|
Formed Into a State.
A census taken in 1810 gave
the total population of the territory of Orleans as 76,556, more than
enough for the formation of a state, even without the additional
population of the district of "West Florida, annexed to the territory by
proclamation of the President in that same year. After a memorable debate,
in which the forlorn hope of conservatives in Congress, led by Josiah
Quincy, of Massachusetts, made a desperate fight against extending the
Union over what they regarded as an alien population, the act enabling the
people of the territory to form a state government passed the House by a
vote of seventy-seven yeas to thirty-six nays. Josiah Quincy did not carry
out his open threat of secession, nor did Poindexter, of Mississippi
territory, enjoy an opportunity of hanging Quincy and his abettors for
treason. The people of the territory quietly elected a convention, which
drew up a conservative constitution (Jan. 22, 1812); Congress admitted the
new state of Louisiana, adding to its territory the greater part of West
Florida, and the new constitution went into operation April 30, 1812.
Steamboats on the
Mississippi.
The same year, a fortnight
before the adoption of the constitution, the citizens of New Orleans were
welcoming (January 10) the first steamboat that plied on the Mississippi.
The New Orleans was really of far greater significance in the development
of the country than the formation of a state government. The company to
whom had been given the privilege of operating boats navigated by steam
soon brought out two other boats, the Vesuvius and the Ætna; the
steamboat, despite frequent terrible disasters, won its way rapidly, and
the commerce of the city and the agricultural districts of the state felt
the powerful influence of more rapid communication and reduced freights.
At first the steamboat,
though more certain and more speedy than any other means of
transportation, moved at a rate that would seem painfully slow, even when
we remember the early practice of "tying up" at the bank of the river at
night. In 1814 the trip up the river to Natchez, about three hundred
miles, consumed five days; by 1820 even this had been reduced to three
days; in 1834, one day and seventeen hours, and in the fifties at least
two boats, the Princess and one of the numerous tribe of Natchez, made the
trip in seventeen hours. During the same period the time to Louisville had
been reduced from twenty-five days to four days by such steamers as the A.
L. Shotwell and the Eclipse.
Population.
At the beginning of the
period we are considering, the greater portion of the population of the
state, says Monette {Valley of the Mississippi, Vol. II., p. 517), "were
concentrated in the city of New Orleans, and upon the river coast for
thirty miles below and seventy miles above the city. * * * The whole
portion of the state west of the Washita and north of Red River, in 1830,
contained scarcely two thousand inhabitants. The same region in 1845 had
been subdivided into several large parishes, with an aggregate population
of not less than fourteen thousand souls." From the beginning, in fact,
despite the War of 1812, commercial expansion went on rapidly, immigrants
came in numbers, and the population had risen to 153,407 in 1820, the
greater part distributed upon the Mississippi and its tributaries, where
the land was more fertile and more accessible to the steamboat and its
lingering rival, the flatboat. Though the great mass of population
centering at New Orleans continued to give a preponderance to that part of
the state, the tendency to progress northward and westward became more and
more marked, and may be briefly indicated by noting that the next parish
to Orleans in population was St. Martin in 1820, St. Landry in 1850, and
Rapides in 1860, when the total population had risen to seven hundred
thousand.
Plantation System.
This growth of the
population, relatively, in the more northern parts of the state was due
not only to the natural cause that here new lands were opened to
settlement, but also to the fact that the plantation system, already
strong in the sugar parishes, tended to force out the small proprietor.
The policy of France and Spain had been, in the main, to encourage the
small landholder, especially in the region contiguous to the mouth of the
river, the object being to provide here a population dense enough to
defend the entrance to the colony in time of war. And though this policy
had not been rigidly adhered to, and had not brought a large population to
the colony, it may be stated as a fact that for many years after the
cession to the United States the number of small holdings in this portion
of the state was very large. But with the advent of the more ambitious
American settlers, and especially with the improvements in the culture and
marketing of both cotton and sugar cane, began the elimination of the
small "Cajian" farmer in the richer lands available for either of these
staples. We do not require the testimony of Olmsted (Journey in the
Seaboard Sieve States, pp. 660, 669, 673, etc.) to establish the fact that
the fifty or one hundred arpent farm of Pierre Le Franc would ultimately
be annexed to the thousand-acre plantation of Major Jones; the process of
consolidation still, in a measure, continues. Perhaps the large plantation
system was more thorough in the alluvial lands of Louisiana than anywhere
else. The land was extremely fertile, the climate almost tropical, the
means of transportation, even at the best, inadequate to handle perishable
produce, while the staple crops, cotton and sugar, both required
considerable outlay of capital for successful cultivation no less than for
manufacture. Therefore the small proprietor, who could produce ample food
crops for home consumption, but who could produce little that could be got
to market and disposed of profitably, found himself unable to compete with
the large capital and the superior organization on large plantations.
