further efforts to restore exiles.

seminoles repudiate treaty of new york—attempts to induce spanish authorities to deliver up the exiles—their refusal—lower creeks hostile to treaty—mcgillivray—his parentage and character—georgia hostile to treaty—makes war upon creeks—general washington announces failure to maintain peace—general knox’s recommendation—decision of united states court—exertions—combination of various classes of claimants—washington finds his influence powerless—appoints judge jay—failure of claims on england—condition and habits of exiles—effect on slaves of georgia—treaty of colerain—commissioners of georgia leave council in disgust—election of the elder adams—his administration—election of jefferson—his administration.

the long pending difficulties between georgia and the neighboring tribes of indians were now (1791) believed to be permanently settled, and it was thought the new government would proceed in the discharge of its duties without further perplexity. but it was soon found impossible for the creeks to comply with their stipulations. the seminoles refused to recognize the treaty, insisting that they were not bound by any compact, arrangement or agreement, made by the united states and the creeks, to which they were not a party, and of which they had no notice; that they were a separate, independent tribe; that this fact was well known to both creeks and the united states; and that the attempt of those parties to declare what the seminoles should do, or should not do, was insulting to their dignity, to their self-respect, and only worthy of their contempt. they therefore wholly discarded the treaty, and repudiated all its provisions. they resided in florida, under the jurisdiction of spanish laws, subject only to the crown of spain. there they enjoyed that liberty so congenial to savages, as well as civilized men. the creeks dared not attempt to bring back the exiles by force, and the government of the united states was unwilling to invade a spanish colony for the purpose of recapturing those who had escaped from the bonds of oppression, and had become legally free.

1792.

in this state of affairs, an agent by the name of seagrove was sent to florida for the purpose of negotiating with the spanish authorities for the return of the exiles. he had been agent to the creek indians, and well understood their views in regard to the treaty. when he reached florida, he found the authorities of that province entirely opposed to the surrender of any subjects of the spanish crown to slavery. the exiles were regarded as holding the same rights which the white citizens held; and it was evident, that the representatives of the king of spain encouraged both the seminole indians and exiles, to refuse compliance with the treaty of new york.[14]

nor was the creek nation united upon this subject. the “lower creeks,” or those who resided on the southern frontier of georgia, were not zealous in their support of the treaty; and it was said that mcgillivray, the principal chief of the creeks, was himself becoming unfriendly to the united states, and rather disposed to unite with the spanish authorities. this man exerted great influence with the indians. he was the son of an indian trader, a scotchman, by a creek woman, the daughter of a distinguished chief. he had received a good english education; but his father had joined the english during the revolution, and he, having been offended by some leading men of georgia, had taken up his residence with the indians and become their principal chief, in whom they reposed implicit confidence.

amid these difficulties, the people of georgia manifested an equal hostility to the treaty, inasmuch as it surrendered a large territory to that state, which the authorities of georgia pretended to have obtained by the treaty of galphinton. the general feeling in that state was far from being satisfied with the action of the federal government. seagrove, writing to the secretary of war on this subject, declared, that “to such lengths have matters gone, that they (the georgians) now consider the troops and servants of the united states who are placed among them, nearly as great enemies as they do the indians.”[15]

under these circumstances, the governor of georgia was addressed, by order of the president; but he evidently participated in the popular feeling of his state. while the spanish authorities and seminoles, both indians and exiles, repudiated the treaty of new york, governor tellfair, of georgia, declared that the people of his state “would recognize no treaty in which her commissioners were not consulted.” instead of observing its stipulations of peace, he proceeded to raise an army; invaded the creek country, attacked one of their towns said to be friendly to georgia, killed some of their people, took others prisoners, burned their dwellings, and destroyed their crops.

