The purchase of Florida; its history and diplomacy

Contents

Page

Preface Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter

9 15

Preface

THE acquisition of Florida, our early relations with Spain, and the struggle to secure New Orleans and the Mississippi, are critical and interesting chapters in American history. Their importance and magnitude are but slightly considered by many of wide culture, and are but vaguely appreciated even by those who have made a special study of the history of the nation.

In connection with post-graduate work at Yale University, where this essay was awarded the George Washington Eggleston Prize in American History, in 1904, the author became aware of the poverty of historical writing devoted to these significant matters in the diplomatic history of the United States, and was impressed with the advantages which might accrue to students of American history, from an unprejudiced and accurate account of the acquisition of Florida and our early entanglements with the Spanish nation. Through the courtesy of the late Hon. John Hay, then Secretary of State, and of Assistant Secretary Adee, the diplomatic correspondence of the period in question was placed at the disposal of the writer.

Some idea of the importance of the questions involved and the attention they received from our national officials may be inferred from the fact that the author was obliged to examine some fifty volumes of official manuscript in order to secure the necessary data for a proper treatment of the subject. The original correspondence, all carefully examined and compared, included Instructions to United States lo Preface

Ministers in Europe, Domestic Letters, Notes to Foreign Legations, Letters of Foreign Ministers in the United States to the State Department, Letters from our Ministers Abroad to the State Department, and the Personal Letters of the various Ministers of the United States to Spain, France and England. Vols. XII and XIII of the Domestic Letters, and Vol. I of Notes to Foreign Legations were lost at the time of the British occupation of Washington in 1814, and have never been recovered.

The letters now extant in the State Department, many in French and Spanish, and not heretofore translated, reveal much of the inside history of our early national life. This mass of correspondence and notes, for the most part, furnishes the authority for the statements of fact made in the following pages. The conclusions derived have been drawn in an earnest effort to be fair and to avoid prejudice; national vanity and a mistaken patriotism have misled many authors.

The province of the historian is to present facts ; to be correct rather than pleasing ; to criticise, if occasion require, yet always justly. Fortified by the results of fullest research, he should state truly what has happened, and be guided in conclusions by the laws of evidence. He should seek to accomplish the complete subjection of personal, political and patriotic prejudices. The narrative should be based primarily upon an examination and appreciation of original documents. Personal memoirs, contemporary chronicles, and biased biographies and diaries are not to be ignored, but they must be subordinated to documents of acknowledged validity — such as authentic dispatches, original instructions, executive decrees and legislative enactments. Such gaps in history as cannot be filled should be bridged with great care.

If the author has criticised government officials and

Preface 1 1

officers of the army, or their conduct of affairs, it has been done solely to subserve the ends of historical accuracy.

Acknowledgment must be made to Mr. Andrew H. Allen, the Librarian of the Department of State, and to Mr. Pendleton King, Chief of the Bureau of Indexes and Archives of that department, and to Mr. P. Lee Phillips of the Congressional Library, for their uniform courtesy and valuable assistance; to Professor Arthur M. Wheeler of Yale University, for his kindly criticisms, valuable suggestions and friendly encouragement; and also to Professor Theodore S. Woolsey and Professor Edward G. Bourne of Yale University; the Hon. Hannis Taylor, of the Spanish Claims Commission and one time Minister to Spain; Professor Charles C. Swisher of George Washington University ; Justice David J. Brewer of the United States Supreme Court; and Mr. T. Fletcher Dennis of Washington, D. C, for assistance and advice always graciously afforded, and most gratefully received.

Hubert Bruck Fui.i.er.

Cleveland, Ohio,

February, 1906.

DIPLOMATIC HISTORY OF THE PURCHASE OF FLORIDA

CHAPTER I. KARIvY RELATIONS WITH SPAIN

FLORIDA — the land of the fountain of youth, of fabled riches, of unrivaled beauty, was the central figure of the romance and tradition of the sixteenth century. But her history was more a tragedy than a song. Here explorers, brave knights, soldiers of fortune, lured by the siren songs of wealth and the hope of glory, suffered and died and the world knew them no more. Here were armies sacrificed to satiate the vengeance of European monarchs — massacred by savage redskins or other vengeful enemies, with every refinement of cruelty that an ingenious mind could conceive or an experienced hand execute. Here Spanish and French and English all contributed something to the horror-laden history of colonial conquest, each in turn learning the awful penalties of the law of retribution.

