Chapter 14

1852.

As to their present situation, we can give the reader but little further information. In the summer of 1852, Wild Cat suddenly appeared among his friends, the Seminoles, who yet remained in the Indian Country. His appearance excited surprise among the Creeks. They at that time maintained a guard, composed of mounted men: these were at once put in motion for the purpose of arresting this extraordinary chieftain. But while they were engaged in looking for him, he and a company of Seminoles, attended by a number of Exiles and black persons, previously held in bondage by the Creeks, were rapidly wending their way towards their new settlement.[141]

This visit of Wild Cat to the Western Country occasioned much excitement in that region, as well as astonishment at Washington, and constituted the occasion of a protracted correspondence between the War Department and our Military Officers and Indian Agents of that country. Wild Cat was denounced as a “pirate”—“robber”—“OUTLAW;” and nearly all the opprobrious epithets known to our language were heaped upon him, for thus aiding his fellow men to regain those rights to life and liberty with which the God of Nature had originally endowed them.

During the year 1852, while our commissioners, appointed to establish the boundary between the United States and Mexico, were engaged in the discharge of their official duties, a small party ofarmed men was in attendance for their protection. Some eight of these were said to have been engaged in patroling the country, when they fell in with Wild Cat and a portion of this band of Exiles, who were at all times prepared for friends or foes. The whites were made prisoners without bloodshed, and taken to their village. A council was called. Abraham was yet living, and the white men declared that he was regarded as a ruling prince by his people. They were evidently suspicious of the intentions of our men; but upon inquiry and consideration, they became satisfied that no hostile intentions had brought our friends to that country; they were accordingly treated with becoming hospitality, and dismissed. These brief statements appeared in some of the newspapers of that day, which constitutes our only authority for stating them.

1853.

Complaints were subsequently made through the Texan newspapers, that slaves escaped from that region of country and found an asylum in Mexico, on the other side of the Rio Grande; and intimations were thrown out that a party of volunteers, without authority from the United States, were about to visit the settlement, which thus encouraged slaves to seek their freedom. The suggestion was so much in character with the slaveholders of Texas, that it excited attention among those who were aware of the settlement of Exiles in the region indicated. It was believed that those men who were about to visit Wild Cat and Abraham and Louis and their companions, for the purpose of seizing and enslaving men, would find an entertainment for which they were not prepared.

Some few months subsequently, a brief reference was made in the newspapers of Texas to this expedition, giving their readers to understand that it had failed of accomplishing the object intended, and had returned with its numberssomewhat diminishedby their conflict with the blacks.

As was naturally expected, after the lapse of some six months, great complaint was heard through the public press of Indian depredationsupon the frontier of Texas. Plantations were said to be destroyed; buildings burned; people murdered, and slaves carried away. This foray was said to have been made by Camanche Indians, led on by Wild Cat. He appears yet ready to make war upon all who fight for slavery; and many of the scenes which were enacted in Florida, will most likely be again presented on our south-western frontier, where the same causes exist which formerly existed in Florida, and the same effects will be likely to follow.

