and Indian war, when France retired from the contest for the possession of America. In the treaty of Paris, February 10, 1763, she ceded to Great Britain all of her American possessions east of ‘a line down the middle of the Mississippi river and through the Iberville lakes to the sea,’ and confirmed to Spain all her possessions west of that line, which had been previously ceded, November 3, 1762. (Public Domain, p. 91.) Louisiana thus became the property of Spain, and so remained for thirty-eight years.
Of all the nations of Europe, Spain was the most opposed to the institutions and political doctrines of the United States. She would have repelled, as far as possible, all intercourse with the American people, and would have purposely maintained semi-hostile relations. Louisiana would, probably, have been held like her South American possessions, until filled with a population strong enough to rebel and shake off her nerveless grasp. Had it been slowly peopled, as would seem most probable, by emigrants from the United States, its future would have been uncertain. It would, perhaps, have been a refuge for ambitious men like Burr. It might have become a rival kingdom, or a rival republic, facing us across the Mississippi. It might have been broken into fragments, a multitude of petty states, blocking our expansion toward the Pacific. It might have been a means of detaching a portion of the western country from the Union. Such a result was feared about the time of the cession. It is certain that we would never have acquired it in a form so complete and so favorable for assimilation to our institutions as by the cession of 803.
In the fall of 1799, the French Revolution had assumed the phase which made Napoleon First Consul of France. He found France engaged in needless hostilities with the United States. He at once determined upon. a policy of conciliation, and appointed his brother Joseph Bonaparte at the head of a commission to treat with the newly arrived American commissioners, Murray, Ellsworth and Davie. The result was the treaty of Morfontaine, September 30, 1800, and the establishment of friendly relations. The election of Jefferson speedily followed, and Napoleon had the satisfaction of seeing the administration of American affairs pass into the hands of a political party deemed friendly to France.
Let us recount the events which led to these results. Napoleon had taken Talleyrand into his cabinet, and Talleyrand had a bobby: the recovery of Louisiana, and its organization into a French province. Napoleon permitted Talleyrand to ride his hobby, yet he manifested no especial interest in the matter until the negotiations with America were approaching a crisis, and his brother Joseph had assured him of their friendly aspect, but that they were suspended on the question of indemnity for French spoliations. He then suddenly manifested an interest in Talleyrand's plans for the retrocession of Louisiana, and ordered communications to be immediately opened with the Spanish court. Without awaiting the routine course of negotiations which were progressing favorably under the French minister at Madrid, his impatience led him to send General Berthier to hasten them. Meanwhile, he seemed disposed to restrain his brother Joseph from concluding the American treaty.
This course would indicate that he had secret views, connecting the retrocession of Louisiana with the American treaty. If he revolved in mind in 1800 the purposes which he carried into execution three years later, he did not then express them. Often frank, and apparently imprudent in the expression of his purposes, no one knew better than Napoleon how to conceal them either by reticence or by dissimulation. The only hint that can be found of ulterior purposes is his caution to Joseph that better terms could be obtained from the United States at a later date, but he assented to the conclusion of a temporary treaty, September 30, 1800. He pressed negotiations with Spain so actively that Berthier signed the treaty for the retrocession of Louisiana the following day, October 1, 1800. In compensation to Spain for this cession France engaged to create the kingdom of Etruria, composed of Tuscany and adjacent territory, and to seat on its throne the son of the duke of Parma, who was son-in-law of the king of Spain.
Napoleon was now master of the situation. Whatever plans he may have formed, it was in his power to execute. How far he agreed with Talleyrand in the policy of making Louisiana valuable to France by the slow process of colonial development is very doubtful. His temperament was too eager to await the tardy returns of invested capital. He needed all his resources for present gambling and quick profits. Europe was his battle ground, and the conquest of England his immediate object. All else was subsidiary. If England could be subdued he was then, indeed, master of the world. He was not indifferent to the glory of restoring to France the American possessions, the loss of which had been for many years a source of national humiliation. Neither was he insensible of the wisdom of Talleyrand's colonial policy, yet such a policy made peace with England a necessity. He knew that France had been compelled to give up her American possessions for lack of a navy, and his penetrating genius could not fail to see that France could not hold colonies across the ocean three thousand miles away, in the face of the navies of Great Britain. He had not forgotten the Egyptian campaign, which he had warmly urged in its inception, but which .he had opposed at the last moment, even to the point of tendering his resignation, but to which he had been forced by Talleyrand's Directory, and which had taught him the power of the British navy. （Allison's History of Europe, vol. 6, pp. 241-2.)
It is probable that before beginning negotiations for the retrocession of Louisiana, Napoleon contemplated an early war with England, and that he entertained the purpose of using Louisiana as a lever on the United States, though perhaps under conditions different from those which circumstances subsequently shaped. He began these negotiations just at the time when all indications pointed to the coming revolution in American politics, and the transfer of power to the Republican party. Affairs in America soon assumed a form to strengthen in his mind the conviction that the United States could be made a valuable ally. Whatever may have been his purpose in 1800, he was the engineer in 1803 who put in motion the train of events which, beginning with the cession of Louisiana, led the United States to the second British war.
Let us now trace the political revolution in the United States. It is needless to recite that the Federalist party came first into possession of the government, and controlled its policy for twelve years. All are familiar with the quarrels in Washington's cabinet, and the rise of the Republican party, now generally designated as the Democratic-Republican party, to distinguish it from the Republican party of the present day. This new party differed from the Federalist party on the great question of State rights; the Federalist party favoring such a construction of the Constitution as would strengthen the power of the general government; the Republican party favoring such a construction as would protect the rights and powers of the States.
There was another question of the day which touched men's hearts. In the great contest that was going on across the water, England and France were about to engage in a death grapple. The sympathies of this country were aroused, one party favoring England and the other favoring France. We may well understand how deeply it stirred the sympathies of our ancestors. On the one side was France, our friend, the friend of our infancy; France, who stood by us in our conflict for freedom; France, the blood of whose sons was mingled with ours upon the plains of Yorktown; France, our sister republic, who had changed all her institutions in admiration and love for the institutions and people of America. Her cause was espoused by Jefferson, followed by his new party.
On the other side was our mother country. The war was over, and its passions were subsiding. Our independence was established. Jay's treaty, although unpopular at first, had served to reopen the avenues of trade and communication with England, and to excite hostilities with France. The hearts of our ancestors were turning back with softened sentiments to the land of their fathers, and were renewing the associations of kindred and friendship.
It seemed that the Federalist party, the friend of England, was striking the popular chord. Yet, just at this critical moment, the Federalist leaders committed a political blunder. They enacted what are known as the Alien and Sedition laws. The great political leader, Thomas Jefferson, skillfully seized the advantage. The tide was turned. Jefferson was elected President of the United States, and the Republican party, the friend of France, came into power. Looking over the field, the chief of the victorious party saw that the party triumph was but temporary, and he sought for means to render it permanent.
The recent presidential election had assumed a sectional aspect, as may be seen from the following table of the electoral vote of 1800: