Chapter LXIII: Part 63

"Spain accepted Louisiana [west of the Mississippi, with New
Orleans] with reluctance, for she lost France as her bulwark,
and, to keep the territory from England, assumed new expenses
and dangers. Its inhabitants loved the land of their ancestry;
by every law of nature and human freedom, they had the right
to protest against the transfer of their allegiance." Their
protests were unavailing, however, and their appeals met the
response: "France cannot bear the charge of supporting the
colony's precarious existence." In March, 1766, Antonio de
Ulloa arrived at New Orleans from Havana, to take possession
for the Spanish king. "Ulloa landed with civil officers, three
capuchin monks, and 80 soldiers. His reception was cold and
gloomy. He brought no orders to redeem the seven million
livres of French paper money, which weighed down a colony of
less than 6,000 white men. The French garrison of 300 refused
to enter the Spanish service, the people to give up their
nationality, and Ulloa was obliged to administer the
government under the French flag by the old French officers,
at the cost of Spain. In May of the same year, the Spanish
restrictive system was applied to Louisiana; in September, an
ordinance compelled French vessels having special permits to
accept the paper currency in pay for their cargoes, at an
arbitrary tariff of prices. … The ordinance was suspended,
but not till the alarm had destroyed all commerce. Ulloa
retired from New Orleans to the Balise. Only there, and
opposite Natchez, and at the river Iberville, was Spanish
jurisdiction directly exercised. This state of things
continued for a little more than two years. But the arbitrary
and passionate conduct of Ulloa, the depreciation of the
currency with the prospect of its becoming an almost total
loss, the disputes respecting the expenses incurred since the
session of 1762, the interruption of commerce, a captious
ordinance which made a private monopoly of the traffic with
the Indians, uncertainty of jurisdiction and allegiance,
agitated the colony from one end to the other. It was proposed
to make of New Orleans a republic, like Amsterdam or Venice,
with a legislative body of 40 men, and a single executive. The
people of the country parishes crowded in a mass into the
city, joined those of New Orleans, and formed a numerous
assembly, in which Lafrénière, John Milhet, Joseph Milhet, and
the lawyer Doucet were conspicuous. … On the 25th of
October, 1768, they adopted an address to the superior
council, written by Lafrénière and Caresse, rehearsing their
griefs; and, in their petition of rights, they claimed freedom
of commerce with the ports of France and America, and the
expulsion of Ulloa from the colony. The address, signed by 500
or 600 persons, was adopted the next day by the council … ;
when the French flag was displayed on the public square,
children and women ran up to kiss its folds, and it was raised
by 900 men, amid shouts of 'Long live the king of France! we
will have no king but him.' Ulloa retreated to Havana, and
sent his representations to Spain. The inhabitants elected
their own treasurer and syndics, sent envoys to Paris, … and
memorialized the French monarch to stand as intercessor
between them and the Catholic king, offering no alternative
but to be a colony of France or a free commonwealth."

_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision), volume 3, pages 316-318._

ALSO IN:
_M. Thompson,
Story of Louisiana,
chapter 4._

_C. Gayarré,
History of Louisiana: French Domination,
volume 2, lecture 3-6._

LOUISIANA: A. D., 1769.
Spanish authority established by "Cruel O'Reilly."

"It was the fate of the Creoles—possibly a climatic
result—to be slack-handed and dilatory. Month after month
followed the October uprising without one of those incidents
that would have succeeded in the history of an earnest people.
In March, 1769, Foucault [French intendant] covertly deserted
his associates, and denounced them, by letter, to the French
cabinet. In April the Spanish frigate sailed from New Orleans.
Three intrepid men (Loyola, Gayarre, and Navarro), the
governmental staff which Ulloa had left in the province, still
remained, unmolested. Not a fort was taken, though it is
probable not one could have withstood assault. Not a spade was
struck into the ground, or an obstruction planted, at any
strategic point, throughout that whole 'Creole' spring time
which stretches in its exuberant perfection from January to
June. … One morning toward the end of July, 1769, the people
of New Orleans were brought suddenly to their feet by the news
that the Spaniards were at the mouth of the river in
overwhelming force. There was no longer any room to postpone
choice of action. Marquis, the Swiss captain, with a white
cockade in his hat (he had been the leading advocate for a
republic), and Petit, with a pistol in either hand, came out
upon the ragged, sunburnt grass of the Place d'Armes and
called upon the people to defend their liberties. About 100
men joined them; but the town was struck motionless with
dismay; the few who had gathered soon disappeared, and by the
next day the resolution of the leaders was distinctly taken,
to submit. But no one fled. … Lafrénière, Marquis, and
Milhet descended the river, appeared before the commander of
the Spaniards, and by the mouth of Lafrénière in a submissive
but brave and manly address presented the homage of the
people. The captain-general in his reply let fall the word
seditious. Marquis boldly but respectfully objected. He was
answered with gracious dignity and the assurance of ultimate
justice, and the insurgent leaders returned to New Orleans and
to their homes. The Spanish fleet numbered 24 sail. For more
than three weeks it slowly pushed its way around the bends of
the Mississippi, and on the 18th of August it finally furled
its canvas before the town. Aubry [commanding the small force
of French soldiers which had remained in the colony under
Spanish pay] drew up his French troops with the colonial
militia at the bottom of the Place d'Armes, a gun was fired
from the flagship of the fleet, and Don Alexandro O'Reilly,
accompanied by 2,600 chosen Spanish troops, and with 50 pieces
of artillery, landed in unprecedented pomp, and took formal
possession of the province. On the 21st, twelve of the
principal insurrectionists were arrested. … Villeré [a
planter, of prominence] either 'died raving mad on the day of
his arrest,' as stated in the Spanish official report, or met
his end in the act of resisting the guard on board the frigate
where he had been placed in confinement. Lafrénière [former
attorney-general and leader of the revolt], Noyan [a young
ex-captain of cavalry], Caresse [a merchant], Marquis, and
Joseph Milhet [a merchant] were condemned to be hanged.
{2048}
The supplications both of colonists and Spanish officials
saved them only from the gallows, and they fell before the
fire of a file of Spanish grenadiers." The remaining prisoners
were sent to Havana and kept in confinement for a year.
"'Cruel O'Reilly'—the captain-general was justly named. …
O'Reilly had come to set up a government, but not to remain
and govern. On organizing the cabildo [a feebly constituted
body—'like a crane, all feathers,' 'which, for the third part
of a century, ruled the pettier destinies of the Louisiana
Creoles '], he announced the appointment of Don Louis de
Unzaga, colonel of the regiment of Havana, as governor of the
province, and yielded him the chair. But under his own higher
commission of captain-general he continued for a time in
control. He established in force the laws of Castile and the
Indies and the use of the Spanish tongue in the courts and the
public offices. … Spanish rule in Louisiana was better, at
least, than French, which, it is true, scarcely deserved the
name of government. As to the laws themselves, it is worthy of
notice that Louisiana 'is at this time the only State, of the
vast territories acquired from France, Spain, and Mexico, in
which the civil law has been retained, and forms a large
portion of its jurisprudence.' On the 29th of October, 1770,
O'Reilly sailed from New Orleans with most of his troops,
leaving the Spanish power entirely and peacefully established.
The force left by him in the colony amounted to 1,200 men. He
had dealt a sudden and terrible blow; but he had followed it
only with velvet strokes."