FOOTNOTES:[1]Vide Bancroft’s and Hildreth’s Histories of the United States.[2]Vide both Histories above cited.[3]Vide Schoolcraft’s History of Indian Tribes.[4]Vide American Archives, Vol. I. Fifth Series: 1852.[5]This was the residence of George Galphin, an Indian trader, who, in 1773, aided in obtaining a treaty by which the Creek Indians ceded a large tract of land to the British Government. Georgia succeeded the British Government in its title to these lands, by the treaty of peace in 1783. Some fifty years afterwards, the descendants of Galphin petitioned the State of Georgia for compensation, on account of the services rendered by Galphin in obtaining the treaty of 1773. But the Legislature repudiated the claim. The heirs, or rather descendants of Galphin, then applied to Congress, who never had either legal or beneficial interest, in the lands obtained by the treaty. The Representatives from Georgia and from the South generally supported the claim. Northern men yielded their objections to this absurd demand, and in 1848 a bill passed both Houses of Congress by which the descendants of Galphin, and their attorneys and agents, obtained from our National Treasury $243,871 86, and the term “Galphin” has since become synonymous with “peculation” upon the public Treasury.[6]Vide Report of Hugh Knox, Secretary of War, to the President, dated July 6, 1789. American State Papers. Vol. V. page 15, where the Treaty is recited in full.[7]Vide papers accompanying the Report of the Secretary of War, above referred to, marked A, and numbered 1, 2 and 3.[8]Vide letter of James White to Major General Knox, of the 24th May, 1787. American State Papers, Vol II, Indian Affairs.[9]American State Papers, Vol. V, page 25.[10]Vide Documents accompanying the Treaty of New York; Am. State Papers, Vol. I, Indian Affairs.[11]The reader need not be informed, that these demands of indemnity for slaves were promptly rejected by the English government; and Jay’s Treaty of 1794, surrendered them forever.[12]Hildreth, in his History of the United States, speaks of in that light.[13]Vide Annals of Congress, Vol. I, pages 1068-70-74.[14]Vide Correspondence on this subject between Seagrove and the War Department. American State Papers, Vol. V, pages 304-5, 320, 336, 387, and 392.[15]American State Papers, “Indian Affairs.” Vol. II, p. 306.[16]Vide talk of principal Chief at Treaty of Colerain.[17]Vide Annals of Congress of that date.[18]Vide papers accompanying the Treaty of Colerain. American State Papers, Vol. I, “Indian Affairs.”[19]Vide the papers accompanying this Treaty when submitted to the Senate. They are collected in the second volume of American State Papers, entitled “Indian Affairs.” They will afford much interesting matter as to the doctrines of “State Rights” and Nullification, which it is unnecessary to embrace in this work.[20]Vide Annals of IVth Congress, 2d Session[21]The claims of these ancient Spanish inhabitants for indemnity against these robberies, have been pressed upon the consideration of Congress for the last twenty-five years, and were recently pending before the Court of Claims. When the bill for their relief was under discussion before the House of Representatives, In 1843, Hon. John Quincy Adams presented a list of some ninety slaves, for the loss of whom the owners claimed compensation from the United States. But the discussions which arose on private bills were not at that time reported; and neither this exhibit, nor the speech of Mr. Adams, are to be found in the Congressional Debates of that day.[22]Many slaves actually fled from their masters and found an asylum on board British vessels. Some sixty, belonging to a planter named Forbes, who resided in Georgia, left his plantation and took shelter on board the ship commanded by Lord Cochrane. They were transported to Jamaica, where they settled and lived as other free people. After the restoration of peace, Forbes sued his Lordship, before the British courts, for damages sustained by the loss of these slaves. The case elicited much learning in regard to the law of Slavery and, next to that of Sommerset, may be regarded as the most important on that subject ever litigated before an English court.[23]“Monette,” In his “History of the Valley of the Mississippi,” says Woodbine erected this fort in the summer of 1816; and such were the representations made before the Committee appointed in 1819, to investigate the conduct of General Jackson, in taking possession of Florida. But the reader will notice the Letter of General Gaines, hereafter quoted, which bears date on the 14th May, 1815, andofficiallyinformed the Secretary of War that “negroes and outlaws have taken possession of aFort on the Appalachicola River.” This was more than a year before the time of erecting the fort, according to “Monette.”The parapet of the fort was said to be fifteen feet high and eighteen thick, situated upon a gentle cliff, with a fine stream emptying into the river near its base, and a swamp in the rear, which protected it from the approach of artillery by land. On its walls were mounted one thirty-two pounder, three twenty-four pounders, two nine pounders, two six pounders, and one brass five and a half-inch howitzer. Vide Official Report of Sailing-Master Loomis.[24]This is the official account of Sailing-Master Loomis, who commanded the naval expedition subsequently sent to reduce this fortress.“Monette,” in his History of the Valley of the Mississippi, says, “Near the Fort the fields were fine, and extended along the river nearlyfifty miles.”[25]The reader will at once see, that these people were as much under the protection of Spain, as the fugitive slaves now in Canada are under the protection of British laws. They were as clearly Spanish subjects as the latter are British subjects. By the law of nations, Spain had the same right to permit her black subjects to occupy “Blount’s Fort,” that the Queen of England has to permit Fort Malden to be occupied by her black subjects. The only distinction between the two cases is, Spain was weak and unable to maintain her national honor, and national rights; while England has the power to do both.[26]Vide the voluminous Correspondence on this subject contained in Ex. Doc. 119, 2d Session, XVth Congress.[27]Perhaps no portion of our national history exhibits such disregard of International law, as this unprovoked invasion of Florida. For thirty years, the slaves of our Southern States have been in the habit of fleeing to the British Provinces. Here they are admitted to all the rights of citizenship, in the same manner as they were in Florida. They vote and hold office under British laws; and when our Government demanded that the English Ministry should disregard the rights of these people and return them to slavery, the British Minister contemptuously refused even to hold correspondence with our Secretary of State on a subject so abhorrent to every principle of national law and self-respect. Our Government coolly submitted to the scornful arrogance of England; but did not hesitate to invade Florida with an armed force, and to seize the faithful subjects of Spain, and enslave them.[28]Hon. Duncan L. Clinch. He left the service in 1841, and was subsequently a Member of Congress for several years, and died in 1852.[29]War was thus waged against Spain, by Executive authority, without consulting Congress; and no member of that body uttered a protest, or denunciation of the act.[30]In Ex. Doc. No. 119, 2d Session, XVth Congress, may be found the official correspondence between the War Department and General Jackson; also that between General Jackson and General Gaines, together with the orders of each, as well as the correspondence between the Secretary of the Navy and Commodore Patterson; and the order of the latter officer to Sailing-Master Loomis; and the final report of Sailing-Master Loomis and General Clinch. In none of these papers is there any act of hostility mentioned or referred to as having been committed by the Exiles, or the Seminole Indians, prior to their reaching the vicinity of the Fort.[31]Hildreth states thatthreegun-boats were detailed on that occasion; but the report of Sailing-Master Loomis speaks only oftwo.[32]Hildreth states the number to have been about three hundred, partly Indians and partly negroes.[33]Monette says this expedition was undertaken by Col. Clinch upon his own responsibility, to enable some boats laden with provisions to pass up the river. A strange misapprehension of facts, as shown by official documents.[34]At this conference, Sailing-Master Loomis informed Colonel Clinch that, on the day previous, while a party of his men were on shore, they were fired on by Indians and one man killed. This was the first and only act of hostility against our troops. It was committed byIndians, not byExiles; but it was subsequently seized upon and published as a justification for carrying out General Jackson’s order, bearing date more than two months prior to the occurrence, directing General Gaines to destroy the fort and return the negroes to slavery.[35]Monette says, “The scene in the fort was horrible beyond description.Nearly the whole of the inmates were involved in indiscriminate destruction; not one-sixth of the whole escaped. The cries of the wounded, the groans of the dying, with the shouts and yells of the Indians, rendered the scene horrible beyond description.”[36]Vide Official Report at Sailing-Master Loomis, Ex. Doc. 119: 2d Sess. XVth Cong.[37]Some years since, the author wrote a short sketch of the general Massacre, but omitted this point as too revolting to the feelings of humanity, and too disgraceful to the American arms, to be laid before the popular mind in such an article; and he would most gladly have omitted it in this work, could he have done so consistently with his duty to the public.[38]Monette says that three thousand stands of arms and six hundred barrels of powder were destroyed by the explosion. This is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. We have no fact to warrant the assertion, that there was any addition made to the stores left by Col. Nichols, when he delivered the fort to the Exiles. The same author states, that one magazine, containing one hundred and sixty barrels of powder, was left unharmed by the explosion; but no mention of such fact is found in the Official Report, by Sailing-Master Loomis.[39]Vide Documents before the Committee of Congress appointed to investigate the cause of General Jackson’s invasion of Florida: XVth Congress, 2d Session.[40]This bill was reported by Mr. Ingham of Connecticut, Chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs.[41]Vide Statutes enacted at 2d Session, XXVIth Congress. The author was then a member of the House of Representatives, but had not learned to watch the movements of slaveholders and “their allies,” so closely as subsequent experience taught him would be useful.[42]Vide Speeches of Hon. George Poindexter and others on the Seminole War, in 1819.[43]Hon. William Jay, of New York, published his Views of the action of the Federal Government in 1887.[44]Monette says Arbuthnot sent word to the Negroes and Indians, notifying them of the approach of General Jackson; but the official report of that Officer shows that his advance guard was daily engaged in skirmishing with the Indians.[45]Vide General Jackson’s Official Report of this battle, Ex. Doc. 175, 2d Session XVth Congress.[46]Williams, in his History of Florida, states that three hundred and forty Negroes again rallied after the first retreat, and fought their pursuers, untileightyof their number, were killed on the field. “Monetta” also states the same fact; but General Jackson, in all his Reports, evidently avoided, as far as possible, any notice of the Exiles, as a people. Indeed such was the policy of the Administration, and of its officers, and of all slaveholders. They then supposed, as they now do, that slavery must depend upon the supposed ignorance and stupidity of the colored people; and scarcely an instance can be found, where a slaveholder admits the slave to possess human intelligence or human feeling; indeed, to teach a slave to read the Scriptures, is regarded as an offense, in nearly every slave State, and punishable by fine and imprisonment.[47]Various names have been given this Fort. The author, having heretofore adopted that of “Blount’s Fort,” prefers to continue that name. It was equally known, however, as the “Negro Fort,” and as “Fort Nichols.”[48]The people of the free States should understand, that almost every question touching slavery which has arisen between our Government and that of England, the latter has yielded, since the formation of Jay’s Treaty in 1795.The payment for slaves who were shipwrecked on board the Comet, the Encomium, and the Enterprise, and found freedom by being landed on British soil, constitute rare instances in which slaveholdlng arrogance has proved successful in the arts of diplomacy. The case of the Creole constitutes another admirable illustration of successful effrontery. In this case, the slaves took possession of the ship, guided it to Nassau, a British Island, went on shore and became free. The officers of the slave ship demanded that the British authorities should seize the negroes, and return them to the ship. They refused. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, became the voluntary Agent, Attorney and Solicitor, for the slave dealers, who should have been hanged, instead of receiving the encouragement of our Government. But the subject was submitted to the umpirage of a man, said to have once lived in Boston, who, principally upon the authority of Mr. Webster, decided that the people of the British government should pay the slave dealers for these parents and children; and after fifteen years of continued effort, the money was obtained.[49]Vide Letter from the Secretary of War to Messrs. Plckens and Flournoy, August 8, 1820. Am. State Papers, Vol. VI, p. 249.[50]Vide Letter of the Secretary of War to Gen. Flournoy, of the 19th of October, 1820. Ibid, 250.[51]Vide Papers transmitted to Congress, in connection with the Treaty of “Indian Spring.” Am. State Papers, “Indian Affairs,” Vol. I, No. 174.[52]Ibid.[53]Ibid. Letter of Instructions contained in the papers referred to on preceding page.[54]Vide Report of Commissioner on this subject; also, the Report of Wm. Wirt, Attorney General of the United States, to whom the President referred the subject. “Opinions of the Attorney General,” 1822. Mr. Wirt states the price paid for those slaves was from two to three times their real value.[55]Vide Reports of Committee XVIIth Congress, 2d Session, No. 125.[56]Vide Am. State Papers, Vol. VI, pages 411, 412. It will be observed that General Jackson discarded the term “maroon,” used by Penieres, as that in Jamaica, signifies “free negroesof the mountains,” who once fled from service, but have maintained their liberty so long that they cannot be identified, and are therefore admitted to be free.[57]It is an interesting fact, that the doctrine recently avowed by the Supreme Court of the United States, that “black men have no rights which white men are bound to respect,” was recognized and practiced upon in Florida, more than thirty years since, by the officers of Government.[58]Vide Executive Documents, No. 271, 2d Session XXVth Congress.[59]Captain Sprague, of the United States Army, so states, in his History of the War.[60]Vide Letter of the Agent, dated sixth of March, 1827.[61]Vide Minutes of Talk held at Seminole Agency, with Treskal, Mathla, and other Chiefs. Ex. Doc. 271, 1st Sess. XXIVth Congress.[62]Vide Letter of Col. Brooke to Col. Humphreys, 6 May, 1828, contained in the above cited Document.[63]Vide Letter of Judge Smith, May 10, 1828, contained in same Document.[64]Vide Statement of John Hick, 15 August, 1828. Ex. Doc. 271, before quoted.[65]Vide Letter of Gad Humphreys, Oct. 20, 1828. It probably was the first time the proposition was submitted to the Seminoles.[66]Even Mr. Adams, when President, continued in office those men who had been placed there by his predecessors.[67]Vide Sprague’s History of the Florida War.[68]Vide Documents relating to the Florida War, 1st Session, XXIVth Congress.[69]Vide Sprague’s History of the Florida War.[70]Vide Ex. Doc. 271, XXIVth Congress, 1st Session, pages 43 and 44.[71]The Author, while serving in Congress in 1847-8 was, by the Speaker, placed upon the committee of Indian Affairs. While serving on that committee, the Creek Indians applied for the return of this money which had belonged to them, but had been wrongfully paid over by Congress to the slaveholders of Georgia, some fourteen years previously. The case was referred to the Author, as sub-committee, who reported that the money, in justice, in equity, and in law, belonged to the Indians; that its payment to the slaveholders was unjust and wrong, and that it ought to be paid to the Indians. The report was confirmed, and the money paid to the Indians. The justice of the cause was so obvious that it met with no opposition, and by the vote of both Houses it now stands acknowledged and declared that this sum of $141,000 was taken from the pockets of the laboring men of our Nation, and paid to those slaveholders forimaginary slave children who were never born; nor have we been able to learn that an objection was raised, or protest uttered, by any Northern member of Congress.[72]Vide Opinion of Judge Cameron, pages 35 and 36 of Doc. 271, last quoted.[73]NOTE—When the author, in 1841, denounced this transaction, in the House of Representatives, and spoke of these slave-catchers asPirates, Hon. Mark A. Cooper, of Georgia, became indignant at the denunciation;—said he was well acquainted with the men who seized and enslaved these people; that they werehonorable men, and that he took them by the hand almost daily while at home.[74]The statement of these facts may be found in Ex. Document, 1st Sess. XXIVth Congress.[75]Vide Ex. Doc., 1st Sess. XXIVth Congress, page 14.[76]Vide his letter at length in the Document last quoted.[77]Vide Sprague’s Florida War.[78]Lieutenant Reynolds, while conducting the first party of emigrants West, in 1841, found among the Exiles persons who possessed so much Spanish blood, that he offered to leave them at New Orleans, and some of them accepted the offer. He left them in that city, and they probably now pass for Spaniards.[79]Vide account of this transaction by H. M. Cohen, given in the Quarterly Anti-Slavery Magazine, vol. II, page 419. Mr. Thompson, the Agent, in his letter to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, bearing date soon after, says: “Powell used such language, that I was constrained to order him into irons.” Mr. Sprague, in his history of the Florida War, reiterates the statement of Mr. Thompson. But neither Sprague, nor Thompson, nor any other person who was present, it is believed, has ever denied the relation which Mr. Cohen has given.[80]Sprague’s History of the Florida War.[81]Vide Testimony accompanying Pacheco’s Petition to Congress for indemnity.[82]Vide Statement of Tustenuggee, a Seminole Chief, who was present, and whose account of this massacre is given in Sprague’s History of the Florida War.[83]These Speeches may be found in the Congressional Globe, 2d Sess. XXXth Congress.[84]Sprague’s History of the War.[85]Osceola, though a fierce and gallant warrior, entertained high notions of honor; and, although a savage, he was punctilious on those points, and finally fell a victim to the treachery of those calling themselvescivilizedmen.[86]Francis P. Blair, who is yet living, (1868.)[87]Vide Ex. Doc., 2d Sess. XXVth Congress, No. 78, pages 558-9.[88]His vindication before the court was triumphant, and he was honorably acquitted from all censure.[89]Sprague, in his History of the Florida War, says there weretwo hundred negro warriorsin this battle; that their women and children were a short distance in their rear, mounted on their ponies, and ready to flee, if their husbands, brothers and fathers had been compelled to retreat.[90]General Jessup was undoubtedly somewhat ignorant as to the history of the Exiles. Speaking of Abraham, that officer says: “He is married to the wife of the former chief of the Nation; is a good soldier, and anintrepid leader. Heis the negro chief, and the most cunning and intelligent negro we have here;he claims to be free.”[91]General Jessupsubsequentlyreported his determination toseparate the negroes, or Exiles, from the Indians. He therefore stipulated fortheir safety, and, at the same time, agreed that theslavesof the Indians should accompany their owners, and not be separated from them. These facts will appear as we proceed in our history.