Part 2 — Chapter III. (These four articles abrogated by the four articles following them, 118-122.) Article 118. The Federal Constitution may at any time be amended. (continued 102)

K. Elze, William Shakespeare, chapter 3.

LONDON: A. D. 1647. Outbreak against the Independents and the Army.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST).

LONDON: A. D. 1665 The Great Plague.

"The water supply, it is now generally acknowledged, is the first cause of epidemic disease. In London, at the beginning of the reign of James I., it was threefold. Some water came to public conduits, like those in Cheap, by underground pipes from Tyburn. Some was drawn by water-wheels and other similar means from the Thames, polluted as it was, at London Bridge. A third source of supply was still more dangerous: in all the suburbs, and probably also in most houses in the city itself, people depended on wells. What wells among habitations, and especially filthy habitations, become, we know now, but in the 17th century, and much later, the idea of their danger had not been started. Such being the conditions of existence in London; the plague now and then smouldering for a year or two, now and then breaking out as in 1603, 1625, and 1636, a long drouth, which means resort to half dry and stagnant reservoirs, was sufficient to call it forth in all its strength. The heat of the summer weather in 1665 was such that the very birds of the air were imagined to languish in their flight. The 7th of June, said Pepys, was the hottest day that ever he felt in his life. The deaths from the plague, which had begun at the end of the previous year, in the suburb of St. Giles' in the Fields, at a house in Long Acre, where two Frenchmen had died of it, rose during June from 112 to 268. The entries in the diary are for four months almost continuous as to the progress of the plague. Although it was calculated that not less than 200,000 people had followed the example of the king and court, and fled from the doomed city, yet the deaths increased daily. The lord mayor, Lawrence, held his ground, as did the brave earl of Craven and General Monk, now became duke of Albemarle. Craven provided a burial-ground, the Pest Field, with a kind of cottage-hospital in Soho; but the only remedy that could be devised by the united wisdom of the corporation, fortified by the presence of the duke and the earl, was to order fires in all the streets, as if the weather was not already hot enough. Medical art seems to have utterly broken down. Those of the sick who were treated by a physician, only died a more painful death by cupping, scarifying and blistering. The city rectors, too, who had come back with the king, fled from the danger, as might be expected from their antecedents, and the nonconformist lecturers who remained had overwhelming congregations wherever they preached repentence to the terror-stricken people. … The symptoms were very distressing. Fever and vomiting were among the first, and every little ailment was thought premonitory, so that it was said at the time that as many died of fright as of the disease itself. … The fatal signs were glandular swellings which ran their course in a few hours, the plague spots turning to gangrene almost as soon as they appeared. The patients frequently expired the same day that they were seized. … The most terrible stories of premature burial were circulated. All business was suspended. Grass grew in the streets. No one went about. The rumbling wheels of the cart, and the cry, 'Bring out your dead!' alone broke the stillness of the night. … In the first weeks of September the number of fatal cases rose to 1,500 a day, the bills of mortality recording 24,000 deaths between the 1st and 21st of that month. Then at last it began to decline, but rose again at the beginning of October. {2038} A change of weather at length occurred, and the average declined so rapidly that, by the beginning of November, the number of deaths was reduced to 1,200, and before Christmas came it had fallen to the usual number of former years. In all, the official statements enumerated 97,306 deaths during the year, and, if we add those unrecorded, a very moderate estimate of the whole mortality would place it at the appalling figure of 100,000 at least."

W. J. Loftie, History of London, chapter 11 (volume 1).

ALSO IN; S. Pepys, Diary, 1665.

LONDON: A. D. 1666. The Great Fire.

"While the war [with the Dutch] continued without any decisive success on either side, a calamity happened in London which threw the people into great consternation. Fire, breaking out [September 2, 1666] in a baker's house near the bridge, spread itself on all sides with such rapidity that no efforts could extinguish it, till it laid in ashes a considerable part of the city. The inhabitants, without being able to provide effectually for their relief, were reduced to be spectators of their own ruin; and were pursued from street to street by the flames which unexpectedly gathered round them. Three days and nights did the fire advance; and it was only by the blowing up of houses that it was at last extinguished. … About 400 streets and 13,000 houses were reduced to ashes. The causes of the calamity were evident. The narrow streets of London, the houses built entirely of wood, the dry season, and a violent east wind which blew; these were so many concurring circumstances which rendered it easy to assign the reason of the destruction that ensued. But the people were not satisfied with this obvious account. Prompted by blind rage, some ascribed the guilt to the republicans, others to the Catholics. … The fire of London, though at that time a great calamity, has proved in the issue beneficial both to the city and the kingdom. The city was rebuilt in a very little time, and care was taken to make the streets wider and more regular than before. … London became much more healthy after the fire."

