The location of the trading post mentioned as Fort de L'Oiseau Noir, meaning the “black bird” and likely named after the powerful Ioway Indian chief, is of interest. It clearly confirms the earlier supposition that the Robidouxs were in operation from some kind of fixed base on the Missouri in the vicinity of the Platte confluence. The location, being relatively close to the new Fort Lisa, established by its namesake, near Council Bluffs, is certain. While Lisa remained the “most active and indefatigable trader” in that region of the Missouri, he was not alone there, nor did the trade there remain lucrative for him or the Robidouxs. The price of furs had been cut in half by the war, likely the cause of default on many debts as the court cases indicate.54
In December 1814, the War of 1812 officially ended with the Treaty of Ghent, Belgium, even though the famous Battle of New Orleans did not occur until January 1815. With the end of the conflict came a revival of the overseas fur trade and a boon to business on the Missouri. Cavelier and Petit wrote to Auguste Chouteau in May 1815 complaining that the accounts with Joseph Robidoux II's estate remained outstanding. They also stated, “The final establishment of peace has revived business; our produce has regained favor. Articles from Europe have therefore fallen in price, lessening every day. According to the news I have received from our friends in Bordeaux dated last January furs were very scarce in France and sold at a very high price. Lead is scarce, as well as furs. We have a great many ships in port, without counting those that are on the river. This for your guidance.” Cavelier knew the Chouteau Empire included holdings in Missouri's lead mines in the vicinity of St. Louis and St. Genevieve.55
Francois, like Joseph, made frequent trips back down the Missouri to St. Louis where he tended to his wife and family, as well as took turns operating the storefront retail shop near the river landing and dealing in real estate. The younger brothers of Joseph and Francois had reached the age to get involved in the family business, particularly Isadore and Antoine. There is no indication they joined in the partnership, but likely provided much of the legwork for the older brothers. As a citizen of St. Louis, Francois found himself on a coroner's jury in 1815, investigating the case of a man named Henderson who had stabbed a slave named Joe with a knife after that man had reportedly attacked him with a two feet long stick. Henderson, being white, was cleared on the grounds of self-defense.56
During 1814, the St. Louis community of merchants, still enamored with the potential of the upper Missouri River, but leery of Indian troubles, began looking more seriously toward the Southwest. Lisa had sent an expedition toward the upper Arkansas River region in 1811, and gradually word filtered back of high potential profits in the lands of present-day Colorado. It proved a dangerous region to work, with both hostile Indians and Spanish army patrols to contend with. Ezekiel Williams and Joseph Philibert had been in the region and survived to bring home large caches. Pierre Chouteau Jr., son of Pierre, and nephew of Auguste Chouteau, who was known as “Cadet” to all his family and close associates, joined with his brother-in-law, Bartholomew Berthold, to form a partnership in 1813 for the Missouri River Indian trade and send expeditions into Spanish territory around Santa Fe. Berthold & Chouteau, as the company was called—employed some of the Robidoux brothers on the Missouri River, and a lifelong relationship between Joseph III and Pierre Jr. began. That relationship nearly always placed Pierre Jr. in the role of Joseph's chief creditor, occasionally as partners, on rare occasions as competitors, and frequently, as business confidants. There is no record that any of the Robidouxs ventured toward Santa Fe during that time. Just as well, for the Spanish rebuffed every American effort in that direction. A. P. Chouteau and Jules DeMun, who had taken over Philibert's outfit, operated on the upper Arkansas for two years, along with men from Lisa's outfit. In 1817 the Spaniards arrested the lot of them near Santa Fe and most of the company's expeditions turned into financial disasters.57
Joseph and Francois kept a substantial retail merchandise store in their hometown. In November 1816 they paid five dollars in merchant license fees to the county of St. Louis.58 The storefront was such a well-known mercantile establishment in St. Louis that in local newspaper ads they did not have to give the street address. Starting in January 1816, John Dowling, a copper and tin manufacturer, ran an ad in the Missouri Gazette informing the public he had “commenced business in St. Louis. His shop is in the rear of Mr. Robidoux's store, and near Martha Kerr's store.” 59 The location of the shop was on Main Street at the intersection of South C Street, later designated Myrtle Street.60
Joseph Robidoux diversified his business beyond the Indian trade and the keeping of a mercantile establishment in St. Louis. He apparently went into the shipping business on the Missouri River for a time, buying at least one keelboat for his own enterprise and also charging for the transport of cargo for others. During 1817, a controversy over a shipping bill brought Joseph into court against one Jeremiah Connors. According to the complaint filed by Joseph's lawyer, Robert Wash, on April 1, 1817, Connors indebted himself to Robidoux in “the sum of $500, as well for carrying and transporting on board of a certain keel boat belonging to the said Joseph, divers goods, wares and merchandize,” to be delivered from St. Louis to Fort Osage. The complaint also included the transporting of “a certain clerk in the employ & doing the business of the said Jeremiah.” Connors must have contracted for goods and transport from Robidoux though he did not take immediate possession. Robidoux's lawyer specifically asked Connors to produce the bill of lading as evidence. In fact, the record indicates several months passed before any goods moved and even then Robidoux had not received any payment.