Moreover, the soil in a great part of the alluvial territory required
careful drainage, a matter not only of large expense but also capable of
being carried out, in many cases, only by an extensive system covering a
great area. The state of those days would aid little, if at all, in such
enterprises, and cooperation among many small owners was practically
impossible. "While the state did aid in the other all important work of
maintaining levees to protect the land from overflow, only the large owner
could protect himself adequately by interior levees to keep off the water
coming from the swamps and bayous in the rear, or drain off the rain water
and the seepage water from within his levees. And while one overflow would
irretrievably ruin the small farmer, especially if he had planted sugar
cane, the larger resources of wealthy proprietors would tide them over the
misfortune. In every way, therefore, the conditions were favorable to the
development of large plantation systems, even without the institution of
slavery.
The plantation depended for
its success upon organized resources, and the analogy which has been
frequently pointed out between the plantation and the factory is very
suggestive. The success of the planter was not due to luck, not achieved
in the indulgence of idleness, of extravagant or luxurious tastes. The
successful planter worked hard, not merely in effecting the organization
of his resources, but even in the actual superintendence of work upon the
plantation. In the earlier years crude methods of cultivation and slipshod
management would suffice, but even here the necessity of maintaining
discipline among the slaves was a healthy stimulus to activity; and as the
population became more dense, the competition in agriculture more keen,
the successful management of a plantation called for intelligence of no
mean order and constant vigilance. The care of the land, through drainage,
protection from overflow, and ultimately through simple fertilization, was
essential. The care of and the direction of labor to secure its maximum of
production was no less essential. The care of the working stock of mules
and horses must also be considered. And above all, the exercise of good
judgment in providing improved machinery for the harvesting of the crop
counted greatly in the period after 1830, when steam machinery of many
kinds was being introduced both for cotton and for sugar. It was, in fact,
this period that separated the wheat from the chaff among the planters.
They shared in the prevailing craze for extravagance and speculation, and
hundreds among the less provident and energetic found the day of reckoning
all too hard. The plantation system, where it really was a system, came
through the ordeal rather strengthened than discredited, and after the
temporary check to all business activities the large plantation continued
to spread its influence over practically the entire state where conditions
favored it.
It is impossible to give
accurate figures to indicate the extent of the plantation system. But a
fair index to conditions may be found in a brief review of cotton and
sugar culture.
Cultivation of Sugar and
Cotton.
Prior to 1815 the
cultivation of both sugar and cotton was in a rudimentary stage, with
little more organization than was inherent in the institution of slavery
wherever it existed. In fact, even as late as 1846, we find that DeBow's
Review thinks it necessary to plead earnestly for iron cotton ties in
place of rope, and that this innovation is seriously resisted by the
mercantile interests concerned in compresses at the larger ports, while
even the simple horsepower press, with wooden screws, is so rare on
plantations in Georgia that "one-half of the cotton is put up for market,
not in bales at all, but bundled up in something like old meal bags." In
the case of cotton, indeed, it is too often assumed that the application
of Whitney's gin solved the whole problem of preparation for the market.
The invention of a satisfactory press for plantation use was scarcely less
important, and the substitution of iron ties is also an item of
considerable importance, for the loosely tied bales were not only so bulky
that they had to be compressed for ocean shipment, at extra cost, but they
were also far more dangerous in case of fire, when the ropes burned
through and the loose cotton expanded in a flaming mass. The total cotton
crop of the United States in 1829-30 was only 976,845 bales. With
increased facilities in the way of machinery, encouraging more extensive
planting, the crop rose in ten years (1839-40) to 2,177,835 bales. It is
estimated that the crop of Louisiana was 350,000 bales (of 400 lbs. each)
in 1845, and it is certain that, excluding a few years of enthusiasm about
sugar when, under the stimulus of higher prices, sugar was quite
extensively cultivated in districts more suited to cotton (such as West
Feliciana Parish, the state greatly increased her cotton production as the
more northerly parishes became settled. Concordia alone, for example,
after 1850, had several planters whose yearly crop was between two and
three thousand bales.