[92]Vide these articles at length, Ex. Doc. 225, 3d Sess. XXVth Congress.[93]General Jessup at all times practiced upon this principle. When “Louis,” the guide who planned the defeat and massacre of Major Dade, became a prisoner and Wild Cat claimed to have captured him, General Jessup disregarded the claim of Pacheco, the owner, and sent the negro West; and, in other instances, he kept those known to have been slaves as guides, and, at a proper time, sent them to the Western Country, as freemen. He even bribed negroes to act as guides to his army by promising them liberty, and carried out such arrangement.[94]Vide this Memorial at length, Ex. Doc. 225, 3d Sess. XXVth Congress.[95]All these communications may be found at length in the Fifth Vol. Ex. Doc., 3d Session XXVth Congress. But these arrangements made with the chiefs are supposed to have rested entirely in parole. No copy of any such agreement has been found by the Author, who is fully of opinion that it does not exist in any authentic form.[96]Vide Ex. Doc. 225, 3d Sess. XXVth Congress.[97]These Letters may be found in Ex. Doc. 225, 3d Sess. XXVth Congress.[98]This Correspondence may be found in the 8th vol. Ex. Doc., 2d Sess. XXVth Cong., No. 285.[99]Of this declaration he had subsequent cause to repent, and most eloquently he expressed his mortification, in a letter to the Secretary of War. Vide his Letter or Jan. 2, 1839, in the Document last quoted.[100]These facts may all be found officially recorded in Ex. Doc. 78, 2d Sess. XXVth Congress, and Ex. Doc. 225, 3d Sess. XXVth Congress.[101]The Interrogatories were embraced in a paper, of which the following is a copy:“MEMORANDA OF SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED TO OSCEOLA.“Ascertain the object of the Indians in coming in at this time. Also their expectations.Are they prepared to deliver up the negroes taken from the citizens, at once?Why have they not surrendered them already, as promised by Co-Hadjo at Fort King? Have the chiefs of the nation held a Council in relation to the talk at Fort King? What chiefs attended that Council, and what was their determination? Have the chiefs sent a messenger with the decision of the Council? Have the principal chiefs Micanopy, Jumper, Cloud and Alligator sent a messenger? and if so, what is their message? Why have not those chiefs come themselves?“(Signed) THOS. S. JESSUP,Major General Commanding.“SANAUGUSTINE,August 21st, 1837.”[102]From the first and second interrogatories, the reader will see that General Jessup was fully conscious, that the attempt to deliver over those negroes to slavery who were claimed by the citizens of Florida, had been the sole cause for renewing the war. He dictated the first and most important interrogatory propounded to Osceola—“Are you prepared at once to deliver up the negroes taken from the citizens?”But the second shows an important fact which had, so for as we have information, been kept from the public: The words, “Why have they not already surrendered them, as promised byCo-Hadjo at Fort King?” This shows that the arrangement reported by him to have been made with the chiefs, was made with Co-Hadjo only. It will be recollected, that after the articles of capitulation, in March, when the people of Florida began to demand their negroes, General Jessup said he would endeavor to make an arrangement with the chiefs for delivering up those negroes who had beencaptured during the war. After the protest of the people of Florida had been addressed to the Secretary of War, against the peace, unless they were to get their negroes, and the public meeting held at San Augustine, which expressed the same views, he reported thathe had made such arrangement with the chiefs; but with how many, or with which particularchiefs, was unknown until this interrogatory disclosed the fact, that it was made with one obscure chief only. And whether he were intoxicated, or sober, at the time he attempted to act without any authority, to consign hundreds of his fellow-beings to slavery, without their knowledge or consent, does not appear. But every reader at once propounds the question,What were the terms of that arrangement?If it existed, it should have been reported verbatim to the War Department, and made known to the public.[103]Capt. Sprague, of the Regular service.[104]This statement is taken entirely from the Letters of John Ross, chief of the Cherokees, to the Secretary of War. In these letters, he relates the whole transaction with great force and apparent candor, and, in the name of the Cherokee Nation, boldly arraigns the War Department for this treachery, practiced by a Christian nation towards a people called heathens. These letters may be found at length in Ex. Doc. 327, 2d Sess. XXVth Cong., vol. 8.[105]Vide letter of General Taylor to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Ex. Doc. 225, 3d Sess. XXVth Congress.[106]Mr. Sprague says there were three hundred Indian and negro warriors engaged in this battle, and that their loss was ten Indians and one negro killed, and eleven wounded; showing a great disparity between their loss and General Taylor’s.[107]In 1848, General Taylor was the Whig candidate for President of the United States; and so little was the history of this war known to our statesmen or politicians, that it is believed no newspaper, or stump orator, or advocate of his election, ever related or referred to this most gallant act of his life. He had himself, during the war, exhibited no particular sympathy in the work of catching and enslaving negroes; on the contrary, he had expressed his detestation of that policy. Of course the slave power, not willing to make open war upon him, had permitted his name to rest without connecting it with the performance of any brilliant or humane acts. The casuist may say, that he ought not to have served in such a war, and that no gallantry displayed in such a cause ought to reflect credit upon any man. But General Taylor, like other men, should be judged by the times, the customs, the morality of the age in which he lived.[108]Vide Ex. Doc., 2d Sess. XXVth Congress, No. 225.[109]Vide General Jessup’s letter to General Arbuckle, 8 Vol. Ex. Doc., 2d Sess. XXVth Congress.[110]Vide General Jessup’s letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Ex. Doc. 225, above referred to.[111]This is the view which General Jessup gives of the transaction, Ex. Doc., 8th Vol., 3d Sess. XXVth Congress[112]Vide Report of General Jessup to the Secretary of War, Ex. Doc., 3d Sess. XXVth Congress.[113]These facts may all be found in the 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 11th & 12th vols. of Ex. Doc., 2d Sess. XXVth Congress; the letters of Ross and correspondence of General Jessup, and official reports, occupying several hundred pages.[114]Horace Everett, who was many years a Representative in Congress, an ardent Whig, and constant opponent of Jackson and Van Buren. After the report of the Secretary of War in answer to his resolution had been received, Mr. Everett made a speech on the subject, exposing the manner in which the war had been conducted, and intimated that it was more immediately connected with the support of slavery than it ought to be. But while he was careful to say nothing exceptionable to the slave interest, he certainly entitled himself to the honor of being the first member who assailed the war, and the first to hold the Administration responsible for the manner in which it was prosecuted. The speech may be found at length in the Appendix to the Congressional Globe of that session.[115]Vide Letter of Commissioner of Indian Affairs to Secretary of War, 9th May, 1838. Ex. Doc. 225, 2d Sess. XXVth Congress.[116]Major Zantzinger, like many other officers, appears to have thought that every negro must have a master, and he called these Exiles the property of the Seminoles, although the Agent for that Tribe had reported a few years previously, that the number of slaves owned by them did not exceedforty.[117]Vide Watson’s Petition and proofs, in support of his claim, presented to Congress—1st Sess. XXVIth Cong.—now on file in the office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives.[118]Vide Watson’s Statement of facts in this case, on file with the above papers.[119]Several years after this transaction, the Author happened to meet this war-worn veteran, and as the old hero recounted this incident of his life with warm and glowing eloquence, his eye kindled, his countenance lighted up with pleasure, and he spoke of it with more apparent satisfaction than he ever referred to his most brilliant military achievement.[120]Vide Letter of Major Isaac Clark to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Sept. 18, 1838. Ex. Doc. 225, 3d Sess. XXVth Congress.[121]Hon. Elisha Whittlesey, the predecessor of Mr. Giddings, long and ably presided over the committee on Claims. He was a man of untiring industry; and when he found it necessary to report on a slave case, in 1835, he wrote the Register of the Treasury, inquiring if slaves had ever been paid for by the United States as property. The reply stated they had not; and the committee reported adversely to the case, although it was one of the strongest character possible. Francis Larche, living near New Orleans, owned a horse, cart and slave. The day before the battle below that city, in 1814, they were impressed into the service; and while thus held by the United States authorities, on the day of the battle, the horse and slave were killed by cannon shot, and Larche petitioned Congress for compensation for the loss of his slave. Mr. Whittlesey drew up an able report refusing such compensation.At the commencement of the Twenty-seventh Congress, Mr. Giddings was placed at the head of that committee; but, being obnoxious to the advocates of slavery, he was removed from that position at the commencement of the Twenty-eighth Congress; yet there seemed to be an Impression that his successor should be taken from Ohio, and Hon. Joseph Vance was made Chairman. He was a man at that time somewhat advanced in life, and not accustomed to legal investigations. Cases which required research, were usually consigned to some subordinate member of the committee. It was while he was acting as Chairman, that this case of Watson was first reported upon favorably by the committee on Claims, although it had never before been regarded by that committee as entitled to any encouragement.[122]There is little doubt that the real number of Exiles was unknown to General Jackson, or to General Cass, at the commencement of the war. They appear to have regarded their number far less than it was estimated, during the first Seminole War of 1818.[123]Captain Sprague’s History of the Florida War so represents the subject.[124]Not having the Statutes of Florida before us, we make this statement on the authority of Captain Sprague.[125]We have no copy of Mr. Wise’s letter, and have never seen the letter itself; but we state the fact that he wrote the Secretary of War by authority of that officer, who says in the letter quoted, “I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt ofyour letter of the 27th inst., inquiring,”etc.[126]The Author was at that time a member of the House of Representatives. He had then no conception of the real objects of this war: indeed, it had long been the practice for members to say nothing on the subject of slavery; and it was equally the practice for newspapers to print nothing on that delicate subject, as it was called. Of course the people knew very little concerning it.[127]Captain Sprague, in his history of the Florida War, says, “The truth, when made known to the Indians who remained in Florida, constituted the strongest argument why they should not emigrate. Had they (says that author) been kept in ignorance, better results might have been anticipated; but what they gathered from the honest confessions and silence of their brothers tended to make them venerate with more fidelity and increased love the soil which they had defended with heroic fortitude for five consecutive years.”[128]Captain Sprague, in his history, declares, that it was proven in two instances that white men, disguised as Indians, actually committed depredations and murdered white people.[129]This first speech had been carefully prepared by the Author of this work, and contained little more than a collation of facts from public documents. It was made with the design of testing the application of the gag rules more than for the purpose of exposing the character of the war. Hon. John Q. Adams, Wm. Slade, and the Author, often consulted with each other as to the best means for inducing the House to repeal those obnoxious rules. The Author suggested the plan of alluding to slavery while publicly discoursing matters with which it was incidentally connected. Mr. Adams and Mr. Slade insisted that the Author should try his plan. Aware that appropriations for this war would be called for, he prepared this speech, showing the causes of the war; and when the bill above referred to came before the House, he proceeded to test his plan. He was frequently called to order, and great excitement was produced; but he succeeded in delivering the speech. When he was through, a southern member replied, declaring that the gag-rules may as well be repealed as kept in force, if they permitted such discussions. The position was evidently correct, and those disgraceful rules were repealed by the next Congress.[130]This statement is founded upon the authority of Captain Sprague. It is however certain, that many of the claimants actually received compensation from the public treasury for the loss of their slaves. The power to pay for them was assumed by Executive officers, under the appropriation act of March, 1841, without reference to Congress.[131]Captain Sprague, in his history, enters into a somewhat lengthened apology for this practice of General Worth, by saying, the negroes were the most active and vindictive of the hostile forces; that, from the peculiar situation of the country, ten negroes could keep it in a state of constant alarm; that many of them had intermarried with the Seminoles and become identified with them, had acquired their habits, and would have been useless to their owners had they been delivered to them; that the negro would have remained in service but a few days, when he would have again taken to the swamps and hommocks, when he could elude pursuit, and would have been more vindictive than before.[132]Vide opinions of the Attorney Generals, from 1838 to 1851, page 1944, Senate Doc. 55. It is a singular fact that, in the whole of this elaborate opinion, no allusion is made to the real condition of the Exiles; nor would any person suspect, from reading it, that the Attorney General had any knowledge of the claim which the Creeks preferred. Although he quotes the clause in the articles of capitulation, which expressly and emphatically declares that “Major General Jessup, in behalf of the United States, agrees that the Seminolesand their allies, who come in and emigrate, shall be protected in their lives and property;” yet he appears never to have conceived the idea that such a stipulation could impose any duties upon our Government in favor of negroes; nor does he attempt to define the meaning of this most explicit covenant.[133]Under this law, which is general in all slave States, free colored citizens of nearly every free State of the Union have been seized and enslaved, and are now toiling in chains.[134]Hon. R. W. Johnson, a Representative from Arkansas, spoke of this wretch as having come from Louisiana; but from manuscript letters on file in the War Department, the Author is led to think he came from Florida, and had previously participated in kidnapping Exiles in that Territory.[135]The Author, being unable to obtain a publication of the documents showing these facts, states them upon the best authority he possesses. During the discussions upon what is called the Indian Appropriation Bill for 1852, in the House of Representatives of the United States, the following colloquial debate occurred, and is now cited as a part of the evidence on which these facts are stated. It will be found in the Congressional Globe of 1852, vol. 24, part 3d, pages 1804, 1805:“Mr. GIDDINGS. I rise for a different purpose than that of expressing my approbation of the amendment which has just been read. I ask the especial attention of gentlemen to some interrogatories which I desire to propound for the purpose of obtaining information; and that the information may go to the country, I will observe, that I desire to have the experience of the able Chairman of the committee on Indian Affairs (Mr. Johnson of Arkansas), to obtain this intelligence. According to reliable information which I received in the summer of 1850, these Creek Indians, to whom attention has been turned, with force and violence, seized from seventy to one hundred free persons of color in the Indian Territory, or at least those claiming to be free, and enslaved, sold and transported them to the State of Louisiana, where they are now in servitude as slaves. I will state that this was done in violation of the treaty entered into in 1845, and in subversion of our solemn faith, entered into with these negroes during the Seminole War, in 1837. The official information upon this subject is in the Indian Department, where it has been received; and from which that we have not been able to obtain any intelligence by resolution, although a resolution for that purpose has been in my desk since the first day of the session. The questions I desire to propound to those gentlemen are—First, Is it a fact that those persons of color were seized and sold into slavery; and, second, by what claim of right or pretended title did these Creek Indians enslave and sell those people?“Mr. JOHNSON. I have no official knowledge in the matter at all. Then as to the knowledge I have obtained incidentally, I do know that there has been a great contest in relation to a portion of these Creek Indian negroes; I do know that the matter has been looked into here in the Executive Departments; I do know that the matter has never been before the House at all, unless it has strangely escaped my notice; I know it has not been before my committee; I know the Attorney General of the United States has declared his opinion as to the title of these negroes: I think there were seventy of them, though it might have been more or less. So, then, I have no official information on the subject to which the gentleman alludes.“Some two or three years ago, I know of a contest going on about the title to these negroes, and that it was decided that they belonged to those Indians. They had established themselves in a free town, which they maintained with force and arms. There were heavy disturbances existing there in the Indian nation, amounting at times almost to civil war: I believe before it was done with, it was quite civil war. I know they were taken; but what was done with them, I do not know. They were taken, and carried out of the nation, with the design of holding them as property, when they could not hold them in the nation on account of the disturbance which they created. I know the decision of the Attorney General of the United States, as to the title to these negroes; and that is the whole statement in regard to the matter as far as I can give it.”[136]The Author has written many letters, and made frequent efforts, to obtain a copy of the record of this writ, if any had been kept, and the proceedings, together with the opinion of the Judge thereon, but has not succeeded. The statement, therefore, rests on the verbal reports, current at the time in the Indian Country, and communicated to the Author by individuals who happened to be there at the time.[137]The Author has been unable to obtain official data of the number of Exiles who remained in the Indian Country.[138]The Author has been compelled to rely on verbal reports received from individuals for these facts. He also understood Mr. Johnston, the Representative from Arkansas, in the debate referred to in a former note, to say distinctly, that the Creeks pursued the Exiles, and that abattle was fought, but he was unable to state particulars.[139]Vide Official Report of Major Emory, in regard to the boundary line between the United States and Mexico. He states the location of Wild Cat and the Seminole Indians, but omits all reference to the Exiles.[140]This number has been increased by fresh arrivals from the Indian Country, since 1850.[141]Vide Manuscript Letters now on file in the Indian Bureau at Washington.

FOOTNOTES:

[1]Vide Bancroft’s and Hildreth’s Histories of the United States.

[2]Vide both Histories above cited.

[3]Vide Schoolcraft’s History of Indian Tribes.

[4]Vide American Archives, Vol. I. Fifth Series: 1852.

[5]This was the residence of George Galphin, an Indian trader, who, in 1773, aided in obtaining a treaty by which the Creek Indians ceded a large tract of land to the British Government. Georgia succeeded the British Government in its title to these lands, by the treaty of peace in 1783. Some fifty years afterwards, the descendants of Galphin petitioned the State of Georgia for compensation, on account of the services rendered by Galphin in obtaining the treaty of 1773. But the Legislature repudiated the claim. The heirs, or rather descendants of Galphin, then applied to Congress, who never had either legal or beneficial interest, in the lands obtained by the treaty. The Representatives from Georgia and from the South generally supported the claim. Northern men yielded their objections to this absurd demand, and in 1848 a bill passed both Houses of Congress by which the descendants of Galphin, and their attorneys and agents, obtained from our National Treasury $243,871 86, and the term “Galphin” has since become synonymous with “peculation” upon the public Treasury.

[6]Vide Report of Hugh Knox, Secretary of War, to the President, dated July 6, 1789. American State Papers. Vol. V. page 15, where the Treaty is recited in full.

[7]Vide papers accompanying the Report of the Secretary of War, above referred to, marked A, and numbered 1, 2 and 3.

[8]Vide letter of James White to Major General Knox, of the 24th May, 1787. American State Papers, Vol II, Indian Affairs.

[9]American State Papers, Vol. V, page 25.

[10]Vide Documents accompanying the Treaty of New York; Am. State Papers, Vol. I, Indian Affairs.

[11]The reader need not be informed, that these demands of indemnity for slaves were promptly rejected by the English government; and Jay’s Treaty of 1794, surrendered them forever.

[12]Hildreth, in his History of the United States, speaks of in that light.

[13]Vide Annals of Congress, Vol. I, pages 1068-70-74.

[14]Vide Correspondence on this subject between Seagrove and the War Department. American State Papers, Vol. V, pages 304-5, 320, 336, 387, and 392.

[15]American State Papers, “Indian Affairs.” Vol. II, p. 306.

[16]Vide talk of principal Chief at Treaty of Colerain.

[17]Vide Annals of Congress of that date.

[18]Vide papers accompanying the Treaty of Colerain. American State Papers, Vol. I, “Indian Affairs.”

[19]Vide the papers accompanying this Treaty when submitted to the Senate. They are collected in the second volume of American State Papers, entitled “Indian Affairs.” They will afford much interesting matter as to the doctrines of “State Rights” and Nullification, which it is unnecessary to embrace in this work.

[20]Vide Annals of IVth Congress, 2d Session

[21]The claims of these ancient Spanish inhabitants for indemnity against these robberies, have been pressed upon the consideration of Congress for the last twenty-five years, and were recently pending before the Court of Claims. When the bill for their relief was under discussion before the House of Representatives, In 1843, Hon. John Quincy Adams presented a list of some ninety slaves, for the loss of whom the owners claimed compensation from the United States. But the discussions which arose on private bills were not at that time reported; and neither this exhibit, nor the speech of Mr. Adams, are to be found in the Congressional Debates of that day.

[22]Many slaves actually fled from their masters and found an asylum on board British vessels. Some sixty, belonging to a planter named Forbes, who resided in Georgia, left his plantation and took shelter on board the ship commanded by Lord Cochrane. They were transported to Jamaica, where they settled and lived as other free people. After the restoration of peace, Forbes sued his Lordship, before the British courts, for damages sustained by the loss of these slaves. The case elicited much learning in regard to the law of Slavery and, next to that of Sommerset, may be regarded as the most important on that subject ever litigated before an English court.

[23]“Monette,” In his “History of the Valley of the Mississippi,” says Woodbine erected this fort in the summer of 1816; and such were the representations made before the Committee appointed in 1819, to investigate the conduct of General Jackson, in taking possession of Florida. But the reader will notice the Letter of General Gaines, hereafter quoted, which bears date on the 14th May, 1815, andofficiallyinformed the Secretary of War that “negroes and outlaws have taken possession of aFort on the Appalachicola River.” This was more than a year before the time of erecting the fort, according to “Monette.”The parapet of the fort was said to be fifteen feet high and eighteen thick, situated upon a gentle cliff, with a fine stream emptying into the river near its base, and a swamp in the rear, which protected it from the approach of artillery by land. On its walls were mounted one thirty-two pounder, three twenty-four pounders, two nine pounders, two six pounders, and one brass five and a half-inch howitzer. Vide Official Report of Sailing-Master Loomis.

The parapet of the fort was said to be fifteen feet high and eighteen thick, situated upon a gentle cliff, with a fine stream emptying into the river near its base, and a swamp in the rear, which protected it from the approach of artillery by land. On its walls were mounted one thirty-two pounder, three twenty-four pounders, two nine pounders, two six pounders, and one brass five and a half-inch howitzer. Vide Official Report of Sailing-Master Loomis.

[24]This is the official account of Sailing-Master Loomis, who commanded the naval expedition subsequently sent to reduce this fortress.“Monette,” in his History of the Valley of the Mississippi, says, “Near the Fort the fields were fine, and extended along the river nearlyfifty miles.”

[24]This is the official account of Sailing-Master Loomis, who commanded the naval expedition subsequently sent to reduce this fortress.

“Monette,” in his History of the Valley of the Mississippi, says, “Near the Fort the fields were fine, and extended along the river nearlyfifty miles.”

[25]The reader will at once see, that these people were as much under the protection of Spain, as the fugitive slaves now in Canada are under the protection of British laws. They were as clearly Spanish subjects as the latter are British subjects. By the law of nations, Spain had the same right to permit her black subjects to occupy “Blount’s Fort,” that the Queen of England has to permit Fort Malden to be occupied by her black subjects. The only distinction between the two cases is, Spain was weak and unable to maintain her national honor, and national rights; while England has the power to do both.

[26]Vide the voluminous Correspondence on this subject contained in Ex. Doc. 119, 2d Session, XVth Congress.

[27]Perhaps no portion of our national history exhibits such disregard of International law, as this unprovoked invasion of Florida. For thirty years, the slaves of our Southern States have been in the habit of fleeing to the British Provinces. Here they are admitted to all the rights of citizenship, in the same manner as they were in Florida. They vote and hold office under British laws; and when our Government demanded that the English Ministry should disregard the rights of these people and return them to slavery, the British Minister contemptuously refused even to hold correspondence with our Secretary of State on a subject so abhorrent to every principle of national law and self-respect. Our Government coolly submitted to the scornful arrogance of England; but did not hesitate to invade Florida with an armed force, and to seize the faithful subjects of Spain, and enslave them.

[28]Hon. Duncan L. Clinch. He left the service in 1841, and was subsequently a Member of Congress for several years, and died in 1852.

[29]War was thus waged against Spain, by Executive authority, without consulting Congress; and no member of that body uttered a protest, or denunciation of the act.

[30]In Ex. Doc. No. 119, 2d Session, XVth Congress, may be found the official correspondence between the War Department and General Jackson; also that between General Jackson and General Gaines, together with the orders of each, as well as the correspondence between the Secretary of the Navy and Commodore Patterson; and the order of the latter officer to Sailing-Master Loomis; and the final report of Sailing-Master Loomis and General Clinch. In none of these papers is there any act of hostility mentioned or referred to as having been committed by the Exiles, or the Seminole Indians, prior to their reaching the vicinity of the Fort.

[31]Hildreth states thatthreegun-boats were detailed on that occasion; but the report of Sailing-Master Loomis speaks only oftwo.

[32]Hildreth states the number to have been about three hundred, partly Indians and partly negroes.

[33]Monette says this expedition was undertaken by Col. Clinch upon his own responsibility, to enable some boats laden with provisions to pass up the river. A strange misapprehension of facts, as shown by official documents.

[34]At this conference, Sailing-Master Loomis informed Colonel Clinch that, on the day previous, while a party of his men were on shore, they were fired on by Indians and one man killed. This was the first and only act of hostility against our troops. It was committed byIndians, not byExiles; but it was subsequently seized upon and published as a justification for carrying out General Jackson’s order, bearing date more than two months prior to the occurrence, directing General Gaines to destroy the fort and return the negroes to slavery.

[35]Monette says, “The scene in the fort was horrible beyond description.Nearly the whole of the inmates were involved in indiscriminate destruction; not one-sixth of the whole escaped. The cries of the wounded, the groans of the dying, with the shouts and yells of the Indians, rendered the scene horrible beyond description.”

[36]Vide Official Report at Sailing-Master Loomis, Ex. Doc. 119: 2d Sess. XVth Cong.

[37]Some years since, the author wrote a short sketch of the general Massacre, but omitted this point as too revolting to the feelings of humanity, and too disgraceful to the American arms, to be laid before the popular mind in such an article; and he would most gladly have omitted it in this work, could he have done so consistently with his duty to the public.

[38]Monette says that three thousand stands of arms and six hundred barrels of powder were destroyed by the explosion. This is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. We have no fact to warrant the assertion, that there was any addition made to the stores left by Col. Nichols, when he delivered the fort to the Exiles. The same author states, that one magazine, containing one hundred and sixty barrels of powder, was left unharmed by the explosion; but no mention of such fact is found in the Official Report, by Sailing-Master Loomis.

[39]Vide Documents before the Committee of Congress appointed to investigate the cause of General Jackson’s invasion of Florida: XVth Congress, 2d Session.

[40]This bill was reported by Mr. Ingham of Connecticut, Chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs.

[41]Vide Statutes enacted at 2d Session, XXVIth Congress. The author was then a member of the House of Representatives, but had not learned to watch the movements of slaveholders and “their allies,” so closely as subsequent experience taught him would be useful.

[42]Vide Speeches of Hon. George Poindexter and others on the Seminole War, in 1819.

[43]Hon. William Jay, of New York, published his Views of the action of the Federal Government in 1887.

[44]Monette says Arbuthnot sent word to the Negroes and Indians, notifying them of the approach of General Jackson; but the official report of that Officer shows that his advance guard was daily engaged in skirmishing with the Indians.

[45]Vide General Jackson’s Official Report of this battle, Ex. Doc. 175, 2d Session XVth Congress.

[46]Williams, in his History of Florida, states that three hundred and forty Negroes again rallied after the first retreat, and fought their pursuers, untileightyof their number, were killed on the field. “Monetta” also states the same fact; but General Jackson, in all his Reports, evidently avoided, as far as possible, any notice of the Exiles, as a people. Indeed such was the policy of the Administration, and of its officers, and of all slaveholders. They then supposed, as they now do, that slavery must depend upon the supposed ignorance and stupidity of the colored people; and scarcely an instance can be found, where a slaveholder admits the slave to possess human intelligence or human feeling; indeed, to teach a slave to read the Scriptures, is regarded as an offense, in nearly every slave State, and punishable by fine and imprisonment.

[47]Various names have been given this Fort. The author, having heretofore adopted that of “Blount’s Fort,” prefers to continue that name. It was equally known, however, as the “Negro Fort,” and as “Fort Nichols.”

[48]The people of the free States should understand, that almost every question touching slavery which has arisen between our Government and that of England, the latter has yielded, since the formation of Jay’s Treaty in 1795.The payment for slaves who were shipwrecked on board the Comet, the Encomium, and the Enterprise, and found freedom by being landed on British soil, constitute rare instances in which slaveholdlng arrogance has proved successful in the arts of diplomacy. The case of the Creole constitutes another admirable illustration of successful effrontery. In this case, the slaves took possession of the ship, guided it to Nassau, a British Island, went on shore and became free. The officers of the slave ship demanded that the British authorities should seize the negroes, and return them to the ship. They refused. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, became the voluntary Agent, Attorney and Solicitor, for the slave dealers, who should have been hanged, instead of receiving the encouragement of our Government. But the subject was submitted to the umpirage of a man, said to have once lived in Boston, who, principally upon the authority of Mr. Webster, decided that the people of the British government should pay the slave dealers for these parents and children; and after fifteen years of continued effort, the money was obtained.

The payment for slaves who were shipwrecked on board the Comet, the Encomium, and the Enterprise, and found freedom by being landed on British soil, constitute rare instances in which slaveholdlng arrogance has proved successful in the arts of diplomacy. The case of the Creole constitutes another admirable illustration of successful effrontery. In this case, the slaves took possession of the ship, guided it to Nassau, a British Island, went on shore and became free. The officers of the slave ship demanded that the British authorities should seize the negroes, and return them to the ship. They refused. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, became the voluntary Agent, Attorney and Solicitor, for the slave dealers, who should have been hanged, instead of receiving the encouragement of our Government. But the subject was submitted to the umpirage of a man, said to have once lived in Boston, who, principally upon the authority of Mr. Webster, decided that the people of the British government should pay the slave dealers for these parents and children; and after fifteen years of continued effort, the money was obtained.

[49]Vide Letter from the Secretary of War to Messrs. Plckens and Flournoy, August 8, 1820. Am. State Papers, Vol. VI, p. 249.

[50]Vide Letter of the Secretary of War to Gen. Flournoy, of the 19th of October, 1820. Ibid, 250.

[51]Vide Papers transmitted to Congress, in connection with the Treaty of “Indian Spring.” Am. State Papers, “Indian Affairs,” Vol. I, No. 174.

[52]Ibid.

[53]Ibid. Letter of Instructions contained in the papers referred to on preceding page.

[54]Vide Report of Commissioner on this subject; also, the Report of Wm. Wirt, Attorney General of the United States, to whom the President referred the subject. “Opinions of the Attorney General,” 1822. Mr. Wirt states the price paid for those slaves was from two to three times their real value.

[55]Vide Reports of Committee XVIIth Congress, 2d Session, No. 125.

[56]Vide Am. State Papers, Vol. VI, pages 411, 412. It will be observed that General Jackson discarded the term “maroon,” used by Penieres, as that in Jamaica, signifies “free negroesof the mountains,” who once fled from service, but have maintained their liberty so long that they cannot be identified, and are therefore admitted to be free.

[57]It is an interesting fact, that the doctrine recently avowed by the Supreme Court of the United States, that “black men have no rights which white men are bound to respect,” was recognized and practiced upon in Florida, more than thirty years since, by the officers of Government.

[58]Vide Executive Documents, No. 271, 2d Session XXVth Congress.

[59]Captain Sprague, of the United States Army, so states, in his History of the War.

[60]Vide Letter of the Agent, dated sixth of March, 1827.

[61]Vide Minutes of Talk held at Seminole Agency, with Treskal, Mathla, and other Chiefs. Ex. Doc. 271, 1st Sess. XXIVth Congress.

[62]Vide Letter of Col. Brooke to Col. Humphreys, 6 May, 1828, contained in the above cited Document.

[63]Vide Letter of Judge Smith, May 10, 1828, contained in same Document.

[64]Vide Statement of John Hick, 15 August, 1828. Ex. Doc. 271, before quoted.

[65]Vide Letter of Gad Humphreys, Oct. 20, 1828. It probably was the first time the proposition was submitted to the Seminoles.

[66]Even Mr. Adams, when President, continued in office those men who had been placed there by his predecessors.

[67]Vide Sprague’s History of the Florida War.

[68]Vide Documents relating to the Florida War, 1st Session, XXIVth Congress.

[69]Vide Sprague’s History of the Florida War.

[70]Vide Ex. Doc. 271, XXIVth Congress, 1st Session, pages 43 and 44.

[71]The Author, while serving in Congress in 1847-8 was, by the Speaker, placed upon the committee of Indian Affairs. While serving on that committee, the Creek Indians applied for the return of this money which had belonged to them, but had been wrongfully paid over by Congress to the slaveholders of Georgia, some fourteen years previously. The case was referred to the Author, as sub-committee, who reported that the money, in justice, in equity, and in law, belonged to the Indians; that its payment to the slaveholders was unjust and wrong, and that it ought to be paid to the Indians. The report was confirmed, and the money paid to the Indians. The justice of the cause was so obvious that it met with no opposition, and by the vote of both Houses it now stands acknowledged and declared that this sum of $141,000 was taken from the pockets of the laboring men of our Nation, and paid to those slaveholders forimaginary slave children who were never born; nor have we been able to learn that an objection was raised, or protest uttered, by any Northern member of Congress.

[72]Vide Opinion of Judge Cameron, pages 35 and 36 of Doc. 271, last quoted.

[73]NOTE—When the author, in 1841, denounced this transaction, in the House of Representatives, and spoke of these slave-catchers asPirates, Hon. Mark A. Cooper, of Georgia, became indignant at the denunciation;—said he was well acquainted with the men who seized and enslaved these people; that they werehonorable men, and that he took them by the hand almost daily while at home.

[74]The statement of these facts may be found in Ex. Document, 1st Sess. XXIVth Congress.

[75]Vide Ex. Doc., 1st Sess. XXIVth Congress, page 14.

[76]Vide his letter at length in the Document last quoted.

[77]Vide Sprague’s Florida War.

[78]Lieutenant Reynolds, while conducting the first party of emigrants West, in 1841, found among the Exiles persons who possessed so much Spanish blood, that he offered to leave them at New Orleans, and some of them accepted the offer. He left them in that city, and they probably now pass for Spaniards.

[79]Vide account of this transaction by H. M. Cohen, given in the Quarterly Anti-Slavery Magazine, vol. II, page 419. Mr. Thompson, the Agent, in his letter to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, bearing date soon after, says: “Powell used such language, that I was constrained to order him into irons.” Mr. Sprague, in his history of the Florida War, reiterates the statement of Mr. Thompson. But neither Sprague, nor Thompson, nor any other person who was present, it is believed, has ever denied the relation which Mr. Cohen has given.

[80]Sprague’s History of the Florida War.

[81]Vide Testimony accompanying Pacheco’s Petition to Congress for indemnity.

[82]Vide Statement of Tustenuggee, a Seminole Chief, who was present, and whose account of this massacre is given in Sprague’s History of the Florida War.

[83]These Speeches may be found in the Congressional Globe, 2d Sess. XXXth Congress.

[84]Sprague’s History of the War.

[85]Osceola, though a fierce and gallant warrior, entertained high notions of honor; and, although a savage, he was punctilious on those points, and finally fell a victim to the treachery of those calling themselvescivilizedmen.

[86]Francis P. Blair, who is yet living, (1868.)

[87]Vide Ex. Doc., 2d Sess. XXVth Congress, No. 78, pages 558-9.

[88]His vindication before the court was triumphant, and he was honorably acquitted from all censure.

[89]Sprague, in his History of the Florida War, says there weretwo hundred negro warriorsin this battle; that their women and children were a short distance in their rear, mounted on their ponies, and ready to flee, if their husbands, brothers and fathers had been compelled to retreat.

[90]General Jessup was undoubtedly somewhat ignorant as to the history of the Exiles. Speaking of Abraham, that officer says: “He is married to the wife of the former chief of the Nation; is a good soldier, and anintrepid leader. Heis the negro chief, and the most cunning and intelligent negro we have here;he claims to be free.”

[91]General Jessupsubsequentlyreported his determination toseparate the negroes, or Exiles, from the Indians. He therefore stipulated fortheir safety, and, at the same time, agreed that theslavesof the Indians should accompany their owners, and not be separated from them. These facts will appear as we proceed in our history.

[92]Vide these articles at length, Ex. Doc. 225, 3d Sess. XXVth Congress.

[93]General Jessup at all times practiced upon this principle. When “Louis,” the guide who planned the defeat and massacre of Major Dade, became a prisoner and Wild Cat claimed to have captured him, General Jessup disregarded the claim of Pacheco, the owner, and sent the negro West; and, in other instances, he kept those known to have been slaves as guides, and, at a proper time, sent them to the Western Country, as freemen. He even bribed negroes to act as guides to his army by promising them liberty, and carried out such arrangement.

[94]Vide this Memorial at length, Ex. Doc. 225, 3d Sess. XXVth Congress.

[95]All these communications may be found at length in the Fifth Vol. Ex. Doc., 3d Session XXVth Congress. But these arrangements made with the chiefs are supposed to have rested entirely in parole. No copy of any such agreement has been found by the Author, who is fully of opinion that it does not exist in any authentic form.

[96]Vide Ex. Doc. 225, 3d Sess. XXVth Congress.

[97]These Letters may be found in Ex. Doc. 225, 3d Sess. XXVth Congress.

[98]This Correspondence may be found in the 8th vol. Ex. Doc., 2d Sess. XXVth Cong., No. 285.

[99]Of this declaration he had subsequent cause to repent, and most eloquently he expressed his mortification, in a letter to the Secretary of War. Vide his Letter or Jan. 2, 1839, in the Document last quoted.

[100]These facts may all be found officially recorded in Ex. Doc. 78, 2d Sess. XXVth Congress, and Ex. Doc. 225, 3d Sess. XXVth Congress.

[101]The Interrogatories were embraced in a paper, of which the following is a copy:“MEMORANDA OF SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED TO OSCEOLA.“Ascertain the object of the Indians in coming in at this time. Also their expectations.Are they prepared to deliver up the negroes taken from the citizens, at once?Why have they not surrendered them already, as promised by Co-Hadjo at Fort King? Have the chiefs of the nation held a Council in relation to the talk at Fort King? What chiefs attended that Council, and what was their determination? Have the chiefs sent a messenger with the decision of the Council? Have the principal chiefs Micanopy, Jumper, Cloud and Alligator sent a messenger? and if so, what is their message? Why have not those chiefs come themselves?“(Signed) THOS. S. JESSUP,Major General Commanding.“SANAUGUSTINE,August 21st, 1837.”

[101]The Interrogatories were embraced in a paper, of which the following is a copy:

“MEMORANDA OF SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED TO OSCEOLA.“Ascertain the object of the Indians in coming in at this time. Also their expectations.Are they prepared to deliver up the negroes taken from the citizens, at once?Why have they not surrendered them already, as promised by Co-Hadjo at Fort King? Have the chiefs of the nation held a Council in relation to the talk at Fort King? What chiefs attended that Council, and what was their determination? Have the chiefs sent a messenger with the decision of the Council? Have the principal chiefs Micanopy, Jumper, Cloud and Alligator sent a messenger? and if so, what is their message? Why have not those chiefs come themselves?“(Signed) THOS. S. JESSUP,Major General Commanding.“SANAUGUSTINE,August 21st, 1837.”

“MEMORANDA OF SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED TO OSCEOLA.

“Ascertain the object of the Indians in coming in at this time. Also their expectations.Are they prepared to deliver up the negroes taken from the citizens, at once?Why have they not surrendered them already, as promised by Co-Hadjo at Fort King? Have the chiefs of the nation held a Council in relation to the talk at Fort King? What chiefs attended that Council, and what was their determination? Have the chiefs sent a messenger with the decision of the Council? Have the principal chiefs Micanopy, Jumper, Cloud and Alligator sent a messenger? and if so, what is their message? Why have not those chiefs come themselves?

“(Signed) THOS. S. JESSUP,Major General Commanding.

“SANAUGUSTINE,August 21st, 1837.”

[102]From the first and second interrogatories, the reader will see that General Jessup was fully conscious, that the attempt to deliver over those negroes to slavery who were claimed by the citizens of Florida, had been the sole cause for renewing the war. He dictated the first and most important interrogatory propounded to Osceola—“Are you prepared at once to deliver up the negroes taken from the citizens?”But the second shows an important fact which had, so for as we have information, been kept from the public: The words, “Why have they not already surrendered them, as promised byCo-Hadjo at Fort King?” This shows that the arrangement reported by him to have been made with the chiefs, was made with Co-Hadjo only. It will be recollected, that after the articles of capitulation, in March, when the people of Florida began to demand their negroes, General Jessup said he would endeavor to make an arrangement with the chiefs for delivering up those negroes who had beencaptured during the war. After the protest of the people of Florida had been addressed to the Secretary of War, against the peace, unless they were to get their negroes, and the public meeting held at San Augustine, which expressed the same views, he reported thathe had made such arrangement with the chiefs; but with how many, or with which particularchiefs, was unknown until this interrogatory disclosed the fact, that it was made with one obscure chief only. And whether he were intoxicated, or sober, at the time he attempted to act without any authority, to consign hundreds of his fellow-beings to slavery, without their knowledge or consent, does not appear. But every reader at once propounds the question,What were the terms of that arrangement?If it existed, it should have been reported verbatim to the War Department, and made known to the public.

But the second shows an important fact which had, so for as we have information, been kept from the public: The words, “Why have they not already surrendered them, as promised byCo-Hadjo at Fort King?” This shows that the arrangement reported by him to have been made with the chiefs, was made with Co-Hadjo only. It will be recollected, that after the articles of capitulation, in March, when the people of Florida began to demand their negroes, General Jessup said he would endeavor to make an arrangement with the chiefs for delivering up those negroes who had beencaptured during the war. After the protest of the people of Florida had been addressed to the Secretary of War, against the peace, unless they were to get their negroes, and the public meeting held at San Augustine, which expressed the same views, he reported thathe had made such arrangement with the chiefs; but with how many, or with which particularchiefs, was unknown until this interrogatory disclosed the fact, that it was made with one obscure chief only. And whether he were intoxicated, or sober, at the time he attempted to act without any authority, to consign hundreds of his fellow-beings to slavery, without their knowledge or consent, does not appear. But every reader at once propounds the question,What were the terms of that arrangement?If it existed, it should have been reported verbatim to the War Department, and made known to the public.

[103]Capt. Sprague, of the Regular service.

[104]This statement is taken entirely from the Letters of John Ross, chief of the Cherokees, to the Secretary of War. In these letters, he relates the whole transaction with great force and apparent candor, and, in the name of the Cherokee Nation, boldly arraigns the War Department for this treachery, practiced by a Christian nation towards a people called heathens. These letters may be found at length in Ex. Doc. 327, 2d Sess. XXVth Cong., vol. 8.

[105]Vide letter of General Taylor to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Ex. Doc. 225, 3d Sess. XXVth Congress.

[106]Mr. Sprague says there were three hundred Indian and negro warriors engaged in this battle, and that their loss was ten Indians and one negro killed, and eleven wounded; showing a great disparity between their loss and General Taylor’s.

[107]In 1848, General Taylor was the Whig candidate for President of the United States; and so little was the history of this war known to our statesmen or politicians, that it is believed no newspaper, or stump orator, or advocate of his election, ever related or referred to this most gallant act of his life. He had himself, during the war, exhibited no particular sympathy in the work of catching and enslaving negroes; on the contrary, he had expressed his detestation of that policy. Of course the slave power, not willing to make open war upon him, had permitted his name to rest without connecting it with the performance of any brilliant or humane acts. The casuist may say, that he ought not to have served in such a war, and that no gallantry displayed in such a cause ought to reflect credit upon any man. But General Taylor, like other men, should be judged by the times, the customs, the morality of the age in which he lived.

[108]Vide Ex. Doc., 2d Sess. XXVth Congress, No. 225.

[109]Vide General Jessup’s letter to General Arbuckle, 8 Vol. Ex. Doc., 2d Sess. XXVth Congress.

[110]Vide General Jessup’s letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Ex. Doc. 225, above referred to.

[111]This is the view which General Jessup gives of the transaction, Ex. Doc., 8th Vol., 3d Sess. XXVth Congress

[112]Vide Report of General Jessup to the Secretary of War, Ex. Doc., 3d Sess. XXVth Congress.

[113]These facts may all be found in the 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 11th & 12th vols. of Ex. Doc., 2d Sess. XXVth Congress; the letters of Ross and correspondence of General Jessup, and official reports, occupying several hundred pages.

[114]Horace Everett, who was many years a Representative in Congress, an ardent Whig, and constant opponent of Jackson and Van Buren. After the report of the Secretary of War in answer to his resolution had been received, Mr. Everett made a speech on the subject, exposing the manner in which the war had been conducted, and intimated that it was more immediately connected with the support of slavery than it ought to be. But while he was careful to say nothing exceptionable to the slave interest, he certainly entitled himself to the honor of being the first member who assailed the war, and the first to hold the Administration responsible for the manner in which it was prosecuted. The speech may be found at length in the Appendix to the Congressional Globe of that session.

[115]Vide Letter of Commissioner of Indian Affairs to Secretary of War, 9th May, 1838. Ex. Doc. 225, 2d Sess. XXVth Congress.

[116]Major Zantzinger, like many other officers, appears to have thought that every negro must have a master, and he called these Exiles the property of the Seminoles, although the Agent for that Tribe had reported a few years previously, that the number of slaves owned by them did not exceedforty.

[117]Vide Watson’s Petition and proofs, in support of his claim, presented to Congress—1st Sess. XXVIth Cong.—now on file in the office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

[118]Vide Watson’s Statement of facts in this case, on file with the above papers.

[119]Several years after this transaction, the Author happened to meet this war-worn veteran, and as the old hero recounted this incident of his life with warm and glowing eloquence, his eye kindled, his countenance lighted up with pleasure, and he spoke of it with more apparent satisfaction than he ever referred to his most brilliant military achievement.

[120]Vide Letter of Major Isaac Clark to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Sept. 18, 1838. Ex. Doc. 225, 3d Sess. XXVth Congress.

[121]Hon. Elisha Whittlesey, the predecessor of Mr. Giddings, long and ably presided over the committee on Claims. He was a man of untiring industry; and when he found it necessary to report on a slave case, in 1835, he wrote the Register of the Treasury, inquiring if slaves had ever been paid for by the United States as property. The reply stated they had not; and the committee reported adversely to the case, although it was one of the strongest character possible. Francis Larche, living near New Orleans, owned a horse, cart and slave. The day before the battle below that city, in 1814, they were impressed into the service; and while thus held by the United States authorities, on the day of the battle, the horse and slave were killed by cannon shot, and Larche petitioned Congress for compensation for the loss of his slave. Mr. Whittlesey drew up an able report refusing such compensation.At the commencement of the Twenty-seventh Congress, Mr. Giddings was placed at the head of that committee; but, being obnoxious to the advocates of slavery, he was removed from that position at the commencement of the Twenty-eighth Congress; yet there seemed to be an Impression that his successor should be taken from Ohio, and Hon. Joseph Vance was made Chairman. He was a man at that time somewhat advanced in life, and not accustomed to legal investigations. Cases which required research, were usually consigned to some subordinate member of the committee. It was while he was acting as Chairman, that this case of Watson was first reported upon favorably by the committee on Claims, although it had never before been regarded by that committee as entitled to any encouragement.

At the commencement of the Twenty-seventh Congress, Mr. Giddings was placed at the head of that committee; but, being obnoxious to the advocates of slavery, he was removed from that position at the commencement of the Twenty-eighth Congress; yet there seemed to be an Impression that his successor should be taken from Ohio, and Hon. Joseph Vance was made Chairman. He was a man at that time somewhat advanced in life, and not accustomed to legal investigations. Cases which required research, were usually consigned to some subordinate member of the committee. It was while he was acting as Chairman, that this case of Watson was first reported upon favorably by the committee on Claims, although it had never before been regarded by that committee as entitled to any encouragement.

[122]There is little doubt that the real number of Exiles was unknown to General Jackson, or to General Cass, at the commencement of the war. They appear to have regarded their number far less than it was estimated, during the first Seminole War of 1818.

[123]Captain Sprague’s History of the Florida War so represents the subject.

[124]Not having the Statutes of Florida before us, we make this statement on the authority of Captain Sprague.

[125]We have no copy of Mr. Wise’s letter, and have never seen the letter itself; but we state the fact that he wrote the Secretary of War by authority of that officer, who says in the letter quoted, “I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt ofyour letter of the 27th inst., inquiring,”etc.

[126]The Author was at that time a member of the House of Representatives. He had then no conception of the real objects of this war: indeed, it had long been the practice for members to say nothing on the subject of slavery; and it was equally the practice for newspapers to print nothing on that delicate subject, as it was called. Of course the people knew very little concerning it.

[127]Captain Sprague, in his history of the Florida War, says, “The truth, when made known to the Indians who remained in Florida, constituted the strongest argument why they should not emigrate. Had they (says that author) been kept in ignorance, better results might have been anticipated; but what they gathered from the honest confessions and silence of their brothers tended to make them venerate with more fidelity and increased love the soil which they had defended with heroic fortitude for five consecutive years.”

