Chapter IV: , VII (160)

Early in Richelieu's administration of the French government,
the first steps were taken towards the union of Lorraine with
France. "Its situation, as well as its wealth and fertility,
made it an acquisition specially valuable to that kingdom. …
Lorraine had long been ruled by the present family of dukes,
and in its government more had remained of feudal usages than
in the monarchy that had grown up beside it. The character and
career of the members of the house of Guise had brought
Lorraine into very intimate connection with France, and the
closeness of its relations added danger to its position as an
independent state. Charles IV. became Duke of Lorraine in 1624
by virtue of the rights of his cousin and wife, the daughter of
the last duke. …
{2043}
He soon began to take part in the intrigues of the French
Court, and he enrolled himself among the lovers of Mme. de
Chevreuse and the enemies of Richelieu. … Richelieu had long
sought occasion for offence against the Duke Charles. The Duke
of Lorraine was bound to do honor to the French king for the
Duchy of Bar [which was a fief of the French crown, while
Lorraine was an imperial fief], a duty which was often
omitted, and the agents of Richelieu discovered that France
had ancient and valid claims to other parts of his territory.
His relations with France were rendered still more uncertain
by his own untrustworthy character. To tell the truth or to
keep his agreement were equally impossible for Duke Charles,
and he was dealing with a man with whom it was dangerous to
trifle. Gustavus Adolphus had invaded Germany, and the Duke of
Lorraine was eager in defending the cause of the Emperor. In
January, 1632, he was forced to make a peace with France, by
which he agreed to make no treaty with any other prince or
state without the knowledge and permission of the French king.
Charles paid no attention to this treaty, and for all these
causes in June, 1632, Louis [XIII.] invaded his dominions.
They lay open to the French army, and no efficient opposition
could be made. On June 26th Charles was forced to sign a
second treaty, by which he surrendered the city and county of
Clermont, and also yielded the possession for four years of
the citadels of Stenay and Jametz. … This treaty made little
change in the condition of affairs. Charles continued to act
in hostility to the Swedes, to assist Gaston [Duke of Orleans,
the rebellious and troublesome brother of Louis XIII., who had
married Margaret of Lorraine, the Duke's sister], and in every
way to violate the conditions of the treaty he had made. He
seethed resolved to complete his own ruin, and he did not have
to wait long for its accomplishment. In 1633 Louis a second
time invaded Lorraine, and the Swedes, in return for the
duke's hostility to them, also entered the province. Charles'
forces were scattered and he was helpless, but he was as false
as he was weak. He promised to surrender his sister Margaret,
and he allowed her to escape. He sent his brother to make a
treaty and then refused to ratify it. At last, he made the
most disadvantageous treaty that was possible, and surrendered
his capital, Nancy, the most strongly-fortified city of
Lorraine, into Louis' possession until all difficulties should
be settled between the king and the duke, which, as Richelieu
said, might take till eternity. In January, 1634, Charles
pursued his eccentric career by granting all his rights in the
duchy to his brother, the Cardinal of Lorraine. The new duke
also married a cousin in order to unite the rights of the two
branches. … Charles adopted the life of a wandering soldier
of fortune, which was most to his taste, and commanded the
imperial forces at the battle of Nordlingen. He soon assumed
again the rights which he had ceded, but his conduct rendered
them constantly less valuable. The following years were filled
with struggles with France, which resulted in her taking
possession of still more of Lorraine, until its duke was
entirely a fugitive. Such struggles brought upon its
inhabitants a condition of constantly increasing want and
misery. … It was ravaged by the hordes of the Duke of Weimar
and the Swedes [see GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639], and on every
side were pillage and burning and murders. Famine followed,
and the horrors perpetrated from it were said to be more than
could be described. Richelieu himself wrote that the
inhabitants of Lorraine were mostly dead, villages burned,
cities deserted, and a century would not entirely restore the
country. Vincent de Paul did much of his charitable work in
that unhappy province. … The duke at last, in 1641, came as
a suppliant to Richelieu to ask for his duchy, and it was
granted him, but on the condition that Stenay, Dun, Jametz,
and Clermont should be united to France, that Nancy should
remain in the king's possession until the peace, and that the
duke should assist France with his troops against all enemies
whenever required. … Charles was hardly back in his
dominions before he chose to regard the treaty he had made as
of no validity, and in July he violated it openly, and shortly
took refuge with the Spanish army. … Thereupon the French
again invaded Lorraine, and by October, 1641, practically the
whole province was in their hands. It so continued until
1663."