Army after army buried itself in these swamps and forests — their bones left to bleach in the woods after being torn asunder by wild beasts or cruel natives to whom the whites had brought only the gospel of hate. And in these primeval forests, in a fruitless endeavor to explore the world of fabled romance, many a brave cavalier found the grave of his ambition. Bound by the thraldom of stupid traditions, they pursued the fateful errand of death and failure ; no city of gold was their reward, no treasure-mine offered remuneration ; only misery and death and the immunities of a forgotten grave.

But these expeditions were not of exploration and avarice alone; they were also of holy mission; for the adventurer and priest were companions, the one seeking the reward of gold,' the other the nobler reward of souls won to Christianity. But their methods were much the same ; fire and sword served them in place of argument and conviction. The beautiful picture of self-sacriiicing priests gone into a wild country to carry salvation to an unfortunate race, was not without its darker shadow^s. For they brought the inquisition with its horrors, and the fagot showed to a lurid heaven that even untutored savages can die for their convictions and for principle.

After the early period of discovery and settlement had passed, the American colonies became entangled in the wars of the continent. In 1666, again in 1719, and in 1725 various attacks on Florida had been made by the southern colonists entailing a bitterness of feeling between these provinces, which was destined to endure and bear fruit for more than a century. Fire and sword, famme and disease visited the colony in rapid and ruinous succession.

By the treaty of Paris in 1763, Florida was ceded to Great Britain in return for Cuba, and a new life was opened to this province — the fairest, yet the bloodiest of our domain. For Spain has ever viewed her colonists as slaves whose blood and tears might well be shed to advance her own proud ease and splendor.

With the change of title the Spanish people quite generally emigrated from the country which had been under the Castilian flag for two centuries. Two hundred years of disappointment and sorrow they had been. Outside the garrisoned walls little had been accomplished, for the Spanish were soldiers not civilians, gentlemen not agriculturists.

Under the English the province increased in population and wealth ; commerce flourished and friendly relations were established with the southern colonies. But when in 1775 the first guns of freedom were fired, they awakened no response in the hearts of the people of Florida. The other southern colonists might cheer the heroes of Lexington and Bunker Hill and call the minute-men patriots, but to Florida they were traitors, for Florida alone remained loyal. It was too new a possession and the people too well governed to feel the keen dissatisfaction and unrest which breed revolution. For to them English misgovernment seemed a blessing after the wrongs they had endured from, the Spanish. And further, many colonists were the recent beneficiaries of the generous land-grants of the English king. No bells and bonfires in Florida proclaimed the Declaration of Independence ; no liberty poles arose in her public squares. On the other hand when news of the events of July 4, 1776, reached St. Augustine, John Hancock and Samuel Adams were hanged and burned in effigy by a cheering crowd of loyalists.

Naturally this proud city, which had been called by her

former monarchs "the faithful city of St. Augustine,"

became, during the war, a depot and point d'appui for the

British in their operations against the southern states and

large forces at times were stationed there. Incursions were

made from time to time into Georgia to be followed by

counter-incursions into Florida. In the summer of 1778

two bodies of armed men marched from St. Augustine into

Georgia, where after laying waste a part of the country

about Sunbury and the Ogechee River they were forced to

retreat. The Americans numbering some two thousand,

under General Robert Howe, this same year of 1778

attempted to reduce St. Augustine. The British abandoned

Fort Tonyn at the mouth of 'St. Mary's River, where so

many privateers had been fitted out, and withdrew into the 9 walls of St. Augustine which must have soon fallen had not the deadly insects and a wasting sickness attacked the colonists.

