Brooks: Diplomacy and the Borderlands


 HEREDIA'S GREAT STATE PAPEB
How accurate Erving's suppositions were can be seen by studying
briefly the thorough review of United States relations, written by
Heredia, and presented by Pizarro in the meeting of the Consejo
do Estado of June 10 and 11, 1817, and the decisions taken pur-
suant to that explanation. This paper (which is reproduced in
Pizarro's memoirs, occupying 73 pages) included a long account of
the negotiations, beginning with the independence of the United
States, and outlined eight possible methods of procedure, with
recommendations."
 With the Ezposicin were presented certain documents, and a
map." These were evidently the ones about which Pizzaro wrote
Erving. The Ezposicidn mentions that "the documents .. -. just
received from Mexico, in compliance with the order [of Charles
IV] of 1805, came bound in thirty-one volumes,"' a description tal-
lying with that in the letter of Viceroy Calleja previously quoted.
It is thus apparent that a basic document in the preparation of
Heredia's work was the historical memoir on the limits of Louisi-
ana and Texas prepared by Padre Don Antonio Jobe Pichardo. His
name, however, was not mentioned. Presumably L6pez de Haro had
completed the copying of the accompanying map, upon which he
had been working when the documents were forwarded. Pizarro
secured for his own use, a few weeks after the presentation of the
Exposicin, the map prepared in Philadelphia in 1816 by John
Melish, of which a later edition was cited in the Adams-OnIs Treaty.
 The Exposicin discussed the five points at issue, namely, spolia-
tions by the Spanish on United States commerce in the European
war which ended in 1801; like spoliations by the French; damages
caused by the suppression of the right of deposit at New Orleans
without the substitution of another port, as stipulated in Pinck-
ney's Treaty; the West Florida question; and the disputed western
boundary of Louisiana. The last point was dealt with at great
length, the Spanish claim to Texas being based generally on the
historical outline as described in chapter ii of this study.
 Strong opposition to the transfer of negotiations to Washington
was expressed in Heredia's paper. It was thought that the affair
could be more efficiently and advantageously handled if kept close
to the reins of control in Madrid. But Erving's acrimonious and