Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/415

Ftdler : The Pzirchase of Florida 405 worn history of La Salle and the facts of the successive Spanish entradas. When they had agreed upon the line of the Sabine, the one criticism on the treaty in the United States was based on the supposed surrender of Texas. Clay's attack rested upon no other ground than the assertion that Texas was a part of the Louisiana purchase; that Congress alone had authority to alienate territory ; and that Texas had been alienated without adequate consideration. Without an under- standing of the nature of the claim asserted by the American govern- ment to the ownership of Texas, it is not possible to comprehend what it was that Adams and de Onis spent so much time in discussing, or what was the point of Clay's criticism; and yet Mr. Fuller gives no hint of the real nature of that controversy. Even more serious is the very imperfect manner in which contem- porary events in Europe and South America are treated. Surely the most essential feature of any history of the Florida purchase must be an inquiry into the motives which induced the Spanish government in 1795, in 1800, and finally in 1819 to surrender her claims to sovereignty over the greater part of the present territory of the United States. These motives can be understood only by examining her relations to the contending parties in the European wars from 1793 to 181 5, the reactionary policies which prevailed during the period immediately after the abdication of Napoleon, and the internal dissensions which so pro- foundly affected Spanish history after 1808. Nor can the influence of the varying fortunes of the South American and Mexican revolutions be lost sight of. But Mr. Fuller has not thought it worth while to trace in detail the close connection between affairs in Europe and the protracted negotiations for the treaty. He hardly glances at the very important share of Hyde de Xeuville and Poletica in framing the final agreement and securing its ratification, and he gives no explanation of the reasons why France and Russia were so much concerned in the result. He refers to no original sources except American archives, letters, diaries, and newspapers. His bibliography does not even men- tion any work on European history. The book begins with an account of the early relations of Spain and the United States in which so important an event as the capture of Pensacola by Galvez is not even mentioned. The closing of the Mis- sissippi, its opening by the treaty of 1795, and the purchase of Louisiana are next dealt with. The author is very severe on the American govern- ment for concluding the purchase in the face of the Spanish protests ; but his strictures fail to carry conviction when we recall that he omits to state all the facts. For example, he quotes Casa d'Yrujo as protest- ing that France had agreed not to alienate Louisiana ; but he fails to note that this promise was made in July, 1802. or nearly two years after the cession of October, 1800. The breach of such a promise might well give rise to just complaints by Spain against France; but neither in law nor in morals did it require the United States to repudiate the bargain it had made with the latter power.