President Jefferson's instructions through Mr. Madison, his Secretary of State, to Monroe and Pinckney, July 30, 1807, expressed and explained the terms on which they were directed to close the treaty, and contains this language as to boundaries: This is in no view whatever necessary, and can have little other effect than as an offensive intimation to Spain that our claims extend to the Pacific Ocean. However reasonable such claims may be compared with others, it is impolitic, especially at the present moment, to strengthen Spanish jealousies of the United States, which it is probably an object with Great Britain to excite by the clause in question. Another statement from Mr. Jefferson-and four years earlier- is in his letter to Mr. Breckenridge, which I subjoin in full, so far as it refers to the Louisiana boundaries: To Mr. BRECKENRIDGE. MONTICELLO, August 12, 1803. DEAR SIR,—The enclosed letter, though directed to you, was intended to me also, and was left open with a request, that when forwarded, I would forward it to you. It gives me occasion to write a word to you on the subject of Louisiana, which being a new one, an interchange of sentiments may produce correct ideas before we are to act on them. Our information as to the country is very incomplete; we have taken measures to obtain it full as to the settled part, which I hope to receive in time for Congress. The boundaries, which I deem not admitting question, are the highlands on the western side of the Mississippi enclosing all its waters, the Missouri, of course, and terminating in the line drawn from the northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods to the nearest source of the Mississippi, as lately settled between Great Britain and the United States. We have some claims to extend on the seacoast westwardly to the Rio Norte or Bravo, and better, to go eastwardly to the Rio Perdido, between Mobile and Pensacola, the ancient boundary of Louisiana. These claims will be a subject of negotiation with Spain, and if, as soon as she is at war, we push them strongly with one hand, holding out a price in the other, we shall certainly obtain the Floridas, and all in good time. * This treaty must of course be laid before both Houses. * * Another letter to General Gates, about the same time, is also in point: To General GATES. WASHINGTON, July 11, 1803. DEAR GENERAL,-I accept with pleasure, and with pleasure reciprocate your congratulations on the acquisition of Louisiana; for it is a subject of mutual congratulation, as it interests every man of the nation. The territory acquired, as it includes all the waters of the Missouri and Mississippi, has more than doubled the area of the United States, and the new parts is not inferior to the old in soil, climate, productions and important communications. * * * Marbois, in his History of Louisiana, referring to the extent of the Louisiana cession, says: The shores of the western ocean were certainly not included in the cession, but the United States are already established there. (See p. 286.) Marbois again says: The charter given by Louis XIV to Crozat included all the countries watered by the rivers which empty directly or indirectly into the Mississippi. Within this description comes the Missouri, a river that has its sources and many of its tributary streams at a little distance from the Rocky Mountains. The first article of the treaty of cession to the United States meant to convey nothing beyond them, but the settlement in the interior, which has resulted from it, and the one on the Pacific Ocean at the west have mutually strengthened each other. (See p. 291.) Greenhow, in his History of California and Oregon, commenting on the boundaries of the Louisiana Purchase, says: In the absence of more direct light on the subject from history we are forced to regard the boundaries indicated by nature-namely, the highlands separating the waters of the Mississippi from those flowing into the Pacific or the California Gulf-as the true western boundaries of the Louisiana ceded by France to Spain in 1762, retroceded to France in 1800, and transferred to the United States by France in 1803. France, at the time of the cession, did not claim any territory west of the Rocky Mountains, but did concede the dominion of Spain to that country, as Spain then, and before, claimed the same. In support of this assertion we have the official declaration of Talleyrand, the French minister, to the Spanish Government (August 31, 1804, Talleyrand to Gravine), as follows: In any case the Court of Madrid would have no ground for the fear it shows that the United States may make use of their possession of Louisiana in order to form possessions on the northwest coast of America. Whatever boundary may be agreed upon between Spain and the United States, the line will necessarily be so far removed from the western coast of America as to relieve the Court of Madrid from anxiety on that score. These evidences from the highest and most authentic sources, and these expressions from men who lived in the times when this great question was most closely and critically examined, constitute the best authority, and should be finally and forever conclusive upon the controversy as to the extent of the Louisiana Purchase. Having reached this conclusion as to the western boundary of the cession from France history equally justifies us in our claim to the Oregon country to the westward of the cession, now embracing the States of Oregon, Washington and Idaho, and portions of Montana and Wyoming as resting on and derived throughFirst. Discovery and entrance of the mouth of the Columbia River by Capt. Robert Gray in 1792. Second. Exploration by Lewis and Clarke in 1805. Third. Settlement and occupation by the Astoria party in 1811. Therefore the Cession Map of the United States should be made to conform to facts well established and long confirmed by history, with which, I respectfully submit, the position assumed in this review of the question is in complete accord. A REVIEW OF ANNEXATION BY THE UNITED STATES. EARLY OBJECTIONS TO ANNEXATION ANALYZED. Annexation and affiliation within the confines of the great American Republic have become the popular thought of the people inhabiting the countries adjoining or near our shores. There is a magnetism about the old flag which attracts these people to us. It means to them freedom and humanity. It means greater opportunities. This was the feeling in Florida, in Texas, in California and in Oregon. Eighteen great States and four prosperous Territories and Districts, with Hawaii, comprise the domain acquired by annexation from foreign powers—vastly exceeding in area that wrested from our British ancestors by the Revolutionary war— and all within the lifetime of many still living. There are in the present American Congress 24 Senators and 65 Representatives from States within the limits of the Louisiana Purchase; from this, and our cther foreign acquisitions, there are to-day in that Congress 40 Senators and 97 Representatives and Delegates. Though innumerable advantages have accrued to our nation by territorial expansion, and though we have become greater and stronger with each increase of our area and acquired population, yet every effort to expand our domain has been antagonized by many of our own people. Some very specious arguments, as hereinbefore shown, have been advanced in opposition, but the experience of our nation during many years enable us now to refute the different positions assumed. Remoteness.