D. Hume, History of England, chapter 64.

"I went this morning [September 7] on foot from Whitehall as far as London Bridge, thro' the late Fleete-street, Ludgate hill, by St. Paules, Cheapeside, Exchange, Bishopsgate, Aldersgate, and out to Moorefields, thence through Cornehill, &c., with extraordinary difficulty, clambering over heaps of yet smoking rubbish, and frequently mistaking where I was. The ground under my feete so hot, that it even burnt the soles of my shoes. … At my returne I was infinitely concerned to find that goodly Church St. Paules now a sad ruine. … Thus lay in ashes that most venerable church, one of the most ancient pieces of early piety in ye Christian world, besides neere 100 more. … In five or six miles traversing about I did not see one loade of timber unconsum'd, nor many stones but what were calcin'd white as snow. … I then went towards Islington and Highgate, where one might have seen 200,000 people of all ranks and degrees dispers'd and lying along by their heaps of what they could save from the fire, deploring their losse, and tho' ready to perish for hunger and destitution, yet not asking one penny for reliefe, which to me appear'd a stranger sight than any I had yet beheld."

J. Evelyn, Diary, September 7, 1666 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: S. Pepys, Diary, September 2-15, 1666 (volume 4).

L. Phillimore, Sir Christopher Wren, chapters 6-7.

LONDON: A. D. 1685. The most populous capital in Europe. The first lighting of the streets.

"There is reason to believe that, in 1685, London had been, during about half a century, the most populous capital in Europe. The inhabitants, who are now [1848] at least 1,900,000, were then probably little more than half a million. London had in the world only one commercial rival, now long ago outstripped, the mighty and opulent Amsterdam. … There is, indeed, no doubt that the trade of the metropolis then bore a far greater proportion than at present to the whole trade of the country; yet to our generation the honest vaunting of our ancestors must appear almost ludicrous. The shipping which they thought incredibly great appears not to have exceeded 70,000 tons. This was, indeed, then more than a third of the whole tonnage of the kingdom. … It ought to be noticed that, in the last year of the reign of Charles II. [1685], began a great change in the police of London, a change which has perhaps added as much to the happiness of the body of the people as revolutions of much greater fame. An ingenious projector, named Edward Heming, obtained letters patent conveying to him, for a term of years, the exclusive right of lighting up London. He undertook, for a moderate consideration, to place a light before every tenth door, on moonless nights, from Michaelmas to Lady Day, and from six to twelve of the clock."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 3 (volume 1).

LONDON: A. D. 1688. The Irish Night.

The ignominious flight of James II. from his capital, on the morning of December 11, 1688, was followed by a wild outbreak of riot in London, which no effective authority existed to promptly repress. To the cry of "No Popery," Roman Catholic chapels and the residences of ambassadors of Roman Catholic States, were sacked and burned. "The morning of the 12th of December rose on a ghastly sight. The capital in many places presented the aspect of a city taken by storm. The Lords met at Whitehall, and exerted themselves to restore tranquillity. … In spite, however, of the well-meant efforts of the provisional government, the agitation grew hourly more formidable. … Another day of agitation and terror closed, and was followed by a night the strangest and most terrible that England had ever seen." Just before his flight, King James had sent an order for the disbanding of Ins army, which had been composed for the most part of troops brought over from Ireland. A terrifying rumor that this disbanded Irish soldiery was marching on London, and massacring men, women and children on the road, now spread through the city. "At one in the morning the drums of the militia beat to arms. Everywhere terrified women were weeping and wringing their hands, while their fathers and husbands were equipping themselves for fight. Before two the capital wore a face of stern preparedness which might well have daunted a real enemy, if such an enemy had been approaching. Candles were blazing at all the windows. The public places were as bright as at noonday. All the great avenues were barricaded. More than 20,000 pikes and muskets lined the streets. The late daybreak of the winter solstice found the whole City still in arms. During many years the Londoners retained a vivid recollection of what they called the Irish Night. … The panic had not been confined to London. The cry that disbanded Irish soldiers were coming to murder the Protestants had, with malignant ingenuity, been raised at once in many places widely distant from each other."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 10.