[128]Captain Sprague, in his history, declares, that it was proven in two instances that white men, disguised as Indians, actually committed depredations and murdered white people.

[129]This first speech had been carefully prepared by the Author of this work, and contained little more than a collation of facts from public documents. It was made with the design of testing the application of the gag rules more than for the purpose of exposing the character of the war. Hon. John Q. Adams, Wm. Slade, and the Author, often consulted with each other as to the best means for inducing the House to repeal those obnoxious rules. The Author suggested the plan of alluding to slavery while publicly discoursing matters with which it was incidentally connected. Mr. Adams and Mr. Slade insisted that the Author should try his plan. Aware that appropriations for this war would be called for, he prepared this speech, showing the causes of the war; and when the bill above referred to came before the House, he proceeded to test his plan. He was frequently called to order, and great excitement was produced; but he succeeded in delivering the speech. When he was through, a southern member replied, declaring that the gag-rules may as well be repealed as kept in force, if they permitted such discussions. The position was evidently correct, and those disgraceful rules were repealed by the next Congress.

[130]This statement is founded upon the authority of Captain Sprague. It is however certain, that many of the claimants actually received compensation from the public treasury for the loss of their slaves. The power to pay for them was assumed by Executive officers, under the appropriation act of March, 1841, without reference to Congress.

[131]Captain Sprague, in his history, enters into a somewhat lengthened apology for this practice of General Worth, by saying, the negroes were the most active and vindictive of the hostile forces; that, from the peculiar situation of the country, ten negroes could keep it in a state of constant alarm; that many of them had intermarried with the Seminoles and become identified with them, had acquired their habits, and would have been useless to their owners had they been delivered to them; that the negro would have remained in service but a few days, when he would have again taken to the swamps and hommocks, when he could elude pursuit, and would have been more vindictive than before.

[132]Vide opinions of the Attorney Generals, from 1838 to 1851, page 1944, Senate Doc. 55. It is a singular fact that, in the whole of this elaborate opinion, no allusion is made to the real condition of the Exiles; nor would any person suspect, from reading it, that the Attorney General had any knowledge of the claim which the Creeks preferred. Although he quotes the clause in the articles of capitulation, which expressly and emphatically declares that “Major General Jessup, in behalf of the United States, agrees that the Seminolesand their allies, who come in and emigrate, shall be protected in their lives and property;” yet he appears never to have conceived the idea that such a stipulation could impose any duties upon our Government in favor of negroes; nor does he attempt to define the meaning of this most explicit covenant.

[133]Under this law, which is general in all slave States, free colored citizens of nearly every free State of the Union have been seized and enslaved, and are now toiling in chains.

[134]Hon. R. W. Johnson, a Representative from Arkansas, spoke of this wretch as having come from Louisiana; but from manuscript letters on file in the War Department, the Author is led to think he came from Florida, and had previously participated in kidnapping Exiles in that Territory.

[135]The Author, being unable to obtain a publication of the documents showing these facts, states them upon the best authority he possesses. During the discussions upon what is called the Indian Appropriation Bill for 1852, in the House of Representatives of the United States, the following colloquial debate occurred, and is now cited as a part of the evidence on which these facts are stated. It will be found in the Congressional Globe of 1852, vol. 24, part 3d, pages 1804, 1805:“Mr. GIDDINGS. I rise for a different purpose than that of expressing my approbation of the amendment which has just been read. I ask the especial attention of gentlemen to some interrogatories which I desire to propound for the purpose of obtaining information; and that the information may go to the country, I will observe, that I desire to have the experience of the able Chairman of the committee on Indian Affairs (Mr. Johnson of Arkansas), to obtain this intelligence. According to reliable information which I received in the summer of 1850, these Creek Indians, to whom attention has been turned, with force and violence, seized from seventy to one hundred free persons of color in the Indian Territory, or at least those claiming to be free, and enslaved, sold and transported them to the State of Louisiana, where they are now in servitude as slaves. I will state that this was done in violation of the treaty entered into in 1845, and in subversion of our solemn faith, entered into with these negroes during the Seminole War, in 1837. The official information upon this subject is in the Indian Department, where it has been received; and from which that we have not been able to obtain any intelligence by resolution, although a resolution for that purpose has been in my desk since the first day of the session. The questions I desire to propound to those gentlemen are—First, Is it a fact that those persons of color were seized and sold into slavery; and, second, by what claim of right or pretended title did these Creek Indians enslave and sell those people?“Mr. JOHNSON. I have no official knowledge in the matter at all. Then as to the knowledge I have obtained incidentally, I do know that there has been a great contest in relation to a portion of these Creek Indian negroes; I do know that the matter has been looked into here in the Executive Departments; I do know that the matter has never been before the House at all, unless it has strangely escaped my notice; I know it has not been before my committee; I know the Attorney General of the United States has declared his opinion as to the title of these negroes: I think there were seventy of them, though it might have been more or less. So, then, I have no official information on the subject to which the gentleman alludes.“Some two or three years ago, I know of a contest going on about the title to these negroes, and that it was decided that they belonged to those Indians. They had established themselves in a free town, which they maintained with force and arms. There were heavy disturbances existing there in the Indian nation, amounting at times almost to civil war: I believe before it was done with, it was quite civil war. I know they were taken; but what was done with them, I do not know. They were taken, and carried out of the nation, with the design of holding them as property, when they could not hold them in the nation on account of the disturbance which they created. I know the decision of the Attorney General of the United States, as to the title to these negroes; and that is the whole statement in regard to the matter as far as I can give it.”

“Mr. GIDDINGS. I rise for a different purpose than that of expressing my approbation of the amendment which has just been read. I ask the especial attention of gentlemen to some interrogatories which I desire to propound for the purpose of obtaining information; and that the information may go to the country, I will observe, that I desire to have the experience of the able Chairman of the committee on Indian Affairs (Mr. Johnson of Arkansas), to obtain this intelligence. According to reliable information which I received in the summer of 1850, these Creek Indians, to whom attention has been turned, with force and violence, seized from seventy to one hundred free persons of color in the Indian Territory, or at least those claiming to be free, and enslaved, sold and transported them to the State of Louisiana, where they are now in servitude as slaves. I will state that this was done in violation of the treaty entered into in 1845, and in subversion of our solemn faith, entered into with these negroes during the Seminole War, in 1837. The official information upon this subject is in the Indian Department, where it has been received; and from which that we have not been able to obtain any intelligence by resolution, although a resolution for that purpose has been in my desk since the first day of the session. The questions I desire to propound to those gentlemen are—First, Is it a fact that those persons of color were seized and sold into slavery; and, second, by what claim of right or pretended title did these Creek Indians enslave and sell those people?“Mr. JOHNSON. I have no official knowledge in the matter at all. Then as to the knowledge I have obtained incidentally, I do know that there has been a great contest in relation to a portion of these Creek Indian negroes; I do know that the matter has been looked into here in the Executive Departments; I do know that the matter has never been before the House at all, unless it has strangely escaped my notice; I know it has not been before my committee; I know the Attorney General of the United States has declared his opinion as to the title of these negroes: I think there were seventy of them, though it might have been more or less. So, then, I have no official information on the subject to which the gentleman alludes.“Some two or three years ago, I know of a contest going on about the title to these negroes, and that it was decided that they belonged to those Indians. They had established themselves in a free town, which they maintained with force and arms. There were heavy disturbances existing there in the Indian nation, amounting at times almost to civil war: I believe before it was done with, it was quite civil war. I know they were taken; but what was done with them, I do not know. They were taken, and carried out of the nation, with the design of holding them as property, when they could not hold them in the nation on account of the disturbance which they created. I know the decision of the Attorney General of the United States, as to the title to these negroes; and that is the whole statement in regard to the matter as far as I can give it.”

“Mr. JOHNSON. I have no official knowledge in the matter at all. Then as to the knowledge I have obtained incidentally, I do know that there has been a great contest in relation to a portion of these Creek Indian negroes; I do know that the matter has been looked into here in the Executive Departments; I do know that the matter has never been before the House at all, unless it has strangely escaped my notice; I know it has not been before my committee; I know the Attorney General of the United States has declared his opinion as to the title of these negroes: I think there were seventy of them, though it might have been more or less. So, then, I have no official information on the subject to which the gentleman alludes.

“Some two or three years ago, I know of a contest going on about the title to these negroes, and that it was decided that they belonged to those Indians. They had established themselves in a free town, which they maintained with force and arms. There were heavy disturbances existing there in the Indian nation, amounting at times almost to civil war: I believe before it was done with, it was quite civil war. I know they were taken; but what was done with them, I do not know. They were taken, and carried out of the nation, with the design of holding them as property, when they could not hold them in the nation on account of the disturbance which they created. I know the decision of the Attorney General of the United States, as to the title to these negroes; and that is the whole statement in regard to the matter as far as I can give it.”

[136]The Author has written many letters, and made frequent efforts, to obtain a copy of the record of this writ, if any had been kept, and the proceedings, together with the opinion of the Judge thereon, but has not succeeded. The statement, therefore, rests on the verbal reports, current at the time in the Indian Country, and communicated to the Author by individuals who happened to be there at the time.

[137]The Author has been unable to obtain official data of the number of Exiles who remained in the Indian Country.

[138]The Author has been compelled to rely on verbal reports received from individuals for these facts. He also understood Mr. Johnston, the Representative from Arkansas, in the debate referred to in a former note, to say distinctly, that the Creeks pursued the Exiles, and that abattle was fought, but he was unable to state particulars.

[139]Vide Official Report of Major Emory, in regard to the boundary line between the United States and Mexico. He states the location of Wild Cat and the Seminole Indians, but omits all reference to the Exiles.

[140]This number has been increased by fresh arrivals from the Indian Country, since 1850.

[141]Vide Manuscript Letters now on file in the Indian Bureau at Washington.

Back to Index Next