The Exiles of Florida

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, and officially informed the Secretary of War that “negroes and outlaws have taken possession of a Fort 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 nearly fifty 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 that three gun-boats were detailed on that occasion; but the report of Sailing-Master Loomis speaks only of two.

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 by Indians, not by Exiles; 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, until eighty of 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 negroes of 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 for imaginary 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 as Pirates, 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 were honorable 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 themselves civilized men.

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 were two hundred negro warriors in 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 an intrepid leader. He is the negro chief, and the most cunning and intelligent negro we have here; he claims to be free.”

91

General Jessup subsequently reported his determination to separate the negroes, or Exiles, from the Indians. He therefore stipulated for their safety, and, at the same time, agreed that the slaves of 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:

“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?

“SAN AUGUSTINE, August 21st, 1837.”