Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society, Volume 01 (of 14), 1898

by Mississippi Historical Society

I. NECESSITY OF AWAITING THE RESULT OF NEGOTIATIONS FOR SECURING THE INHABITANTS IN THE POSSESSION OF THEIR LANDS.

This reason was first given in a proclamation issued by Governor Gayoso on the 28th of March, 1797, but bearing the Gate of the day following. It was reiterated in a second proclamation of the same date. Yet, when the Secretary of State, two and a half months later, received from Commissioner Ellicott a notice of this reason for delay, he declared that no such negotiation had existed and that it was the first time these objections to the evacuation of the posts had been heard of.[29] Two months later still he observed that,

"As____the great body of the inhabitants (of the territory) appear not to desire the patronage of the Spanish Government to secure it (their real estate); as the Government of the United States must be at least as anxious as that of Spain to protect the inhabitants in their rights when (they) become citizens of the United States ... there can be no difficulty in deciding whether this is a reason or a pretense. Besides, the negotiation ... has never existed; nor even been proposed or hinted either to or by the Government of the United States."[30]

Orders were promptly issued, however, by the President and the Secretary of War to assure Governor Gayoso that no person would be "disturbed in his possession or property, till an opportunity had been afforded to apply to Congress," and that they might "rely upon their claims being adjusted upon the most equitable principles."[31]

II, DESIRE OF FIRST ESTABLISHING FRIENDLY RELATIONS BETWEEN THE INDIANS AND THE INHABITANTS OF THE TERRITORY TO BE CEDED[32].

On this subject Gayoso asserted that it was "impossible for His Catholic Majesty to leave unprotected so many of his faithful subjects and expose other settlements to the revengeful disposition of discontented Indians." He therefore felt justified in retaining possession of the country until he might be sure the savages would be pacific.[33] The Secretary of State contended that such a reason would warrant the assertion, that "the Governor meant, for an indefinite period to avoid an evacuation of the posts: for, while a tribe of Indians existed in that quarter, the Governor could not be sure that they would be pacific."[34] He observed further, that,

"Upon a view of the whole correspondence ... submitted to the President, it appears that there is but too much reason to believe ... that an undue influence has been exercised over the Indians by the officers of His Catholic Majesty to prepare them for a rupture with the United States, those suspicions corresponding with other intelligence recently received by the Secretary of War and by me."[35]

Instructions were issued by the Secretary of War to assure the Spanish Commandant that effort would be made "to preserve a continuance of the pacific dispositions of the Indians within our limits, towards the subjects of His Catholic Majesty or his Indians; and to prevent their commencing hostilities (of which there is no appearance) against either."[36]

III. NECESSITY OF CONSULTING THE KING CONCERNING THE CONDITION IN WHICH THE FORTS WERE TO BE SURRENDERED.[37]

The treaty failed to specify whether the posts should be surrendered with the buildings and fortifications intact, or whether they should first be dismantled. Gayoso declared that a treaty with the Indians required a demolition of the post at Walnut Hill and that orders had been issued to that effect, but that owing to their unsettled dispositions he had received counter orders to prevent the fortifications from being injured.[38] General Wayne took the position that the posts should be left standing.[39] President Adams, however, left the matter entirely to the discretion of the Spanish officials, and thus at once brought an end to the validity of this excuse.[40] On this sub-Secretary Pickering maintained:

"It is probably the first time that to 'withdraw,' or retire from a place, has been imagined to intend its destruction. If, at the formation of the treaty, the demolition of the posts had been intended, it would assuredly have been expressed."[41]

When the Spaniards had really decided to surrender the district, no further mention was made of this subject, showing that, notwithstanding their treaty with the Indians, they considered the demolition of the forts of no consequence whatever.