In that year alone nearly seven thousand loyalists from the southern colonies emigrated to Florida. For the Georgia legislature had attainted with treason the refugees, and their property was declared forfeited to the state and ordered to be sold. Georgia's position was a most difficult one; for close to her was not only a loyal colony whose bitterness and effective strength had been increased by these Tory fugitives, but also the most powerful tribe of aborigines on the continent, hostile and revengeful.

In short, Florida had become a haven of refuge for the king's troops and Tories, and these marauding expeditions, citizens, Tories, Scopholites, Minorcans and Indians, were banded together under the name of Florida Rangers. With all the withering desolation of civil war the struggle went on; Ranger and Liberty Boy, Florida and Georgia, perchance brother and brother, or father and son — such is the sad tale the historian must record. To old St. Augustine, particularly after the fall of Charleston, the cartel ships brought their loads of prisoners and here were confined many Americans of prominence in the Revolutionary struggle.

When the W"ar w^as ended the planters returned to their fields, the artisans to their trades. Many loyalists who had refused allegiance to the new government came to Florida to live again under English colors or await the time when bitterness and prejudice might disappear from their former homes. The province, under the impetus of British government, took on new life and added prosperity. But one day, in 1783, a ship arrived in the harbor of St. Augustine and all was changed; the darkness and despair of ruin settled upon the province. For the king of England and the king of

Spain had indulged in a game of chess : they had traded pawns ; Spain took the Floridas and Jamaica went to England. Florida was well nigh deserted; for the English subjects, bidding farewell to their old homes, with tears and lamentations, parted from brother and sister, mother and father. It was the scene of Grand Pre repeated ; many found ruin and want on the shores of Jamaica while others returned to the now United States, there to experience the injustice of successful foes.

The cross of St. George was superseded by the Spanish flag, Spanish troops manned the forts and Spanish grandees dispensed the laws. And with their return industry and agriculture were suspended and commerce blotted out, while poverty and desolation took their place. The revolted colonies were a nation, loyal Florida a Castilian province.

The Declaration of Independence had hurled defiance at Great Britain and announced to the world the birth of a new nation, which was viewed with ridicule and contempt by many of the European countries, while others watched the scene in wonder, speculating whether here, at last, might be the weapon with which to humble an ancient enemy.

Those early years were fraught with perils that made our national existence precarious. The sinews of war were wanting and success was possible only with the alliance and aid of the ancient monarchies of Europe. Ambassadors — among the grandest men of the infant nation — were sent abroad, there on suppliant knee to seek the material and not alone the moral support without which the new-born must perish. To Madrid was dispatched the diplomatic and well-born Jay^ to seek some aid for the new republic from the old Castilian rulers whose name had ever been synonymous with all things anti-Republican, who above all stood for the divine right of kings. Spain was not forgetful of the lost Armada, nor was she unmindful of the numerous scores against England, and while she might view with intense satisfaction the loss to that country of her fairest possessions, yet that alone would not move her to action.

At first she viewed with alarm the prospect of a new nation in North America so near .her owm. It was not America free that Spain desired ; it was America dependent, but disaffected. For thus both the colonies and Great Britain would be unable to pillage Spanish America. At first then Spain gladly contributed, so far as she could — without exhausting her already embarrassed treasury or causing a public rupture — to maintain the colonies in this state of permanent disaffection.

But the Revolution progressed. The American arms held their own and the issue looked toward actual independence. Would Spain actively assist in a movement which might prove so seductive to her own colonies : would she thus help build up a power founded upon political principles in hostility to her own theories and traditions?

Alontmorin, the French minister of ^^ladrid, wrote to Vergennes : "I have no need to tell you, sir, how much the forming a republic in these regions w^ould displease Spain, and in fact, I believe that would neither suit her interests nor ours."'

Mirales, who came to Philadelphia from Spain in 1780 on a mission of inquiry, was so far imbued with the prejudices of his principals as to be incapable of giving in return a fair account of xA.merican affairs. The more he saw, the more he was appalled at the spectacle of the United States, not merely wresting the ^lississippi Valley from Spain, but inciting Spanish South America to revolt.^

With prophetic foresight A'ergennes declared that if

1. Wharton's International Law, Vol. I, p. 442 ; Bancroft's Hist, of the U. S., Vol. V, p. 301.

the United States won a place among- the independent nations, having fought to defend its hearth fires, it would next desire to extend itself over Louisiana, Florida and Mexico, in order to secure all the approaches to the sea.