_J. B. Perkins,
France under [Richelieu and] Mazarin,
chapter 5 (volume 1)._

"The faithfulness with which he [the Duke of Lorraine] adhered
to his alliance with Austria, in spite of threatened losses,
formed in the end a strong bond of reciprocal attachment and
sympathy between the Hapsburgs and the Princes of Lorraine,
which, at a later day, became even firmer, and finally
culminated in the marriage of Stephen of Lorraine and Maria
Theresa."

_A. Gindely,
History of the Thirty Years' War,
volume 2, chapter 6, section 3._

LORRAINE: A. D. 1648.
Desertion of the cause of the duke in the
Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1659.
Restored to the duke with some shearing of territory.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1679.
Restoration refused by the duke.

See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1680.
Entire absorption of Les Trois Evêchés in France with
boundaries extended by the Chamber of Reannexation.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1697.
Restored to the duke by the Treaty of Ryswick.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1735.
Ceded to France.
Reversion of Tuscany secured to the former duke.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1871.
One fifth ceded to the German empire by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

LORRAINE: A. D. 1871-1879.
Organization of the government of Alsace-Lorraine as a German
imperial province.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.

----------LORRAINE: End----------

LOSANTIVILLE.

See CINCINNATI: A. D. 1788.

LOSE-COAT FIELD, Battle of.

In 1470 an insurrection against the government of King Edward
IV. broke out in Lincolnshire, England under the lead of Sir
Robert Welles, who raised the Lancastrian standard of King
Henry. The insurgents were vigorously attacked by Edward, at a
place near Stamford, when the greater part of them "flung away
their coats and took to flight, leaving their leader a
prisoner in the hands of his enemies. The manner in which the
rebels were dispersed caused the action to be spoken of as the
battle of Lose-coat Field."

_J. Gairdner,
Houses of Lancaster and York,
chapter 8._

The engagement is sometimes called the Battle of Stamford.

{2044}

LOST TEN TRIBES OF ISRAEL.

See JEWS: KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH;
also, SAMARIA.

LOTHAIRE,
King of France, A. D. 954-986.

Lothaire I., King of Italy and Rhineland, 817-855;
King of Lotharingia, and titular Emperor, 843-855.

Lothaire II.,
Emperor, 1133-1137;
King of Germany, 1125-1137.

LOTHARINGIA.

See LORRAINE.

LOTHIAN.

See SCOTLAND: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

LOUIS,
King of Portugal, A. D. 1861-1889.

Louis of Nassau, and the struggle in the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566, to 1573-1574.

Louis I. (called The Pious),
Emperor of the West, A. D. 814-840;
King of Aquitaine, 781-814;
King of the Franks, 814-840.

Louis I. (called The Great),
King of Hungary, 1342-1382;
King of Poland, 1370-1382.

Louis I.,
King of Naples, 1382-1384;
Count of Provence and Duke of Anjou, 1339-1384.

Louis I., King of Sicily, 1342-1355.

Louis II. (called The Stammerer),
King of France, 877-879.

Louis II. (called The German),
King of the East Franks (Germany), 843-875.

Louis II.,
King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1516-1526.

Louis II.,
King of Naples, 1389-1399;
Duke of Anjou and Count of Provence, 1384-1417.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414.

Louis III.,
King of the Franks (Northern France), 879-882;
East Franks (Germany—in association with Carloman), 876-881.