In regard to the
cultivation of sugar we have a clearer and more definite history. Up to
1825 the varieties of cane planted in Louisiana had not been satisfactory
because not able to resist cold. But in that year the hardier ribbon cane,
first experimented with by Mr. Jean Joseph Coiron at Terre-aux-Boeufs
about 1817, was extensively planted, and proved to be far more
satisfactory than the Creole or Malabar cane. The remainder of the story
can best be told in extracts from an article by one of the most energetic
and intelligent of the pioneers in sugar culture, E. J. Forstall (DeBow,
Southern States, III, 275): "The statistics from 1803 to 1817 are so
deficient that it is extremely difficult to arrive at any correct data as
to the progressive annual increase of the sugar crop during the above
period. The crop in 1818 had attained 25,000 hogsheads (the hogshead
averaged 1,000 lbs.). Cattle was the only power used up to that period. In
1822 steam power was introduced; the first engines and mills cost about
$12,000, and were chiefly imported by Gordon and Forstall. This power,
however, was used but by very few, until our own foundries placed it
within the reach of all, by reducing its cost to $5,000 or $6,000." In
1830-31 Gordon and Forstall, Valcour Aime, and others, introduced the
vacuum pan process to replace the wasteful open kettle process, and their
experiments proved that Louisiana sugar could be refined to as good a
grade as any other. The effect of these improvements, even in the face of
a lowering of the tariff, can best be seen in the following figures from
Mr. Forstall's article: In 1822 the crop amounted to 30,000 hhds.;
1825-26, 45,000; 1826-27, 71,000; 1828-29, 48,000; 1834-35, 110,000;
1839-40, 119,947; 1844-45, 204,913.
Mr. Forstall estimates that
there were 308 plantations in operation in 1827-28, with 21,000 slaves, 82
mills operated by steam, 226 by horse power. In 1830-31 there were 691
plantations, 36,000 slaves, 282 steam engines and 409 horse-power mills;
in 1843-44, 762 plantations, 50,670 slaves, and 410 cotton plantations
were preparing to plant cane, under the impetus of the tariff of 1842. At
the time of his writing, sugar was extensively cultivated in nineteen
parishes, and the industry was being extended to Rapides, Avoyelles,
Concordia, Catahoula and Calcasieu. From later estimates we learn that
twenty-four parishes produced sugar in 1849; there were 1,536 sugar
houses, of which 865 were operated by steam, and the product was 247,923
hhds. of sugar. Though it soon became apparent that the true sugar belt
hardly extended north of Baton Rouge, and that both soil and climate were
unsuited to cane in some of the parishes where cane had been introduced,
the industry continued to flourish, with improved machinery and better
methods of cultivation, until the last year of the old regime, 1861-62,
saw the largest crop ever made, 459,410 hhds., valued at over $25,000,000.
And it is significant of the tendency to concentration that the sugar was
produced in a smaller number of sugar houses than in 1849. The economy of
the large refinery with improved machinery over the old-fashioned mill was
established, and in this last year of work under slavery the direction in
which sugar culture was to develop under free labor was indicated.
Slavery.
For all forms of
agriculture, and indeed for most kinds of labor, conditions in Louisiana
of the olden days were determined by the institution of slavery. It seems
to the present writer that this is no place to undertake a formal recital
of well-known facts in regard to slavery, even if space permitted. But we
must at least call attention to the increase of slavery in the state. In
1810 there were 34,000 slaves and 7,000 free negroes, forming together
more than half of the population; by 1820 there had been a slight gain of
whites over slaves, but the whites were still outnumbered by the total
negro population; by 1830 the effects of the agricultural expansion
discussed above are noticeable; the slaves greatly outnumbered the whites,
or, putting it in round numbers, where there has been an increase of but
sixteen thousand in the whites, we find forty thousand in the slaves. From
this time on there was an improvement in conditions, for though the number
of slaves continued to increase, the whites increased more rapidly, until
in 1850 the whites at last outnumbered the slaves, and in 1860 outnumbered
both slaves and free negroes.
Slavery had been accepted
in Louisiana as one of the things that always had been and always would
be. There does not seem to have been at any time any extensive sentiment
in favor of emancipation, such as marked even Virginia prior to 1800. It
is notable, however, that many individuals among the slaves were
emancipated, and that for many years there continued to be a marked
increase in the number of free negroes; thus the ten thousand of 1820 had
risen to sixteen thousand in 1830 and to twenty-five thousand in 1840.