Actuated by these ideas and with elusive and adroit Castilian diplomacy, the Spanish met the American representatives with mingled feelings of annoyance, displeasure and alarm. This was the second stage of the Spanish attitude toward the American Revolution.

By force of circumstances she was hurried on to the third stage. Unconsciously and irresistibly drawn by the logic of events into the whirlpool of that war which France, in the name of the colonies, was waging against Great Britain, Spain found solace and encouragement in the thought that at last was come the opportunity to avenge her wrongs; to wrest Gibraltar from the hands of the hated intruder, and on the successful issue of the war to rise again to the position of a first-class power.

The possibility of a Spanish alliance had long been a pleasing and fruitful topic of debate in the continental congress, and in 1778 suggestions were repeatedly made in that body as to what might be offered as an inducement to this coveted arrangement. Finally the different ideas were crystallized in the form of a motion oft'ered September 10, 1779, by Mr. Dickinson: "That if his Catholic Majesty shall determine to take part with France and the United States of America, in such case the minister plenipotentiary of the United States be empowered in their name to conclude wath the most Christian and Catholic Kings, a treaty or treaties, thereby assuring to these States Canada, Nova Scotia, Bermudas and the Floridas, when conquered, and the free and full exercise of the common right of these States to the fisheries on the banks of Newfoundland and the other fishing banks and seas of North America, and also the free navigation of the Mississippi into the sea."^ But in this grant of the territory of the Floridas it was always provided, "that his Catholic Majesty shall grant to the United States the free navigation of the Mississippi into the sea and establish on the said river at or somewhere southward of 31° north latitude, a free port or ports," for all merchant vessels, goods, wares and merchandise belonging to the inhabitants of the States. The United States might well be thus generous in her terms, for her enemy and not herself was being despoiled. With these terms as a basis, Jay w^as directed to conclude a treaty of comity and alliance at the court of Madrid. These offers, however, did not coincide with Spanish ideas, and counter-propositions were made : these are shown in a communication of the French minister to congress, February 2, 1780, on the "Terms of Alliance proposed by his Catholic Majesty," setting forth, ''certain articles which his Catholic Majesty ■deems of great importance to the interests of his crown^ and on which it is highly necessary that the United States explain themselves with precision and with such moderation as may consist with their essential rights. That the articles are :

" ( I ) A precise and invariable western boundary of the United States.

"(2) The exclusive navigation of the River Mississippi.

"(3) The possession of the Floridas; and

"(4) The lands on the left or eastern side of the River Mississippi.

"That on the first article it is the idea of the cabinet of Madrid that the United States extend to the westward no farther than settlements were permitted by the royal proclamation of 1763. On the second that the United States

1. Wharton, Vol. Ill, p. 311.

do not consider themselves as having any right to navigate the River Mississippi, no territory belonging to them being situated thereon. On the third that it is probable that the king of Spain will conquer the Floridas during the course of the present war. On the fourth that the lands lying on the east side of the Mississippi are possessions of the crown of Great Britain and proper objects against which the arms of Spain may be employed for the purpose of making a permanent conquest for the Spanish crown." ^

A certain faction were willing to barter away our right to the navigation of the Mississippi, if thereby they might secure so promising an alliance, but the statesmen for the most part insisted that this must never be the price of any treaty, no matter how beneficial.

