Is your pursuit of the French/Bonaparte connection "a condition of curiosity driven by your own uncertainty"?
No where in the Beale Papers is Bonaparte,Girard,LaFitte,or a Patterson mentioned,yet you endeavour to prove that this is the true tale behind the Beale treasure.
Once again the Beale Papers are:
1. True as written
2. A dime western/treasure novel
3. A coverup story for a treasure that has nothing to do with the Beale story in the pamphlet.
I'm simply endeavoring to continue the search for the truth behind the source. As for your skepticism and doubt of my own personal opinion/theory of that possible source, I seriously doubt you are 100% convinced in your own mind that the Beale Pamphlet was nothing more then a dime novel, perhaps leaving the door ajar just in case some light might slip through. I mean, at times, you do appear to be open to other possibilities, yes? I on the other hand am 100% convinced that if the Beale Pamphlet has any measure of truth to it then I am indeed investigating the right source. And there are many reason for this that have yet to even be mentioned here. But consider the following:
“The Fifth Generation”...it's was a possible theory I had presented way too soon, and yet a large portion of it still remains the cornerstone of what I believe today. The Memoirs of Jean Laffite are far more then just memoirs. Keep these memoirs in mind as we progress along.
Let us back-peddle in time, to period in world history when it seems the entire planet was at war. The American revolution was over but in Europe Napoleon Bonaparte was wreaking havoc against those dictatorships who stood in the way of liberty. A large portion of the world's common population seeing him as a hero, while those who did not usually seeing threat in his presence. As a result revolution began to erupt on a global scale, and this next fact is most important – in nearly every case these revolts were supported by the remnants of Napoleon's armies and those political allies that grasped a hold on those same principles, this even being applies to the War of 1812 and especially to the Battle of New Orleans. Understanding all of this is extremely important.
But then in 1815 the coalition defeats Napoleon's army at Waterloo, and from this we experience a period of Napoleon's strongest supporters and leaders are running for their very lives. And now comes, perhaps, the million dollar question; “Why was Napoleon kept alive on the island of St. Helena?” Time to back-peddle a bit again.
The War of 1812 resulted in a peace treaty between the United States and the British, a treaty that stood to gain both countries a great deal of commerce and trade if they could get Spain out of the way. Neither of these countries wanted to directly engage in another war, especially a war could upset the balance of the world again on a global scale. By 1815 the United States and the British were experiencing good and profitable trade/commerce, relations had greatly improved and the future was looking bright again, if only they could rid themselves of that pesky Spain in manner that would open up trade and commerce with Spain and it's other colonies as well. Spain was already weakening and already starting to lose a foothold on all that it controlled, the revolts already well under way, the remnants of Napoleon's vast armies already in the midst of a great deal of it all.
1815, and Napoleon is finally captured, now what to do with him? Sure, they could hang him and end his troublesome antics once and for all, but in doing so there would no future support from the remnants of his freedom fighters in Spanish held territories and his death might also bring about hardships upon British commerce from the many privateers engaged in those revolutions. So great was his following that his death by any other means then natural event might actually insight cause for an entirely new war. So in 1815 Napoleon was exiled to the island of St. Helena, the carrot to be dangled on a string. It was politics at its very finest, keeping the hope and dreams of millions alive so that they might be encouraged to do a great deal of your deeds and bidding. Spain simply had to be dealt with.
In 1817 some of Napoleon's most devoted military personnel, including his number one general, Lallemand, arrive in the US, his brother Joseph and many others already having arrived. From the moment these men settle upon the shores of the United States they are quickly handed a large land grant and from here they swiftly organize into a military structure and they relocate to the disputed territory between Spain and the US. All of this being achieved, as the Spanish were correct in summarizing, with obvious help and support from the Americans, the Spanish being fully aware of the politics now being played out. They couldn't prove that the US was directly involved, but just about everyone knew it. In essence the US was using other means, an indirect route, to aggressively place additional pressure of Spain, just as they had done in Florida prior to Jackson's expedition. And now comes some of the added punch that few people are aware of.
In his memoirs, Laffite makes mention of a “Cochrane” as being one of his most trusted captains and a very good man. So now let me ask you this; who was placed in charge of the Fleets of Argentina, Chile, and even Greece during the revolts in South America? Keep in mind that this man also had seven brothers, that he was Scottish by birthright, and that he held high position in “British” admiralty, and that it was even rumored that he planned to rescue Napoleon Bonaparte from St. Helena. Time for some deep research into “Lord Thomas Cochrane” and his family tree. But there is more, it was only by the eventual intervention of Britain, France, and Russia that the Greek affair was negotiated, a negotiation that eventually allowed all of our banned “Bonapartist” to return to their homeland of Corsica in 1832 with recognized title.
Strange that so many of these people were in and out of the Lynchburg and Richmond region. Strange that they were in Richmond finalizing business affairs and writing letters of accusation of payments received for services rendered at the same time the Greek affair in negotiations. Strange that “Mr. Sherman” was intimately involved with the transferring of gold to the indicated places unknown. Strange that “Mexico Sherman” eventually moved from the Virginia region in question to be closer to the French grants in Alabama. Strange that Thomas Beale was in New Orleans and that he knew the Laffites. Strange that Laffite was always able to stave off American aggressions until after the Adam's Onis Treaty was ratified, and even beyond then. Strange that we have a story of two secret deposits in the exact region where many of these men spent considerable time, at least one of them even referencing secret gold shipments and another references the failures of those in charge to distribute the funds. And the list goes on and on and on. Strange that John Sherman, a man so intimately connected to the Beale mystery, would have family who was so deeply involved in some of the events already mentioned.
No, you're not getting the entire, very long and complicated story, but you are getting the short version, that if nothing else, might nudge you enough to consider the possibility. “Was Napoleon Bonaparte kept alive on St. Helena to insure compliance?” I, for one, firmly believe that to be the case. And I also believe that deposits in question were the end result of that cause/strategy. Spain buckled, the Americans got their desired treaty, in less then 10 years South America and Mexico would establish their independence, even before 1832, the end of the 10-year term in the Beale pamphlet, negotiations were under way to permit the Bonapartist entry back into their homeland of Corsica. Odd that a fund raiser for Greek Independence would be held in.....”Lynchburg.”
As far the CSA is concerned, could be the CSA got wind of the tale and was in desperate need of those funds thinking they still existed, but, more then likely the Beale deposits were recovered just as planned a long time ago. The same can probably be said of any Bonaparte interest that still believed the deposits existed. Most likely, there's a reason why the service of Morriss was never required. And he penned, “I believe future events can be guided with precision and certainty.” I suspect that is also the case here.
By the way, after his service in South America, Lord Cochrane eventually returned to service with British Admiralty, even after the rumors that he had in his previous planning the rescue of Napoleon from his British captors. After much research into the matter it appears that all of the charges launched by Spain concerning these strategic British and American events was all true.
I believe the entire picture is was larger then most realize and that the Beale deposits were just an event resulting from political/indirect military strategy.