Here, under the reaction from the abolition excitement, the liberal policy
in regard to free negroes receives a fatal check; not only is emancipation
less common, but more care is taken to guard against the influx of free
negroes from other states and from abroad, and but seventeen thousand free
negroes are reported in 1850. While it would be idle to pretend that there
was any likelihood that the people of Louisiana would ever have advocated
wholesale emancipation, it seems worth mention that, even after 1840, the
rights of free negroes were carefully regarded (see even Olmsted, pp. 633,
636, 637, etc.), and the actual number, as well as the proportion of free
negroes, was much greater in Louisiana than in neighboring states. For
example, the census of 1850 reports, in round numbers, 17,000 in
Louisiana, 9,000 in Mississippi, and 2,000 in Alabama, out of total
populations, respectively, of five hundred thousand, six hundred thousand
and seven hundred thousand.
From time to time at the
beginning of the rapid increase of slavery, we note indications of a
desire to check it. But we should remark that this does not indicate any
hostility to slavery as such, but a fear lest, with the preponderance of
blacks, Louisiana should suffer the fate of Hispaniola — a fate vividly
present to a people who had, in the one year of 1810, received nearly six
thousand refugees from that unhappy island (Martin, p. 346). Of such a
nature is the discussion in the Governor's Message and in the legislature
of 1826, with the futile act prohibiting "the bringing of any slave into
the state merely for the purpose of sale" (Martin, Condon's Annals, p.
424). And the fears of thoughtful Louisianians are again expressed in the
message of Acting-Governor Dupré, 1831: "The annual supply is gradually
pouring in, and scarce a ship arrives from the slave-holding states that
does not come freighted with a living cargo of vice and crime, to be
disgorged upon our shores and incorporated into our domestic
establishments." Deprecating the dangerous increase in slave population,
however, is a very different thing from desiring the abolition of slavery.
And as the years passed peacefully in Louisiana, with no disturbance of
any moment at all among the slaves, with a white population not only
increased but better organized against possible slave insurrection, and
with greater wealth invested in slaves and produced by their labor, the
tone of the press and of the public men becomes assured: slavery is not a
danger to the continuance of white supremacy, though emancipation would
be; the economic conditions in the state demand the existence of slavery.
Leaving out of consideration the ordinary arguments in favor of slavery as
a natural condition recognized by the law of God and the law of nations,
as a positive benefit to the negro, it would be easy to accumulate a great
mass of matter from the press, from the debates in the legislature and in
the constitutional conventions, from periodicals such as DeBow's Review,
to show that behind all other arguments lay the economic argument. And
though it may be easy to demonstrate what some planters clearly perceived,
that slave labor was expensive and inefficient, the planters were face to
face with facts, not with theories. Though it may be that an increased
white immigration would have followed the elimination of slavery, it is
extremely doubtful if that immigration would have sufficed to supply the
demand for labor to develop the resources of the state as rapidly as they
were being developed. Ultimately, the negro population, whether slave or
free, could not prove other than a detriment; immediately, it was the only
apparent labor supply, the source of the wealth of the state; and it was
fondly hoped, by a people who blinded themselves to the progress of the
greater world, that slavery might justify its continued existence.
With regard to the
treatment of slaves in Louisiana, there were severe laws for the
regulation of slaves, but both laws and public opinion provided protection
for the slave against ill treatment. Statutes that were pretty well
enforced regulated the rations, the clothing, the quarters, the labor of
slaves. And though it may be easily shown that the legal ration was far
less varied than that the free laborer demanded, it was wholesome and
sufficient, and it was generally very freely supplemented. On most
plantations the slaves were allowed either to have garden patches of their
own, or there was a garden and orchard to supply vegetables and fruits,
and a herd of cattle to supply occasional rations of fresh meat. The
typical quarters of fifty years ago were, I venture to say, more
comfortable and more sanitary than the typical cabin of to-day. And the
dependent classes, children, old and sick negroes, were more carefully
provided for. Occasional acts of barbarity on the part of owners or
overseers undoubtedly occurred; but that cruelty was the exception rather
than the rule is indicated by the often noted docility and faithfulness of
the slaves when the absence of the masters during the war left women and
children at their mercy, and by the popular indignation that marked any
case of flagrant cruelty. Upon this last point, one may recall the riot in
New Orleans, in 1834, when a certain Mme. Lalaurie barely escaped from the
mob after the discovery of her inhuman cruelty to her slaves. So violent
was the feeling that the woman fled from the state.