Louis III. (called The Child),
King of the East Franks (Germany), 899-910.

Louis III., King of Provence, 1417-1434.

Louis III.,
Duke of Anjou, Count of Provence,
and titular King of Naples, 1417-1434.

Louis IV., King of France, 936-954.

Louis V. (of Bavaria),
Emperor, 1327-1347;
King of Germany (in rivalry with Frederick III.), 1313-1347;
King of Italy, 1327-1347.

Louis V., King of France, 986-987.

Louis VI. (called The Fat), King of France, 1108-1137.

Louis VII., King of France, 1137-1180.

Louis VIII., King of France, 1223-1226.

Louis IX. (called Saint Louis), King of France, 1226-1270.

Louis X. (called Le Hutin, or The Brawler),
King of France, 1314-1316;
King of Navarre, 1305-1316.

Louis XI., King of France, 1461-1483.

Louis XII., King of France, 1498-1515.

Louis XIII., King of France, 1610-1643… .

Louis XIV. (called "The Grand Monarch "),
King of France, 1643-1715.

Louis XV., King of France, 1715-1774.

Louis XVI., King of France, 1774-1793.

Louis XVII., nominal King of France, 1793-1796,
during the Revolution; died in prison, aged twelve years.

Louis XVIII., King of France; 1814-1824.

Louis Napoleon Bonaparte.

See NAPOLEON III.

Louis Philippe,
King of France (of the House of Orleans), 1830-1848.

LOUIS, Saint, Establishments of.

See WAGER OF BATTLE.

----------LOUISBOURG: Start--------

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1720-1745.
The fortification of the Harbor.

See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1745.
Surrender to the New Englanders.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745.

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1748.
Restoration to France.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1757.
English designs against, postponed.

See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1758-1760.
Final capture and destruction of the place by the English.

See CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

----------LOUISBOURG: End--------

LOUISIANA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY,
and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1629.
Mostly embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath, by
Charles I. of England.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1682.
Named and possession taken for the king of France, by La
Salle.

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.
Iberville's colonization.
Separation in government from New France.
Crozat's monopoly.
The French territorial claim.

