{"1": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3434", "width": "1925", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "V^^-/\\nc\\n\u00c2\u00ab5 x.", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "\u00e2\u0096\u00a0*b\\no t /V\\nC\\nr\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0O A /V\\ny.-^^X /.c^.%\\nt.cV\\n.-i-^\\no ^0 i -1\\nC0\\\\\u00c2\u00bb", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "\\\\:j\\nREMARKS\\nON A\\nDANGEROUS MISTAKE\\nMADE AS TO THE\\neastern BounDarp\\nOF\\n]LOUISIANA,\\nBOSTON\\nPRINTED BY J. T. BUCKINGHAM.\\nNovember, 1814.", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, to wit\\nDistrict Clerk s Office.\\nBE IT REMEMBERED, that on the ninth day of November, A. D. ]814, and in the thiity-\\nniiith year of the Iiidepeudeuce of the United States of America, Joseph T. Buckingham, of the\\nsaid District, has deposited in this office the Title of a Book, the right whereof he claims as Pro-\\nprietor, in the words following, to tuit\\nRemarks on a Dangerous Mistake made as to the Eastern Boundary of Louisiana.\\nIn conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States, entitled, An Act for the En-\\ncouragement of Learning, by securin? the Copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the Authors and\\nProprietors of such Copies, during the times therein m jtioned and also to an Act entitled,\\nAn Act supplementary to an Act, entitled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learnings, by se-\\nciu-ing the Copies of Maps. Chaits, and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies dur-\\ning the times tlierein mentioned and extending the Benefits thereof to the Arts of Designing,\\nEngraving, and Etching Historical and other Ptmts,\\nWILLIAM S. SHAW,\\nClerk of the District of Massachusetts..", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "REMARKS, c.\\nA DISPUTE has taken place between Spain and the United States\\narising out of the purchase made by the latter of Louisiana and\\nthe little island oi JVew-Orleans, which is connected with it. Be-\\nfore we treat of this dispute, we must notice some general facts.\\nThese two colonies once belonged to France, and formed the\\nbasis of the speculations of the famous French Mississippi compa-\\nny under Mr. Law. For reasons hereafter to be mentioned, France\\nvoluntarily gave both of them to Spain, on November 3, 1762 the\\nvery day when both parties signed the preliminaries of the peace\\nof 1762-3 with England. While Spain still remained in posses-\\nsion of these two colonies, difficulties firior to that just alluded to\\nhad occurred between herself and the United States namely, as\\nto our southern boundary, as to our navigation of the Mississippi,\\nand as to a place for depositing the goods of our citizens navigat-\\ning that great river. These more cai ly concerns together with\\nothers were the occasion of the treaty of Oct. 27, 1795, between\\nSpain and the United States. But five years afterwards (namely,\\non Sept. 30, 1 800) Spain was directed by Bonaparte to make over\\nto him Louisiana and New-Orleans, in exchange for some pre-\\ntended grants in Italy. On the 30th of April, 1803, Bonaparte, in\\norder to raise Si 1,750,000 in cash, and to prevent the seizure of\\nthese colonies by England sold both of them to the United States\\nfor \u00c2\u00a715,000,000 the difference, (or one quarter part) of the orig-\\ninal purchase money being reserved to pay the demands of Ameri-\\ncan claimants on the French government. The United States, be-\\ning thus possessed of Louisiana and New-Orleans, endeavoured to\\nmake the boundaries of Louisiana extend into West Florida Cwhich,", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "together with East Florida, had long belonged to Spain) and, in\\nthe event, took military possession of the districts, which they\\nclaimed there.* This last is the subject of dispute now to be dis-\\ncussed.\\nAs we presume, that our administration has taken very ques-\\ntionable ground on this occasion, we shall endeavour to prove the\\njustness of this opinion in what follows; ranging our materials un-\\nder several heads, from which we shall draw the necessary conclu-\\nsions.\\nI. An account of the form of the tramfer of Louisiana and\\nMew-Orleans to the United States, as made by Bonaparte in\\n1803.\\nIn the above named treaty of purchase dated April 30th, 1803,\\nwe read thus Art. 1st. Whereas by the third article of the trea-\\nty concluded at St. Ildefonso on the 9th Vindemiaire, an. IX. [or\\nOct. 1, IbOO] between the first consul of the French repubJick\\nand his Catholick Majesty [the King of Spain it was agreed as\\nfollows His Catholick Majesty promises and engages on his\\njiart to cede to the French Refiublick, six months after (he full and\\nentire execution of the conditions and stimulations relative to his\\nRoyal Highness the Duke of Parma,^ the coLour or province\\nOF Louisiana, with the extent that it has in the hands of Sfiain^\\na?id that it had when France possessed it, and such as it should\\ndeX after the treaties suBSE iUENQ Lr entered into between Spain\\nand OTHER states and whereas in pursuance of the [abovej\\nIf theclaim of our administration goes eastward as far as the river Per-\\ndido, (which lies between TNIobile and Pensacola) this is above 240 English\\nmiles in an air line from the bank of the Mississippi, and the average depth\\nof this tract from north to south is above 50 English miles. See Mr. Elli-\\ncott s map, E. or No. 5, as given in his Journal, of which more will be said\\nhereafter.\\nI The Duke of Parma was one of the King of Spain s family and was\\nmade king of Etruria (or Tuscany.) This is the pretended Italian grant\\njust spoken of. How far Bonapai-te fulfilled the promise to his widow,\\n(who was daughter to the King of Spain) except as to her mere title, is\\nwell known, for she was not only driven from her nominal khigdom but\\nimprisoned, wliile Bonaparte obtained the value of \u00c2\u00a715,000,000 as tlie\\nequivalent of this pretended grant.\\n4 Say rather (pursuant to tlie original French, doit eire) such as it ought\\nto be that is, such as it became after the treaties, which occurred while it\\nbelonged to Spam. N. B. The treaty slates, that the articles were agreed\\nto in the French language.", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "treaty (and particularly of the third article) the French republick\\nhas an incontestible title to the domain and to the possession of the\\nsaid territory the first consul of the French republick (desiring\\nto give to the United States a strong proof of his friendship) doth\\nhereby cede to the said United States in the name of the French\\nrepublick forever and in full sovereignty the said territory (w^itli\\nall its rights and appurtenances) as fulkj and in the same manner\\nas they have been acouired by the French republick in virtue\\nof the above mentioned treaty concluded tvifh his Calholick Majes\\nty. Art. 2d. In the cession made by the preceding article are in-\\ncluded the adjacent islands belonging to Louisiana, 8cc. Art. 3d.\\nThe commissary of the French republick shall remit all\\nmilitary posts of New-Orleans and other parts of the ceded terri-\\ntory to the commissary or commissaries named by the President\\nof the United States.\\nThis is the origin and nature of the title of the United States to\\nLouisiana and New-Orleans.\\nBut it is to be observed, first, that JVctj- Orleans is no where\\nreferred to in the above treaty or in the two documents which fol-\\nlow it, unless as an island belonging to Louisiana, or as a mere\\nfiart of Louisiana.\\nSecondly, The cession at large here referred to was limited by\\nthree conditions. 1st. The whole territory was ceded to us ex-\\nactly as Spain then held it. 2d. It was ceded to us exactly as\\nFrance had held it under its monarchy but subject to the effect\\nof Spanish treaties made after Spain had come into possession.\\n3d. It was ceded to us exactly in the form in which the French\\nrepublick hvid recently acquired it from Sfiain (nameiy in 1800.)