1794.

the creeks declared their inability to return the exiles,[16] and, on the thirtieth of january, general washington, in a special message to congress, announced the failure of all efforts to maintain tranquillity between the people of georgia and the creek indians. such were the difficulties surrounding the subject of regaining the exiles, that general knox, secretary of war, in a written communication addressed to the president, recommended that congress should make an appropriation to their owners, from the public treasury, as the only practicable manner in which that matter could be settled.[17] this communication was transmitted to congress by the president, accompanied by a special message, recommending it to the consideration of that body; but the members appeared unwilling to adopt the policy thus suggested. they seem to have entertained doubts as to the propriety of appropriating the money of the people to pay for fugitive slaves. they respectfully laid the message, and the recommendation of the secretary of war, upon the table, and ordered them to be printed.[18]

the claimants of the exiles were again encouraged and strengthened in their expectations by the excitement prevailing in the southern portion of the union, arising from a decision of the circuit court of the united states, held at richmond, virginia. at the commencement of the war, the states prohibited the collection of debts due british subjects from citizens of the colonies. these debts had remained unpaid for some sixteen years; and although the debtors entertained an expectation of paying them at some future period, many intended meeting those demands by the funds which they supposed would be awarded them as indemnity for slaves carried away in british vessels during the revolution, and for those enlisted into the british army.

these laws, enacted at the commencement of the revolution, were declared by the court to have been superseded by the treaty of peace, in 1783; and the debtors in the several states thus became liable to the payment of those debts, while their demands of indemnity for slaves were pending, and the british government had thus far refused to acknowledge their validity. these claimants became impatient of delay, and demanded that another treaty be formed with england, by which they could obtain indemnity for the loss of their slaves. these uniting with those who claimed a return of the exiles in florida, constituted an influential portion of the people of the southern states, whose joint influence was exerted to involve the government in the support of slavery.

notwithstanding these clamors, the government was powerless as to obtaining relief for either class. the british ministry refused indemnity, and the seminoles, supported and encouraged by the spanish authorities, were inexorable in their refusal to surrender the exiles.

at that early period of our history, the subject of slavery greatly perplexed the federal administration; nor was the genius, or the influence of washington, sufficiently powerful to silence the malcontents. he was fortunate in selecting judge jay, of new york, as a minister plenipotentiary, for negotiating a treaty with great britain. this illustrious patriot possessed great purity of character; had long been distinguished for his devotion to the welfare of the nation; and, although a northern man, southern slave claimants could raise no objection to him.

but every step towards the adjustment of the claims arising for slaves carried away by the english ships, or enlisted into the british army, had the effect to render the owners of exiles more importunate. there was only one recourse, however, left for the administration; they could do no more than to call on the creeks for a new treaty, in order to adjust these claims.

1795

as the president was about to take measures for obtaining another treaty with the creeks, news arrived from england that judge jay, in forming a new treaty with the british crown, had been constrained to surrender all claims of our citizens for slaves carried from the united states in british vessels during the war, or for those who had enlisted into the british service. this news created much excitement among the slaveholders of the southern states. the treaty was denounced by the public press, and a strong effort was made to defeat its approval by the senate. but failing in that, the slave power was rallied in opposition to making any appropriation, by the house of representatives, for carrying the treaty into effect, and perhaps at no time since the union was formed, has it been in greater danger of disruption; but the friends of the treaty prevailed in both houses of congress, and it became a paramount law of the nation.

while those incidents were transpiring, the exiles were engaged in cultivating their lands, extending their plantations and increasing their flocks and herds, and consolidating their friendships with the indians around them. of all these facts the bondmen of georgia had full knowledge. it were impossible for them to contemplate their friends, in the enjoyment of these rights and privileges, without a strong desire to share in those blessings of freedom. the example of the exiles was thus constantly exerting an influence upon those who remained in bondage. many of them sought opportunities to flee into florida, where they, in like manner, became free subjects of spain.

1796.

this condition of things induced general washington to make another effort to remedy existing evils, and prevent their recurrence in future. he took measures to obtain the attendance of the chiefs, head men and warriors of the creek nation, at a place called colerain, for the purpose of forming another treaty. he again appointed benjamin hawkins, george clymer and andrew pickens, commissioners, to meet the indians in council, and agree upon the proper adjustment of pending difficulties. these men were interested in the institution of slavery, and were supposed to be perfectly acceptable to the claimants, as well as to the authorities of georgia.