The complaint further stated that “on or about the first day of the month of November, 1817 at the town of St. Louis took and received on board a certain keel boat belonging to him the said Joseph, divers goods, wares & merchandise of the said Jeremiah contained in divers hands, boxes and kegs weighing in all a great weight to wit the weight of twenty thousand pounds.” Robidoux charged Connors $2.75 per hundred weight for the cost of the transport on his keelboat. The suit asked for $700 in total damages and the court clerk issued a summons for Connors to appear to answer the complaint. However, it did not require Connors to appear before August 1, 1818. A number of individuals gave depositions but according to the existing record the court handed down no ruling or provided any evidence that Connors ever appeared.61
By the summer of 1817 Antoine had moved from St. Louis to Howard County in central Missouri, most likely setting up shop in or near the town of Franklin. Working on the Missouri River for the Chouteaus and his older brothers, he became familiar with the area and saw its enormous potential for commerce and as a portal into the far west frontier. With his own money and a stock of goods provided by Joseph and Francois in St. Louis, he set up a modest shop and watched for potential opportunities. His name appears on a list of “retailers of merchandise, tavern keepers, and keepers of ferries from the first of June to December.” He paid ten dollars for license fees.62
Joseph III sought out beneficial trade relations at every turn. For some time he corresponded with Jean and Pierre Laffite, operating from Mexico's Campeche Island, near Galveston, Texas. The same Jean Laffite earned an immortal place in history in January 1815 by assisting General Andrew Jackson in the defense of New Orleans. Laffite and his brother, best known as buccaneers or pirates, ended up primarily as fairly legitimate merchants. Because they had an affinity for smuggling, they just happened to deliver goods without paying the usual duties collected at American ports. Robidoux sent an order to the Laffite brothers in April 1818, requesting “20 slaves mulatto as follows: 10 of age having good teeth: males speaking French: 10 young adults by their teeth: women speaking French. In addition 5 nursing babies, or if convenient 3 under 10 years. 20 mirrors, 500 big axes, 200 butcher knives, 25 cauldrons, 25 pounds of silk ribbon, 1,000 flint lighters, 300 pieces of wool bands, 2,000 flints, 300 lbs. of powder, 500 blankets, 300 pounds of bullets and 300 muskets, 5 molds to make bullets, 4 ca
sks of wine, 20 bolts of wrapping canvas, 100 lbs. of vermillion, 200 lbs. of tobacco, 300 shirts, 500 lbs. of malleable lead plates, 500 lbs. of dry sugar. $3,535. Paid on delivery at Alexandria.”63
The actual delivery site may well have been Natchez. Laffite could land his goods on the Texas coast, carry them overland to the area of Natchez, and avoid any taxes. Except for the slaves, the shopping list matches a classic outfitting for a substantial Indian trading expedition. The stated price appears more than reasonable, which may have been the incentive for Robidoux ordering so much from a man in Mexico. All the items could have easily been obtained much closer to St. Louis, with the exception of the French-speaking slaves who would have come from Creole Louisiana or the French West Indies. As the United States had abolished the importation of slaves after 1808, acquiring slaves from the West Indies required clandestine connections, like the Laffites. That Robidoux owned and bought and sold slaves may be as much a reflection on his cultural upbringing as his inherent sense of right or wrong on a volatile issue like slavery.64
In a subsequent letter to the Laffite brothers, Joseph III discussed certain plans.