"The court of France had been engaged in wars and political
intrigues, and nothing toward colonizing Louisiana had been
effected since the disastrous expedition of La Salle. Twelve
years had elapsed, but his discoveries and his unfortunate
fate had not been forgotten. At length, in 1698, an expedition
for colonizing the region of the Lower Mississippi was set on
foot by the French king. It was placed under the command of M.
D'Iberville, who had been an experienced and distinguished
naval commander in the French wars of Canada, and a successful
agent in establishing colonies in Canada, Acadie and Cape
Breton. … With his little fleet of two frigates, rating 30
guns each, and two smaller vessels, bearing a company of
marines and 200 colonists, including a few women and children,
he prepared to set sail from France for the mouth of the
Mississippi. The colonists were mostly soldiers who had served
in the armies of France and had received an honorable
discharge. They were well supplied with provisions and
implements requisite for opening settlements in the
wilderness. It was on the 24th day of September, 1698, that
this colony sailed from Rochelle." On the 2d of the following
March, after considerable exploration of the coast, west from
the Spanish settlement at Pensacola, Iberville found the mouth
of the Mississippi, being confirmed in the identification of
it by discovery of a letter, in the hands of the Indians,
which Tonti had written to La Salle thirteen years before.
"Soon afterward, Iberville selected a site and began to erect
a fort upon the northeast shore of the Bay of Biloxi, about
fifteen miles north of Ship Island. Here, upon a sandy shore,
and under a burning sun, upon a pine barren, he settled his
colony, about 80 miles northeast from the present city of New
Orleans. … Having thus located his colony, and protected
them [by a fort] from the danger of Indian treachery and
hostility, he made other provision for their comfort and
security, and then set sail for France, leaving his two
brothers, Sauvolle and Bienville, as his lieutenants." The
following September an English corvette appeared in the river,
intending to explore it, but was warned off by the French, and
retired. During the summer of 1699 the colonists suffered
terribly from the maladies of the region, and M. Sauvolle,
with many others, died.
{2045}
"Early in December following D'Iberville returned with an
additional colony and a detachment of troops, in company with
several vessels of war. Up to this time, the principal
settlements had been at Ship Island and on the Bay of Biloxi;
others had been begun at the Bay of St. Louis and on the Bay
of Mobile. These were made as a matter of convenience, to hold
and occupy the country; for his principal object was to
colonize the banks of the Mississippi itself." Iberville now
built a fort and located a small colony at a point about 54
miles above the mouth of the river, and about 38 miles below
the present city of New Orleans. The next year, having been
joined by the veteran De Tonti with a party of French
Canadians from the Illinois, Iberville ascended the river
nearly 400 miles, formed a friendly alliance with the Natchez
tribe of Indians, and selected for a future settlement the
site of the present city of Natchez. "In the spring of 1702
war had been declared by England against France and Spain, and
by order of the King of France the headquarters of the
commandant were removed to the western bank of the Mobile
River. This was the first European settlement within the
present State of Alabama. The Spanish settlement at Pensacola
was not remote; but as England was now the common enemy, the
French and Spanish commandants arranged their boundary between
Mobile and Pensacola Bays to be the Perdido River. … The
whole colony of Southern Louisiana as yet did not number 30
families besides soldiers. Bilious fevers had cut off many of
the first emigrants, and famine and Indian hostility now
threatened the remainder." Two years later, Iberville was
broken in health by an attack of yellow fever and retired to
France. After six further years of hardship and suffering, the
colony, in 1710, still "presented a population of only 380
souls, distributed into five settlements, remote from each
other. These were on Ship Island, Cat Island, at Biloxi,
Mobile, and on the Mississippi. … Heretofore the settlements
of Louisiana had been a dependence on New France, or Canada,
although separated by a wilderness of 2,000 miles in extent.
Now it was to be made an independent government, responsible
only to the crown, and comprising also the Illinois country
under its jurisdiction. The government of Louisiana was
accordingly placed [1711] in the hands of a governor-general.
The headquarters, or seat of the colonial government, was
established at Mobile, and a new fort was erected upon the
site of the present city of Mobile. … In France it was still
believed that Louisiana presented a rich field for enterprise
and speculation. The court, therefore, determined to place the
resources of the province under the influence of individual
enterprise. For this purpose, a grant of exclusive privileges,
in all the commerce of the province, for a term of 15 years,
was made to Anthony Crozat, a rich and influential merchant of
France. His charter was dated September 26th, 1712. At this
time the limits of Louisiana, as claimed by France, were very
extensive. As specified in the charter of Crozat, it was
'bounded by New Mexico on the west, by the English lands of
Carolina on the east, including all the establishments, ports,
havens, rivers, and principally the port and haven of the Isle
of Dauphin, heretofore called Massacre; the River St. Louis,
heretofore called Mississippi, from the edge of the sea as far
as the Illinois together with the River St. Philip, heretofore
called Missouri, the River St. Jerome, heretofore called
Wabash, with all the lands, lakes, and rivers mediately or
immediately flowing into any part of the River St. Louis or
Mississippi.' Thus Louisiana, as claimed by France at that
early period, embraced all the immense regions of the United
States from the Alleghany Mountains on the east to the Rocky
Mountains on the west, and northward to the great lakes of
Canada."

_J. W. Monette,
History of the Discovery and Settlement of the
Valley of the Mississippi,
book 2, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

Louisiana: A. D. 1717-1718.
Crozat's failure and John Law's Mississippi Bubble.
The founding of New Orleans.