\\nThe remark is obvious, that these conditions are all to be inter-\\npreted consistently with each other.\\nThese latter observations will be belter understood, when v. e\\ndiscover the whole of the circumstances, which occasioned iiiTii5.s\\nto be put to the old extent of liouisiana to the east, and when\\ncomment more at large on the above treaty.\\nII. account of the cession of the Spanish clai. ni to f/ie\\nFloridas inade to England in 1762-.?.\\nIt is to be observed, that, if France formerly sought to ixte;.c; t! o\\nbounds of Louisiana towards Florida,* Spain also soui^ht to p l\\nFlorida, as \\\\vc shall find, .it fii-st, had not been di^\u00e2\u0096\u00a0idcd into ll.isl a:Kl\\nWest Florida, and its dimensions, at tliat period, wei-e far inferior to tho.-^.:\\nof the two niodcni Floridas united.", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "the bounds of Florida towards Louisiana. Tire treaty of 1762-3^\\nhowever, between France, Spain, and England operated in a man-\\nner which instantly put this point out of sight, for it made the Mis-\\nsissippi the boundary between Louisiana and the modern Floridas,\\nbut yet so as to give New-Orleans tolvouisiana (for we shall here-\\nafter show, that New-Orieans may in one sense be considered as\\nan island formed by two legs of the Mississipfii and the sea.)\\nWe are now, however, to produce certain passages from this\\ntreaty of 1762-3 (both in its preliminary and in its definitive form)\\nwhich were designed to establish the new extent of Florida on one\\nside, and to prevent any excess in the extent of Louisiana on the\\nother and which particularly did so by the authority ot S/iaiUf\\n(who, at this moment, had virtually become proprietor of both\\ncountries.)\\nIn the fireliminary treaty, signed on Nov. 3d, 1762, by the min-\\nisters of England, France, and Spain in one instrument, and which\\nwas soon after ratified according to an original agreement contain-\\ned in an article in the treaty; (circumstances, which have bearings\\nto be noticed hereafter Spain declares as follows Art. XIX.\\nIn consequence of the restitution stipulated in the preceding ar-\\nticle, [that is, of the Havanna and of Cuba*] his Catholick majesty\\n[the king of Spain] cedes and guarantees in full right to his Brit-\\nanick majesty, all that Sjiain possesses on the continent of North\\nAmerica to the east or to the south east\\\\ of the river Mississippi.\\nThe definitive treaty between the same parties (which was\\nequally signed in one instrument, namely, on Feb. ^Oth, 1763, and\\nequally ratified) speaks of tliis cession from Spain to England, in\\nt!ic manner which follows, in its XXth article. In consequence\\nof the restitution stipulated in the preceding article, [that is, of\\nCuba, Sec his Catholick majesty cedes and guarayitees in full\\nri ^ht to his Britannick majesty, Florida, (with fort St. Augustine\\nand the bay of Pensacola) as ivell as all that Spain possesses on\\nthe continent of North America to the east or to the south east of\\nt lie river Mississippi (and, in general, every thing that depends\\non the same countries, with the sovereignty., profiertyy possession,\\nand all rights acquired by treaties or othervjise^ which the Catho-\\nAt the date of this treaiy, the captv.re of tha IManillas was not known.\\nBesides, they wtrc iinniedi. iteiy g- iven up on ransom.\\nI Part of East Elorida and aonio islauds lie to the southward and east-\\n\\\\v:;rd of the Mississi])pi.", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "lick king and tlie crowJi of Spain have had till now over the said\\ncountries, lands, places and their inhabitants, so that the Caiho-\\nlick king cedes and makes over the whole to the said king and to\\nthe crown of Great Britain, and that in the most ample form and\\nmanner.)\\nThus S/iain gave to England not only ancient Florida by naine^\\nbut whatever else it might possess to the east or south cast of\\nthe Mississififii. This was not a vain gift, for as she had been\\nmade, at the moment, proprietor of Louisiana by France, she could\\nmake or confirm whatever cessions she pleased, out of Louisiana,\\non the eastern side, in addition to the cession of Florida. Of the\\ncircumstances of this grant from France to S fiain of Louisiana, we\\nshall soon learn more minute particulars. In the mean time, we\\npass on to a new point.\\nIII. An account of a similar form of cession made by France to\\nEngland, respecting the Floridas, by means of the same treaty\\nof 1762-3.\\nAt the time of making the fireliminaries of this treaty, it does not\\nappear that Fngland was officially informed, that France had en-\\ngaged to give Louisiana to Spain and England certainly could\\nnot know that Spain had accented the offer, s^ce that acceptance\\ndid not occur till ten days after these preliminaries were signed.\\nSpain and France, therefore, spoke in this treaty as if no such offer\\nhad been made each separately conveying any claim which it\\nmight have to the Florida territory, taken in its largest modern\\nsense and also separately guaranteeing in its separate cession,\\nwhat, in some cases, could only belong to one of them but as the\\nconveyances by each of them stood in one common instrument,\\neach acted with the privity of the other, and this privity of the\\nother gave force to the acts of each of them.\\nThe cession on this occassion by France to England was made\\nvirtually in the same words, both by the preliminary, and by the\\ndefinitive treaty of 1762-3 but we shall copy the article in ques-\\ntion from the preliminary treaty, (as it was ratified,) since it was\\nin truth contemporary with the act of cession of Louisiana from\\nFrance to Spain, which was itself, as has been said, dated Nov. 3,\\n1762. The article in question follows. Art. VI. In order to\\nre-establish peace on the most solid and lasting foundations, and\\nto remove every subject of dispute with regard to the limits of the\\nBritish and French territories on the continent of America it is", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "8\\nagreed, that, for the future, the confines between the dominions of\\nhis Biitannick majesty, and those of his most Christian majesty,\\n[that is, the king of France] in that part of the world, shall be\\nirrevocably fixed by a line drawn along tfie middle of the river\\nMississippi from its source, as far as the river Iberville, and from\\nthence by a line drawn along the middle of this river, fthat is, the\\nIberville] and that of the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain to the\\nsea.* And to this purpose, the most Christian king cedes in full\\nriglit, and guarantees to his Britannick majesty, the river and\\nport of Mobile and every thing that he possesses, or ought to\\nhave possessedf on the left:^ side of the river Mississippi; excefit\\nthe town of New-Orleans, and theislandin whichit is situated, which\\nshall remain to France Provided, that the navigation of the river\\nMiasinsipiii- shall be equally free as well to the subjects of Great\\nBritain as to those of France, in its whole length and breadth, from\\nits source to the sea, (and that part expressly, which is between the\\nsaid island of New-Orleans and the right bank of the river) as\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2well as the passage both in- and out of its mouth. It is further stip-\\nulated that the vessels belonging to the subjects of either nation\\nshall not be stopped, visited, or subject to the payment of any duty\\nwhatever.\\nThe river IMississippi furnishing the waters of the Iberville, and the\\nIberville running through the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain to the sea,\\nwe are at liberty to conceive of the island of New-Orleans as formed by a\\nfork of the ISIississippi and the sea the several rivers which run either into\\nthe Iberville or the above lakes, being then considered merely as tributary\\nwaters to the Mississippi. H.nce, it becomes natural to treat the island of\\nNew-0 .leans sometimes as an appendage, and sometimes as a part of Lou-\\nisiana, which, in its more limited shape, had the Mississippi for its eastern\\nboundary.