Among the planters, the
merchants and professional men of New Orleans, the scale of living was
extravagant: slavery fostered a lordly manner. The cafe's, the clubs, the
theatres, the stores of the one city of the state the centre of its life,
were patronized by a prodigal and a cultured people fond of pleasure and
of relaxation. There was more reading of standard literature in those days
among business men, as well as among planters, than there is now, in the
day of cheap magazines. And yet it is the conviction of the writer that
too much roseate nonsense has been indulged about life on the plantation
or in the city in the ante-bellum days. Neither the planter nor the factor
nor the lawyer led a life of idle ease and pleasure; they were workers,
whose energy built up the state; they lived often rather in rude profusion
than in luxury.
The period between 1812 and
1861 is emphatically a period of agricultural and commercial development.
We have therefore devoted the greater part of this article to these
matters. But in the political history of the state there are also a few
events of such significance that we cannot pass them by unnoticed.
War of 1812 in Louisiana.
Louisiana had hardly taken
her name among the states before news arrived in New Orleans, at that time
the capital, that the Union was at war with Great Britain. The scene of
war in the first two years was too remote to involve the state, though
great interest was taken in its progress. Preparations for the
organization of troops were, however, undertaken, and in this matter, as
well as in all others, the Creole population showed an energy and a spirit
of patriotism that ought to have guarded them from any suspicion. The
people of the state were most immediately concerned in the attempt to
break up the gang of so-called pirates at Barataria, commanded by Jean
Lafitte. Governor Claiborne besought the legislature for a force adequate
to cope with Lafitte, and put a price on Lafitte's head. The audacious
freebooter retaliated by offering thirty times the reward for Claiborne's
head. Pierre Lafitte was arrested and confined in New Orleans, but his
brother was beyond the reach of the governor. Thus matters stood when the
first news of the intention of the British to attack Louisiana came
through Jean Lafitte.
On Sept. 2, 1814, a British
brig anchored off Barataria, and Captain Lockyer had an interview with
Lafitte, proposing service under the British with the rank of captain and
thirty thousand dollars, and showing him a proclamation of the English
Colonel Nicholls that was intended to win the support of the Creoles. The
crafty Lafitte asked for a few days to consider the matter, wrote to Mr.
Blanque, of the legislature, and enclosed the papers given him by the
British, protesting his loyalty to the state. Lafitte's warning was
heeded, but the expedition then fitting out against the Baratarians was
allowed to proceed, several of the pirates were captured and brought to
New Orleans, but Lafitte himself escaped.
Meanwhile Andrew Jackson
had been named to take charge of the defense of Louisiana, and the British
had been repulsed in an attack on Fort Bowyer, Mobile Point (Sept. 14-15,
1814). Jackson captured Pensacola in spite of its being a Spanish town —
he was never over-nice in his "distinction of enemies" — and hurried to
New Orleans (December 2) to make ready for the British. A fortnight after
his arrival the British had overpowered, after stubborn resistance, a
small flotilla of gunboats in Lake Borgne (December 13), thus enabling
them to land their army without opposition. As yet there was no certainty
regarding the number of the British forces, but it was known that they
probably outnumbered any force that Jackson could immediately oppose to
them.
Jackson displayed
characteristic energy in fortifying the many approaches to the city from
the rear, and was heartily aided by the people. He declared martial law in
New Orleans on December 16, and sent urgent orders to Generals Coffee,
Carroll and Thomas to hurry to the city with their troops. On the night of
December 22 the British, with a force of sixteen hundred men, surprised a
picket at the mouth of Bayou Bienvenu, advanced up that bayou and the
Villeré canal communicating with one of its branches, and emerged on the
plantation of General Villeré, commander of the state militia, on the
morning of the 23d. At Villeré's house they captured a company of militia,
but Major Villeré, a son of the general, escaped by leaping out of a
window. With a neighboring planter, Colonel De La Ronde, he crossed the
river, rode hastily up the west bank and reached New Orleans to announce
the attack by the British. (Fortier, Vol. III., p. 110.)