"Crozat's failure was, in the nature of things, foreordained.
His scheme, indeed, proved a stumbling-block to the colony and
a loss to himself. In five years (1717) he was glad to
surrender his monopoly to the crown. From its ashes sprung the
gigantic Mississippi Scheme of John Law, to whom all
Louisiana, now including the Illinois country, was granted for
a term of years. Compared with this prodigality Crozat's
concession was but a plaything. It not only gave Law's Company
proprietary rights to the soil, but power was conferred to
administer justice, make peace or war with the natives, build
forts, levy troops and with consent of the crown to appoint
such military governors as it should think fitting. These
extraordinary privileges were put in force by a royal edict,
dated in September, 1717. The new company [called the Western
Company] granted lands along the river to individuals or
associated persons, who were sometimes actual emigrants,
sometimes great personages who sent out colonists at their own
cost, or again the company itself undertook the building up of
plantations on lands reserved by it for the purpose. One
colony of Alsatians was sent out by Law to begin a plantation
on the Arkansas. Others, more or less flourishing, were
located at the mouth of the Yazoo, Natchez and Baton Rouge.
All were agricultural plantations, though in most cases the
plantations themselves consisted of a few poor huts covered
with a thatch of palm-leaves. The earliest forts were usually
a square earthwork, strengthened with palisades about the
parapet. The company's agricultural system was founded upon
African slave labor. Slaves were brought from St. Domingo or
other of the West India islands. By some their employment was
viewed with alarm, because it was thought the blacks would
soon outnumber the whites, and might some day rise and
overpower them; but we find only the feeblest protest entered
against the moral wrong of slavery in any record of the time.
Negroes could work in the fields, under the burning sun, when
the whites could not. Their labor cost no more than their
maintenance. The planters easily adopted what, indeed, already
existed among their neighbors. Self-interest stilled
conscience. The new company wisely appointed Bienville
governor. Three ships brought munitions, troops, and stores of
every sort from France, with which to put new life into the
expiring colony. It was at this time (February, 1718) that
Bienville began the foundation of the destined metropolis of
Louisiana. The spot chosen by him was clearly but a fragment
of the delta which the river had been for ages silently
building of its own mud and driftwood.
{2046}
It had literally risen from the sea. Elevated only a few feet
above sea-level, threatened with frequent inundation, and in
its primitive estate a cypress swamp, it seemed little suited
for the abode of men, yet time has confirmed the wisdom of the
choice. Here, then, a hundred miles from the Gulf, on the
alluvial banks of the great river, twenty-five convicts and as
many carpenters were set to work clearing the ground and
building the humble log cabins, which were to constitute the
capital, in its infancy. The settlement was named New Orleans,
in honor of the Regent, Orleans, who ruled France during the
minority of Louis XV.

_S. A. Drake,
The Making of the Great West,
pages 126-128._

ALSO IN:
A. McF. Davis,
Canada and Louisiana
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 5, chapter 1).

_A. Thiers,
The Mississippi Bubble,
chapters 3-8._

_C. Mackay,
Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions,
volume 1, chapter 1._

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720.

LOUISIANA: A. D 1719-1750.
Surrendered to the Crown.
Massacre of French by the Natchez,
and destruction of that tribe.
Unsuccessful war with the Chickasaws.