_G. W. Cable,
The Creoles of Louisiana,
chapter 10-11._

ALSO IN:
_G. E. Waring, Jr., and G. W. Cable,
History and Present Condition of New Orleans
(United States Tenth Census, volume 19)._

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1779-1781.
Spanish reconquest of West Florida.

See FLORIDA: A. D.1779-1781.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.
The question of the
Navigation of the Mississippi, in dispute between
Spain and the United States.
Discontent of settlers in Kentucky and Tennessee.
Wilkinson's intrigues.

"Settlers in considerable numbers had crossed the mountains
into Kentucky and Tennessee while the war of Independence was
in progress. … At once it became a question of vital
importance how these people were to find avenues of commerce
with the outer world. … Immigration to the interior must
cross the mountains; but the natural highway for commerce was
the Mississippi River. If the use of this river were left
free, nothing better could be desired. Unfortunately it was
not free. The east bank of the river, as far south as the
north boundary of Florida [which included some part of the
present states of Alabama and Mississippi, but with the
northern boundary in dispute—see FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787],
was the property of the United States, but the west bank,
together with the island of Orleans, was held by Spain. That
power, while conceding to the people of the United States the
free navigation of the Mississippi as far down as the American
ownership of the left bank extended, claimed exclusive
jurisdiction below that line, and proposed to exact customs
duties from such American commerce as should pass in or out of
the mouth of the river. This pretension if yielded to would
place all that commerce at the mercy of Spain, and render not
merely the navigation of the river of little value, but the
very land from which the commerce sprung. It was inconceivable
that such pretensions should be tolerated if successful
resistance were possible, but the settlers were able to combat
it on two grounds, either of which seemed, according to
recognized rules of international law, conclusive. First, As
citizens of the country owning one of the banks on the upper
portion of the stream, they claimed the free navigation to the
sea with the privilege of a landing place at its mouth as a
natural right; and they were able to fortify this claim—if it
needed support—with the opinions of publicists of
acknowledged authority. Second, They claimed under the treaty
of 1763 between Great Britain and France, whereby the latter,
then the owner of Louisiana, had conceded to the former the
free navigation of the Mississippi in its whole breadth and
length, with passage in and out of its mouth, subject to the
payment of no duty whatsoever. … Thus both in natural right
and by treaty concession the claim of the American settlers
seemed incontrovertible, and perhaps it may fairly be said
that the whole country agreed in this view. When Mr. Jay,
while the war of independence was still in progress, was sent
to Spain to negotiate a treaty of amity and assistance, he was
specially charged with the duty to see that the free
navigation of the Mississippi was conceded. All his endeavors
to that end, however, resulted in failure, and he was
compelled to return home with the American claim still
disputed. In 1785 the negotiation was transferred to this
country, and Mr. Jay renewed his effort to obtain concessions,
but without avail. The tenacity with which Spain held to its
claim was so persistent that Congress in its anxiety to obtain
a treaty of commerce finally instructed Mr. Jay on its behalf
to consent that for twenty-five years the United States should
forbear to claim the right in dispute. The instruction was
given by the vote of the seven Northern States against a
united South; and the action was so distinctly sectional as to
threaten the stability of the Union. … In the West the
feeling of dissatisfaction was most intense and
uncompromising. The settlers of Kentucky already deemed
themselves sufficiently numerous and powerful to be entitled
to set up a state government of their own, and to have a voice
in the councils of the Confederation. … In Tennessee as well
as in Kentucky settlements had been going on rapidly; and
perhaps in the former even more distinctly than in the latter
a growing indifference to the national bond was manifest. …
One of the difficult questions which confronted the new
government, formed under the Federal constitution, was how to
deal with this feeling and control or remove it. Spanish
levies on American commerce were in some cases almost
prohibitory, reaching fifty or seventy-five per cent. ad
valorem, and it was quite out of the question that hardy
backwoodsmen trained to arms should for any considerable time
submit to pay them. If the national government failed to
secure their rights by diplomacy, they would seek redress in
such other way as might be open to them. … Among the most
prominent of the Kentucky settlers was General James
