occupied by different nations and the boundary was unmarked, the middle distance became the boundary. A third principle stated that when an European nation had acquired territory, its rights could never be diminished by virtue of purchases made, by grants or conquests of the natives within the limits thereof. On these principles the commissioners believed that the United States would own Texas.94 They backed their argument by citing several authorities, a discussion of which seems pertinent. The De Lisle map of 1707 was cited. This French map shows the western boundary as running up the Rio Grande to the mouth of the Pecos, thence up that river to a point east of Tiguas, thence northeast across the San Marcos [Colorado], then along the mountains in a generally north by northeast direction, crossing the Rio Grande and turning west just above Taos.95 Reference was also made to page twelve of the first volume of the Histoire de la Louisiane by Le Page du Pratz. This citation referred to the expedition of St. Denis to the Presidio of San Juan Bautista on the Rio Grande. But no reference was made to the map, which laid down the boundary practically the same as the De Lisle map with the exception that it turned west at the fortieth degree of north latitude." The López map of 1763, a Spanish production, was also cited, but it is difficult to understand how the commissioners could consider this as strengthening their case, for no boundaries were marked. The Rio Grande was given in its lower course, but so were Florida, Carolina, and Georgia. The place where northwestern Texas and New Mexico would appear was given up to inscriptions; the coast line of Texas appears to have been added merely for artistic effect."7 94 State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 662–665. 95 A reprint may be found in French, Historical Collections of Louisiana, II, frontis. 96 Le Page du Pratz, Histoire de la Louisiane, I. 97 Reprint in Gayarré, History of Louisiana, (1903 edition) I. Negotiations in Spain in 1805 37 The memoir of the Chevalier de Champigny was a fourth authority. On page twelve the French claim is stated as follows: "What remains to France [in 1762] of her vast province of Louisiana comprises a strip eighty leagues from east to west, from the mouth of the Mississippi to Mexico. The Rio Bravo on the west and the Mississippi on the east bounded these possessions, which extended from twenty-nine degrees north latitude. to fifty degrees and even beyond." This will at once be perceived to be a ridiculous statement in the light of geography and history. No mention of the Crozat grant appears in the account.98 The spurious memoir of Count de Vergennes was a fifth source. On page twenty-six occurs this statement: "It [Louisiana] is inclosed on the south between the possessions of the Spaniards; it extends on the west to the territories of Mexico, and on the east to Florida." Vergennes' description of French activities is fairly accurate, but it is evident from the memoir that he laid great stress on the Mississippi and the region east of it, and paid little attention to the west. In describing rivers, no mention was made of streams in Texas, and a similar omission is found regarding Indian tribes. The La Salle incident he considered the result of a blunder." 99 As the argument of the American representatives appeared to have no effect, they submitted a statement of the ultimate conditions to which they would consent. If Spain would cede the territory east of the Mississippi and settle claims according to the convention of 1802, they would accept the Colorado as the boundary. They suggested a perpetual neutral zone thirty leagues wide, to run from the Gulf to the northern limit of Louisiana, and offered to relinquish the claim for French spoliations which occurred within Spanish jurisdiction. Cevallos promptly rejected the American proposition, and on May 23 98 De Champigny, Etat-present de la Louisiane. 99 Vergennes, Mémoire historique et politique sur la Louisiane; Phillips, The West in the Diplomacy of the American Revolution, pp. 30-31, note. Monroe and Pinckney informed their government of their complete failure.100 Two months before the negotiations ended, Monroe had written to Armstrong, that if the United States put on a firm front and a representation was made that an understanding might be made with England, France might be brought to her assistance. The effort, however, was a failure, Armstrong being told that in case of a rupture France would side with Spain. Armstrong saw clearly that Texas could be acquired only by war. Monroe hastened to Paris to consult with him and soon came to the same conclusion.1 101 As early as March Jefferson foresaw the probable failure of the Monroe mission. A change of diplomats, it was hoped, might bring happier results, and James Bowdoin was accordingly sent as minister to Spain. In a letter to Bowdoin, Jefferson expressed the wish that peace might be maintained but said that he had ceased to expect it.102 In May Madison wrote to Armstrong that he still hoped that France might support the American claim to the Rio Grande, but realized that the present temper and view of France was such that failure ought to be anticipated.103 In June other dispatches arrived from Armstrong acquainting the government still further concerning the hostile attitude of France. Madison answered that her position might force the United States to the side of Great Britain.104 In the month of July Madison still clung to the hope that France would eventually assist the United States. 105 100 State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 665–669. 101 Henry Adams, History of the United States, III, 30-31, 39-40; State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 636. 102 Henry Adams, History of the United States, III, 54-55; Jefferson, Writings (Ford, ed.), VIII, 350-351. 103 Annals of Cong., 8 Cong., 2 Sess., App., 1353-1356. 104 Madison, Writings, VII, 183-190. Henry Adams, (History of the United States, III, 58–62) represents Madison as a man without a policy, and credits the conception of the British alliance to Jefferson, a conception, which, according to that author, did not take definite shape until August. 105 Madison, Writings, VII, 187, note. |