The Exiles of Florida Part 21

The result of this speculation in human flesh is so essential to a correct appreciation of the whole transaction, that we deem it proper to give, in this connection, the proceedings of Congress upon that subject; although it may appear to be rather a digression from the chronological narration of events which const.i.tute the subject of our history.

It will be recollected that the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in his letter to the Secretary of War, dated the first of May, 1838, suggests that it might create agitation, were the Department to ask Congress for an appropriation of money to carry these Exiles to Africa, or for any other disposition of them; that, to suppress all discussion in Congress upon the subject of slavery, gag-resolutions and gag-rules had been adopted at each session since 1835. It was under the operation of these rules that the advocates of slavery expected to pa.s.s a bill to indemnify Watson for his loss in failing to enslave these Exiles.

[Sidenote: 1839.]

During the summer of 1839, the doc.u.ment, No. 225, above referred to, was printed. According to the practice of that day, few, even of the members of Congress, examined these doc.u.ments. A copy of this, however, was placed on file, with Watson's pet.i.tion and other papers, as evidence on which his claim rested.

At the commencement of the next session, the Author of this work, being a member of the House of Representatives, was placed upon the committee of Claims; at the head of which was Hon. David Russel, of Was.h.i.+ngton County, New York, a man of great industry, integrity and ability; always independent, according to the general views of that day, and upright in the discharge of official duties. Hon. William C. Dawson, of Georgia, was also a member of that committee, and appeared to take much interest in this claim. He was a man of much suavity of manner; one of that cla.s.s of Southern statesmen who felt it necessary to carry every measure by the influence of personal kindness, and an expression of horror at all agitation of the slave question, under the apprehension that it might dissolve the Union.

Mr. Dawson was anxious to get this claim of Watson through Congress, and, not expecting the Chairman of the committee on Claims to favor its pa.s.sage, requested the Author to examine and give support to it. It was that examination which gave him the first information as to the real cause of the Florida War. After a full and thorough investigation, he a.s.sured Mr. Dawson that he would be constrained to oppose the pa.s.sage of any bill giving indemnity to Watson. At that time it was the usual practice for the committee on Claims to leave all pet.i.tions asking pay for slaves, or which involved the question of slavery, without reporting upon them, lest they should cause agitation. There being no prospect of obtaining from the committee a favorable report, the case was at the next session of Congress referred to the committee on Indian Affairs, who reported in its favor, providing for the payment of the full sum which Watson gave the Creeks, and interest thereon from the time of the contract up to the time of pa.s.sing the bill.

[Sidenote: 1841.]

This bill was placed on the calendar, and in 1841 the Author endeavored to call attention to it, in a speech made in the House of Representatives on the "Florida War." This led some members to examine it; and some of them, more independent than others, declared their hostility to its pa.s.sage.

In the Twenty-eighth Congress, the Author, having become obnoxious to the slaveholders, was removed from the committee on Claims,[121] and Watson's pet.i.tion was again referred to that committee, in order that it should receive the prestige of its influence; but it was reported upon late, and was so low on the calendar that it was not reached during that Congress.

[Sidenote: 1848.]

[Sidenote: 1849.]

In the Thirty-first Congress, Mr. Daniels, Chairman of the committee on Claims, reported it in February. But General Crowell, of Trumbull County, Ohio, being on the committee, opposed its pa.s.sage, and caused a postponement for that session; and at the next session it was, after a short discussion, pa.s.sed over without any final action upon it.

At the Thirty-second Congress, the committee on Claims was yet more favorably const.i.tuted for the slave interest--Mr. Sacket, of New York, and Mr. Rantoul, of Ma.s.sachusetts, being the only two members upon it who openly resisted the slave power. Mr. Edgerton, of Ohio, Mr. Seymour, of Connecticut, and Mr. Curtis, of Pennsylvania, being Northern Democrats, remained silent during the discussion of this claim. It was however again reported by the Chairman, Mr. Daniels, of North Carolina, at an early day, and a full determination to carry it through was manifested by the slaveholders.

