond the horizon of sectional jealousy and petty partisan opposition. He had not entered Congress in time to vote on the first test, the confirmation of the treaty, in executive session, October 20th. On the next day he presented his credentials as senator from Massachusetts. He voted silently, October 26th, possibly for technical reasons, against the bill authorizing the President to take possession of the territory. When the bill to create the stock and to provide for the payments under treaty was put upon its passage, the opponents of the measure seized the opportunity as the occasion for the memorable debate to which allusion has been made. While this debate was at its hottest stage, Mr. Adams arose and in an able speech announced his intention to vote for the measure. He agreed with Jefferson in the opinion that a constitutional amendment was needed. After discussing the constitutional questions, he thus expressed his opinion on the policy of the measure: ‘I trust they will be performed, and I will cheerfully lend my hand to every act necessary for the purpose. For I consider the object as of the highest advantage to us; and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Breckinridge) himself, who has displayed, with so much eloquence, the immense importance to this Union of the possession of the ceded country, cannot carry his ideas further than I do.’ (Annals of Congress, 1803– 1804, pp. 65-68. History of the United States, Henry Adams, vol. 2, pp. 117, 118.)

      Mr. Adams also expressed the opinion that a constitutional amendment to provide for making Louisiana a part of the United States should receive unanimous consent. He subsequently offered his services to the administration to support such a measure.

      It now became necessary for Congress to provide a form of government for the acquired territory. A motion was made in the Senate, November 28th (Annals of Congress, 1803-1804, p. 106), for the appointment of a committee to prepare a form of government. This motion was adopted, December 5th, and Messrs. Breckinridge, Wright, Jackson, Baldwin and Adams were appointed as the committee. A bill was reported from this committee, December 30th, which, after discussion and amendments, was passed by the Senate, February 18, 1804, by a vote of 20 to 5. When this bill came to the House it gave rise to animated discussion and met with opposition, not only from the Federalists, but from a number of staunch Republicans. After important amendments, it finally passed March 17th by a vote of 66 to 21. These amendments were rejected by the Senate, and an amendment made by which the act was limited to expire at the end of one year. The House refused, at first, to recede from its amendments, but upon the report of the conference committee of the two houses, it was decided to yield, and the bill was passed March 23rd and became a law by the President's approval, which was attached March 26, 1804. (Annals of Congress, 1803-1804, pp. 211, 223, 256, 1229, 1293, 1300.)

      The opposition was caused by a sentiment that the act gave almost autocratic powers to the President. The test vote in the House, 51 to 45, shows that this opinion was shared by many Republicans. This power, however, was necessary to organize a territory foreign to American institutions, and to prepare the way for a permanent government, and it expired by its own limitation in one year.

      Under the act, approved October 31, 1803, the President had already taken possession of the new acquisition. The American commissioners (see Gayarre's History of Louisiana), Wilkinson and Claiborne, received the province from the French commandant, Laussat, December 20, 1803. Amid public demonstrations and the exchange of international СКАЧАТЬ