Wilkinson, who had gone there as a merchant in 1784. He was
shortly found advocating, though somewhat covertly, the
setting up of an independent State Government.
{2049}
In 1787 he opened trade with New Orleans, and endeavored to
impress upon the Spanish authorities the importance of an
amicable understanding with the settlers in the Ohio valley.
His representations for a time had considerable effect, and
the trade was not only relieved of oppressive burdens, but
Americans were invited to make settlements within Spanish
limits in Louisiana and West Florida. A considerable
settlement was actually made at New Madrid under this
invitation. But there is no reason to believe that genuine
good feeling inspired this policy; the purpose plainly in view
was to build up a Spanish party among the American settlers
and eventually to detach them from the United States. But the
course pursued was variable, being characterized in turn by
liberality and by rigor. Wilkinson appears to have been
allowed special privileges in trade, and this, together with
the fact that he was known to receive a heavy remittance from
New Orleans, begat a suspicion that he was under Spanish pay;
a suspicion from which he was never wholly relieved, and which
probably to some extent affected the judgment of men when he
came under further suspicion in consequence of equivocal
relations with Aaron Burr. In 1789 a British emissary made his
appearance in Kentucky, whose mission seemed to be to sound
the sentiments of the people respecting union with Canada. He
came at a bad time for his purposes; for the feeling of the
country against Great Britain was then at its height, and was
particularly strong in the West, where the failure to deliver
up the posts within American limits was known to have been
influential in encouraging Indian hostilities. The British
agent, therefore, met with anything but friendly reception.
… Meantime Spain had become so far complicated in European
wars as to be solicitous regarding the preservation of her own
American possessions, then bordered by a hostile people, and
at her suggestion an envoy was sent by the United States to
Madrid, with whom in October 1795 a treaty was made, whereby
among other things it was agreed that Spain should permit the
people of the United States for the term of three years to
make use of the port of New Orleans as a place of deposit for
their produce and merchandise, and to export the same free
from all duty or charge except for storage and incidental
expenses. At the end of the three years the treaty
contemplated further negotiations, and it was hoped by the
American authorities that a decisive step had been taken
towards the complete recognition of American claims. The
treaty, however, was far from satisfying the people of
Kentucky and Tennessee, who looked upon the assent of Spain to
it as a mere makeshift for the protection of her territory
from invasion. Projects for taking forcible possession of the
mouth of the Mississippi continued therefore to be agitated.
… The schemes of Don Francisco de Miranda for the overthrow
of Spanish authority in America now became important. Miranda
was of Spanish-American birth, and had been in the United
States while the war of Independence was pending and formed
acquaintance among the American officers. Conceiving the idea
of liberating the Spanish colonies, he sought assistance from
England and Russia, but when the French Revolution occurred he
enlisted in the French service and for a time held important
military positions. Driven from France in 1797 he took up his
old scheme again: looking now to England and America for the
necessary assistance. Several leading American statesmen were
approached on the subject, Hamilton among them; and while the
relations between France and the United States seemed likely
to result in war, that great man, who had no fear of evils
likely to result from the extension of territory, listened
with approval to the project of a combined attack by British
and American forces on the Spanish Colonies, and would have
been willing, with the approval of the government, to
personally take part in it. President Adams, however, frowned
upon the scheme, and it was necessarily but with great
reluctance abandoned. And now occurred an event of highest
interest to the people of the United States. Spain, aware of
her precarious hold upon Louisiana, in 1800 retroceded it to
France."

_T. M. Cooley,
The Acquisition of Louisiana
(Indiana Historical Society Pamphlets, no. 3)._

ALSO IN:
_W. H. Safford,
The Blennerhassett Papers,
chapter 5._

_H. Marshall,
History of Kentucky,
volume 1, chapters 12-15._

_J. H. Monette,
Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,
book 5, chapter 6 (volume 2)._

_J. M. Brown,
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky._

_T. M. Green,
The Spanish Conspiracy._

LOUISIANA: D. 1798-1803.
The last days of Spanish rule.
The great domain transferred to France,
and sold by Napoleon to the United States.
The bounds of the purchase.