-The objection to cession of foreign territory especially because of remoteness has been urged in the past to all our accessions. That this has neither resulted to the injury of our union nor to our institutions we have evidences all around us. We observe that Hawaii is more accessible to the United States today than were the settled portions of Louisiana in Jefferson's time, or of Florida in that of Monroe, and indeed nearer, as well as more accessible, than was Oregon during Polk's administration. To the answer that these acquisitions were neither interrupted by foreign dominion, nor by oceans, we turn to Alaska. We find that District not only incontiguous, but separated by a foreign country. It is also a fact that all communication with that distant people and with our civil government there is by ocean; the distance from Seattle to Sitka by steamer or sailing vessel being 900 miles, and from Seattle to St. Michaels, at the mouth of the Yukon, Hawaii is nearer the American mainland than are some of our California when admitted into the Union was far more inacces it is 2,705 miles. Aleutian Islands. 79 sible than is Hawaii to-day. Gen. Joseph Lane, the first Territorial governor of Oregon, desired to reach that destination as early as possible, so as to proclaim the Federal authority over that Territory before the expiration of President Polk's term, on March 4, 1849. He departed with his commission from Indiana on August 27, 1848, and journeyed via Fort Leavenworth, Santa Fe, El Paso, and thence to California, where at San Pedro Bay he took passage on a sailing vessel and was conveyed to San Francisco. Here, finding a ship bound for the Columbia river, he was transported to Oregon, where he arrived on the 1st of March following-the journey occupying about six months! President Polk, in a message to Congress, thought it might be practicable to establish an overland mail once a month, and so advised. Now, this distance is traversed in five days with comfort and safety, and for reasonable compensation. By our modern contrivances time, distance and danger are largely overcome in transportation from point to point. The wagon and the stage-coach are distanced and surpassed by the steam car; the sail has for quick dispatch given way to steam; the wooden vessel has been supplanted by the iron ship; and expedition in communication and correspondence between individuals is accomplished through the fast mail, the telegraph, and the telephone. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANNEXATION. The doubt entertained as to the right under the Constitution to acquire possession of foreign territory has been answered by the several acquisitions made since that of Louisiana, as well as by the judgments of the highest courts and in the opinions and writings of our most illustrious jurists. Chief Justice Marshall, rendering the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of The American Insurance Company v. Canter, said: The Constitution confers absolutely on the Government of the Union the power of making wars and making treaties, consequently the Government possesses the power of acquiring territory either by conquest or treaty. The Supreme Court again, in another celebrated case, The Mormon Church v. The United States (136 U. S. R.), said: The power of acquiring territory is derived from the treaty-making power and the power to declare and carry on war. The antecedents of these powers are those of national sovereignty, and * * * belong to all independent governments. The further provision of the Constitution conferring on Congress the power to provide for the common defense and to promote the general welfare implies also the authority, when necessary, to acquire territory. It is a power inherent in the fundamental nature of government, and involves a principle of maintenance, of defense, of perpetuity. There have been many Executive interpretations of the Constitution in consonance with these views in treaties through which we acquired the larger part of our domain, and in several other treaties negotiated for foreign territory, which were never consummated by ratification, such as Hawaii in 1854, Santo Domingo in 1870, Hawaii again in 1893, and still later in 1897. Congress has also given its assent to the doctrine at different times in our history. Having thus the acceptance of the executive, the legislative, and the judicial departments of the government, it should now be regarded as an established right. ANNEXATION AN ELEMENT OF STRENGTH. To the argument used as to annexation being a source of weakness, our experience has proven it to be an element of strength. As bases of supply in war time we have been taught that many of our accessions have been invaluable. Our great battle ships are propelled by steam, and coal for fuel is indispensable. Bases of supply must be had. Our warships crossing the ocean, or distant from the mainland, and with exhausted coal bunkers meeting the enemy will invite destruction. Stress of weather, disabled machinery, or other accidents produce delay. If relief is sought in neutral ports they will be closed against the ship's necessities except under certain restrictions. Modern invention has given rise to this necessity for fuel supply. In former years our ships of war were propelled by wind and sail, and a distant base of supply was a matter of comparative indifference. Outlying points overlooking the mainland, or in the track of our commerce, afford means for defensive operations in time of need which no nation should disregard. Territorial defense, protection against military or naval attack, and avoidance of conflict with numerous adjoining powers are advantages which we have gained through annexation. The nations of the Old World are in frequent disputes and sometimes wars arising over boundary disputes, customs violations, and clash of jurisdictions, requiring large standing armies to resist invasion or to punish real or fancied wrongs. International complications rarely occur with us because of our immunity from such elements of discord and the legion of controversies which originate among close neighbors having rival interests. Our brief experience with Florida and with Louisiana when under Spanish control gave us an object lesson of the effect of undesirable neighbors. Territorial expansion may, therefore, be justified as a war measure as well as upon grounds of commercial necessity. HOMOGENEITY NOT A SERIOUS OBJECTION. To the further objection that the populations of annexed foreign territory are not homogeneous with our own, we have discovered from experience that this is no serious objection in the end. In all of our cessions we have had a mixture of races to contend with. With Florida we acquired a Spanish and Indian population; with Texas the Spaniard, the Mexican, and the Indian; with California the 2239-6 |