It was about half-past one
o'clock when this news reached Jackson, but he determined to attack at
once. Leaving Governor Claiborne with four regiments of state militia to
guard against a possible attack from the direction of Gentilly, he
collected his motley but enthusiastic force, consisting of Tennessee
riflemen under Coffee, dragoons from Mississippi, the Orleans Rifles,
Plauché's battalion of militia, Daquin's two hundred free men of color.
Baker's Forty-fourth Regiment, and eighteen Choctaw Indians, in all
amounting to 2,131 men. The armed schooner Carolina, under Commodore
Patterson, was ordered to drop down the river and take position opposite
the British lines, while Jackson marched toward the now historic field,
some six miles below the city. The Carolina arrived at her station and
opened fire about half-past seven o'clock in the evening, and Jackson
vigorously attacked the enemy soon after. The British had increased their
force to about forty-five hundred men. But they were not prepared for
Jackson's bold onslaught, and they overestimated the force at his
disposal. After a sharp fight they fell back to their camp, and Jackson,
seeing that the darkness was too great, retired to the De La Ronde
plantation. The British had lost 305 men in killed, wounded and prisoners,
while the Americans lost 213.
It is unquestionable that this battle probably did as much to save New
Orleans as the greater battle that was to follow. Jackson had not only
warded off an attack that would have found him unprepared, but he had
tested his own troops and had inspired the enemy with an extra amount of
caution when boldness on their part might have captured the city.
On the following day
Jackson fell back to the Rodriguez Canal, about two miles above the field
of the first battle, entrenched himself there and awaited re-enforcements.
On Christmas day Gen. Sir Edward Pakenham arrived and took command of the
British forces, which had been increased to five thousand, and were soon
augmented to eight thousand, most of them the very flower of the British
army. On the 27th his batteries set fire to the Carolina, but the
Americans towed the Louisiana out of danger. On the 28th there was a sharp
skirmish, in which excellent service was rendered by the company of
Baratarian artillery under command of Dominique You. After this there was
comparative inaction until January 8, while Jackson continued to
strengthen his position and to collect re-enforcements.
His line, extending about
half a mile, from the river to the swamp was defended by a water-filled
ditch, and by a parapet of varying height and thickness. The idea that it
was built of cotton bales is an absurd fiction that brings back the
inspiring picture in Peter Parley's old history of our childhood days; the
thick Louisiana mud was far more effective than a rope-fastened cotton
bale. On this line Jackson had planted eight batteries, with thirteen
cannon. In the river lay the Louisiana, and on the opposite bank Commodore
Patterson had planted three guns to harass the British flank. To defend
his line Jackson had about four thousand men, a part of his available
forces being detached to serve under General Morgan on the right bank of
the river, and others to establish lines in his rear. The utmost prudence
had been displayed in preparation; every little help that could be got was
utilized, including the service of Lafitte and his Baratarians, whose
offenses were wisely overlooked for the present, and all was ready for the
bold defense that Jackson knew so well how to inspire in his men.
We will not here recite the
story of this amazing battle, in which Creole and Tennesseean and pirate
and free negro won an almost bloodless victory over troops that Wellington
had led. Before daylight on January 8, the rockets from the British line
announced the attack. On came the splendid columns in the dim light.
Before nine o'clock the battle was over. General Pakenham was killed in a
charge, General Gibbs was mortally and General Keane severely wounded; the
British had lost two thousand and thirty-six. The American loss, on both
sides of the river, was seventy-one; in the main battle along that fatal
parapet, seven killed and six wounded.
The aftermath of the great
victory is less pleasing, with Jackson engaging in a petty quarrel and
being fined by Judge Hall. But it should be remembered that in his
official reports and public expressions, then and long afterward, he was
just and generous in praise for those who had helped him to win the
victory. It should also be remembered that, though the battle on the
plains of Chalmette was fought after the treaty of peace between Great
Britain and the United States had been signed, it was useful to the
nation, and to the state of Louisiana in particular, because it was
convincing proof that the mixed population of the state could be depended
upon.
After this great event the
annals of Louisiana seem of small general interest. In the thirty years
intervening before the next war, the men of peace were building up the
state, New Orleans was becoming a great city, second in commercial
importance only to New York. The French population in 1815 had supplied
most of the leaders. For some years the great Creole names still deserve
the first place: Vlleré, Forstall, Valcour Aime, Mazureau, Roman, Poydras,
Martin, Gayarré — these and others might be mentioned as conspicuous
leaders in commerce, agriculture, politics, law and letters. But as the
middle of the century approached the preponderance of the new American
population began to count, and the leaders in politics and law and
commerce are such men as Benjamin, Slidell, Pearce, Peters, De-Bow,
McDonogh, Robb, Walker, Randell Hunt, Wickliffe and Moore.
