The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1900-10-06

Roosevelt's chapter cd the purchase of Louis
lana, in his history, written only four years
ago t'The Winning of the West, vol. iv, p.
25S, etc, is precisely 10 show that there is no
parallel between gaining territory by armed
Iorce and retaining 1t by treaty and the con-
diionS of our acquisition of Louisiana. This
Is what he says, and it is the whole truth of
the matter
. In 1908 American settlers we're already
clustered here and there on the eastern fringe
of the vast region which then went by the
name of Louisiana All the stalwart freemen
who had made their rude cearings and built
their rude towns on the hither side of the
mighty Mississippi were straining with eager
desire against the forces which withheld them
from scizing with strong hand the coveted
province. The winning of Louis
lana followed inevitably upon the great west
ward thrust of the settler folk The
navigation OF the month of the Mississippi
seemed to them Of the first importance. < y
Upper Louisiana was owned by the Spaniards
only in snadowy fashion, aud could moi have
been held by any European Power against
the sturdy westward pressure of the rifle
bearing settlers; it is improbable that its fate
would have been seriously delayed had it re-
manned nominally under the control of France
or Spain. The mouth of the Missis-
Sippi was held to be OF right the property of
the United States. Even Jefferson
could see that for the French to take Louis
lana meant war with the United States. 4 y
\ faithful French agent sent a report to Ma
poean plainly pointing out the impossibiity
of permanently holding Louisiana against the
Americans lie showed that on that on the
Western waters alone 1t would be possible TO
gather armies amounting in the aggregate 10
10000 or 30. 600 men, all Of them infiamed
with the eager desire to take New Orleans.
The SpaniardS left Natchez because they were
fairly drowned out by the American settlers
and soldiers; they now felt the same pressure
upon them in New Orleans. The
surrender of Louisiana. this was Mr.. Roose
yelt's sensible conclusion, was due primarily
to the steady pushing and crowding of the
froutiersmen. 1t was not the diplomats who
decided its destiny, but the settlers of the
Western States. The growth of the teeming
folk who had crossed the Aleghenies and
were building their vigorous commonwealth
IA the northeastern portion OF the Mississippi
basiu decided the destiny ofall the lands that
were drained by that mighty river The
steady westward movement of the Americans
WAS tire all important factor in determining
the ultimate ownership Of New Orleans.
In truth, Mr. Roosevelt knows well that
Mr.. Mckinley intends no ultimate selfgov-
.ncnt in the Philippines like that which was
IA thing Of course to Jefferson for Louisiana.
He knows what the high pledge was which
was given to Louisiana in advance, while the
people of luzon have waited yainly for any
pledge whatever rs 10 their ultimate statGS
such AS might content them with any fair pro-
yiSional governments; aud he knows that the
Administration has persistently refused, and
that he wonld refuse today, that pledge, which
Is the only thing Of moment when we talk Of
parallels. He knows that what this election
is about is to determine whether the Ameri
can people will declare, by their endorsement
Of Mr. Mckinney. that they count it safe and
right tor this republic 10 do this thing.