"The same prodigality and folly which prevailed in France
during the government of John Law, over credit and commerce,
found their way to his western possessions; and though the
colony then planted survived, and the city then founded became
in time what had been hoped,—it was long before the influence
of the gambling mania of 1718-19-20 passed a way. Indeed the
returns from Louisiana never repaid the cost and trouble of
protecting it, and, in 1732, the Company asked leave to
surrender their privileges to the crown, a favor which was
granted them. But though the Company of the West did little
for the enduring welfare of the Mississippi valley, it did
something; the cultivation of tobacco, indigo, rice, and silk,
was introduced, the lead mines of Missouri were opened, though
at vast expense and in hope of finding silver; and, in
Illinois, the culture of wheat began to assume some degree of
stability and of importance. In the neighborhood of the river
Kaskaskia, Charlevoix found three villages, and about Fort
Chartres, the head quarters of the Company in that region, the
French were rapidly settling. All the time, however, during
which the great monopoly lasted, was, in Louisiana, a time of
contest and trouble. The English, who, from an early period,
had opened commercial relations with the Chickasaws, through
them constantly interfered with the trade of the Mississippi.
Along the coast, from Pensacola to the Rio del Norte, Spain
disputed the claims of her northern neighbor: and at length
the war of the Natchez struck terror into the hearts of both
white and red men. Amid that nation … D'Iberville had marked
out Fort Rosalie [on the site of the present city of Natchez],
in 1700, and fourteen years later its erection had been
commenced. The French, placed in the midst of the natives, and
deeming them worthy only of contempt, increased their demands
and injuries until they required even the abandonment of the
chief town of the Natchez, that the intruders might use its
site for a plantation. The inimical Chickasaws heard the
murmurs of their wronged brethren, and breathed into their
ears counsels of vengeance; the sufferers determined on the
extermination of their tyrants. On the 28th of November, 1729,
every Frenchman in that colony died by the hands of the
natives, with the exception of two mechanics: the women and
children were spared. It was a fearful revenge, and fearfully
did the avengers suffer for their murders. Two months passed
by, and the French and Choctaws in one day took 60 of their
scalps; in three months they were driven from their country
and scattered among the neighboring tribes; and within two
years the remnants of the nation, chiefs and people, were sent
to St. Domingo and sold into slavery. So perished this ancient
and peculiar race, in the same year in which the Company of
the West yielded its grants into the royal hands. When
Louisiana came again into the charge of the government of
France, it was determined, as a first step, to strike terror
into the Chickasaws, who, devoted to the English, constantly
interfered with the trade on the Mississippi. For this purpose
the forces of New France, from New Orleans to Detroit, were
ordered to meet in the country of the inimical Indians, upon
the 10th of May, 1736, to strike a blow which should be
final." D'Artaguette, governor of Illinois, was promptly at
the rendezvous, with a large force of Indians, and a small
body of French, but Bienville, from the southern province,
proved dilatory. After waiting ten days, D'Artaguette attacked
the Chickasaws, carried two of their defenses, but fell and
was taken prisoner in the assault of a third; whereupon his
Indian allies fled. Bienville, coming up five days afterwards,
was repulsed in his turn and retreated, leaving D'Artaguette
and his captive companions to a fearful fate. "Three years
more passed away, and again a French army of nearly 4,000
white, red and black men, was gathered upon the banks of the
Mississippi, to chastise the Chickasaws. From the summer of
1739 to the spring of 1740, this body of men sickened and
wasted at Fort Assumption, upon the site of Memphis. In March
of the last named year, without a blow struck, peace was
concluded, and the province of Louisiana once more sunk into
inactivity. Of the ten years which followed we know but little
that is interesting."

_J. H. Perkins,
Annals of the West,
pages 61-63._

ALSO IN:
_M. Dumont,
Historical Memoirs
(French's Historical Collections of Louisiana, part 5)._

_C. Gayarre,
Louisiana; its Colonial History and Romance,
2d series, lectures 5-7._

_S. G. Drake,
Aboriginal Races of North America,
book 4, chapter 5._

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1728.
The Casket Girls.
Wives for the colonists.

"In the beginning of 1728 there came a vessel of the company
with a considerable number of young girls, who had not been
taken, like their predecessors, from houses of correction. The
company had given to each of them a casket containing some
articles of dress. From that circumstance they became known in
the colony under the nickname of the 'filles à la cassette',
or 'the casket girls.' … Subsequently, it became a matter of
importance in the colony to derive one's origin from the
casket girls, rather than from the correction girls."

_C. Gayarre,
Louisiana; its Colonial History and Romance,
page 396._

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1755.
Settlement of exiled Acadians.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1763.
East of the Mississippi, except New Orleans, ceded to
Great Britain, and west of the Mississippi, with New Orleans,
to Spain.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

{2047}

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768.
Spanish occupation and the revolt against it.
The short-lived republic of New Orleans.

"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)._