{2039}

LONDON: A. D. 1780. The Gordon No-Popery Riots.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

LONDON: A. D. 1848. The last Chartist demonstration.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1848.

LONDON: A. D. 1851. The great Exhibition.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851.

—————LONDON: End—————

LONDON COMPANY FOR VIRGINIA, A. D. 1606-1625. Charter and undertakings in Virginia.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607, and after.

LONDON COMPANY FOR VIRGINIA. D. 1619. The unused patent granted to the Pilgrims at Leyden.

See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS: A. D. 1617-1620; and, also, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and 1621.

—————LONDONDERRY: Start————

LONDONDERRY: Origin and Name.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1607-1611.

LONDONDERRY: A. D. 1688. The shutting of the gates by the Prentice Boys.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.

LONDONDERRY: A. D. 1689. The Siege.

James II. fled in December, 1688, to France, from the Revolution in England which gave his throne to his daughter Mary, and her husband, William of Orange. He received aid from the French king and was landed in Ireland the following March, to attempt the maintenance of his sovereignty in that kingdom, if no more. Almost immediately upon his arrival he led his forces against Londonderry, where a great part of the Protestants of Ulster had taken refuge, and William and Mary had been proclaimed. "The city in 1689 was contained within the walls; and it rose by a gentle ascent from the base to the summit of a hill. The whole city was thus exposed to the fire of an enemy. There was no moat nor counterscarp. A ferry crossed the river Foyle from the east gate, and the north gate opened upon a quay. At the entrance of the Foyle was the strong fort of Culmore, with a smaller fort on the opposite bank. About two miles below the city were two forts—Charles Fort and Grange Fort. The trumpeter sent by the king with a summons to the obstinate city found the inhabitants 'in very great disorder, having turned out their governor Lundy, upon suspicion.' The cause of this unexpected reception was the presence of 'one Walker, a minister.' He was opposed to Lundy, who thought the place untenable, and counselled the townsmen to make conditions; 'but the fierce minister of the Gospel, being of the true Cromwellian or Cameronian stamp, inspired them with bolder resolutions.' The reverend George Walker and Major Baker were appointed governors during the siege. They mustered 7,020 soldiers, dividing them into regiments under eight colonels. In the town there were about 30,000 souls; but they were reduced to a less burdensome number, by 10,000 accepting an offer of the besieging commander to restore them to their dwellings. There were, according to Lundy's estimation, only provisions for ten days. The number of cannon possessed by the besieged was only twenty. On the 20th of April the city was invested, and the bombardment was begun. … No impression was made during nine days upon the determination to hold out; and on the 29th King James retraced his steps to Dublin, in considerable ill humour. The siege went on for six weeks with little change. Hamilton was now the commander of James's forces. The garrison of Londonderry and the inhabitants were gradually perishing from fatigue and insufficient food. But they bravely repelled an assault, in which 400 of the assailants fell. … Across the narrow part of the river, from Charles Fort to Grange Fort, the enemy stretched a great boom of fir-timber, joined by iron chains, and fastened on either shore by cables of a foot thick. On the 15th of June an English fleet of thirty sail was descried in the Lough. Signals were given and answered; but the ships lay at anchor for weeks. At the end of June, Baker, one of the heroic governors, died. Hamilton had been superseded in his command by Rosen, who issued a savage proclamation, declaring that unless the place were surrendered by the 1st of July, he would collect all the Protestants from the neighbouring districts, and drive them under the walls of the city to starve with those within the walls. A famished troop came thus beneath the walls of Londonderry, where they lay starving for three days. The besieged immediately threatened to hang all the prisoners within the city. This threat had its effect, and the famished crowd wended back their way to their solitary villages. It is but justice to James to say that he expressed his displeasure at this proceeding."