\\nThe definitive treaty says, ought to possess, in the present tense.\\n4: If a man stands in a boat with his back toward the higher part of a\\nriver, and looks down it, the bank to his left is called the left bank, and the\\nother, the right bank.\\nII Thus New-Orleans was the only object excepted, to the east of the Mis-\\nsissippi.\\nFor the preliminaries of the treaty between France, Spain and England,\\ndated Nov. 3, 1762, see Debrett s Collection of Treaties, (preceded by Mr.\\nCharles Jenkinson s Discourse) Vol. III. 166. For the definitive treaty\\nwhich followed these premliminai-ies on Feb. 10th, 1763, see the Annual\\nRegister of the preceding year (1762, page 333,) or any CoUectioa of Mod-\\nern Treaties, as Debrett s, lU. 177, or that of Chalmers, II. 229.", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "IV. jin account of the firoceedings of Great Britahi as to the\\ntwo Floridas.\\nThe territory thus given up to England by Spain (as lying be-\\ntween the eastern bank of the Mississippi and the sea to the east\\nand south and at the same moment also by France (as extend-\\ning from the middle both of the Mississippi and of the boundary\\nwaters of New-Orleans in an easterly direction indefinitely, but\\nso as to reach the Mobile or Tombeeky this territory, we say,\\nwas thrown by England into one general mass, and was then\\n(by a proclamation of the king England, dated October 7, 1763)\\ndivided into ^as? Florida and PFes^ Florida.* The 6ouwrfart/ of each\\npart, however, is merely to be held as the boundary of a provin-\\ncial government, and subject to internal changes. But, as regards\\nforeign transactions, the northern boundaries proclaimed in 1763\\nwere adhered to with respect to the United States in 1782, and\\nwith respect to Spain in 1783 as will immediately be stated.\\nAs to the southern boundary of the two Floridas, it reached like\\nthe northern from the Mississippi to the Atlantic k.\\nIt was at the close of the American war that Great Britain a-\\nbandoned to S^iain the territory which she had thus divided into\\nEast and West Florida. The definitive treaty with Spain in 1783\\nexpresses the surrender thus His Britannick Majesty likewise\\ncedes and guarantees to his Catholick Majesty [that is, the king\\nof Spain] East Florida as also West Florida.\\nIt is important to mention this cession, for as Louisiana and\\nNew Orleans join line and line to the Floridas to the west, with-\\nout any intermediate territory, their boundaries in that quarter\\nare one and the same, so that to name the boundary of the one is\\nto indicate that of the other.\\nBy the above cession to Spain, the concern of Great Britain\\nwith the Florida boundaries became terminated.\\nBut we are now to add (and it is a matter interesting to the histo-\\nry of the United States) that, previous to this cession. Great Britain\\nhad agreed, that the boundaries of the two Floridas to the north\\nshould become the boundaries of the United States \\\\.o \\\\.he, %o\\\\x\\\\.h.\\nShe had full right to fix on this line, the provisional articles of\\nher peace with the United States having been signed on Novem-\\nber 30, 1782, and also ratified before the signature of the above\\nSec note A. ;xt the end.", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "10\\npreliminaries of peace with Spain in 1783.* Spain herself, also,\\nas the proprietor of the Floridas, again accepted these boundaries\\nin 1795, as will immediately be mentioned, and thus the transac-\\ntion as to the boundaries was fully confirmed, as regards the Unit-\\ned States.\\nV. An account of the joint and sefiarate firoceedings of Sfiain\\nand the United States, as to the two Floridas^ previously to\\n1800 and 1803.\\nIn the treaty between ourselves and Spain dated 1795, noticed\\nabove (entitled a Treaty of friendship, limits., and navigation,) it\\nwas decided that the boundary between the United States and the\\ntwo Floridas should be thus designated. The line was to have\\nits BEGINNING ON THE RIVER MISSISSIPPI, in N. lat. 31\u00c2\u00b0 thence\\nto be drawn to the middle of the river Apalachicoia (or Cata-\\nhouche thence along the middle of that river to its junction\\nwith the Flint [river] thence directly to the head of St. Mary s\\nriver and thence down the middle of that river to the Atlantick\\nOcean.^ These boundaries, as we have intimated, have been u-\\nnanimously agreed upon by Great Britain, Spain, and the United\\nStates, as the common boundaries of the United States and of the\\nFloridas, in the points where they touch each other, namely from\\nthe Mississippi to the Atlantick ocean.\\nThe Spanish territory here in question was called by the first\\narticle of the above treaty of 1795, the Spanish colonies of East\\nand West Florida and by its 3d and 5th articles they were called\\nthe Tivo Floridas which names, therefore, are to be held as\\nmutually received by Spain and the United States in the senses\\nwhich they naturally bear.\\nThese territories (as we have seen) had, moreover, passed into\\nthe hands of Spain, in 1783, by a British title which title had the\\npeculiar advantage of extinguishing the old French claims to ev-\\nery part of them. This convenience must have been the cause\\nwhich induced the Spanish court to adopt the division and the\\nSee the provisional articles of peace between the United States and\\nC;reat Britain in Gordon s History of the American Revolutionai-y War,\\nvol. IV. 360. They are to be found also iu some of the collections of the\\nLaws of the United States.\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0j- See the treaty of 1795 in various collections of the Laws of the United\\nStates.", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "il\\nnames provided for these territories by the British proclarnation\\nof 1763 for in the maps of D Anville and many others we find\\nmention made of Floride or Florida in the singular number, and\\nwhere this happened Louisiana at the same time was commonly\\nmade to cover a large space of country to the east of the Missis-\\nsippi. This remark is of some moment in the present controver-\\nsy, as a total change has taken place on this subject when the\\nFloridas have become spoken of in the plural number, and Louis-\\niana stands limited to the east by the Mississippi. But to return\\nto the treaty of 1795.\\nThis treaty of 1795 was not content with merely designating\\nthe course of the boundary between the United States and the\\nFloridas for it directed the appointment of a commissioner and\\na surveyor by each government, in order to run and mark this\\nboundary. It added they shall make plats [or maps] and\\nkeep journals of their proceedings, which shall be considered as\\npart of this convention [or treaty] and shall have the same force\\nas if the same were inserted therein.\\nA private journal by Mr. Andrew EUicott (the American com-\\nmissioner, who was employed between 1796 and 1800 in the pros-\\necution of this concern) has long been before the publick, accom-\\npanied with maps and an Appendix. From this work (printed at\\nPhiladelphia in 1803 and containing 450 quarto pages) the follow-\\ning particulars are selected, which doubtless found a place in his\\nofficial report. 1 A post or pillar was erected eighty-eight French\\nfeet from the margin of the Mississippi in N. lat. 31\u00c2\u00b0, with Span-\\nish memorials on its southern face and American memorials on\\nits northern face. At the same time, marks, mounds, stones or\\nposts were suitably placed in the course of the survey along the\\nrest of the boundary, and particularly in cases where astronomical\\nfacts were to be recorded (on which the survey was chiefly found-\\ned.) 2. Though the series of the miles measured was numbered\\nin an easterly course, from the utmost bounds to which the annual\\ninundation of the Mississippi extended on the eastern side in 31\u00c2\u00b0\\nN. lat. yet an opportunity was taken to carry back this line to the\\nvery margin of the river and this margin was found to be two\\nmiles and one hundred and eighty rods distant to the west from\\nthe above high -water mark. 3. Plats and journals duly au-\\nthenticated appear to have been furnished pursuant to the treaty.