In a letter to Jay, Benjamin Franklin wrote, "Poor as we are, yet, as I know we shall be rich, I would rather agree with them to buy at a great price the whole of their [Spanish] right on the Mississippi than to sell a drop of its waters. A neighbor might as well ask me to sell my street door." 2 But Spain, insistent on exclusive right to the navigation of the river from its 'source to the gulf, would listen to no propositions which did not guarantee her this. In 1780 we find her demanding the Mississippi as the consideration for the loan of one hundred thousand pounds sterling. The Spanish asserted with warmth that the king would never relinquish the navigation of the Mississippi, and that its exclusive ownership was the sole advantage they would obtain from the war. ^

The colonies insisted that there need be no fear of future complications over this waterway, for it was the boundary of several states in the Union, and that the cit-

1. 'Wharton, Vol. Ill, p. 489. MSS. State Department.

2. Dated Passy, Oct. 2, 1780. V^harton, Vol. IV, p. 75.

3. Conference between Jay and Count de Florida Blanca Sept. 25, 1780.

izens of these states, while connected with Great Britain, and since the Revolution, had been accustomed to the free use of the stream in common with the Spanish subjects and that there had been no trouble. Spain by the treaty of Paris had ceded to Great Britain all the country to the northeastward of the Mississippi ; the people inhabiting these states while subject to Great Britain and even since the Revolution, had settled at various places near the Mississippi, were friendly to the Revolution, and, being citizens, the United States could not consider the proposition of assigning them over as subjects of another power. ^

So far from granting the navigation of the Mississippi, Jay was directed to seek an arrangement by which, if Spain should capture the Floridas, the United States could share the free navigation of the rivers which traversed these provinces and emptied into the Gulf of Mexico. Americans believed that the Mississippi had been planned by the Creator as a natural highway for the people of that upper country whose extent and fertility had already attracted the eye of the frontiersmen. They (believed that this country would be quickly settled, that there was neither equity nor reason in compelling the inhabitants to live without foreign commodities and lose the surplus of their productions, or be compelled to transport them over forbidding mountains and through an immense wilderness to the sea, particularly when at their very door was the most magnificent highway of the continent. ^ Spain maintained that the present generation would not want this right of navigation and that future generations could well dispose of the question when it should become a live one. The king of Spain considered the ownership of the Mississippi River far more important to his dynasty than the recovery of Gibraltar, and the maxims of policy adopted in the management of the Spanish col-

T. Instruction's to Jay in Congress, Oct. 4, 1780. Wharton, Vol. IV, pp. 78, 79.

2. Jay to President of Congress, Nov. 6, 1780. Ihid., p. 167.

onies required that only the Castihan banner should appear on the Gulf Waters. ^ But the colonies insisted upon their moral and legal right to this outlet. True, it was a question which belonged largely to the future, but they were unwilling to thus hypothecate that future and retard their own development. Further, the treaty of alliance of 1778 with France, had guaranteed to that country the free navigation of the river. European complications, however, forced Spain into the contest, not as an ally of the colonies, but of France. ^

Yet for the accomplishment of the general purposes of the war, Am.erica became an essential ally. A large part of the British naval force was located in American waters, engaged in blockading as well as in more active service, and the situation demanded all the land force which England could command. Spain, however, did not yield to the persistent representations of France and America until an offer of mediation on her part had been curtly rebuffed by the British minister.

Still she constantly refused an alliance with America except upon what were felt to be the preposterous terms she had already offered, and a small wonder is it that congress felt that, as the price of a treaty, she was seeking to despoil an ally. Now that she was actually a party to the war, the necessity for a treaty became less urgent, for was she not at war with England as effectively for her own objects as she would be for ours, and why donate to her the valuable Mississippi? Doubtless the effect of a Spanish-American alliance on England and other nations would be favorable to the United States, but the price was exorbitant. Jay remarked : "The cession of this navigation will, in my opinion, render a future war with Spain unavoidable and I shall