C. Knight, Crown History of England, chapter 34.

"The state of the city was, hour by hour, becoming more frightful. The number of the inhabitants had been thinned more by famine and disease than by the fire of the enemy. Yet that fire was sharper and more constant than ever. … Every attack was still repelled. But the fighting men of the garrison were so much exhausted that they could scarcely keep their legs. Several of them, in the act of striking at the enemy, fell down from mere weakness. A very small quantity of grain remained, and was doled out by mouthfuls. The stock of salted hides was considerable, and by gnawing them the garrison appeased the rage of hunger. Dogs, fattened on the blood of the slain who lay unburied round the town, were luxuries which few could afford to purchase. The price of a whelp's paw was five shillings and sixpence. Nine horses were still alive, and but barely alive. They were so lean that little meat was likely to be found upon them. It was, however, determined to slaughter them for food. … The whole city was poisoned by the stench exhaled from the bodies of the dead and of the half dead. … It was no slight aggravation of the sufferings of the garrison that all this time the English ships were seen far off in Lough Foyle." At length, positive orders from England compelled Kirke, the commander of the relieving expedition "to make an attempt which, as far as appears, he might have made, with at least an equally fair prospect of success, six weeks earlier." Two merchant ships, the Mountjoy and the Phœnix, loaded with provisions, and the Dartmouth, a frigate of thirty-six guns, made a bold dash up the river, broke the great boom, ran the gauntlet of forts and batteries, and reached the city at ten o'clock in the evening of the 28th of July. {2040} The captain of the Mountjoy was killed in the heroic undertaking, but Londonderry, his native town, was saved. The enemy continued their bombardment for three days more. "But, on the third night, flames were seen arising from the camp; and, when the first of August dawned, a line of smoking ruins marked the site lately occupied by the huts of the besiegers. … So ended this great siege, the most memorable in the annals of the British isles. It had lasted 105 days. The garrison had been reduced from about 7,000 effective men to about 3,000. The loss of the besiegers cannot be precisely ascertained. Walker estimated it at 8,000 men."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 12.

ALSO in: W. H. Torriano, William the Third, chapter 21.

See, also, IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

—————LONDONDERRY: End————

LONE JACK, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

LONE STAR, Order of the.

See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

LONE STAR FLAG. LONE STAR STATE.

On assuming independence, in 1836, the republic of Texas adopted a flag bearing a single star, which was known as 'the flag of the lone Star.' With reference to this emblem, Texas is often called the Lone Star State.

—————LONG ISLAND: Start————

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1614. Explored by the Dutch.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1624. Settlement of Brooklyn.

See BROOKLYN.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1634. Embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.

See NEW ALBION.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1650. Division between the Dutch of New Netherland and the English of Connecticut.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1664. Title acquired for the Duke of York.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1673. The Dutch reconquest.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1674. Annexed to New York.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1776. The defeat of the American army by Lord Howe.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

—————LONG ISLAND: End————

LONG KNIVES, The.

See YANKEE.

LONG PARLIAMENT.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.

LONG WALLS OF ATHENS.

The walls which the Athenians built, B. C. 457, one, four miles long, to the harbor of Phalerum, and others, four and one half miles long, to the Piræus, to protect the communication of their city with its port, were called the Long Walls. The same name had been previously given to the walls built by the Athenians to protect the communication of Megara, then their ally, with its port of Nisæa; and Corinth had, also, its Long Walls, uniting it with the port Lechæum. The Long Walls of Athens were destroyed on the surrender of the city, at the termination of the Peloponnesian War, B. C. 404, and rebuilt, B. C. 393, by Conon, with Persian help.

See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

LONGJUMEAU, Peace of (1568).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

LONGSTREET, General James. Siege of Knoxville.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

LONGUEVILLE, The Duchess de, and the Fronde.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1649, to 1651-1653.

LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN, its position, and the battle on it.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE); and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

LOOM, Cartwright's invention of the power.

See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

LOPEZ, The Tyranny of.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

LOPEZ FILIBUSTERING EXPEDITION (1851).

See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

LORD.

"Every Teutonic King or other leader was surrounded by a band of chosen warriors, personally attached to him of their own free choice [see COMITATUS]. … The followers served their chief in peace and in war; they fought for him to the death, and rescued or avenged his life with their own. In return, they shared whatever gifts or honours the chief could distribute among them; and in our tongue at least it was his character of dispenser of gifts which gave the chief his official title. He was the 'Hlaford,' the 'Loaf-giver,' a name which, through a series of softenings and contractions, and with a complete forgetfulness of its primitive meaning, has settled down into the modern form of Lord."