Both of the great political parties were at that time (1852) endeavoring to suppress all agitation of the slave question. Southern men, particularly, were horrified at every appearance of discussion in relation to the "pecculiar inst.i.tution;" and they hoped to pa.s.s this bill without even an examination of its merits before the House. But the opponents of slavery were not idle. Efforts were privately made to call attention of gentlemen to this claim, that they might examine its merits before it came up for discussion; and on looking into it, a number of members prepared to oppose its pa.s.sage.

[Sidenote: 1852.]

After one or two postponements, it came on for discussion on the twentieth of February, 1852. Mr. Sacket, of New York, met the case at once, in a speech which showed that he had studied it very thoroughly, and understood it perfectly. He insisted that slaves were not _plunder_, and did not come within the contract of General Jessup, which gave to Creeks the "plunder" they might capture. 2d. That the whole transaction was one of _speculation_ on the part of Watson, inasmuch as the report set forth that the negroes were worth at least sixty thousand dollars, while he paid only fourteen thousand and six hundred dollars--being less than one-fourth their value, evidently taking upon himself all risk of t.i.tle and possession. 3d. That the officers of Government had no authority to involve the nation in this slave-dealing transaction. 4th.

That those officers were not the Government, and could not bind the people to pay their funds for human flesh.

Mr. Abercrombie, of Alabama, was in favor of the claim. He declared that he was in Florida at the time of this contract, and knew all about it, and that it was well understood that the term "plunder" did include slaves.

Mr. Daniels, Chairman of the committee, felt called on by the effort of Mr. Sacket to speak early in the discussion. He insisted that General Jessup, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and Secretary of War, fully understood the case; that it was understood by the parties that the term "plunder" _did_ include slaves; that Watson was drawn into this matter, partly, to relieve the Government from the transaction in which it had become involved. He insisted that the negroes captured were _slaves_ of the Seminoles; but when inquired of on that point, could only say, that officers engaged in the Florida War had spoken of them as such. He was much embarra.s.sed by interrogatories propounded to him by Mr. Stanton, of Ohio, and other gentlemen.

Mr. Mace, of Indiana, a Democrat, took a short and comprehensive view of the case. He, nor any other man could tell whether these negroes were slaves or freemen. On the part of the officers of Government, there was not a single impulse of humanity manifested in regard to these people; but all their endeavors were put forth to _enslave_ them. He was entirely opposed to the bill.

Hon. John W. Howe, of Pennsylvania, would never give his vote in favor of regarding men, and women, and children, as _plunder_. He commented with much force upon the contract, and the doc.u.mentary evidence before the House, and would maintain the humanity of all prisoners captured in war. He sustained the position of General Gaines, that they were prisoners of war.

On the tenth of March the bill came up again for consideration, when Mr.

Johnson, of Georgia, advocated its pa.s.sage in a very elaborate speech.

He differed from Mr. Sacket, Mr. Howe, and those who opposed the bill, mostly upon the great question--insisting that slaves were _property_ under our Federal Const.i.tution; that the people captured by the Creek Indians were not possessed of any rights; that they were to be regarded as mere chattels: indeed, this point lay at the foundation of the entire discussion. He however sought to add strength to the claim by reading letters from Mr. Crawford, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and from Mr.

Poinsett, Secretary of War, to show that they sympathized with the slave-dealer, and were desirous that this bill should pa.s.s.

Mr. Welch, of Ohio, in few words, declared his conviction that these negroes were prisoners of war, to be treated as such, and not to be regarded as slaves or chattels.

Mr. Evans, of Maryland, thought it difficult to understand the case, but would adopt the views of Judge Iverson, of Georgia; that gentleman had been a member of the House of Representatives, and his statements could be relied upon. He read a long affidavit showing the recollections of Mr. Iverson, and, as the United States had the _property in possession_, he would vote for the bill.

