« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
Arminian party to accept his English policy and by deliberately
In spite of the seventh article of the treaty of Nimwegen, which
The grievances of the Dutch merchants against France were very real. It was the common custom in the nature and course of trade for them to remit considerable sums of money to their correspondents in France every year at vintage time and harvest for the facilitation of trade, and to make considerable advances for wines. cognac, chestnuts, prunes, etc., to be delivered later. Many of these French correspondents were Huguenots who were ruined by the persecution of the government and naturally involved their Dutch creditors in their fall. The intendants without regard to the liberty of commerce provided for in the commercial articles of the treaty of 1679 did not spare even Dutch merchants themselves who were settled in France, putting seals upon their warehouses, and, in case of their temporary absence, summoning them to return within three days under penalty of 3000 livres, besides threatening the destruction of their houses and the exposure of their furniture and merchandise for sale. The dragoons not infrequently sacked such establishments. Moreover, the provision requiring all persons who had any effects belonging to Protestants to declare the same. disabled many Dutch merchants who had advanced goods on credit to French merchants whether Protestant or Catholic. Natives of
46 D'Avaux, vol. IV., p. 156, March 19, 1685; p. 166, March 29, 1685.
Vast, Les Grands Traités du Règne de Louis XIV., II. 67, note; Saint-
45 D'Avaux, IV. 173, April 12, 1685.
Holland in France were generally unable to remove their effects from the country, 49 although Louis XIV. could not, without contravention of the treaties of 1648 and 1679, hinder the Dutch who were not naturalized from leaving the kingdom with their effects, for it was provided in case of war that such persons should have nine months50 in which to retire and to dispose of their property.
As to naturalized Dutch subjects, the policy of Louis XIV. was less open to question; but even here there is room to doubt the legality of his course. For although the act of naturalization rendered such persons not only inhabitants but subjects of France, nevertheless their letters of naturalization not only stated that their possessors professed the Protestant religion, but there was a special clause asserting that the king was willing that they should enjoy the rights granted in the edicts of toleration. The question was, therefore, whether Louis XIV. could lawfully enforce the revocation in the case of naturalized subjects, and the States General in a resolution of September 27, 1685, protested against the legality of the king's action. In the face of Louis XIV.'s high-handed treatment of the Dutch, and inasmuch as there was scarce a person in Holland who did not have a relative or friend engaged in trade with France, it is no wonder that the whole country at last came to support the Huguenot cause and espouse the policy of William of Orange.52 Yet it is to be noted that it was economic self-interest far more than sympathy with the French Protestants that influenced Holland.53 Even when the revocation was an accomplished fact the States General undertook to sift the French refugees. It is notorious that the practical government of the United Provinces
49 See the remarkable petition of the burgomaster and magistrates of Amsterdam presented to the States General, September 20, 1685, in D'Avaux, V. 78-81.
50 Art. 27 of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation. See Vast, Les Grands Traités du Règne de Louis XII., II. 78.
61 D'Avaux, V. 73, 85-86.
53" Il est venu, Sire, une si grande quantité de lettres à Amsterdam des Correspondans que les Marchands de cette Ville-là ont en France, que cela a excité beaucoup de rumeur ; il y a même eu soixante Bourgeois qui ont signe une Requête qu'ils ont présentée aux Bourguemestres d'Amsterdam. Comme il n'y a presque personne dans la Magistrature de cette Ville-là, qui ne trouve interessé dans cette affaire ; il a été resolu de porter ces plaintes aux États de Hollande et aux États-Généraux. . . . En confidence, ... ils avoient défendu à leurs Deputés d'en parler dans l'assemblée de Hollande, aimant mieux que cette affaire fût entamée par d'autres que par eux: mais que tous les Marchands d'Amsterdam ont fait tant de bruit, et que les Bourguemestres ont vû en effet que leur commerce en France est si absolument detruit." Ibid., V. 77, September 24, 1685.
AM. HIST. REV., VOL. XIV-4
permitted only those to settle in Holland who had means. In fact Holland was moved more by the consequences of the revocation than by horror of the act itself.54
JAMES WESTFALL THOMPSON.