\\n4. After the report of the work performed was agreed to, posses-", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "12\\nsion of the territory was either held, or after a certain time assum-\\ned, by the respective parties in conformity to the line thus run.*\\nThree other circumstances resting on the evidence of Mr. Elli-\\ncott may now be noticed to advantage and they will be given\\naccording to the order of time, in which they occurred.\\n1. This gentleman, who collected on the spot, during his offi-\\ncial operations, the history of what he relates, informs us, that the\\ncountry on the east of the Mississippi and north of the island of\\nOrleans was peaceably possessed from the peace of 1763, till\\nafter the commencement of our revolutionary war in the year\\n1775, by Great Britain. This possession by the British oi.\\nthe western parts of West Florida, during this period, shows the\\nefficacy of the treaty of 1762-3, which gave the two Floridas to the\\nBritish.t\\n2. At the commenceinent of our revolutionary ivar Great Brit-\\nain still held the south-ivest part of the present territory of the U..\\nStates, and she continued to hold it until 1779, when it was sur-\\nrendered, not to us, but to a military force of the Spaniards, who\\nhad then become our allies. Though the claim of Great Britain\\nto these districts was finally abandoned to us by the provisional\\narticles of our peace of November 30, 1782, yet Sfiain remained\\nin possession till the lines between the United States and the Flor-\\nidas were on the point of being run, pursuant to the treaty of 1795;\\na part of the inhabitants being in favour of her government.^\\n3. The treaty, by which we afterwards purchased the title of\\nBonaparte to -LoznV,fa?m, was dated April 30, 1803, and Mr. Elli-\\ncott thus interprets its principal article, within three months after\\nits date at Paris. It does not appear (he says) by the cession of\\nLouisiana to the United States, that we obtain the whole of both\\nsides of the Mississippi, for by consulting No. 5 of the maps, it\\nThe authority for \\\\hefour assertions in this paragraph will be found\\nin Mr. Ellicott s work as follows Consult, for x\\\\rticle 1, his Appendix, p^\\n49 57, and particularly tlie report by William Dunbar, esq. who acted\\nfor tne king of Spain. For Art. 2, consult the Appendix, p. 55, 56 and\\nmap Xo. 2. For Art. 3, consult the Journal, p. [193, 194,] [278, 279,] and\\n[296.] For Art. 4, consult the Journal, p. [129 133] and many other pas-\\nsages.\\nj See the Journal, p. [129 133] and many other passages.\\nt See many pai ts of the Joiu-nal. Indeed Mr. EUicott seems to have\\nbeen a principal agent in procuring the evacuation of the countr}^ l)y the\\nSpaniards, while on his Vz-ay to run the boundary.", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "13\\nwill be seen, that the island of New Orleans (which lies on the\\neast side of the Mississippi) only extends north to Manshack.*\\nFrom thence^ northerly (along the east side of the river) to the\\nnorthern boundary of the United States, is still held by his\\nCatholick Majesty as a part of West Florida. This opinion,\\nit is to be observed, is given in a preface to the above work, bear-\\ning date July 23, 1803 and as it proceeds from the commissioner\\nappointed by our administration for settling this very boundary, it\\nis invaluable, since he was fully informed of facts from history,\\nfrom treaties, from local information, and from communications\\nreceived from his own government. It is, in short, the testimony\\nof an official and intelligent man given impartially. It is also not\\npronounced once only, but he several times repeats it in different\\nshapes.\\nWhat has disturbed this respect and deference on our side once\\npaid to the Spanish rights in this quarter, will be inquired into\\nunder our next head.\\nVI. An account of the firoceedings of the United States after\\ntheir acquisition of Louisiana in 1803.\\nAs soon as the United States had acquired Louisiana, the boun-\\ndaries of the Floridas were contemplated under a new aspect by\\nour administration. It was no longer upon the bounds to Louisia-\\nna derived from reiiublican France that they chose to rest, but on\\nthe bounds once set up by France under its monarchy, for these\\nlatter bounds (as they thought) would secure to them the western\\nparts of West Florida.\\nUnder colour of this claim, our administration is understood to\\nhave made official demands on Spain for a part of West Florida,\\nas if it belonged to Louisiana. They are also said to have made\\nan official appeal for support in this claim to Bonaparte s ministry.\\nFrom neither quarter did they obtain the satisfaction desired, ow-\\ning to considerations to be mentioned under the next head. Thus\\ndisappointed in its negociations, our administration next resorted\\nto arms, and took military possession of the parts of West Florida\\nin question, intimating, however, that it might quit them again,\\nif Spain should show a better title.\\nIn this position, the affair, at this moment, rests that is, wo\\nhave made an unfounded demand, and we have seized and still\\nhold the object of it, in spite of remonstrance.\\nSee note B. at the end.", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "14\\nVII. An account of the motive for ceding Louisiana to Spain\\nin 1762, with the details and consequences of that cession.\\nAs it may have seemed extraordinary, that France should hj^ye-\\nniade a present of Louisiana to Spain, and the transaction is im-\\nportant to the present dispute, we shall give the necessary state-\\nment of it in this place.\\nLouis XIV. of France, the third sovereign of the Bourbon fam-\\nily,* succeeded in placing his grandson Philip (duke of Anjou) on\\nthe throne of Spain and this S/ianish branch of the Bourbons suc-\\nceeded also in giving sovereigns to Naples and to Parma. Hence\\nLouis XV. of France took occasion to conclude a treaty with\\nSpain, with a view to unite all the Bourbon sovereigns, which\\ntreaty was dated Aug. 15, 1761, and was called The family com-\\niidct of the Bourbons an opening being left in it for the acces-\\nsion of Naplest and Parma.\\nBy this treaty it was agreed whoever attacked one crown at-\\ntacked the other. On this ground, Spain soon joined France in\\nthe war she was then maintaining against Great Britain. But\\nSpain quickly losing the Havanna and Cuba to Great Britain,\\nFrance became convinced by this and other circumstances, that it\\nwas for the interest of both to bring the war to an immediate ter-\\nmination.\u00e2\u0080\u0094 But now another principle came into play, for it had\\nbeen agreed in the above family compact, that when France and\\nSpain should terminate by peace the war they should have suffer-\\ned in common, they would balance the advantages which one of\\nthe two powers might have received against the losses of the oth-\\ner so thai (in the conditions of peace, as in the operations of war)\\nthe two nionarchs of France and Spain throughout the extent of\\nFrance reckons three great races of kings namel} the Merovingian,\\nbeginning, as some say, with Clovis in 481 the Carlovingian, beginning\\nwith Pepin in 751 and the Capetian, beginning with Hugh Capet in 987.\\nIlemy III. ended the line of Valois under the Cr.petian race and was suc-\\nceeded inyl589 by the famous Henry IV. who was also of the Capetian\\nrace but of the Bourbon family. He began the Boiirbon dynasty, and, add-\\ning the kingdom of Navarre to that of France, he was called kmg of France\\nand Mavarre, which title was home by his descendants Louis XIII. XIV.\\nXV. XVI. XVII. (who died a child and prisoner to his subjects) and XVIH.\\n(who is just placed on his throne.)