1. Carmichael to Committee on Foreign Affairs, Nov. 28, 1780. Wiharton, Vol. IV, p. 167.

2. By secret convention of April 12, 1'779, with France.

look upon my subscribing to the one as fixing the certainty of the other." ^ But Spain proceeded to accompUsh by force of arms that which she had been unable to secure by diplomatic arrangement with the struggling colonists. Declining to recognize any right of the colonies to the Mississippi or any land bordering thereon, either to the east or west, she found thus a fruitful field for her arms and her valor. In January, 1781, an allied Spanish and Indian force set out from the town of St. Louis of the Illinois and captured the post of St. Joseph. In the name of his Catholic Majesty they took possession of the towm and surrounding country with impressive formality. Thus had the American struggle for liberation become also a Spanish war of conquest. The capture of St. Joseph caused ill-concealed alarm among the American leaders. Speaking of this conquest, Franklin, in a letter to Livingston, said : "While they decline our offered friendship, are they to be suffered to encroach on our bounds and shut us up within the Appalachian Mountains? I begin to fear they have some such project." 2

Montmorin, writing to Vergennes of a conversation with Count de Florida Blanca in 1782, says:

"I thought right. Monsieur, to report these incidents to you, in making you observe the condition of things and understand the absolute carelessness, or even repugnance of Spain to the establishing the independence of America. If it is so marked now, what wall it be when Spain succeeds in taking Gibraltar? Then the war will have no other object than that same independence which she now regards with so much indifference, and perhaps fear.

"1 confess, Monsieur, that this idea torments me. Remember, Monsieur, that the system of M. de Florida Blanca has always been to make Spain mediator between England

1. Jay to Congress, Oct. 3, 1781. TVharton, Vol. IV, p. 743.

2. Dated Passy, April 12, 1782. Wharton, Vol. V, p. 300.

and her colonies. He has followed that system with pertinacity. He has never wished to declare himself openly for the United States, and even now he seems to draw himself away from them still more. This conduct seems to me to announce very evidently the desire that England should address herself to Spain to obtain a modification to the independence of America, that will make the sacrifice less hard." 1

In 1 781 when negotiations for peace oetween Great Britain and the United States were seriously considered, the question of the western boundary of the new nation became of paramount importance. Should England retain that portion of the United States bordering on the Mississippi, as it seemed likely that she might, the neighborhood of her possessions would be immediately dangerous to our peace. Should she also retain Canada and West Florida or even Canada alone, by applying herself to the settlement of that country and pushing her trade with vigor, a nev\^ nursery for her marine would be speedily established.

From the confidence that the western territory lay within the United States, the British posts were reduced and the American government exercised in that section. Large bounties of land had been promised to the already discontented and mutinous army, and the country was furthermore relied on as an important source for discharging the debts piled up in eight years of war. By the surrender of this tract to Great Britain a large number of people, men, too, not behind their eastern brothers in zeal and suffering for the cause of liberty, would be thrown back within her power.

To the absurd and dangerous Spanish proposition that the western boundary be a line one mile east of the Mississippi, the objection was made that the only principle which

1. Madrid, March 30, 1782. Wharton, Vol. V, p. 287.

28 The Pur&hase of Florida

could justify such a limitation, would also justify mutilations of an immense extent. ^ Deserted by their allies and opposed by their enemies, the colonies had much to fear from the peace negotiations. England was reluctant to acknowledge the independence of her ''rebellious subjects." Spain, at length, reconciled to their freedom, sought to circumscribe and weaken them. France, though seeking their freedom, feared the reconciliation and possible future alliance of the old Anglo-Saxon nation with the new, and so sought to place the late colonies in a position of tutelage to her. Friend and foe alike feared their strength. Nor did the subsequent history prove the French and Spanish fears to have been without reason. For the American example in a few short years inspired the French Revolution, and pointed out the way to struggling South American colonies to emerge from their cruel tyrannies. Count de Florida Blanca's fears were not unfounded; for the United States has turned its guns on both the allies of its early days.

As the final date of the peace convention approached it became more evident that a determined effort was to be made to shut in the new'nation by the Appalachian Mountain Ranges, and congress adopted a series of instructions to guide the American commissioners in their task.

It was not to the interest of our French allies that an amicable treaty, such as would inspire mutual confidence and friendship, should be consummated between England and the col'onists. Their purpose was to plant such seeds of jealousy and discord in the pact as would compel our subservience to them. They sought to keep some point in contest between America and England, to the end of the war, to preclude the possibility of our sooner reaching an agreement, to keep us employed in the war, to make us