[ 2 ]
oppressive and tyrannical, and avowed the systematic design to wield the political power of the confederation with a view to a radical change in the fundamental principles on which it had been originally established. Hence, the fair presumption is, that if he had lived in our days, and had been a citizen of Louisiana, he would have been a Secessionist.
Be it as it may—on the 30th of April, 1803, the First Consul (Bonaparte), acting in the name of the French Republic, ceded forever to the United States, in full sovereignty, the territory of Louisiana, on which occasion he sententiously and prophetically said: “This accession of territory strengthens forever the power of the United States; and I have just given to England a maritime rival that will sooner or later humble her pride.” What were the considerations of that treaty of cession, as expressed in the deed itself? Was it the payment of dollars and cents? No! The preamble says that it was “the desire to remove all cause of misunderstanding relative to objects of discussion in relation to the rights claimed by the United States in virtue of a treaty between Spain and the United States, concerning the navigation of the Mississippi,” and also that it was “the willingness to strengthen the union and the friendship which had been happily re-established between the two nations,” after a disagreement which had almost dragged them into a war.
What says Article 1 of the treaty? Does France cede Louisiana merely in consideration of the payment of a certain sum of money, as is done in all ordinary acts of sale and purchase? No; nothing of the kind is to be found in the body of the treaty of cession. Not one word of it! France expresses that she cedes Louisiana because “she desires to give to the United States a strong proof of her friendship.” The French text says: “une preuve remarquable,” and truly a “remarkable proof” it was!
The Article 7 stipulates for some commercial advantages, reciprocally beneficial to the commerce of France, Spain and the United States, and which are to last twelve years. That is all. Does all this sound like an ordinary act of sale?
After the treaty had been signed, and Louisiana ceded, France and the United States, “wishing to regulate definitely everything which had relation to said cession,” entered into stipulations by which the Government of the United States engaged to pay to the French Government the sum of sixty millions of francs, independent of the sum which was to be fixed by another Convention for certain payments due by France to citizens of the United States.
Is it possible to read what precedes without coming to the conclusion that, in parting regretfully with Louisiana, the intention of the ruler of France was to make the best use of what be could not keep—that it was to strengthen the bonds of union between France and the United States, and to give them, as he took care to insert it in the treaty, “a remarkable proof of his friendship;” and lastly, that it was his policy to increase the rising and growing power of the United States, so as to oppose a mighty rival, within a few years, to what he called “the colossal power of Great Britain.” As to the pecuniary part of the transaction, it seems to have been designedly postponed and kept out of sight. It became the object of a second and separate convention after the first had been completed. It was considered with reason, by Bonaparte at least, as a “mere indemnity”—as a reimbursement of expenses incurred for the preservation and improvements of Louisiana, and a repayment of the large sums expended for its colonization, but not as the value of the thing tranferred. “The price of all these things is justly due to us,” observed Bonaparte. Wishing to give to the United States “a remarkable proof of his friendship,” and to invigorate them into being a worthy and efficient adversary to Great Britain, he determined, as it were, to donate what he could not keep; and he did not ask for the value of Louisiana, because, to use his own words, “the indemnity would have had no limits.” Therefore, he insisted only on what he thought France was entitled to—a mere reimbursement of advances made—an indemnity for expenses incurred for improvements in the colony. Was Louisiana sold as a common farm? Was it not ceded on the express stipulation of its being a remarkable testimonial of friendship? Setting aside the “letter which killeth and looking to the spirit which vivifieth,” can this be regarded as a sale which was recorded as a testimonial of friendship, and for which no adequate equivalent was given? In the private transactions of life, when a thing is transferred for a price far inferior to its value, it may be called a sale, because it assumes that form; but it is in reality a disguised donation, particularly if it is stipulated in the deed that it is meant as an evidence of love, which is desired to be strengthened and perpetuated. Thus, in the case of the acquisition of Louisiana, the term “purchase,” according to its common significance, in commercial language, is misapplied. It is, to be sure a cession of the province; and if it is not strictly a donation, it must be conceded that it is not strictly a sale. Many would even think that it partakes more of the nature of the former than of the latter.
But in support of this view of the question, there is a stronger point to present to your consideration. It is worthy of remark that, mindful of the objection which had been made to him by his minister about the right of selling souls, and which, apparently, had been scornfully received, as I have already stated, Bonaparte, according to the historical declaration of that same minister, (Barbe Marbois,) “prepared himself,” the third article of the treaty of cession, which runs thus:
“The inhabitants of the said territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the meantime they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess.”
Was this selling Louisiana? Was this selling the Louisianians like cattle or other chattels? Were they becoming the property of the United States, to he disposed of as they pleased? Did the United States acquire an unqualified and unrestrained sovereignty over them? Could the United States resell Louisiana? No. It is evident that, by the treaty, France, through Bonaparte, made it imperative on the United States