\\nIn this treaty the king of Naples is called king of the Two Sicilies, a\\ntitle repeatedly given to the king of Naples, v.hile possessed of the two\\nSicilies.", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "15\\niheir empire, should be considered and would act, as if they formed\\nbut one and the same fiower.* But, notwithstanding this condi-\\ntion, it so happened, when the peace of 1762 3 was ncgociated,\\nthat France possessed no balance of advantages to sacrifice to Eng-\\nland, in order to procure for Spain the I cstoratiou of the Havan-\\nna and Cuba. France, therefore, determined to give up one of\\nher own nnconquered territories in order to buy such a peace for\\nSpain, and this territory was Louisiana, which then crossed the\\nMississippi to the east. This was to be made over to Spain on\\ncondition of her joining with France in a transfer to England of\\nevery thing lying to the east of the Mississippi, England having\\nconsented to receive the territory thus bounded, as the equivalent\\nfor her Spanish conquests. France having no other motive what-\\never for this great sacrifice, it appears to have been agreed with\\nthe Spanish negociator at Paris, that i\\\\\\\\e formal offer of Louisiana\\nto his own court should take place through himself on the very\\nday (November 3, 1762) when this tract of country was offered to\\nEngland. Two circumstances rendered this a secure proceed-\\ning for, first, France merely offered (but did not at that time\\ncede) Louisiana to Spain and, next, even the cession of Florida\\nto England was open to recall (the preliminaries of the peace be-\\ning made subject to ratification.) In the event, however, the whole\\ntransaction became established, by the acceptance of Louisiana,\\nunder its new limits, on the part of Spain, on the 1 3th November,\\n1763, and also by a ratification of the preliminaries with England,\\non the 22d of the same month. t\\nHence it appears that these were not merely contemporary but\\nconnected transactions all being to be established together or all\\nto be rejected together. All, however, being established togeth-\\ner, the acceptance of Louisiana is to be considered as operating\\nback to the date of the offer of it while the ratification of the pre-\\nFor a copy of the Treaty or Family Compact of the House of Bourbon\\n(Facte de Famllle de la Maison de Bourbon) see Chalmer s Collection ot\\nTreaties, I. 552, Debrett s Collection, III. 70, or Almon s Remembrancer for\\n1778, the original, in the last case, accompanying- the ti anslation.\\nFor the date of the acceptance of the offer of Louisiana, see Louis X\\\\ s\\nletter to Mons. D Abbadie in Mr. EUicotts Journal, p. [128] or in the An-\\nnual Register for 1765, p. [271.] For the date of the ratification oftlie pre-\\nliminaries of 1762, see the Annxial Register for 1762, p. [108]\\nx^", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "16\\nliminaries equally extends back to the date of signing them.* T\u00c2\u00bb\\ndispute this, would in nothing vary the issue of the discussion, foP\\nthe definitive treaty by being signed after the date of the accep-\\ntance of Louisiana, rendered valid the cession to England of the\\nsurplus part of Louisiana (namely, that part lying to the east of\\nthe Mississippi and the Iberville.) If the private cession of Lou-\\nisiana to Spain had failed for want of the due formalities, the trea-\\nty alone would have substantiated the transfer of this surfilus part\\nfor the claims of France and Spain together (which covered the\\nwhole country) were fairly made over to England. It is true, that\\nneither France nor Spain named the Floridas in their deeds of ces-\\nsion; but they described the territory in such clear terms, as would\\nhave conveyed it, had it reached even to the eastern hemisphere\\nboth governments used similar descriptions and both afterwards\\nacted as if their descriptions had been effectual. Nor were the\\nUnited States of a different opinion, till they became possessed of\\nLouisiana.\\nWhat is thus directly proved by the treaty of 1762 3, is con-\\nfirmed by other circumstances, of which a part have already been\\nmentioned. For example. If it be true, that the cession of Lou-\\nisiana made by Fi-ance to Spain in 1762 was designed to preserve\\nthe P^loridas intire in order to be given intire to England the par-\\nties would not at such a moment have loaded the territory east of\\nthe Mississippi with new claims of so transitory a nature, that the\\ntreaty must instantly extinguish them for whether this part of\\nLouisiana rested with France or with Spain, each abandoned its\\nseparate title and guaranteed the cession. The British, likewise\\n(according to Mr. ElUcou s account) came into actual possession\\nof the Floridas close up to the Mississippi, immediately after this\\ntreaty of 17-62 3, without exciting the jealousy either \u00c2\u00a9f France\\nor of Spain. France, likewise, was equally silent, when Spain a-\\ndopted the British names and the British division of the two Flo-\\nridas in 1783. The same acquiescence was seen in France in\\n1795, when Spain and the United States concurred in tracing their\\ncommon boundary in this quarter to the very bank of the Missis-\\nA r.itlficution, according to the course of proceedings in modern times,\\nbeings a mere confirmation by a principal of %vhat is done by a political a-\\ngent, the original instrument, (of which the date commonly makes a very\\nimportant part) holds in its oricrinal form from the moment of its ratijica-\\nfion.", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "17\\n\u00c2\u00abippi.* When Spain, also, in 1800, relinquished Louisiana and\\nNew-Orleans to Bonaparte, that greedy man omitted to hint, that\\nhe had any title to the Western part of West Florida as an appen-\\ndage to the cession. Lastly, when Bonaparte sold Louisiana and\\nNew-Orleans in 1803, to the United States, he expressly declared,\\nthat these possessions were to be held by the United States only\\nas the Rejiublick of France itself had received them from Spain.\\nSuch are the confirmations of the general fact, that, after 1762-3,\\nLouisiana and New-Orleans were separated from the two Floridas\\nby the Mississippi, and that it is in this form only that we now\\nought to hold them.\\nOBSERVATIONS\\nON THE PRECEDING FACTS AND ARGUMENTS.\\nFrom the statements in our introduction and the seven heads\\nwhich have followed it, we venture to affirm, that Louisiana, in the\\nhands of Spain after the treaty of 1763, did not cross the Missis-\\nsippi; and that whatever Spain held there, which was not Louisi-\\nana and JVciv-Orleans, was part of the Floridas the Mississippi\\nlying between the two tracts of country, like a gulf not to be\\npassed.\\nThis question, argued politically, has offered no difficulties.\\nNor would it experience any if tried according to the principles of\\ncommon law. Where there are various claimants to a real es-\\ntate, is it not known that we may still obtain a solid title by receiving\\na conveyance under warranty of all the claims of acll the claimants,\\nunited in one deed, in face of each other, and for a valuable consid-\\neration And such a conveyance was made by the two sole pre-\\ntenders to the ceded territory in 1762 3, and that cession was\\nheld so sound that one of the pretenders afterwards adopted the ti-\\ntle, thus given to it, for her own use, and the consideration, namely,\\nThe acquisition of the t\\\\ro Floridas promised a grand and simple out-\\nline for the British possessions on the Xorth American continent at this pe-\\nriod. To the North stood the Frozen Ocean to the East the Atlantic to\\nthe South the Gulf of Mexico and to the West the jSIississippi hut these\\nwere boundaries, which Great Britain knew not how to retain long-er than\\nfrom 1763 to 1776.", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "18\\nWestern or modern Louisiana rcrnaitled in the hands of Spain for\\nthirty-eight years, and was then bartered away by Spain to France\\nthe do7ior of it.