the parties met at the place appointed, and proceeded to the consideration of the proposed treaty. the creeks were not disposed to make further grants of territory; nor were they able to give any better assurance for the return of the exiles than had been given at new york. they insisted that, by the treaty of new york, they were only bound to return those negroes who had been captured since the treaty of peace between the united states and great britain; these they had delivered up, so far as they were able to surrender them. they admitted there were more negroes among them, whom they might probably obtain at some future day, and expressed a willingness to do so. it is however evident, from the talk of the various chiefs, that they had no idea of returning those exiles who were residing in florida—no allusion being made to them by either of the commissioners, on the part of the united states, nor by the indians. the council was also attended by commissioners on the part of georgia, who attempted to dictate the manner of transacting the business, and, even in offensive language, charged the commissioners of the united states with improper conduct; but in no instance did they name the seminoles, nor allude to any obligation, on the part of the creeks, to return the exiles resident among the seminoles. it should however be borne in mind, that these commissioners on behalf of georgia left the council in disgust, before the close of the negotiation. in the treaty itself, however, there is a stipulation that the treaty of new york shall remain in force, except such parts as were expressly changed by that entered into at colerain; and that portion of the treaty of new york by which the creeks assumed to bind the seminoles, was not changed.[19]

the seventh article of the treaty of colerain reads as follows:—“the creek nation shall deliver, as soon as practicable, to the superintendent of indian affairs, at such place as he may direct, all the citizens of the united states, white inhabitants and negroes, who are now prisoners in any part of the said nation, agreeably to the treaty at new york; and also all citizens, white inhabitants, negroes and property, taken since the signing of that treaty. and if any such prisoners, negroes, or property, should not be delivered on or before the first day of january next, the governor of georgia may empower three persons to repair to the said nation, in order to claim and receive such prisoners, negroes and property, under the direction of the president of the united states.” this stipulation was understood by the creeks, and they were willing to perform it; but it is very obvious, from all the circumstances, that they had no idea of binding the seminoles to return the exiles resident in florida.

the state of georgia obtained very little territory by this treaty, and no further indemnity for the loss of their fugitive bondmen. the people of that state, therefore, were greatly dissatisfied with it. but the extraordinary feature of this treaty, consists in the subsequent construction placed upon it by the authorities of georgia, who, twenty-five years subsequently, insisted that the seminoles were in fact a part of the creek tribe, bound by the creek treaties, and that the creek nation were under obligation to compel the seminoles to observe treaties made by the creeks.

in each of the treaties made between the state of georgia and the creeks, as well as in that made at new york, between the united states and the creek nation, attempts had been made to bind the seminoles, although that tribe had steadily and uniformly denied the authority of the creeks to bind them; and being sustained by the spanish authorities, it became evident that all further efforts to induce them to submit to the government of the creeks would be useless. this independence they had maintained for nearly half a century. they had in no instance acknowledged the authority of the creeks since they left georgia, in 1750; nor is it reasonable to suppose the authorities of that state, or those of the united states, were ignorant of that important circumstance.

the flagrant injustice of holding the creeks responsible for fugitive slaves resident in florida, and under protection of the spanish crown, must be obvious to every reader; and the inquiry will at once arise. why did the creek chiefs at new york consent to such a stipulation? the answer perhaps may be found in the secret article of that treaty, giving to the creeks fifteen hundred dollars annually, forever, and to mcgillivray twelve hundred dollars during life, and to six other chiefs one hundred dollars annually. these direct and positive bribes could not fail to have effect. the necessity for keeping this article secret from the indians generally, and from the people of the united states, is very apparent; as the propriety of thus taking money, drawn from the free states to bribe indian chiefs to obligate their nation to seize and return fugitive slaves, would have been doubted by savages as well as civilized men. but the duty of the creeks to seize and return the exiles was legally recognized by the treaty of colerain, which admitted the treaty of new york to be in force. this was regarded as a continuance of the claims of georgia, although the creeks appear to have had no idea of entering into such stipulations.