Since the arrival of M. Choteau [Chouteau] we have entertained ourselves concerning our future project. I am proposing to organize an expedition to Northwest Missouri. It will be a severe struggle. Much material and slaves will be required for this task. I am not able to use the Indians in any of the works that will follow for the reason I have trained them and organized the hunting of pelts and our fur trade. I am sure that you understand and know of my situation. I would be afraid to try to use them for my hard toil. You know that would cause my commercial enterprise to fail completely. We Frenchmen differ greatly from the Spanish and the British in our relations with the Indian tribes of the Northwest. You know how certain tribes degenerated a few years ago as a result of strong whiskey that the English gave them. There followed a difficult problem to make them loyal and to make them regain confidence in us.
The project that Joseph III spoke of, possibly a substantial trading post or fort, does not appear to have materialized, as there is no further record of his undertaking any project in the region of Missouri mentioned that might have required that much slave labor. It is possible a few slaves were taken up river as far as the Council Bluffs post for some construction work, possibly in partnership with Papin, but again, there is no definitive record. His continued trade with the Indians required a number of engagés working as field operatives. Joseph and Francois may well have continued their business relationship with Jean Laffite for some time, as he reportedly moved to St. Louis, changed his name, and operated, among other endeavors, a gun powder production plant, until he died in 1854.65
During October 1818 Joseph found himself in court, sued by Francois Leclerc, for apparently failing to pay Leclerc “for the work and labor, care and diligence of the said Francois, who performed in and about the business of carrying on trade and commerce for the said Joseph with the Panis Indians.” In part the court complaint read, “Francois Leclerc, by his attorney complains of Joseph Robidoux of a plea of trespass on the case, the said Joseph heretofore on the first day of July, 1818 was indebted to the said Francois in the sum of four hundred dollars lawful money of the United States for buffalo robes and beaver fur, beaver traps, blankets, calico, looking glasses, canoe, tent, cotton, course linen, and bacon.” Leclerc summoned Silvestre Pratte and Charles LaBerge as material witnesses. The complaint continued that Joseph “faithfully promised the said Francois to pay him the said several sums of money, and undertaking by contriving and fraudulently intending, craftily and subtly to deceive and defraud the said Francois.” Those words leveled a damning attack on Joseph's character and business practices. The court in St. Louis agreed and ordered Joseph to pay Leclerc $272 and post a “bail” of $350 with the county sheriff until he satisfied Leclerc's debt.66
One lawsuit meant problems, but Joseph got sued again the same month by Antoine Citoleau. Citoleau, an engagé, claimed Joseph owed him $150 for transporting a store of goods to the Panis Indians for the purpose of “barter and trade.” It appears from the court records that Joseph had sent Citoleau to the same place as Leclerc, for the same purpose, and not paid him, either. Francois Leclerc appeared as the first name on the list of those summoned to testify on behalf of Citoleau, followed by Andrew Ward, John Dougherty, Bernard Pratte, and Auguste P. Chouteau, nephew of the grand old man of the fur trade, Auguste Chouteau. The court again found against Joseph, ordering him to pay Citoleau $100. The two connected cases indicate either Joseph found himself in difficult financial straights during 1818, or that he hoped to pull a fast one over two fellow Frenchmen. Considering the names of those who gave deposition against him, it can also be concluded Joseph's reputation in the St. Louis fur-trade community suffered.67
Joseph Robidoux's court issues extended beyond his various fur-trading operations. In October 1822 Joseph received another summons to the St. Louis Circuit Court to answer a complaint by a mulatto boy named Jeffrie (also spelled Jeffre or Jeffrey in some documents) that Robidoux, in October 1820, “did assault with force of arms” and imprison the young man. As the boy's birth date was listed as May 14, 1806, he would have been fourteen years old at the time. While the court documents do not identify Jeffrie with a legal last name, not uncommon for someone whose legal status was that of a slave, he assumed the sir name of the household he was raised in, that of the Deroin family. Jeffrie's complaint had been filed by “next friend,” Rachael Camp, acting without formal appointment as guardian for the benefit of an infant or minor. In the initial filing of the case Camp requested their attorney Robert Wash to “present the petition of Jeffrie praying that he may be permitted to institute a suit against Joseph Robidoux for establishing his right to freedom and that he may be permitted to sue as a poor person.”68