E. A. Freeman, History Norman Conquests, chapter 3, section 2 (volume 1).

On the Latin equivalent, 'Dominus,'

See IMPERATOR: FINAL SIGNIFICATION.

LORD CHANCELLOR, The.

See CHANCELLOR.

LORD DUNMORE'S WAR.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

LORDS, British House of.

"The ancient National Assembly [of England] gradually ceased to be anything more than an assembly of the 'greater barons,' and ultimately developed into a hereditary House of Lords, the Upper House of the National Parliament. The hereditary character of the House of Lords—now long regarded as fixed and fundamental—accrued slowly and undesignedly, as a consequence of the hereditary descent of the baronial fiefs, practically inalienable, in right of which summonses to the national council were issued."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, chapter 7.

"The English aristocracy is a typical example of the way in which a close corporation dies out. Its members are almost always wealthy in the first instance, and their estates have been constantly added to by favour from the Crown, by something like the monopoly of the best Government appointments, and by marriages with wealthy heiresses. They are able to command the field sports and open-air life that conduce to health, and the medical advice that combats disease. Nevertheless, they die out so rapidly that only five families out of nearly six hundred go back without a break, and in the male line, to the fifteenth century. … 155 peers were summoned to the first Parliament of James II. In 1825, only 140 years later, only forty-eight of these nobles were represented by lineal descendants in the male line. The family has in several instances been continued by collaterals begging the peerage, which they could not have claimed at law, and in this way the change may seem less than it has really been; but the broad result appears to be that left to itself from 1688, with new creations absolutely forbidden, the House of Lords would by this time have been practically extinguished. {2041} Of Charles II. 's six bastards, who were made dukes, only three have perpetuated the race. Three peerages have been lost to the Howard family, three to the Greys, two to the Mordaunts, two to the Hydes, two to the Gerards, and two to the Lucases. … It is in the lower strata of society that we have to seck for the springs of national life."

C. H. Pearson, National Life and Character, pages 70-73.

"The British peerage is something unique in the world. In England there is, strictly speaking, no nobility. This saying may indeed sound like a paradox. The English nobility, the British aristocracy, are phrases which are in everybody's mouth. Yet, in strictness, there is no such thing as an aristocracy or a nobility in England. There is undoubtedly an aristocratic element in the English constitution; the House of Lords is that aristocratic element. And there have been times in English history when there has been a strong tendency to aristocracy, when the lords have been stronger than either the king or the people. … But a real aristocracy, like that of Venice, an aristocracy not only stronger than either king or people, but which had driven out both king and people, an aristocracy from whose ranks no man can come down and into whose ranks no man can rise save by the act of the privileged body itself,—such an aristocracy as this England has never seen. Nor has England ever seen a nobility in the true sense, the sense which the word bears in every continental land, a body into which men may be raised by the king, but from which no man may come down, a body which hands on to all its members, to the latest generations, some kind of privilege or distinction, whether its privileges consist in substantial political power, or in bare titles and precedence. In England there is no nobility. The so-called noble family is not noble in the continental sense; privilege does not go on from generation to generation; titles and precedence are lost in the second or third generation; substantial privilege exists in only one member of the family at a time. The powers and privileges of the peer himself are many; but they belong to himself only; his children are legally commoners; his grandchildren are in most cases undistinguishable from other commoners. … A certain great position in the state is hereditary; but nobility in the strict sense there is none. The actual holder of the peerage has, as it were, drawn to his own person the whole nobility of the family."

E. A. Freeman, Practical Bearings of European History (Lectures to American Audiences), pages 305-307.

"At the end of 1892 there were 545 members of the House of Lords, made up thus: Peers, 469; Lords of Appeal and Ex-Lords of Appeal, 5; Representative Peers of Scotland, 16; Representative Peers of Ireland, 28; Lords Spiritual, 27.

