-
Conclusion: “The Devil Take All” or “A Happy Change” ? : The End of European Rule and the American Takeover
- University of Missouri Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
305 As a new century dawned, the inhabitants of St. Louis and its environs were in a strange, in-between state, adrift from the authorities that had governed the past and not yet integrated into the new sources of power in the region. The convergence of different groups and ambitions in the area—particularly the increasingly visible and influential presence of the Americans across the Mississippi—brought new pressures, opportunities, and fears to colonial and Indian peoples plagued by years of bad harvests, floods, harsh winters, poor trade, and hostilities. Each group had reason to worry about what the future would bring. For the mercantile residents of St. Louis, the vigorous and industrious Americans presented the possibilities of regional economic development as well as competition. Far outnumbering Spanish troops and officials throughout the eighteenth century, these French speakers faced the prospect of needing to learn the language and habits of the more numerous newcomers to the east. For years, they had negotiated in Spanish, French, and various Indian languages, and now English would be indispensable.1 For the indigenous inhabitants of Upper Louisiana, the Spanish side of the Mississippi seemed increasingly a haven from the violence and territorial aggressiveness of the westward-moving Conclusion “The Devil Take All” or “A Happy Change”? THE END OF EUROPEAN RULE AND THE AMERICAN TAKEOVER 1. Awareness of a contemporary trilingual environment existed back in France. In a letter to her doctor son, who relocated to St. Louis from France, Madame Saugrain wondered about the languages spoken in America, asking “Do they speak Spanish where you live? If such is the case all your children will naturally speak French, English and Spanish, which will be useful to them, especially to the boys.” Madame Saugrain to Dr. Antoine Saugrain, February 14, 1802, SaugrainMichau Papers, box 1, folder 1, MHMA. t h e Wo r l d , t h e F l e s h , a n d t h e D e v i l / 3 0 6 Americans. Population pressures from the Americans in the east contributed to disruptive relocations of tribes. And for the handful of Spanish officials and soldiers stationed at the northeasternmost point of Spain’s North American empire, St. Louis served as a reminder of the limits to that country ’s imperial reach and coffers, with inadequate supplies, poor facilities, and an understaffed garrison all exposing the inability of administrators to fulfill the diplomatic and defensive responsibilities of the post. Thirtysix years after it was founded by Pierre Laclède, St. Louis remained a place where imperial ambitions faltered and official efforts to exercise authority were frustrated. Although no one publicized the fact at the time, officials in Spain had decided to relinquish the Louisiana territory to relieve the strain of an overextended budget and to cut their losses by letting go of a colony that had never fulfilled its promise. In 1800, Spain legally retroceded Louisiana to France, ending, on one level, the period of its involvement initiated by the secret 1762 Treaty of Fontainebleau. As Foley argued, “The treaty pleased both nations. With Louisiana now in his possession, Napoleon could proceed with his plans to build an empire in the New World. On the other hand, Spain believed she had rid herself of an increasingly costly burden.”2 Although Spain agreed to transfer the territory back to France, there were no immediate steps taken to do so, and Spanish administrators remained in charge in both Lower and Upper Louisiana. News of the Louisiana transfer to France reached St. Louis in late 1802, presenting the local population with a serious subject for contemplation.3 In early 1803, while in New Orleans on business, Pierre Chouteau met with the French official in charge of the transfer and returned to St. Louis convinced by their conversations that the retrocession of Louisiana to France would have positive repercussions for his family.4 Some change clearly needed to happen. St. Louisian Charles Gratiot, who was married to a member of the Chouteau family, foresaw imminent ruin. A well-traveled merchant—born in Switzerland, he had lived with relatives in London for a time and moved to Canada in 1769, Cahokia in 1777, and then St. Louis in 1781—Gratiot worried about the future.5 Pronouncing the country “in a most distressed” situation in early 1803 due to declining Indian trade, poor harvests, and inadequate currency, Gratiot feared that “if 2. Foley, HM, 1: 45. 3. Foley and C. David Rice, The First Chouteaus...