THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE 371 and sent Monroe, as special envoy, to help him. Monroe found a great and unexpected bargain practically completed. Napoleon had suddenly changed front; and, April 30, 1803, for the petty price of $15,000,000, the United States doubled its territory. Napoleon States A splendid army of twenty-five thousand French veterans had just wasted away, against tropical fever and the generalship of the Negro leader Toussaint L'Ouverture, in an attempt to secure Haiti as a half- sells to the way station to Louisiana. Napoleon hesitated United to send more of his soldiers to hold the swamps at the mouth of the Mississippi against American frontiersmen swarming down that stream. Moreover, he had already decided upon a new war with England; and a distant colony would be exposed to almost certain seizure by the English navy. So he abandoned his dream of American colonial empire, together with his solemn pledges to Spain,1 and, with characteristic abruptness, forced upon the American negotiators not merely the patch of ground they asked for at the river's mouth, but the whole western half of the great river valley, — which they had not particularly wanted. The heart of the American people was immediately fired by the grand prospect of expansion opened to them by the Purchase; and Jefferson wrote a few weeks later:-"Objections are raising to the eastward [among leaders of New England Federalism] to the vast extent of our territory, and propositions are made to exchange Louisiana, or a part of it, 1 Spain had hoped to find compensation for Louisiana by interposing France as a barrier between the United States and her other American possessions. Talleyrand, who had managed the French negotiations with Spain, played upon this string. "The Americans," he urged, "are devoured by pride," and "mean at any cost to rule alone in the whole continent. . . . The only means of putting an end to their ambition is to shut them up within the limits Nature seems to have traced for them [east of the Mississippi]. . . . Spain, therefore, cannot too quickly engage the aid of a preponderating power, yielding to it a small part of her immense dominions in order to preserve the rest. France [mistress of Louisiana] will be to her a wall of brass, impenetrable forever to the combined efforts of England and America." Finally, a specific pledge never to alienate the province to America became part of the price France paid. for the Floridas. But we shall get the Floridas without, and I would not give one inch of the waters of the Mississippi to any foreign power." A coterie of Federalist leaders offered rabid opposition to the ratification of the treaty, partly from hatred of Jefferson, but more from jealous dread of the West. They were quickly overborne; but the discussion brought into prominence three constitutional questions. The Con-. 1. Power to acquire territory is not among the powers of Congress enumerated in the Constitution. According to the "strict construction" theory, the purchase of Louisiana was unconstitutional. Jefferson wanted an amendment to confirm the purchase. "The executive," he wrote, "in seizing the fugitive occurrence which so much advances the good of their country, have done an act beyond the Constitution. The legislature The legislature . . . risking themselves like faithful servants, must ratify and pay for it, and [then] throw themselves on the country" for an amendment, which should be also "an act of indemnity." But he found no one among his friends willing to risk the precious prize by the delay that must go with an attempt at amendment. Such a move would imply that the purchase was not fully ratified; and meanwhile Napoleon might again change his mind. So that plan was dropped. In the debates in Congress, Republican members adopted frankly the doctrine of "implied powers.' The right to acquire territory must exist, they argued, as a result (1) of the right to make treaties, and (2) of the power to make war and peace. 2. Were the inhabitants entitled to civil and political rights? New Orleans had a population of 50,000. The treaty of Civil rights purchase had promised that the inhabitants of the district should be "incorporated in the Union of the United States" and admitted, as soon as possible, to all the rights of citizens. The Federalists based their opposition to the treaty mainly on this provision. The admission of a new member to “the of inhabitants in newly acquired territory THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE 373 This was partnership of States," they urged, was not permissible "except by the consent of all the old partners.' State sovereignty doctrine. But the Republicans themselves hesitated to carry out the promise of statehood to a foreign population bitterly aggrieved at transfer to American rule. In the spring of 1804 Congress divided the newly acquired region into two parts. The larger northern part (almost uninhabited), styled the "District of Louisiana," was attached to Indiana Territory (page 258). The southern part was created The Terri"The Territory of New Orleans"; but the govern- tory of New ment was intrusted to a governor, council, and judges all appointed by the President; and provision was made for jury trial in capital cases only. Orleans This was a denial of all right of self-government to a highly civilized and densely settled district. It seemed strangely out of place at the hand of Jeffersonians, and it caused loud outcry in New Orleans. The Republicans defended the constitutionality of the Act on the ground that the guarantees in the Constitution applied only to citizens of the States, not to inhabitants of "territory belonging to the United States" (3 below). 1 3. The treaty promised certain exemptions from tariffs to French and Spanish ships in Louisiana ports for twelve years. The Constitution requires that "all Territory duties shall be uniform throughout the United belonging to States." Was there a conflict between these the United provisions? States " The answer depends upon the meaning of "United States" in the clause quoted. That term, territorially, has two meanings. To-day we give it commonly the larger 1 In 1812, after a bitter struggle in Congress, the Territory of New Orleans came into the Union as the State of Louisiana. The New England Federalists resisted the admission furiously, because it seemed to transfer political power to the South. Josiah Quincy, their leader in Congress, affirmed: "I am compelled to declare it as my deliberate opinion that, if this bill passes, the bonds of this union are, virtually, dissolved; that the States which compose it are free from their moral obligations, and that, as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some, to prepare, definitely, for a separation: amicably, if they can; violently, if they must. |