"During the years 1796-97 the Spanish authorities exhausted
every means for delaying a confirmation of the boundary line
as set forth in the treaty of 1783. By one pretext and
another, they avoided the surrender of the Natchez territory
and continued to hold the military posts therein. Not until
the 23d of March, 1798, was the final step taken by which the
Federal Government was permitted to occupy in full the
province of Mississippi. … Soon after this we find the newly
made territory of Mississippi occupied by a Federal force,
and, strange to say, with General Wilkinson in command. The
man who but lately had been playing the rôle of traitor, spy,
insurrectionist and smuggler, was now chief commander on the
border and was building a fort at Loftus Heights just above
the boundary line. The new governor of Louisiana [Gayoso de
Lemos], seeing the hope of detaching Kentucky and Tennessee
fall dead at his feet, finally turned back to the old policy
of restricting immigration and of discriminating against
Protestants. By the treaty signed at Madrid in 1795, it had
been stipulated that the citizens of the United States should
not only have free navigation of the Mississippi River, but
that they should also have the right to deposit in New Orleans
all their produce during the space of three years. This limit,
it was agreed, was to be extended by the Spanish Government,
or, instead of an extension of time, a new point on the island
of New Orleans was to be designated for depot. But at the
expiration of the three years Morales, the Spanish intendant
at New Orleans, declined to permit further deposits there, and
refused to designate another place in accordance with the
stipulation. This action aroused the people of the West; a
storm of resentment broke forth and the government of the
United States was forced to make a threatening demonstration
in the direction of Louisiana.
{2050}
Three regiments of the regular army were at once dispatched to
the Ohio. The people flew to arms. Invasion appeared
imminent." But the Spanish authorities gave way, and a new
intendant at New Orleans "received from his Government orders
to remove the interdict issued by Gayoso and to restore to the
Western people the right of deposit at New Orleans. These
orders he promptly obeyed, thus reviving good feelings between
his province and the United States. Trade revived; immigration
increased. … The deluge of immigration startled the
Spaniards. They saw to what it was swiftly tending. A few more
years and this tide would rise too high to be resisted and
Louisiana would be lost to the king, lost to the holy
religion, given over to freedom, republicanism and ruin. …
On the 18th of July … [1802] the king ordered that no more
grants of land be given to citizens of the United States. This
effectually killed the commerce of the Mississippi River, and
the indignation of the Western people knew no bounds. …
Rumors, apparently well founded, were afloat that the
irresistible genius of Napoleon was wringing the province from
Spain and that this meant a division of the territories
between France and the United States. To a large majority of
Louisiana's population these were thrillingly welcome rumors.
The very thought of once more becoming the subjects of France
was enough to intoxicate them with delight. The treaty of
Ildefonso, however, which had been ratified at Madrid on the
21st of March, 1801, had been kept a secret. Napoleon had
hoped to occupy Louisiana with a strong army, consisting of
25,000 men, together with a fleet to guard the coast; but his
implacable and ever watchful foe, England, discovered his
design and thwarted it. But by the terms of the treaty, the
colony and province of Louisiana had gone into his hands. He
must take possession and hold it, or he must see England
become its master. Pressed on every side at that time by wars
and political complications and well understanding that it
would endanger his power for him to undertake a grand American
enterprise, he gladly opened negotiations with the United
States looking to the cession of Louisiana to that Government.
… Napoleon had agreed with Spain that Louisiana should not
be ceded to any other power. … Diplomacy very quickly
surmounted so small an obstacle. … The treaty of cession was
signed on the 30th of April, 1803, the United States agreeing
to pay France 60,000,000 francs as the purchase price of the
territory. … In addition, the sum due American citizens …
was assumed by the United States. The treaty of April was
ratified by Napoleon in May, 1803, and by the Senate of the
United States in October. … Pausing to glance at this
strange transaction, by which one republic sells outright to
another republic a whole country without in the least
consulting the wishes of the inhabitants, whose allegiance and
all of whose political and civil rights are changed thereby,
we are tempted to wonder if the republic of the United States
could to-day sell Louisiana with the same impunity that
attended the purchase! She bought the country and its people,
just as she might have bought a desert island with its goats."

_M. Thompson,
The Story of Louisiana,
chapter 6, with foot-note._

"No one could say what was the southwest boundary of the
territory acquired; whether it should be the Sabine or the Rio
del Norte; and a controversy with Spain on the subject might
at any time arise. The northwest boundary was also somewhat
vague and uncertain, and would be open to controversy with
Great Britain. [That] the territory extended west to the Rocky
Mountains was not questioned, but it might be claimed that it
extended to the Pacific. An impression that it did so extend
has since prevailed in some quarters, and in some public
papers and documents it has been assumed as an undoubted fact.
But neither Mr. Jefferson nor the French, whose right he
purchased, ever claimed for Louisiana any such extent, and our
title to Oregon has been safely deduced from other sources.
Mr. Jefferson said expressly: 'To the waters of the Pacific we
can found no claim in right of Louisiana.'"

_Judge T. M. Cooley,
The Acquisition of Louisiana
(Indiana History Society Pamphlets, number 3)._

"By the charter of Louis XIV., the country purchased to the
north included all that was contiguous to the waters that
flowed into the Mississippi. Consequently its northern
boundary was the summit of the highlands in which its northern
waters rise. By the tenth article of the treaty of Utrecht,
France and England agreed to appoint commissioners to settle
the boundary, and these commissioners, as such boundary,
marked this summit on the 49th parallel of north latitude.
This would not carry the rights of the United States beyond
the Rocky Mountains. The claim to the territory beyond was
based upon the principle of continuity, the prolongation of
the territory to the adjacent great body of water. As against
Great Britain, the claim was founded on the treaty of 1763,
between France and Great Britain, by which the latter power
ceded to the former all its rights west of the Mississippi
River. The United States succeeded to all the rights of
France. Besides this, there was an independent claim created
by the discovery of the Columbia River by Gray, in 1792, and
its exploration by Lewis and Clarke. All this was added to by
the cession by Spain, in 1819, of any title that it had to all
territory north of the 42d degree."

_Rt. Rev. C. F. Robertson,
The Louisiana Purchase
(Papers of American Historical Association,
volume 1, page 259)._

As its southwestern and southeastern boundaries were
eventually settled by treaty with Spain [see FLORIDA: A. D.
1819-1821], the Louisiana purchase embraced 2,300 square miles
in the present state of Alabama, west of the Perdido and on
the gulf, below latitude 31° north; 3,600 square miles in the
present state of Mississippi, south of the same latitude; the
whole of the present states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri,
Iowa, Nebraska, and the Dakotas; Minnesota, west of the
Mississippi; Kansas, all but the southwest corner; the whole
of the Indian Territory, and so much of Colorado, Wyoming, and
Montana as lies on the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains.
If it is held that the French claim was good to the Pacific,
then we may say that we owe the remainder of Montana, with
Idaho, Oregon and Washington to the same great purchase.

_T. Donaldson,
The Public Domain,
page 105._

On the constitutional and political aspects of the Louisiana
purchase,

See UNITED STATES: A. D. 1803.