The Lords of Appeal are lawyers of great distinction who are appointed by the Queen and hold office during good behavior. Their number is always about the same. Their work is mainly judicial; but these Law Lords, as they are called, also speak and vote in the deliberative and legislative proceedings of the Upper House. The position of a Lord of Appeal differs from that of an ordinary peer in that his office is not hereditary. As regards the representative peers, those from Ireland, who number 28, are elected for life; those from Scotland, who number 16, are elected at a meeting of Scotch peers, held in Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh, after each General Election, and hold office during the lifetime of a Parliament. The Lords Spiritual include (1) the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishops of London, Durham, and Winchester; and (2) twenty-two out of the other twenty-nine bishops of the Church of England. The prelates whose titles have been given take their seats in the House immediately on appointment; the other bishops take their seats by order of seniority of consecration. The prelates who are without seats in the House of Lords are known as junior bishops. The Bishop of Sodor and Man has a seat in the House of Lords, but no vote."

E. Porritt, The Englishman at Home, chapter 6.

For an account of the transient abolition of the House of Lords in 1649,

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).

See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH; and ESTATES, THE THREE.

LORDS OF ARTICLES.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603; and 1688-1690.

LORDS OF THE CONGREGATION.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557; and 1558-1560.

LORDS OF THE ISLES.

See HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504; and HARLAW, BATTLE OF.

LORDS SPIRITUAL AND TEMPORAL, The.

See ESTATES, THE THREE.

LORENZO DE' MEDICI (called The Magnificent), The rule of.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

—————LORRAINE: Start————

LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870. Formation and dissolution of the kingdom.

In the division of the empire of Charlemagne among his three grandsons, made by the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, the elder, Lothaire, bearing the title of Emperor, received the kingdom of Italy, and, with it, another kingdom, named, after himself, Lotharingia—afterwards called Lorraine. This latter was so formed as to be an extension northwestwardly of his Italian kingdom, and to stretch in a long belt between the Germanic dominion of his brother Ludwig and the Francia Nova, or France, of his brother Charles. It extended "from the mouth of the Rhine to Provence, bounded by that river on one frontier, by France on the other."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 1, part 1, note.

"Between these two states [of the Eastern and Western, or Germanic and Gallic Franks] the policy of the ninth century instinctively put a barrier, The Emperor Lothar, besides Italy, kept a long narrow strip of territory between the dominions of his Eastern and Western brothers. … This land, having … been the dominion of two Lothars, took the name of Lotharingia, Lothringen, or Lorraine, a name which part of it has kept to this day. This land, sometimes attached to the Eastern kingdom, sometimes to the Western, sometimes divided between the two, sometimes separated from both, always kept its character of a border-land. … Lotharingia took in the two duchies of the Ripuarian Lotharingia and Lotharingia on the Mosel. The former contains a large part of the modern Belgium and the neighboring lands on the Rhine, including the royal city of Aachen. Lotharingia on the Mosel answers roughly to the later duchy of that name, though its extent to the East is considerably larger."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe, chapter 6, section 1.

{2042}

"Upon the death of the Emperor Lothair [A. D. 855] his share of the Carlovingian inheritance, the Kingdom acquired by disobedience, violence, deceit and fraud, sustained further partitions: Lothair's piece of the rent garment was clutched and tattered again and again by his nearest of kin, his three sons, and their two uncles, and the sons and the sons' sons of his sons and uncles, till the lineage ended. … The Emperor Lothair had directed and confirmed the partition of his third of the Carlovingian Empire, appointed to him by the treaty of Verdun." His namesake, his second son, Lothair II., received the kingdom called "Lotharingia, Lothierregne, or Lorraine," and which is defined in the terms of modern geography as follows: "The thirteen Cantons of Switzerland with their allies and tributaries, East or Free Friesland, Oldenburgh, the whole of the United Netherlands, all other territories included in the Archbishopric of Utrecht, the Trois Evéchés, Metz, Toul and Verdun, the electorates of Trèves and of Cologne, the Palatine Bishopric of Liège, Alsace and Franche-Comté, Hainault and the Cambresis, Brabant (known in intermediate stages as Basse-Lorraine, or the Duchy of Lohier), Namur, Juliers and Cleves, Luxemburgh and Limburg, the Duchy of Bar and the Duchy which retained the name of Lorraine, the only memorial of the antient and dissolved kingdom. … After King Lothair's death [A. D. 869] nine family competitors successively came into the field for that much-coveted Lotharingia." Charles the Bald, one of the uncles of the deceased king,—he who held the Neustrian or French dominion,—took possession and got himself crowned king of Lotharingia. But the rival uncle, Louis the German, soon forced him (A. D. 870) to a division of the spoils. "The lot of Charles consisted of Burgundy and Provence, and most of those Lotharingian dominions where the French or Walloon tongue was and yet is spoken; … he also took some purely Belgic territories, especially that very important district successively known as Basse-Lorraine, the Duchy of Lohier, and Brabant. Modern history is dawning fast upon us. Louis-le-Germanique received Aix-la-Chapelle, Cologne, Treves, Utrecht, Strasburgh, Metz,—indeed nearly all the territories of the Belgic and German tongues."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, volume 1, pages 361-370.