\\nStill further. The title to the Floridas, which is thus consolidat-\\ned, and which, as v/e have shewn, has been first warranted, and\\nthen confirmed by two successive ratifications^ carries its date as\\nfar back as 1762-3, thereby adding tlie firescrifitive title of above\\nhalf a century to the legal title.\\nIf all this be true, what (it will naturally be demanded) has our\\nadministration to offer in vindication of its measure As our ad-\\nministration appears to have published nothing official on this sub-\\nject. It becomes us to consider what can be said in favour of its\\nconduct on this occasion, and then to make the necessary replies.\\n1st. It may be urged on behalf of our administration, that a pur--\\nchaser has a right to look into his tide-deeds, and to take advantage\\nof what he finds in them and that, as, in ancient times, Louisiana\\ncrossed the Mississippi to the east, it is open to us to adopt the\\nmore extensive boundary. But, whatever a power, tenacious like\\nSpain, and sagacious like France, has in turn overlooked, since\\n1762, while it held the property in question, may be suspected as\\nworthy of little attention on our side. Each knew, as every poli-\\ntician and lawyer does, that the best titles, by subsequent deeds,\\nbecome liable to limitations that such limitations, in the present\\ninstance, took place in 1762-3 and that we must abide by the effect\\nof them. If France, indeed, in 1803, had thought that she had\\nmore land to sell than lay on the western side of the Mississippi,\\nshe might have asked more for the bargain than fifteen millions\\nof dollars.\\n2d. It may be said, that the treaties of J 800 and 1803 positively\\ndeclare, that Louisiana is now to be held in the same extent,\\nthat it had, when France possessed it, (that is, under its mon-\\narchs.) These Vv ords, however, are followed by others, which\\ncreate limitations to this extent, for the extent is said to be\\nsuch as it should be [or ought to be] after the treaties subse-\\nquently entered into between Spain and other states These are\\nwords not to be silently passed over, as usually has happened in\\nthis controversy, since they have an important meaning. We\\nshail instantly demonstrate this,f after observing, first, that the\\nword subsequently, signifies after the time, when France\\ngave ii/i the territory and, next, that the words other states,", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0022.jp2"}, "23": {"fulltext": "19\\nmay relate to any foreign state except France^ with whoni this\\nagreement was made.*\\nWe maintain, then, that, subsequently to the time when France\\nheld Louisiana (under its monarchs) Spain has made at least two\\ntreaties with other states; one of cession to England in 1762-3,\\nand another of arrangement with ourselves in 1795 that by the\\nfirst the boundaries of the two Floridas were formed^ and by the\\nsecond they were acknowledged and that the Mississippi was\\nmade their west em limit. Of consequence, the Mississippi be-\\ncomes the eastern counter-limit of Louisiana. Louisiana to the\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2west was diiferently circumstanced, since it could not be the sub-\\nject of treaty with other states, as being bounded solely by other\\nSpanish possessions. We may now, then, begin to discover the\\nopposite design of each of the clauses. The Jirst stated, that\\nBonaparte was to receive Louisiana (that is to the west) as\\nFrance held it during its monarchy, without any regard to altera-\\ntions of its shape, produced by mere colonial regulations on the\\npart of Spain. The second clause was designed to secure to\\nSpain the boundaries which it had both given to England and re-\\ncei-ved back from England, as the western limit of the Floridas.\\nIt was, also, calculated to esiablish various concessions made to\\nthe United States in 1795, and thus to maintain the reputation of\\nSpain for dignity and good faith and on this ground ihe United\\nSlates, in fact, appealed to it in their disputes with France between\\n1800 and 1803, in cases, which bore relation to it. We have thus\\ninterpreted the two clauses in perfect consistence with each other,\\nwhich it will be found difficult to do upon any other plan, as will\\nbe experienced by those who make the trial. Upon our interpre-\\ntion, it is easy to understand, what that Louisiana is, which Spain\\nlately held, which she yielded to Bonaparte, which Bonaparte sold\\nto the United States, and which corresponds to her treaties with\\nother Slates. Bonaparte, indeed, well knew, that France and Spain\\nhad joined in reducing the claims of Louisiana to the east, for the\\npurpose of making room for the extension of Florida to the west\\nsince this was a fundamental object in the treaty and the proceed-\\nings of 1762-3, both with Spain and with France.\\nIt will be remembered tiiat tliese*clauses belong to the original tre.ity\\nbetween Bonaparte and Spain, and appear in the treaty between Bonapartg\\nand us merely by way of recital.", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0023.jp2"}, "24": {"fulltext": "20\\nProbably, these are the only specious arguments, on this sub-\\nject, to be urp;td on the side of our administration. However, to\\ngive our government every chance of being justified, we shall no-\\ntice three other grounds of defence; though they arc of very infe-\\nrior value.\\n1. It majr Ue said, that the French negociators gave it to be un-\\nderstood -verbally that a. cession of Louisiana, according to its old\\nlimits, was intended, not only to the west, but to the cant. To\\nthis no other remark need be made than that the words of the\\ntreaty (as they stand ratified on both sides) are alone to be at-\\ntended to. In private deeds the language of the negociating\\nagents is rarely appealed to but, in publick proceedings, this is\\nout of the question first, because the ceremony of the ratifica-\\ntion takes the construction oi a publick treaty out of the hands of\\nits negociators, and, next, because were this sort of evidence en-\\ncouraged, it might introduce great uncertainty and intrigue into\\nnegociations of the utmost national importance. This, therefore,\\nis an argument destitute of weight in theory, and is, also, said to\\niiavc been found wanting in efficacy in practice.\\n2. Some muy take a fancy to admit, that the title to Louisiana\\ngiven to Spain in 1762-3 was, in truih, only partial, in order to as-\\nsert, as a consequence of this, that France had a right to sell to\\nus the rest of Louisiana in I8U3. But, the contrivance is useless\\nliince Bonaparte s treaty of 1803 expressly declares, that he sold\\nus onlv what the Frencli rcimblick had acquired from Spain by\\nthe sjiec jick \\\\xc^\\\\.Y of 1800. Besides, what rescrvalions could\\nFrance have made in 4 762-3, hen, in one and the same breath,\\nshe gave Louisiana to Spain, and joined Spain in a treaty, where-\\nby each gave to tugland whatever it possessed or was entitled to\\ncast of the IMississippi.\\n3. Oiiicr persons may say, that our administration was entitled\\nto take advantage of the co7iJusion in Sjianish affairs, and thence\\nto ai,_snme the western pans of West Florida. But, we reply, that\\nthe claims of our administration on these parts were made before\\nthis confusion, on grounds totally indfepcndent on this circumstance.\\nAccording to our tiilc-pagv.. therciore, we continue to affirm,\\nthat the mistake made by our government on the subject now be-\\nfore us, is a dangerous mistake, for Spain considers our preten-\\nsions as l o\u00c2\u00abndt;d on sopisisiry in words, whore there was an evident\\nperspicuity in sense, and iiiat we arc in fuct moved by a love of", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0024.jp2"}, "25": {"fulltext": "21\\nplunder and a desire to take advantage of the weak. Appearances,\\nas to these subjects, are certainly against us, and such conduct\\nthreatens us with dangers from various quarters. For instance,\\nit is dangerous to seize a territory by arms, under pretence, that\\nwe shall give it up, if we find the seizure wrong. Ii is dangerous\\nto attempt to secure objects of this kind by fomenting insurrec-\\ntions; a proceeding which is laid lo our charge, not only iicre, but\\nin East Florida. It is dangerous also, to excite the jealousy of\\nsuch powers as are jointly interested in ivaiching the temper of\\nour government, particularly on the subject of extension of terri-\\ntory.