Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-11-21

eminent in Louisiana are by the same
act placed temporarily in the hands
of the President. Jefferson's message OF
January 10. 1904, setting forth what he had
done under the authority granted by the
act Of 1903, says that Governor Claiborne
and General Wilkinson. the commissioners
to take possession Of Louisiana, proceeded
with such regular troops as had been as
sembled at Fort Adams from the nearest
posts and with some militia of the Missis-
sippi territory to New Orleans. To be pre-
pared for anything unexpected which might
arise out of the transaction respectable
body of militia ordered to be in readi-
ness in the states of Ohio. Kentucky and
Tennessee. and a part of those in Tennes-
see was moved on to Natchez. No occasion,
however, arose for their services Suppose
the occasion had arisen for their services.
Suppose Spain, which had received Napo-
Icons solemn promise that he would not
ALLEVIATE Louisiana and had protested
against the transfer, had connived at
volt, and that the lawless population of
New Orleans. aided by negro slaves and
the Indians who peopled the remainder of
the purchase. had declared independence Of
the United States and attacked our general
with his regular troops and his militia ad
iA'i''''iA -
ton and progress. Would Thomas Jeffer-
on the strength of what he had writ
ten in the Declaration Of Independence
about the consent of the governed to justify
the revolt of himself and his associates.
have promptly withdrawn his troops and
his commissioners, or those who survived
the attack? Would he have treated the
killing Of his soldiers merely as evidence
that the Louisianians declined to give that
consent TO his government which was neces-
sary to prevent 1t from being tyranny?
Spain was intimdated into acquiescence
in the Louisiana transfer by the threatening
suggestion that resistance might lead to the
less of Florida and Mexico in addition.
The inhabitants of Louisiana were over
awed by the display of force made by
President Jefferson in his preparations to
use the army. navy and militia OF the
United States in crushing revolt. So they
did not indicate their lack Of consent to be
governed by firing upon the forces Of the
United States, but in every way snort OF
armed resistance they showed their hatred
of American rule and responded readily to
the suggestions OF rebellion and secession
made little later by Aaron Burr. Does
this annexation lack any essential feature
of the tyranny which results from lack of
consent of the governed or of the imperial
ism which results from imposing upon the
non-consenting governed the rule of force.
merely because the inhabitants of Louisi-
ana failed to carry their demonstrations of
dissent from our rule to the point of killing
and being killed?
OF course Jefferson would have crushed
out by force any armed dissent by the in
habitants Of Louisiana. He would not have
yielded up the country to the people who
lived upon it merely because portion Of
them indicated their non-consent to be gov
erned by him and appealed to the Declare
ton of Independence, which he had written
for their vindication. In the case of the
Philippines it has been proposed for the
first time in the history of American terri
torial acquisitions that the United States
should promptly surrender annexed terri
tory If some of the people on the land
which we had bought won by force of
arms objected to our presence.