See, also, VERDUN, TREATY OF.

LORRAINE: A. D. 911-980. The dukedom established.

The definite separation of the East Franks, who ultimately constituted the Germany of modern history, from the West or Neustrian Franks, out of whose political organization sprang the kingdom of France, took place in 911, when the Franconian duke Conrad was elected king by the Germanic nations, and the rule of the Carolingian princes was ended for them. In this proceeding Lotharingia, or Lorraine, refused to concur. "Nobles and people held to the old imperial dynasty. … Opinions, customs, traditions, still rendered the Lotharingians mainly members of Romanized Gaul. They severed themselves from the Germans beyond the Rhine, separated by influences more powerful than the stream." The Lotharingians, accordingly, repudiated the sovereignty of Conrad and placed themselves under the rule of Charles the Simple, the Carolingian king then struggling to maintain his slender throne at Laon. "Twice did King Conrad attempt to win Lotharingia and reunite the Rhine-kingdom to the German realm: he succeeded in obtaining Alsace, but the remainder was resolutely retained by Charles." In 916 this remainder was constituted a duchy, by Charles, and conferred upon Gilbert, son of Rainier, Count of Hainault, who had been the leader of the movement against Conrad and the Germanic nations. A little later, when the Carolingian dynasty was near its end, Henry the Fowler and his son Otho, the great German king who revived the empire, recovered the suzerainty of Lorraine, and Otho gave it to his brother Bruno, Archbishop of Cologne. Under Bruno it was divided into two parts, Upper and Lower Lorraine. Lower Lorraine was subsequently conferred by Otho II. upon his cousin Charles, brother to Lothaire, the last of the French Carolingian kings. "The nature and extent of this same grant has been the subject of elaborate critical enquiry; but, for our purposes, it is sufficient to know, that Charles is accepted by all the historical disputants as first amongst the hereditary Dukes of the 'Basse-Lorraine'; and, having received investiture, he became a vassal of the Emperor." In 980, this disposition of Lower Lorraine was ratified by Lothaire, the French king, who, "abandoning all his rights and pretensions over Lorraine, openly and solemnly renounced the dominions, and granted the same to be held without let or interference from the French, and be subjected for ever to the German Empire."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, part 2, chapter 1 and chapter 4, part 2.

"Lotharingia retained its Carolingian princes, but it retained them only by definitively becoming a fief of the Teutonic Kingdom. Charles died in prison, but his children continued to reign in Lotharingia as vassals of the Empire. Lotharingia was thus wholly lost to France; that portion of it which was retained by the descendants of Charles in the female line still preserves its freedom as part of the independent Kingdom of Belgium."

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 4, section 4 (volume 1).

LORRAINE: A. D. 1430. Acquisition of the duchy by René, Duke of Anjou and Count of Provence, afterwards King of Naples. Union with Bar.

See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1476. Short-lived conquest by Charles the Bold.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1505-1559. Rise of the Guises, a branch of the ducal house. Cession to France of Les Trois Evéchés.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1624-1663. Quarrels and war of Duke Charles IV. with Richelieu and France. Ruin and depopulation of the duchy. Its possession by the French.

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).

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

T. Donaldson, The Public Domain, page 105.

On the constitutional and political aspects of the Louisiana purchase,

See UNITED STATES: A. D. 1803.

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

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

D. O. Gilman, James Monroe, chapter 4.

B. Marbois, History of Louisiana, part 2.

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

{2051}

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

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

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

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

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

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

L. Carr, Missouri, chapter 5.

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

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

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

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

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

This gave it the boundaries it has at present."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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