CHAPTER XV.
Political Aspect of the Capitulation—Treaty of Versailles—English Exodus—Widow of the White House.
The terms of the surrender of Fort George, as stated in the previous chapter, present the strictly military side of the capitulation. But there was also a political aspect to the formal articles, signed on the ninth of May, by General Campbell, Governor Chester, and General Galvez. West Florida was surrendered to Spain, and it was stipulated, that “the British inhabitants, or those who may have been subjects of the King of Great Britain in said countries, may retire in full security, and may sell their estates, and remove their effects as well as their persons; the time limited for their emigration being fixed at the space of eighteen months.”
It was that political feature of the capitulation which made Governor Chester’s signature necessary, and to that it related exclusively. That of General Campbell referred to the strictly military stipulations only. In the former we may find one of General Galvez’s inducements to submit to the British general’s “requirements.”
The object of the Spanish government in directing the invasion of West Florida was to permanently regain the territory which Spain had surrendered to Great Britain in 1763; and in addition, to obtain that part of Louisiana on the Gulf of Mexico which the latter had acquired from France. Consequently, the large expedition so long in preparing against Pensacola, and so disproportionate to the mere capture of the place, was intended for colonization, as well as conquest. Such being the policy of his government, Galvez necessarily subordinated all other considerations to its achievement. Accordingly, his overwhelming numbers designed to overawe opposition; his ponderous siege artillery intended to batter Fort George into ruins without danger to the town; avoidance of all movements by his fleet against it as well as all injury to it by his artillery during the siege; and, lastly, the article above quoted pointed to the colonization of a Spanish population, for the accommodation of which the English homes were to be vacated, and their inmates forced into exile. If that object could be obtained by the capitulation, there was nothing within the lines of Spanish policy to be gained by taking Fort George by storm, at the fearful sacrifice of human life which it would have cost. The French might, indeed, complain that the agreement with them respecting British troops in Florida was violated by conceding the terms demanded by General Campbell; but diplomacy, the science of excuses and pretexts, would be equal to the task of satisfying them. As to the Americans, it was of little consequence to Spain that General Clinton’s forces would be strengthened by the reinforcement of the Florida troops, albeit at a conjuncture when every available man was required to sustain Britain’s tottering North American empire. For though Spain became an ally of France in order to place herself in a position to claim a fragment of that empire when it fell, yet her purpose was to attain that end with the least possible inconvenience or sacrifice to herself.
That General Washington was satisfied with the apology of Galvez made through de Grasse may well be doubted. His dignity, however, forbade complaint. Besides, the promise violated was made to the French; if they were satisfied, respect for them imposed silence upon the Americans. But there is in the paragraph of the letter to Rendon, before quoted, a vein of irony, the sting of which, coming from such a man, Galvez must have keenly felt.
As already intimated, the above quoted provision of the capitulation became substantially the Fifth Article of the treaty between Great Britain and Spain, signed on the twenty-eighth of January, 1783, at Versailles.[[38]]
The condition in which that treaty placed the Florida-English was peculiar. Spain was not opposed to foreigners living in her colonies, provided they were Catholics; and it was well understood, that any English who were, or should become, such would be at liberty to remain in Florida in the full enjoyment of their liberty and property.[[39]]
History does not afford a more striking contrast between the conduct of two nations under similar circumstances, to the honor of one, and the reproach of the other, than that between Spain and Great Britain, as they are presented by the treaties of Paris and Versailles. In the former, Spanish subjects were secured in their persons, religion, liberty and property. In the latter, Great Britain virtually stipulated for the banishment of hers, and the confiscation of their estates. The privilege of selling their property within eighteen months was but a mockery; for purchasers were not only few, but well aware, likewise, that a trifling consideration would in the end be preferable to a total sacrifice.
The British government professed to compensate the victims of her policy; but her justice was confined to those whose claims upon it were the slightest; to the absentees owning large tracts of land which had been granted by the crown, and who did not see fit to go to the provinces to attempt to effect sales. [[40]]But no indemnity was provided for those who had made their homes in the provinces, under the gilded representations and inviting promises of their governors in the name of His Protestant Majesty, George III., Defender of the Faith.