Brooks: Diplomacy oad the Borderlands


 SOnis to Pisarro, October 81, 1818, in A.H.N., Est., 5643.
 *bid.
 Onis to Piarro, November 1, 1818, bid., 5644.
 Adams to Onis, October 31, 1818, in AJ.P., F.J., IV:530-631.
 Adams, Memoirs, IV:126.
 SIMd., p. 161.
 Oni to Piarro, November 12, 1818, in A..N., Eat., 5643.
 Pimarro to OnIs, August 80, 1818, and memorial of Heredia read by Pisarro
before the Consejo on August 26, which was the basis of thee instructions;
both in A.H.N., Est., 5643. This authorization to go beyond the Sabine if it
were absolutely necessary did not enter into the negotiations between Erring
and Pisarro at Madrid. The Spanish government preferred to take the chance
of having Onis reach a more favorable agreement at Washington, rather than
offer such a eoneession directly to Erring. The United States minister had sad
in July, 1818, that he could obtain the Colorado limit if Piarro were not over-
ruled in the Consejo. See Erving to Adam, July 2, 1818, in D.., Despatehes,
Spain, XVI. Pizarro was so overruled, however. Erring overlooked that fact
when in 1844 he asserted that he could have obtained Texas had not Adams'
pride caused the latter to keep the negotiation at Washigton. Adams refuted
the charge in a bitter diatribe against Erring and Andrew Jackson during the
Texas annexation controversy. See "Address before the Boston Young Men's
Whig Club," Advertser and Patriot (Boston), October 10 and 11, 1844. At
no time, in fact, did Erring have Adams' complete coaidence.
 aOnIs to Adams, November 16, 1818, in A.J.P., .R., IV:531-63. The
version in the Americas Btate Papers is in error in naming the Mississippi in
place of the Missouri.
 SOnis to Pisarro, November 23, 1818, in A.H.N, Est., 5643. Onis' intention
to have the three disputed grants excluded is indicated also in Adams, Mem-
oir, IV:265.
 *Felipe Patio consull at New Orleans) to Oni, February 18, 1819, in
A.H.N., Est., 5645.
 "Adams to Erving, November 28 and December 2, 1818 (with enclosures),
in AS.P., FJ., IV:589-45, 546-612.
 SAn example of the errors into which able historians may fall by making
one-sided studies of diplomatic history is found in Bassett's statement in re-
gard to this letter that "the force of this argument was not lost on Pisarro,"
giving this as an explanation of Spain's final agreement to sign the treaty (see
Bassett, op. oit., 1:270). But Pisarro had been out of ofee for two months
when the letter was written, and it could not possibly have reached Spain in
time for return instructions to reach Onaf before he decided to sign the treaty.
 Bagot to Castlereagh (private), January 4, 1819, in Public Archives of
Canada (Ottawa), Bagot, American Correspondence, IL
 "National Intelgenoer (Washington), February 9 and 10, 1819.
 Onis to Pizarro, May 6, 1818, in A.HN., Est, 5644.
 Charles A. Bristed, A Letter to the Ho. Horaes Mae (New York, 1850),
 pp. 15-16. During the negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent, Astor's son-in-law
 called on the United States delegation and informed them that Astor intended
 to reoccupy Astoria as soon as possible after the war. See Adams, Memoirs,
 mI:90.
 Astor to Monroe, September 5, 1816, in D.S., Miscellaneous Letters, Au-
 gust-September, 1816.