1797.

many circumstances now combined to quiet the apprehensions of the fugitive bondmen in florida. the elder adams had been elected president in the autumn of 1796, and assumed the duties of his office on the fourth of march following. a descendant of the pilgrims, he had been reared and educated among the lovers of liberty; he had long served in congress; he had reported upon the rights of the people of the colonies in 1774, and was chairman of the committee who reported the declaration of independence, in 1776, and to its doctrines he had ever exhibited an unfaltering devotion. from such an administration the claimants in georgia could expect but little aid.

another consideration, cheering to the friends of freedom, was the total failure of the claims on great britain, for slaves lost during the war of the revolution. the influence of those claimants was no longer felt in the government. the public indignation was also somewhat excited against the institution of slavery by incidents of a barbarous character, which had then recently transpired in north carolina. after the promulgation of the declaration of independence, the quakers of that state, conscious of its momentous truths, proceeded in good faith to emancipate their slaves; believing that the only mode in which they could evince their adherence to its doctrines.

the advocates of oppression were offended at this practical recognition of the “equal right of all men to liberty,” and, to manifest their abhorrence of such doctrines, arrested the slaves so emancipated as fugitives from labor. the quakers, ever true to their convictions of justice, lent their influence, and contributed their funds, to test the legal rights of the persons thus set at liberty, before the proper tribunals of the state; and the question was carried to the court of appeals, where a final judgment was rendered in favor of their freedom. this decision appears to have disappointed general expectation among the advocates of slavery, and created much excitement throughout the state.

at the next session of the legislature, an act was passed authorizing persons possessing landed property to seize and re?nslave the people thus emancipated. but the planters of that state were usually possessed of wealth and intelligence, and, holding principles of honor, they refused to perform so degrading a service; and the liberated negroes continued to enjoy their freedom.

but the opponents of liberty became so clamorous against the example thus set in favor of freedom, that the legislature passed an amendatory act, authorizing any person to seize, imprison and sell, as slaves, any negro who had been emancipated in said state, except those who had served in the army of the united states during the war of the revolution.

persons of desperate character, gamblers, slave-dealers and horse thieves, were now authorized to gratify their cupidity, by seizing and selling persons who had for years enjoyed their liberty; and the scenes which followed, were in no respect creditable to the state, to the civilization or christianity of the age. emancipated families were broken up and separated for ever. in some instances the wife escaped, while the husband was captured. parents were seized, and their children escaped. bloodhounds were employed to chase down those who fled to the forests and swamps, in order to avoid men more cruel than bloodhounds.

the quakers, so far as able, assisted these persecuted people to escape to other states. some left north carolina on board ships; others fled north by land; and many reached the free states, where their descendants yet live. but even our free states did not afford a safe retreat from the cruelty of inexorable slave-catchers. those free persons were seized in philadelphia, and, under the fugitive slave law of 1793, were imprisoned in that city; and, what excites still greater wonder, were delivered up and carried back to bondage.[20]

some of these people, while in pennsylvania, sent petitions to congress, praying protection against such barbarity; and great excitement was aroused among southern members by the presentation of such petitions. the quakers of that state, and of new jersey, also sent petitions to congress, praying that these people may be protected against such piratical persecution. the popular feeling of the nation was shocked at these things, and great indignation against the institution, generally, was aroused.

we have no record of further attempts on the part of the claimants to obtain a return of the exiles, after the treaty of colerain, until the close of mr. adams’s administration. during that period, the fugitives remained quietly in their homes, undisturbed by their former masters. their numbers were often increased by new arrivals, as well as by the natural laws of population, and they began to assume the appearance of an established community.

in 1801, mr. jefferson entered upon the duties of president. he had himself penned the declaration of independence, and manifested a deep devotion to its doctrines. nor do we find that any attempt was made by him for the return of the exiles; nor were there any measures adopted to obtain indemnity for the loss of the claimants during the eight years of his administration.

in 1802, a new law regulating intercourse with the indian tribes was enacted, by which the holders of slaves were secured for the price or value of any bondmen who should leave his master and take up his residence with any indian tribe resident in the united states, or territories thereof—at least such was the construction given to this statute.

the creeks, cherokees, and other southern tribes, had gradually adopted the institution of slavery, so long practiced by their more civilized neighbors, and thus became interested in every effort to extinguish the hope cherished among their own bondmen, of regaining freedom by fleeing from their masters. and many circumstances now appeared to favor the idea, that no more attempts would be made to compel a return of the exiles to bondage.