Detailed accounts of the interesting circumstances and
incidents connected with the negotiation at Paris will be
found in the following works:—

_H. Adams,
History of the United States:
First Administration of Jefferson;
volume 2, chapters 1-3._

_D. O. Gilman,
James Monroe,
chapter 4._

_B. Marbois,
History of Louisiana,
part 2._

_American State Papers: Foreign Relations,
volume 2, pages 506-583._

{2051}

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1805.
Lewis and Clark's exploration
of the northwestern region of the purchase, to the Pacific.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1812.
The purchase divided into
the Territories of Orleans and Louisiana.
The first named becomes the State of Louisiana;
the second becomes the Territory of Missouri.

"On the 26th of March, 1804, Congress passed an act dividing
the province into two parts on the 33d parallel of latitude,
the present northern boundary of Louisiana, and establishing
for the lower portion a distinct territorial government, under
the title of the territory of Orleans. The act was to go into
effect in the following October. One of its provisions was the
interdiction of the slave-trade. … The labors of the
legislative council began on the 4th of December. A charter of
incorporation was given by it to the city of New Orleans."

_G: E. Waring, Jr., and G. W. Cable,
History and Present Condition of New Orleans
(United States Tenth Census, volume 19). pages 32-33._

"All north of the 33d parallel of north latitude was formed
into a district, and styled the District of Louisiana. For
judicial and administrative purposes this district, or upper
Louisiana as we shall continue to call it, was attached to the
territory of Indiana." But in March, 1805, Congress passed an
act "which erected the district into a territory of the first
or lowest grade, and changed its title from the District to
the Territory of Louisiana." Seven years later, in June 1812,
the Territory of Orleans (the lower Louisiana of old) having
been received into the federal Union as the State of
Louisiana, the territory which bore the ancient name was
advanced by act of Congress "from the first to the second
grade of territories, and its name changed to Missouri."

_L. Carr,
Missouri,
chapter 5._

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1806-1807.
Burr's Filibustering conspiracy.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1812.
The Territory of Orleans admitted to the Union as
the State of Louisiana.

"The population of the Territory of Orleans had been augmented
annually by emigration from the United States. According to
the census of 1810, the whole territory, exclusive of the
Florida parishes, contained an aggregate of 76,550 souls. Of
this number, the city of New Orleans and its precincts
contained 24,552 persons, leaving 52,000 souls for the
remainder of the territory. Besides these, the inhabitants of
the Florida parishes amounted, probably, to not less than
2,500, including slaves. … Congress, by an act approved
February 11th, 1811, … authorized the election of a
convention to adopt a Constitution, preparatory to the
admission of the Territory into the Union as an independent
state. The convention, consisting of 60 delegates from the
original parishes, met according to law, on the first Monday
in November, and concluded its labors on the 22d day of
January following, having adopted a Constitution for the
proposed new 'State of Louisiana.' … The Constitution was
accepted by Congress, and the State of Louisiana was formally
admitted into the Union on the 8th day of April, 1812, upon an
equal footing with the original states, from and after the
30th day of April, it being the ninth anniversary of the
treaty of Paris. A few days subsequently, a 'supplemental act'
of Congress extended the limits of the new state by the
addition of the Florida parishes.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

This gave it the boundaries it has at present."

_J. W. Monette,
Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,
book 5, chapter 15 (volume 2)._

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1813-1814.
The Creek War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1815.
Jackson's defense of New Orleans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1815 (JANUARY).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1861 (January).
Secession from the Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1862 (April).
Farragut's capture of New Orleans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

LOUISIANA: A. D.1862 (May-December).
New Orleans under General Butler.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY-DECEMBER: LOUISIANA).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1862 (June).
Appointment of a Military Governor.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MARCH-JUNE).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1864.
Reconstruction of the state under President Lincoln's plan.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1864.
The Red River Expedition.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865.
President Johnson's recognition of the reconstructed state
government.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.
The first Reconstruction experiment.
The Riot at New Orleans.
Establishment of military rule.

"In 1865 the returned Confederates, restored to citizenship by
the President's amnesty proclamation soon got control of
almost all the State [as reorganized under the constitution
framed and adopted in 1864].