A subsequent filing added a request for damages in the amount of $1,000. More than a well-meaning woman concerned with slavery, and familiar with the young mulatto boy's situation, Rachael Camp claimed to be the boy's grandmother. If in fact the true case, could Rachael herself have been a slave or former slave? If so, then how did she manage to get representation by the attorney Wash, and what might his motives have been? Actually, a number of St. Louis attorneys were known to take slave cases, so Wash's motives might have been based on some personal idea of justice, or the ability of a legal patron to financially support the litigation. Little is known of Rachael's situation, other than her illiteracy, as she made her mark with an X on court documents. The case, classified as a freedom suit, found her fighting against a flood of sentiment, for Missourians in general supported slavery even though most did not own any. St. Louisians offered strong support for slaveholders and though people with abolitionist sentiment could be found, they had practically no voice or platform to stand on in the state. The Missouri legislature enacted slave codes that clearly sustained the system solely for the owner's benefit.69
Robidoux responded through his attorney “that at the time of the committing of the said several supposed grievances, Jeffrie was the slave of him, the said Robidoux.” Further, the action claimed by Jeffrie, through Rachael Camp, only represented the normal disciplining of a slave entitled to any master. Jeffrie claimed that “at the time of committing the aforesaid assault and battery & false imprisonment he was not the slave of Robidoux.” The circuit court agreed with Robidoux but that did not stop the case. Camp apparently arranged for new attorneys, the firm of Bass and Pettis and filed an appeal, “on error, with the Supreme Court of the State from the 3rd judicial district to reverse the judgment heretofore obtained.” Further, the petition for the appeal reminded Robidoux “that if you take said Jeffrie out of the jurisdiction of the Court you will be responsible on your recognizance, and mind that you not remove said Jeffrie at your peril.”70
The case continued to be pushed by Rachael Camp long after the initial hearing and appeals. Robidoux and his attorney's no doubt found the woman's efforts a complete nuisance an
d worked to have her standing in the case quashed. Their legal position turned on the age of Jeffrie, who was under age twenty-one when the case had been filed, and that Rachael Camp, noted as “next friend,” did not have standing at the time to bring the suit on behalf of the mulatto boy. In January 1830, responding to that complaint, she filed an affidavit stating that “on her oath says that Jeffrie now held as a slave by Joseph Robidoux is his grand son raised by the Francis Deroin family and born after the Americans took possession of that part of Louisiana now called Missouri in the year 1804 or 1805. Jeffrie was born in St. Louis & this affidavit has been well acquainted with him from infancy.” It could not be possible for Joseph III to be the boy's grandfather, but it would not have been improbable that Jeffrie might be a biological son of Joseph II or even Joseph III by one of the Robidouxs' female slaves. Five years later a three-judge appellate decision, rendered on April 30, 1835, stated, “We cannot see how this judgment can be supported—it is perhaps both erroneous and irregular.” The irregularity mentioned pertained to the standing of Rachael Camp in bringing the original suit. “Irregularity is no cause of reversal until the court below has acted on the irregularity that has been done in this case. The judgment is reversed with costs and remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.”71
We do not know how the case concluded. The last documents in the records indicate a request for a change of venue, from St. Louis to the “County of Jefferson,” just south of St. Louis. That request was dated in August 1837. Some later court documents list Francois Robidoux as the defendant instead of Joseph. At the time the case had been originally filed, Joseph and Francois remained in business in St. Louis and very possibly co-owned the boy Jeffrie. But the court records do not indicate in any definitive manner whether or not Jeffrie gained his freedom by legal action. It does appear that the Robidouxs did not retain control of the man they considered their slave, and the ultimate judgment in the case did not end the confrontation between the Robidoux brothers and the boy, grown into the man. Regardless of the legal outcome, Jeffrie Deroin appears to have turned up in Joseph Robidoux's life later, carrying with him the unbridled malice between himself and his former master. Despite the significance of the Robidouxs being involved in the highly charged issue of slavery, and a long-fought freedom case, they seemed little deterred from their true direction: west, and the fortunes to be won or lost there, starting on the lower Missouri River.
The Brothers Robidoux and the Opening of the American West Page 7