* Lastly, the plan of accumulating extensive territory is dan-\\ngerous as regards ourselves, especially wiien associated with the\\nprinciple of forming new states beyond our original limits, which\\nare to become members of our General Union.\\nBut we may properly, and with some satisfaction, close our in-\\nquiry in this place with some short remarks as to the views and\\ntemper pursued in it. First, we have neither touched on the pow-\\ner of Bonaparte to assume Louisiana, nor, when it was once assum-\\ned, to sell it again. Next, we have not blamed the purchase of\\nLouisiana, even with an uncertain title, for this purchase gave us\\na temporary peace, without inconvenience or dishonour, and at a\\nsmall comparative expense. Thirdly, we pretend to no sha^e in\\ndictating future proceedings. Lastly, we have avoided every harsh\\ninsinuation, indelicate expression, or criminating conclusion, being\\ncontent with solid facts, and plain arguments, expressed in civil\\nlanguage, wit!iout regard to party. If there be any, who wish to\\nsee considerations ol Jirudcnce taken into account along with those\\nUpon consulting our maps, we shall perceive, that tlie next subject of\\nalarm to the courts of Europe, on account of our movements in Louisiana,\\nwill be the mines for pi ecious metals, in Mexico and Peru mines, which\\nfor ages have formed tlie chief supply of these articles for the whole world.\\nEven in the shape of coin, there is no civilized country, from England to\\nChina, from the north pole to the south, where the Spanish doUai- is not\\nknown. Many reflecting men have long remarked on tlie good fortime of\\nmankind at having these means of formidable enterprize in the safe keeping\\nof tlie quiet, liarmless Spaniai-ds of modern times and even the hilanthro-\\npists, so called, living out of the bounds of tlie United States, would scarce-\\nly vote that these magazines of misOTief should be subject to the command\\nof our bold and speculating nation. Eveiy honest Americ.n mu.st hiu.self\\ndread the result.", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0025.jp2"}, "26": {"fulltext": "22\\nof right and of justice, we reply, that this is a subject into which\\nwe shall no fui ther enter than has been done in the preceding para-\\ngraph. Prudent men will find enough to reflect upon there and\\nto speak to others, might be useless at the present moment, or\\nmay be left to other persons.\\nPOSTCRIPT.\\nThere aie several short views to be taken of the matters dis-\\ncussed in the foregoing pages, which may claim a place here.\\nFor example We may treat our subject under the form of an\\nalternative, by considering all the several shapes which the question\\nmay be made to take, and adopting that, which seems most reasona-\\nble. Thus we may say, that the western parts of West Florida\\nbelonged either to France singly, or to Spain singly, or else to both,\\nor else to neither. But the preliminary treaty gave them to Eng-\\nland, whether they belonged to France w lolly, or in part, or to\\nSpain wholly, or in part, since it gave to England all to the east\\nof the Mississippi belonging to either of them. The critical part\\nof the gift was Spanish, if the cession of Louisiana had taken ef-\\nfecti^ otherwise it was French. This general gift by each was re-\\npeated in the same form, or still more distinctly, by the dejintive\\ntreaty of 1763, ninety days after Spain had accepted the Louisiana\\ncession. And since each act of transfer was ratified, the conclusion\\ncan admit of no doubt. England was quickly put into possession,\\nwhile France did not even issue the order for putting Spain into\\npossession, till April 21, 1764 and the acts of taking possession,\\nslowly followed.* The above reasoning, we think, holds good,\\nEngland was in possession before Oct. 7, 1763, if we are to judg e by\\nher proclamation of that date, issued by advice of the privy council, and\\nfounded on letters patent ibr org anizing the government of the new colonies.\\nWe may at least conclude, that England saw no difficulty, at that date,\\nlikely to attend the act of taking possession of East and West Florida, be-\\nginning the latter from the Mississippi and history relates none, except\\nas regarded the Indians of the interior (against whom European govern-\\nments, as well as our own, have often made expeditions, within tlie limits\\nof territories long held after the usual! manner). But we do not mean to\\nsay, that titles cannot pass without possession accompanying them. Such\\ndoctrine would desti-oy our ov/n claim to Louisiana, acquired by the treaty", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0026.jp2"}, "27": {"fulltext": "supposing either France or Spain concerned in the property iu\\nquestion. But if neither was the proprietor, we then come to the\\nlast branch of our dilemma, and may affirm, that by common rules,\\nEngland had a right to assume it as vacant territory, and to grant\\nit afterwards to Spain, who, therefore, may still be supposed to\\nhold it under the British title which she has found so useful to her.\\nTo the above summary mode of treating the question, we shall\\nadd a second in the form of a simjile statement. We affirm, then,\\nthat France was to offer, and Spain to accept, Louisiana, on condi-\\ntion that England should receive a portion of it. As both France\\nand Spain held territory to the eastward of the Mississippi, the\\nform used for the cession to England answered not only for the\\neastern part of Louisiana (by whichever of them it was held) but\\nalso for Florida. Before the preliminary or rough draught of the\\ntreaty of 1762-3 was ratified, Spain accepted the cession of Lou-\\nisiana, and consequently she accepted it with the limits given to it\\nby this draught. The definitive or corrected copy of this treaty,\\ncontaining the same limitations, (except that they were rendered\\nstill more precise) confirmed this consent of Spain to the meas-\\nure. Possession was taken in consequence, and was so held by\\nEngland or by Spain for nearly half a century, till Spain was de-\\nprived of it by force. It will be difficult in a disputed case to re-\\nceive a more simple and satisfactory solution than that here given.\\nThe impressions to be made by these short representations will\\nbe increased by observing, that there are three defects in every\\ndefence which has been paade publick in support of the conduct\\nof our administration.\\nFirst defect. No reason is offered for the cession of Louisiana\\nby France to Spain. This cession was made neither to induce\\nof April 30, 1803 for the late Major Amos Stoddard tells us, that Lo-wcr\\nLouisiana was not surrendered by Spain to Bonaparte s agent, till early in\\nDecember, 1803. He himself, as he adds, was the constituted agent of tlie\\nFrench republick in Upper Louisiana, and in her name, received possession\\nof that province the 9th day of March, 1804, and the next day transferred\\nit to the United States. See his book, in the preface, and at page 102.\\nHis mistake as to the date of the first possession obtained by the English\\nin the Floridas (which he places in 1764) is, in efiect, answered by the vari-\\nous facts stated in this note, not to say, that possession may have been tak-\\nen by England of different parts of the two Floridas successively. He will\\nbe evidence, however, for the tardy possession of Louisiana taken by Spain\\nunder the act of cession from France", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0027.jp2"}, "28": {"fulltext": "24\\nSpain to enter ifito the family compact, nor into the war with Eng-\\nland, for she had already adopted both, but to provide means for\\nterminating the wary in the manner stated above. Second defect.