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

The Legislature was in their hands, as well as most of the
State and municipal offices; so, when the President, on the
20th of August, 1866, by proclamation, extended his previous
instructions regarding civil affairs in Texas so as to have
them apply to all the seceded States, there at once began in
Louisiana a system of discriminative legislation directed
against the freedmen, that led to flagrant wrongs in the
enforcement of labor contracts, and in the remote parishes to
numbers of outrages and murders. To remedy this deplorable
condition of things, it was proposed, by those who had
established the government of 1864, to remodel the
constitution of the State; and they sought to do this by
reassembling the convention, that body before its adjournment
having provided for reconvening under certain conditions, in
obedience to the call of its president. Therefore, early in
the summer of 1866, many members of this convention met in
conference at New Orleans, and decided that a necessity
existed for reconvening the delegates, and a proclamation was
issued accordingly by B. K. Howell, President pro tempore.
{2052}
Mayor John T. Monroe and the other officials of New Orleans
looked upon this proposed action as revolutionary, and by the
time the convention assembled (July 30) such bitterness of
feeling prevailed that efforts were made by the mayor and city
police to suppress the meeting. A bloody riot followed,
resulting in the killing and wounding of about 160 persons. I
happened [the writer is General Sheridan, then in command of
the Military Division of the Gulf] to be absent from the city
at the time, returning from Texas, where I had been called by
affairs on the Rio Grande. On my way up from the mouth of the
Mississippi I was met on the night of July 30 by one of my
staff, who reported what had occurred, giving the details of
the massacre—no milder term is fitting—and informing me
that, to prevent further slaughter, General Baird, the senior
military officer present, had assumed control of the municipal
government. On reaching the city I made an investigation, and
that night sent [a brief report, which was followed, on the
6th of August, by an extended account of the facts of the
riot, containing the following statements]: … 'The
convention assembled at 12 M. on the 30th, the timid members
absenting themselves because the tone of the general public
was ominous of trouble. … About 1 P. M. a procession of say
from 60 to 130 colored men marched up Burgundy Street and
across Canal Street toward the convention, carrying an
American flag. These men had about one pistol to every ten
men, and canes and clubs in addition. While crossing Canal
Street a row occurred. … On arrival at the front of the
Institute [where the convention was held] there was some
throwing of brickbats by both sides. The police, who had been
held well in hand, were vigorously marched to the scene of
disorder. The procession entered the Institute with the flag,
about 6 or 8 remaining outside. A row occurred between a
policeman and one of these colored mob, and a shot was again
fired by one of the parties, which led to an indiscriminate
fire on the building through the windows by the policemen.
This had been going on for a short time, when a white flag was
displayed from the windows of the Institute, whereupon the
firing ceased, and the police rushed into the building. From
the testimony of wounded men, and others who were inside the
building, the policemen opened an indiscriminate fire upon the
audience until they had emptied their revolvers, when they
retired, and those inside barricaded the doors. The door was
broken in, and the firing again commenced, when many of the
colored and white people either escaped throughout the door or
were passed out by the policemen inside; but as they came out
the policemen who formed the circle nearest the building fired
upon them, and they were again fired upon by the citizens that
formed the outer circle. Many of those wounded and taken
prisoners, and others who were prisoners and not wounded, were
fired upon by their captors and by citizens. The wounded were
stabbed while lying on the ground, and their heads beaten with
brickbats. … Some were killed and wounded several squares
from the scene.' … Subsequently a military commission
investigated the subject of the riot, taking a great deal of
testimony. The commission substantially confirmed the
conclusions given in my despatches, and still later there as
an investigation by a select committee of the House of
Representatives. … A list of the killed and wounded was
embraced in the committee's report, and among other
conclusions reached were the following: … 'This riotous
attack upon the convention, with its terrible results of
massacre and murder, was not an accident. It was the
determined purpose of the mayor of the city of New Orleans to
break up this convention by armed force.' … The committee
held that no legal government existed in Louisiana, and
recommended the temporary establishment of a provisional
government therein." In the following March the Military
Reconstruction Acts were passed by Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1867 (MARCH).

General Sheridan was assigned to the command of the fifth
military district therein defined, consisting of Louisiana and
Texas.

_P. H. Sheridan,
Personal Memoirs,
volume 2, chapters 10-11._

ALSO IN:
_Report of Select Committee on New Orleans Riot,
39th Congress, 2d Session, H. R. Report, Number 16._

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1868.
Reconstruction complete.
Restored representation in Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868-1870.

----------LOUISIANA: End----------

LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY:
Threatened by the Rebel Army under Bragg.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

----------LOUVAIN: Start--------

LOUVAIN: A. D. 1635.
Unsuccessful siege by the French.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

LOUVAIN: A. D. 1706.
Taken by Marlborough and the Allies.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

----------LOUVAIN: End--------

LOUVAIN, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

LOUVRE, The.

"The early history of the Louvre is involved in great
obscurity. The name of its founder and the period of its
erection are alike unknown; the first notice of it we meet
with upon record is in the 7th century, when Dagobert kept
here his horses and hounds. The kings [Merovingeans] called
'fainéans' often visited it, when after dinner they rode in a
sort of coach through the forest, which covered this side of
the river, and in the evening returned in a boat, fishing by
the way, to the city, where they supped and slept. There is no
mention of this royal dwelling under the second, nor even
under the third race of kings, till the reign of Philip
Augustus. About the year 1204, that prince converted it into a
kind of citadel, surrounded with wide ditches and flanked with
towers. … The walls erected by Philip Augustus did not take
in the Louvre, but after having remained outside of Paris more
than six centuries, it was enclosed by the walls begun in
1367, under Charles V., and finished in 1383, under Charles
VI. … Charles IX., Henry III., Henry IV., and Louis XIII.,
inhabited the Louvre and added to its buildings. Nothing
remains of the old château of Philip Augustus, which Charles
V. repaired; the most ancient part now in existence is that
called 'le Vieux Louvre,' begun by Francis I. in 1539, and
finished by Henry II. in 1548."

_History of Paris
(London, 1827), chapter 2 (volume 2)._

{2053}

The origin of the word Louvre is believed to be a Saxon word,
'Leowar' or 'Lower,' which meant a fortified camp. … Francis
I. did little more than decide the fate of the old Louvre by
introducing the new fashion. His successors went on with the
work; and the progress of it may be followed, reign after
reign, till the last visible fragment of the Gothic castle had
been ruthlessly carted away. … Vast as is the Louvre that we
know, it is as nothing in comparison with the prodigious
scheme imagined by Richelieu and Louis XIII.; a scheme which,
though never carried out, gave a very strong impulse to the
works, and ensured the completion of the present building, at
least in a subsequent reign. … Happily for the Louvre Louis
XIV. interested himself in it before he engulfed his millions
at Marly and Versailles. … The sums of money expended on the
Louvre and Tuileries defy all calculation. … The greatest
spender on these palaces was Napoleon III."

_P. G. Hamerton.
Paris in Old and Present Times,
chapter 6. _

LOVERS, War of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

LOW CHURCH.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).

LOW COUNTRIES, The.

See NETHERLANDS.

LOWLANDS OF SCOTLAND.

