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

Roosevelts chapter cd the purchase of Louis
lana, in his history, written only four years
ago The Winning of the West, vol. iv, p.
25S, etc, is precisely to show that there is no
parallel between gaining territory by armed
force and retaining it by treaty and the con-
ditions of our acquisition of Louisiana. This
is what he says, and it is the whole truth of
the matter:
'' In 1903 American settlers were 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 clearings 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 seizing with strong hand the coveted
province. Z The winning of Louis-
lana followed inevitably upon sic great west
ward thrust of the settler folk The
navigation OF the mouth of the Mississippi
seemed to them of the first importance.
Upper Louisiana was owned by the Spaniards
only Ill snadowy fashion, and could not 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 Mssis-
sppi was held to be OF right the property of
the United States. Even Jefferson
could see that for the French 10 take Louis
lana meant war with the United States. \ Il
A faithful French agent sent report to Ma
polean plainly pointing out the impossibiity
Of permanently holding Louisiana against the
Americans. He showed that on that on the
Western waters alone it would be possible TO
gather armies amounting in the aggregate to
20, 900 or 80, 900 men, all of them infamed
| IL I l. n-I-
The Spaniards left Natchez because they were
fairly drowned out by the American settlers
aud soldiers; they now felt the same pressure
upon them in New Orleans. The
surrender of Louisiana tins was NJ. Roose-
velts sensible conclusion, was due primarily
to the steady pushing and crowding of the
fronlersmen. 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
in the northeastern portion Of the Mississippi
basin decided the destiny ofal the lands that
were drained by that mighty river. The
steady westward movement of the Americans
was the all important factor in determining
the ultimate ownership of New Orleans.
I'm truth, Mr.. Roosevelt knows well that
Mr. Mckinley intends no ultimate self-gov-
ment' in the Philippines like that which was
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 as TO their ultimate status,
such as might content them with any fair pro-
visional government; and he knows that the
Administration has persistently refused, and
that he would refuse today, that pledge, which
is the only thing of moment when we talk of
i Al -I..-.l al 1.
is about is to determine whether the Ameri-
can people will declare by their endorsement
of Mr.. Mckinley, that they count it safe and
RIGHT for this republic 10 do this thing