Part in War With Mexico.
The war with Mexico
naturally aroused the martial ardor of Louisiana, and there were over
forty-eight hundred volunteers from Louisiana by June, 1846. And though
the volunteer troops from Louisiana were denied the privilege of sharing
in any of Taylor's great victories, Louisiana troops served with credit
under Scott; and Louisianians took pride in "Old Rough-and-Ready" himself,
and in many soldiers who were to win laurels in a sterner conflict, such
as "a little more grape, Captain Bragg," and P. G. T. Beauregard.
Secession.
But the easy victory over
unfortunate Mexico could not distract for long the attention of the people
from the increasing bitterness of the contest over slavery. As the
critical year approached the attitude of the press and the people became
more clearly defined. One should say the attitudes, for there were two
clearly marked and almost equal parties in the state. The political
leaders, such as Benjamin, realized the gravity of the crisis, and were
for the most part fairly moderate in tone, though uncompromising in their
determination to uphold the rights of the state. A large proportion of the
older citizens, especially the men of wealth, were sincerely attached to
the Union, and abhorred secession as deeply as did the legislature of
1830, with its resolution "that nullification and secession are
essentially revolutionary measure" (Fortier, Vol. III., p. 222). These men
were the heirs of the old Whig party, and the strength of the sentiment
represented by them was shown when, South Carolina having seceded,
Governor Moore ordered an election for a convention to meet in January,
1861.
In the presidential
election the vote of Louisiana had stood Breckinridge, 22,681; Bell,
20,204; Douglas, 7,625 — with none, of course, for the "Black
Re-publican." In spite of the efforts of the extremists, in spite of the
contagious enthusiasm engendered by South Carolina's action and by the
course of events in neighboring states, the vote for the convention, Jan.
7, 1861, showed no overwhelming majority for secession: 20,448 votes for
"southern rights" candidates, and 17,296 for candidates favoring various
other policies. If there had not been so many "various policies," if the
conservatives had been able to propose any concerted action that would
have promised safe guidance for the state in this perilous time, the
result might have been different. But in truth, regret it as we may, there
was no safe alternative offered to Louisiana; she must have cast in her
lot with the other slave states.
Accordingly, when the
convention met at Baton Rouge, Jan. 23, 1861, the time for argument had
passed. The majority of the members regarded themselves as acting under a
direct mandate from the people. It was their business to carry out that
mandate. Those who infer that this body was a rabble of fire-eaters are
vastly in error. The presiding officer was the venerable ex-Gov. Alexandre
Mouton, not a secessionist of irreconcilable malignity, but a sane,
dignified and conservative man. And among the members one finds such men
as ex-Gov. A. B. Roman, Christian Roselius, E. G. W. Butler, Louis Bush,
J. B. Wilkinson, T. J. Semmes, etc., of the best that the state could
furnish. They went about their work with a full sense of the
responsibility they were incurring, but with the conviction that the
safety and the honor of their state demanded secession. On the fourth day
of their session the "Ordinance to dissolve the union between the State of
Louisiana and other states united with her under the compact entitled 'The
Constitution of the United States of America' " was reported by John
Perkins, Jr., of Madison. It passed by a vote of 112 yeas to 17 nays. The
die was cast. When the ordinance was signed, 121 delegates cast in their
lot with the state and affixed their names to the ordinance.
A state flag, not the
present pelican, was adopted on February 11, and the "Independent
Commonwealth of Louisiana" continued a lone star until March 21, when the
convention ratified the Provisional Constitution of the Confederate
States. On March 26 the convention adjourned, and the rest is the story of
a brave struggle in a hopeless cause.
Bibliography.— The
extensive and valuable work of Professor Alcée Fortier, History of
Louisiana, together with the works of Gayarré, of Martin, of Phelps, and
of Miss King and John R. Ficklen, furnish the indispensable bases for any
sketch of Louisiana. For statistical information especially, DeBow's
Review is indispensable; and much valuable matter may be gleaned also from
P. Champomier's Statement of Sugar Crops made in Louisiana, 1850-1861,
from contemporary directories of New Orleans, Census reports, Journals of
the Legislature, etc.
Pierce Butler,
Professor of English, H. Sophie Newcomb College, Tulane University. |