See SCOTCH HIGHLAND and LOWLAND.

LOWOSITZ, OR LOBOSITZ, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

LOYALISTS, American.

See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

LOYOLA, and the founding of the Order of Jesus.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.

----------LUBECK: Start--------

LUBECK:
Origin and rise.

"Near the mouth of the river Trave there had long existed a
small settlement of pirates or fishermen. The convenience of
the harbour had led to this settlement and it had been much
frequented by Christian merchants. The unsettled state of the
country, however, afforded them little security, and it had
been often taken and plundered by the Pagan freebooters. When
Henry acquired the dominion of the soil [Henry the Lion, Duke
of Saxony, who subdued the heathen Wendish tribe of the
Oborites, A. D. 1165, and added their country to his
dominions] he paid particular attention to this infant
establishment, and under the shadow of his power the city of
Lubeck (for so it became) arose on a broad and permanent
basis. He made it … the seat of a bishop; he also
established a mint and a custom-house, and by the grant of a
municipal government, he secured the personal, while he
prepared the way for the political, rights of its burghers.
The ancient name of the harbour was Wisby, and by a
proclamation addressed to the Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, and
Russians, he invited them to frequent it, with an assurance
that the ways should be open and secure by land and water. …
This judicious policy was rewarded by a rapid and large
increase to the wealth and commerce of Lubeck."

_Sir A. Halliday,
Annals of the House of Hanover,
volume 1, pages 229-230._

See, also, HANSA TOWNS.

LUBECK: A. D. 1801-1803.
One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

LUBECK: A. D. 1806.
Battle of French and Prussians.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER).

LUBECK: A. D. 1810.
Annexation to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

LUBECK: A. D. 1810-1815.
Loss and recovery of autonomy as a "free city."

See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
and VIENNA, CONGRESS OF.

LUBECK: A. D. 1866.
Surrender of free privileges.
Entrance into the Zollverein.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.

----------LUBECK: End--------

LUBECK, Treaty of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

LUCANIANS, The.

See SABINES; also, SAMNITES.

----------LUCCA: Start--------

LUCCA:
The founding of the city.

See MUTINA AND PARMA.

LUCCA: 8th Century.
The seat of Tuscan government.

See TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115.

LUCCA: A. D. 1248-1278.
In the wars of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

LUCCA: A. D. 1284-1293.
War with Pisa.

See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

LUCCA: A. D. 1314-1328.
The brief tyranny of Uguccione della Faggiuola,
and the longer despotism of Castruccio Castracani.
Erected into an imperial duchy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

LUCCA: A. D. 1335-1341.
Acquired by Mastino della Scala of Verona.
Sold to Florence.
Taken by Pisa.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.

LUCCA: A. D. 1805.
Conferred on the sister of Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

LUCCA: A. D. 1814-1860.

After the fall of Napoleon Lucca was briefly occupied by the
Neapolitans; then, in the new arrangements, figured for some
time as a distinct duchy; afterwards became part of Tuscany,
until its absorption in the kingdom of Italy.

----------LUCCA: End--------

LUCENA, Battle of (1483).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

LUCERES, The.

See ROME: BEGINNING AND NAME.

LUCHANA, Battle of (1836).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

LUCIUS II., Pope, A. D. 1144-1145.

Lucius III., Pope, 1181-1185.

LUCKA, Battle of (1308).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

LUCKNOW, The siege of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1857 (MAY-AUGUST),
and 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

LUCOTECIA.

See LUTETIA.

LUD.
Ancient Lydia.

LUDDITES, Rioting of the.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1813.

LUDI. LUDI CIRCENSES, ETC.

"Public games (Ludi) formed an important feature in the
worship of the gods [in ancient Rome], and in the earlier ages
were always regarded as religious rites; so that the words
Ludi, Feriae and Dies Festi are frequently employed as
synonymous. Games celebrated every year upon a fixed day were
denominated Ludi Stati. Such were the Ludi Romani s. Magni,
held invariably on the 21st of September; the Megalesia on 4th
April; the Floralia on 28th April, and many others. …
Another classification of Ludi was derived from the place
where they were exhibited and the nature of the exhibition …

1. Ludi Circenses, chariot races and other games exhibited in
a circus.
2. Ludi Scenici, dramatic entertainments exhibited in a
theatre.
3. Munera Gladiatoria, prize-fights, which were usually
exhibited in an amphitheatre."

_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 10._

{2054}

LUDI MAXIMI ROMANI.

See ROMAN CITY FESTIVAL.

LUDI SÆCULARES, The.

See SECULAR GAMES.

LUDOVICO (called Il Moro),
Duke of Milan, A. D. 1494-1500.

LUDWIG.

See LOUIS.

LUGDUNENSIS AND LUGDUNUM.

See LYONS: UNDER THE ROMANS.

LUGUVALLIUM.

The Roman military station at the western extremity of the
Roman wall in Britain; the site of the modern city of
Carlisle.

_H. M. Scarth,
Roman Britain,
chapter 8. _

LUITPERTUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 700-701.

LUKETIA.

See LUTETIA.

LUNA: Destruction by the Northmen.

See NORMANS: A. D. 849-860.

LUND, Battle of (1676).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

LUNDY, Benjamin, and the rise of the Abolitionists.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

LUNDY'S LANE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

LUNEBURG, Duchy of.

See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY;
and A. D. 1178-1183.

LUNEBURG HEATH, Battle of (A. D. 880).

See EBBSDORF.

LUNEVILLE, The Treaty of (1801).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

LUPERCAL. LUPERCALIA.

