the latter died of yellow fever, complicated by a drinking-bout with Wilkinson—­was not in sympathy with the movement; but this mattered little.  Under the cumbrous Spanish colonial system, the Governor, though he disapproved of the actions of the Intendant, could not reverse them, and Morales paid no heed to the angry protests of the Spanish Minister at Washington, who saw that the Americans were certain in the end to fight rather than to lose the only outlet for the commerce of the West. [Footnote:  Gayarre, III., 576.  The King of Spain, at the instigation of Godoy, disapproved the order of Morales, but so late that the news of the disapproval reached Louisiana only as the French were about to take possession.  However, the reversal of the order rendered the course of the further negotiations easier.] It seems probable that the Intendant’s action was due to the fact that he deemed the days of Spanish dominion numbered, and, in his jealousy of the Americans, wished to place the new French authorities in the strongest possible position; but the act was not done with the knowledge of France.

    Anger of the Westerners.

Of this, however, the Westerners were ignorant.  They felt sure that any alteration in policy so fatal to their interests must be merely a foreshadowing of the course the French intended thereafter to follow.  They believed that their worst fears were justified.  Kentucky and Tennessee clamored for instant action, and Claiborne offered to raise in the Mississippi territory alone a force of volunteer riflemen sufficient to seize New Orleans before its transfer into French hands could be effected.

    Jefferson Forced into Action.

Jefferson was President, and Madison Secretary of State.  Both were men of high and fine qualities who rendered, at one time or another, real and great service to the country.  Jefferson in particular played in our political life a part of immense importance.  But the country has never had two statesmen less capable of upholding the honor and dignity of the nation, or even of preserving its material well-being, when menaced by foreign foes.  They were peaceful men, quite unfitted to grapple with an enemy who expressed himself through deeds rather than words.  When stunned by the din of arms they showed themselves utterly inefficient rulers.

It was these two timid, well-meaning statesmen who now found themselves pitted against Napoleon, and Napoleon’s Minister, Talleyrand; against the greatest warrior and lawgiver, and against one of the greatest diplomats, of modern times; against two men, moreover, whose sodden lack of conscience was but heightened by the contrast with their brilliant genius and lofty force of character; two men who were unable to so much as appreciate that there was shame in the practice of venality, dishonesty, mendacity, cruelty, and treachery.