\\nNo motive can be assigned, but that which we have assigned for\\nthe reference to foreign treaties made in the treaty of 1800. Third\\ndefect. No attempt has been made to explain, why France allow-\\ned Spain to express her cession to England as beginning from the\\nMississippi, when Spain might have described it as beginning\\nfrom the Atlantick and going westward^ till it met the possessions\\nof France in Louisiana. But, on the supposition, that France had\\ngiven up Louisiana to Spain, all the jealousy of France as to the\\nclaims of Spain towards the Mississippi would of course cease.\\nThese defects are important, and the two first are of an amount\\nto be fatal to any cause, and especially to a cause which is weakly\\nsupported by arguments of a positive description.", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0028.jp2"}, "29": {"fulltext": "25\\nNOTES.\\nJVotea A. and B. refc-rred to in the preceding remarks^ m ivhich\\nfarther proofs nuill afifiear that J^ew Orleans may be considered\\nas an island formed by the Mississippi.\\nNote A. See p. 9.\\nWest Florida was thus bounded by the proclamation of George\\nIII. viz. To the southward by the Gulf of Mexico (including all\\nislands within six leagues of the coast from the Apalachicola to\\nlake Pontchartrain) to the westward, by the said lake, the lake\\nMaurepas and the river Mississippi to the northward^ by a line\\ndrawn due east from that part of the river Mississippi, which lies\\nin 31\u00c2\u00b0 N. lat. to the river Apalachicola (or Catahouche) and to\\nthe eastward by the said river. See Ann. Register for 1763,\\np. [209.]\\nIf this copy of the proclamation be correct, it appears that in\\nthe western boundary the Iberville was considered by England as\\na leg of the Mississippi as the Mississippi originally formed the\\nbed of the Iberville, at least in its upper part and at that part also\\nit wholly supplies it with whatever streams it at any time possesses.\\nWere we to give any other interpretation to the*oundary, as\\nthus proclaimed, it would strike off part of the island of New-Or-\\nleans, which would be contrary to design, to treaties, to the pro-\\nceedings which followed under the proclamation, and to the gen-\\neral good understanding, which continued long after to subsist be-\\ntween Great Britain on one side and France and Spain on the\\nother.\\nWe observe, moreover, in general as to the bounds here given,\\nthat England had a right to make them and to vary them, as she\\npleased, in all directions the country now possessed by the Unit-\\ned States in these quarters being then all her own. But, it will\\nbe observed, at the same time, that she adhered to the northern\\nlines marked out in the proclamation, when she came to a settle-", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0029.jp2"}, "30": {"fulltext": "26\\nment of the boundaries of the United States the effect of which\\nwas to communicate the same boundaries to the northern part of\\nthe two Floridas, when soon after ceded to Spain boundaries, as\\nwe have seen, which were mutually acceded to, in 1795, by our-\\nselves and by Spain, as proposed by England, and to which the\\nsouthern boundaries of necessity correspond.\\nNote B. See p. 13.\\nManshack stands immediately to the north of the point, at which\\nthe Iberville takes its departure out of the Mississippi to go\\nthrough the lakes connected with it to the sea. Mr. Ellicottdoes\\nnot, in fact, however, treat the Iberville as a leg of the Mississippi\\nthroughout the year yet he speaks thus of it for a fiart of the\\nyear. During the annual inundation [of the Mississippi] a con-\\nsiderable stream of water called the Bayou Manshack* or Iber-\\nville leaves the Mississippi at Manshack, and, after joining the\\nAmit, falls into lake Maurepas, thence into Pontchartrain, and\\ncommunicates with the Gulf of Mexico near the mouth of Pearl\\n(or Half-way) river. During t!ie passage of the water along this\\nchannel. New Orleans stands upon an island, which may be con-\\nsidered as the Delta cf the Mississi/ifii. This channel might be\\ni er.dered navigable for boats during the inundation by removing\\ntlie limber and rulibish, with which it is, at present, choaked up.\\nWere this done, Mr. Ellicott conceives it would afford a much\\neasier and cheaper conveyance, than that by the way of New Or-\\nleans. For the rest see Mr. Ellicott s Journal, p. [124, 125.]\\nAs to the phrase Delta of the Missibsippi, it refers to the isl-\\nand formed between the outer legs of the Egyptian Nile at its\\nmouth and the sea this island resembling the Greek letter A (or\\ndelta). Whatever, therefore, in certain respects, may be said of\\nthe one delta may be said of the other that is, both arc islands\\n(we mean so long as the Iberville has water in it). It is true, that\\nthe late Major Stoddard has called all the Low Couritry between\\nihe stdi and the elevated grounch near the lower parts of the\\nMississippi, by the name of the Delta, paying no regard to the\\nlegs of the Missiusipi)i but this is contrary to the common ac-\\nSatjou Mcnishach sig-nifi^i the cliaiMiel or passage of 3V|anShack.", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0030.jp2"}, "31": {"fulltext": "27\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2eptation of the word Delta with geographers and others. Mr.\\nEllicott certainly adopts a difFerent sense for the word in question,\\nand with this only we claina concern.\\nMEMORANDUM.\\nOn the subject of this dispute respecting the title of the United\\nStates to the western parts of West Florida, see the following\\npublications.\\n1. A newspaper publication signed Ferus, which was much\\ncirculated, when the subject of the above controversy first became\\npublick. V\\n2. The Impartial Inquirer, being a candid examination of the\\nconduct of the President of the United States in execution of the\\npowers vested in him by the Act of Congress of May 1, 1810, to\\nwhich are added some reflections on the invasion of the Spanish\\nterritory of West Florida, by a citizen of Massachusetts. Printed\\nby Russel and Cutler, Boston, 1810.\\n3. Reflections on the cession of Louisiana to the United States,\\nby Sylvestris, printed in 1803, by Mr. Samuel Harrison Smith of\\nWashington the printer of the Universal Gazette, a newspaper\\nemployed by Mr. Jefferson for his official communications to the\\npublick.\\n4. The respective Memorials or Reports of Mr. Livingston and\\nof several committees in Congress, recommending the purchase,\\nFirst, of Louisiana and, Then, of the Floridas, with the various\\nacts and journals of Congress on the subject of these territories,\\nand on the occupation of the Floridas.\\n6. Sketches, historical and descriptive, of Louisiana, by the late\\nMajor Amos Stoddard, Philadelphia, 1812.\\n6. Mr. Andrew EUicott s work noticed above.\\n7. For authorities concerning the fruitless negociations between\\nEngland on one side, and France and Spain respectively on the", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0031.jp2"}, "32": {"fulltext": "28\\nother, see Debrett s Collection of Treaties, vol. III. p. 80\u00e2\u0080\u0094 .166,\\nand the Annual Register for 1762, p. [185\u00e2\u0080\u0094203.]\\nMost of these articles are known or supposed to come from\\npersons who had, in some respects, the means of speaking from\\nofficial sources on the subjefcts in question.\\nThe dates of some of tli^^se pieces merit regard, as shewing the\\nimpressions of the writers of tae moment.\\n^1 10 7 89 H", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0032.jp2"}, "33": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0033.jp2"}, "34": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0034.jp2"}, "35": {"fulltext": "A Ok\\nHECKMAN\\nBINDERY INC.\\nNOV 89\\n^^W N. MANCHESTER,\\nINDIANA 46962\\n5^r\\n46962 j ^V", "height": "3272", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0035.jp2"}, "36": {"fulltext": "LIBRARY OF CONGRESS\\n014 544 204 7", "height": "3430", "width": "1968", "jp2-path": "remarksondangero00vaug_0036.jp2"}}