The Lupercal was the wolf cave in which, according to Roman
legend, the twins, Romulus and Remus, were nursed by a
she-wolf. It was supposed to be situated at the foot of the
Palatine Hill. "The Lupercal is described by Dionysius as
having once been a large grotto, shaded with thick bushes and
large trees, and containing a copious spring of water. This
grotto was dedicated to Lupercus, an ancient Latin pastoral
divinity, who was worshipped by shepherds as the protector of
their flocks against wolves. A festival was held every year,
on the 15th of February, in the Lupercal, in honour of
Lupercus; the place contained an altar and a grove sacred to
the god. … Gibbon tells us the festival of the Lupercalia,
whose origin had preceded the foundation of Rome, was still
celebrated in the reign of Anthemus, 472 A.D."

_H. M. Westropp,
Early and Imperial Rome,
page 35._

"At the Lupercalia youths ran through the streets dressed
in goats' skins, beating all those they met with
strips of goats' leather."

_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 13._

LURIS.

See GYPSIES.

LUSIGNAN, House of.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187, 1192-1229, and 1291;
also, CYPRUS: A. D. 1191, and 1192-1489.

LUSITANIA. LUSITANIANS.

The Lusitani or Lusitanians were the people who resisted the
Roman conquest of Spain most obstinately—with even more
resolution than their neighbors and kinsmen, the Celtiberians.
In 153 B. C. they defeated a Roman army, which lost 6,000 men.
The following year they inflicted another defeat, on the
prætor Mummius, who lost 9,000 of his soldiers. Again, in 151,
the prætor Galba suffered a loss of 7,000 men at their hands.
But, in 150, Galba ravaged the Lusitanian country so
effectually that they sued for peace. Pretending to arrange
terms of friendship with them, this infamous Roman persuaded
three large bands of the Lusitanians to lay down their arms,
which being done he surrounded them with his troops and
massacred them in cold blood. One of the few who escaped was a
man named Viriathus, who became thenceforth the leader of his
surviving countrymen in a guerrilla warfare which lasted for
ten years, and which cost the Romans thousands of men. In the
end they could not vanquish Viriathus, but basely bribed some
traitors in his own camp to murder him. The Roman province
which was afterwards formed out of the country of the
Lusitanians, and which took their name, has been mistakenly
identified with the modern kingdom of Portugal, which it
coincided with only in part.

_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3)._

ALSO IN:
_H. M. Stephens,
The Story of Portugal,
chapter 1._

See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

On the settlement of the Alans,

See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

LUSTRUM.

After the [Roman] Censors had concluded the various duties
committed to their charge, they proceeded in the last place to
offer up, on behalf of the whole Roman people, the great
expiatory sacrifice called Lustrum, and this being offered up
once only in the space of five years, the term Lustrum is
frequently employed to denote that space of time. … On the
day fixed, the whole body of the people were summoned to
assemble in the Campus Martius in martial order (exercitus)
ranked according to their Classes and Centuries, horse and
foot. The victims, consisting of a sow, a sheep, and a bull,
whence the sacrifice was termed Suovetaurilia, before being
led to the altar, were carried thrice round the multitude, who
were then held to be purified and absolved from sin, and while
the immolation took place the Censor recited a set form of
prayer for the preservation and aggrandizement of the Roman
State."

_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 5._

LUTETIA, LUKETIA, LUCOTECIA.

The beginning of the great city of Paris was represented by a
small town named as above—the stronghold of the Gallic people
called the Parisii—built on one of the islands in the Seine
which Paris now covers and surrounds.

See PARIS, BEGINNING OF.

LUTHER, Martin, and the Reformation.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521,
1521-1522, 1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531;
also, GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

LUTHER: On Education.

See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE: GERMANY.

LUTTER, Battle of (1626).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.

LÜTZEN, Battle of (1632).
Death of Gustavus Adolphus.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

LÜTZEN, OR GROSS GÖRSCHEN, Battle of (1813).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (APRIL-MAY).

LUXEMBURG, The House of:
Its aggrandizement in the Empire, in Bohemia, Hungary,
and Brandenburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1308-1313, and 1347-1493;
also, HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442;
and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168=1417.

----------LUXEMBURG: Start--------

{2055}

LUXEMBURG: A. D. 1713.
Ceded to Holland.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

LUXEMBURG: A. D. 1795.
Siege and capture by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

LUXEMBURG: A. D. 1867.
Separated from Germany and formed into a neutral state.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1870.

----------LUXEMBURG: End--------

LUZZARA, Battle of (1702).

See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.

LYCEUM, The Athenian.

See ACADEMY, THE ATHENIAN;
and GYMNASIA, GREEK;
also, relative to the suppression of the Lyceum,
see ATHENS: A. D. 529.

LYCIAN LEAGUE, The.

"Probably the best constructed Federal Government that the
ancient world beheld. The account given by Strabo, our sole
authority, is so full, clear, and brief, that I cannot do
better than translate it. The 'ancestral constitution of the
Lykian League' is described by the great geographer in these
words: 'There are three and twenty cities which have a share
in the suffrage, and they come together from each city in the
common Federal Assembly, choosing for their place of meeting
any city which they think best. And, among the cities, the
greatest are possessed of three votes apiece, the middle ones
of two, and the rest of one; and in the same proportion they
pay taxes, and take their share of other public burthens. …
And, in the Federal Assembly, first the Lykiarch is chosen and
then the other Magistrates of the League, and bodies of
Federal Judges are appointed; and formerly they used to
consult about war, and peace, and alliance; this now, of
course, they cannot do, but these things must needs rest with
the Romans.' … On the practical working of this constitution
Strabo bestows the highest praise. Lykia was, in his day, a
Roman dependency, but it retained its own laws and internal
government."

_E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
chapter 4, section 4._

LYCIANS, The.