5* The latent resentment of the Arminians against the Calvinists and their lingering attachment to France comes out as late as 1686 in the order of the States General of March prohibiting the publication of all kinds of gazettes, journals and printed accounts of what had passed in France, and forbidding the printing or selling of any book in which any mention was made of the persecution of the Huguenots.
SOME PHASES OF TENNESSEE POLITICS IN THE
In the period of Andrew Jackson's supremacy in the political affairs of the United States, the state of Tennessee had but recently emerged from the conditions of frontier life. Out of the struggles of these early years was developed the prominence not only of Jackson himself, but of such men as Hugh Lawson White and Felix Grundy, with whom, for at least a part of their life, the younger men, James K. Polk and John Bell, were contemporary The leadership of all these Tennesseans and the national positions to which they attained are not explainable on the sole ground of their individual power, but indicate that some special importance in the politics of the time attached to the section and to the state from which they came. The general.outlines of this influence have been sketched by others. In this essay the writer has selected for intensive study two of the prominent issues of national politics at that time, with the purpose of investigating closely the relation to these issues and the interest in them of the state of Tennessee. The questions thus selected for analysis are: first, the disposal of public lands; and second, the extension of credit through banking. Each of these matters, it will be conceded, became of the highest importance and gave rise to political controversy in the nation. Our endeavor is to examine the attitude of the state towards them from the standpoint of its own experience.
I. SALES AND DONATIONS OF PUBLIC LANDS. North Carolina, within whose limits lay the territory that became the state of Tennessee, in 1789 ceded this territory to the United States, but made at the time certain very important stipulations, especially with reference to the payment of her Revolutionary soldiers. Differences in the interpretation of the terms of the cession resulted in a dispute with Tennessee. This in turn led in 1806 to a compromise to which North Carolina, Tennessee and the federal government were parties. The essential part of this agreement was the recognition that land-warrants issued by North Carolina during the preceding years to her Revolutionary soldiers and
1 Acknowledgment is made of assistance received from the Carnegie Institution of Washington in the preparation of this study.
others must be satisfied by Tennessee, but that Tennessee through her own offices should administer these warrants and ripen them into grants. Not all the lands of the state, however, were open for the location of these warrants. In the first place, an extensive territory in the eastern and southeastern parts of the state had long been reserved by North Carolina for the Cherokees. This included the three divisions later described as (a) the “ District South of French Broad and Holston ". (b) the "Hiwassee District" and (c) the “Ocoee District". To the history of this reservation, with which henceforth North Carolina had nothing more to do, we shall refer below. Secondly, Congress reserved to the United States all the lands west and south of a certain line, known as the “ Congressional Reservation ” line. This line ran up the Tennessee River from the Kentucky boundary towards the southern limits of Tennessee, then turned to the east of the river and then to the southern boundary. All the territory between the Tennessee and the Vississippi rivers, and a lesser area lying east of the Tennessee, were thus set off, as being to the west and south of this line. Between these two reservations, one in the east and one in the west, lay the great central part of the state. In this the North Carolina warrants might be located, subject to but one limitation--the extinction of the Indian title. By 1806, the time of the compromise, the Indians had ceded nearly all of this section of the state. 3
In contrast with the legislation enacted for the Northwest Territory, Congress established no land-offices in Tennessee and made no insistence upon a plan of rectangular mensuration. The state laws were in this respect entirely inadequate, and consequently the old colonial system of metes and bounds went on almost without change. The various and often conflicting rights to land under the old land-laws gave rise to endless litigation, which employed most of the time of the courts and the lawyers of Tennessee. The social and economic effects of the land-system were most important
? See the Land Laws in Haywood and Cobbs, The Statute Laws of the State of Tennessee, II. 7-15, where the Cession Act, the Tennessee Laws, the Acts of North Carolina and the Act of Congress of 1806 are given in full.
* On the Indian cessions that concerned Tennessee, and the interest of the state in the removal of the Indian tribes, see an article by the writer in the Sewanee Review for July, 1908.
This is reflected in the Land Office map of the l'nited States, where Tennessee and Kentucky are distinguished from the other states formed out of the public domain by the absence of the rectangular demarcation of townships and sections. See Whitney, The Land Laws of Tennessee ; the Tennessee Reports ; Haywood and Cobbs, II.
* One writer has said " The history of public lands in this state is the his. tory of confusion.” Phelan, History of Tennessee, p. 232.