Mr. Stuart, of Michigan, now a Democratic Senator, thought the Government had been in great difficulty in getting these Seminoles to go West; they would not go without the negroes, many of whom had intermarried with the Seminoles. By the treaty which General Jessup made, in 1837, our Government was bound to send the negroes West, and having done so, was bound to pay Watson for his loss.

Mr. Skelton, of New Jersey, a Democrat, recognized no power in this or any other government to treat prisoners of war as _slaves_. The discussion had become interesting, and, in some degree, const.i.tuted an agitation of the slave question; and as the committee rose without taking a vote upon the bill, Mr. Orr, of South Carolina, moved a resolution precluding further debate upon it; but the House adjourned without taking a vote on the resolution.

The case came up again on the tenth of April, when a resolution to close debate in one hour was adopted. The House then resolved itself in committee; and Mr. Bartlett, of Vermont, a Democrat, took the position that the Government, nor its officers, had power to enter into any agreement with Indians or white men, by which they should enjoy any privilege, or receive any compensation, not authorized by law; that the contract between General Jessup and the Creeks was of no validity, but absolutely void; and every transaction touching the enslavement of the Exiles was without authority, and of no effect.

Mr. Walsh, of Maryland, insisted that the Indian tribes were not nations, and ought not to be treated as such; that it was not inc.u.mbent on the friends of the bill to show that slavery existed among the Seminoles; if they lived within a slave State, they might hold slaves; that the Government had the right to enslave the negroes when captured.

Mr. Sweetzer, of Ohio, Democrat, denied the authority of General Jessup to make any contract for the services of the Creek warriors other than the law had provided; nor could he have authority to make any stipulation as to the disposal of prisoners when captured.

Mr. Southerland, of New York, a Whig, thought the question of slavery was not necessarily involved in this case; that the United States, having sent the negroes West, were bound to indemnify Watson for his loss.

Mr. Daniels, by the rules of the House, had one hour to reply, after the expiration of the time for closing debate. He attempted to reply to some of the arguments offered against the bill, but advanced no new position.

At the expiration of his speech the vote was taken, and the bill reported to the House as agreed to in committee. The previous question was then called, and under its operation the bill pa.s.sed--seventy-nine members voting in favor of its pa.s.sage, and fifty-three against it.

One member from the slave States, Williamson R. W. Cobb, of Alabama, voted against the bill. All the other members from the slave States voted for it; and were aided by the votes of members from the free States, as follows:

From _New Hamps.h.i.+re_: Harry Hibbard--1.

_Ma.s.sachusetts_: Wm. Appleton, Zeno Scudder--2.

_New York_: Abram M. Schemmerhorn, James Brooks, Gilbert Dean, F. S.

Martin, Abram P. Stevens, Joseph Southerland--6.

_Connecticut_: Collins M. Ingersoll--1

_New Jersey_: R. M. Price--1.

_Pennsylvania_: Joseph R. Chandler, Thomas Florence, Joseph H. Kuhns, Joseph McNair, Andrew Packer, John Robbins, Thomas Ross--7.

_Ohio_: John L. Taylor--1.

_Indiana_: Sam'l W. Parker, Richard W. Thompson--2.

_Michigan_: E. S. Penniman, Charles E. Stuart--2.

_Iowa_: Lincoln Clark, Bernard Henn--2.

_California_: Joseph W. McCorkle--1. In all the free States twenty-five.

The vote against the bill was given by the following members, from the free States:

From _Maine_: E. K. Smart, Israel Washburn, jr.--2.

_New Hamps.h.i.+re_: Jared Perkins, Amos Tuck--2.

_Ma.s.sachusetts_: Orrin Fowler, Z. Goodrich, Horace Mann--3.

_New York_: Henry Bennet, George Briggs, John G. Floyd, Timothy Jenkins, Daniel F. Jones, Preston King, William Murray, Joseph Russel, Wm. A.