further efforts of the government to restore exiles to servitude.

effects of the war—situation of the exiles—servility of northern statesmen—determination of southern slaveholders—the purchase of florida demanded—causes which led to it—territory obtained—authorities of georgia demand a new treaty with creeks—mr. calhoun secretary of war—his efforts in favor of the claimants—georgia appoints commissioners—they attempt to dictate those appointed by the united states—correspondence—mr. calhoun dissatisfied with those whom he had appointed—they resign—new commissioners appointed—their relation to the subject—difficulties—indian talks—treaty effected—agreement—assignment of fugitive slaves to united states in trust for the creek indians—claims adjudicated—slaveholders claim the funds belonging to the creek indians.

the first seminole war, like most other wars, was attended with great sacrifice of blood and treasure. it had corrupted the morals of the nation; but the administration had entirely failed to attain the objects for which it had been commenced. not ten slaves had been captured, if we except those who were wounded and taken prisoners at “blount’s fort,” one half of whom had died of their wounds. under such circumstances, the government could not, with propriety, condescend to make a treaty with a community of black men, whose ancestors had fled from slavery. such act would, in the opinion of slaveholders, have compromised the dignity of the slaveholding states; nor could they treat with the seminole indians as a separate tribe, for the administration was endeavoring to hold the creeks responsible for the acts of the seminoles, who, the slaveholders insisted, were a part of the creek tribe. the army was therefore withdrawn from florida, without any treaty whatever. but the act of withdrawing the army and permitting the exiles to remain in a state of freedom and independence, constituted an acknowledgment of the inability of our government to re?nslave them, although it was constantly asserted that they were a degraded race, incapable of supporting themselves if set at liberty.

in looking over the official reports of our officers, the action of congress, and the tone of the public press, we are forcibly impressed with the constant and unceasing efforts to hide from the popular mind of the nation the real questions involved in this war. nor can we account for it upon any other hypothesis, than the popularity of president monroe’s administration. the old federal party had ceased to exist. they had been the only party opposed to mr. monroe; and no member of congress appears to have possessed the requisite independence, information and ability, to take a position distinctly against his policy.

soon as our army was withdrawn from florida, peace was of course restored, and things remained as they were prior to the invasion under colonel clinch, in 1816. the exiles were again left in peace, as they had been prior to the commencement of the war. nothing had been gained to the united states by the vast expenditure of blood and treasure which attended the prosecution of hostilities. the exiles had maintained their liberty for at least a century, and now they had set the american government at defiance. these considerations operated upon the minds of the slave population of georgia and alabama, who now became more anxious to join them; and their numbers were thus increased almost daily by slaves from those states.

from 1790, our government had endeavored to re?nslave these people. no northern statesmen objected to the policy; while those of the south had come to believe that, although the union may not have been formed solely for the purpose of capturing slaves, yet that duty was regarded by them as one of its most important objects. it had now become evident that no military force could pursue them into their retired fastnesses, or seek them out when scattered among the hommocks, the swamps and everglades of that singular country.

southern statesmen now turned their attention to the purchase of florida. that would deprive the indians and exiles of the nominal protection of spanish laws, and would bring them under the jurisdiction of the united states; they therefore addressed themselves to that policy with renewed assiduity. recent events had convinced the authorities of spain that it was impossible for them to maintain the dignity of the spanish crown, or the sanctity of her soil from invasion against an american army, when in pursuit of fugitive slaves. she had seen her territory invaded; her forts at pensacola and at st. marks captured, and that upon the appalachicola destroyed; her subjects massacred; her authority despised, and her rights as a nation treated with indignity by our army. there was, indeed, no other way for her but to accede to the proposition of the united states.

1819.

a treaty was negotiated (february 22), and in consideration of five millions of dollars, florida was transferred to the united states, and the seminoles were brought within the jurisdiction which they most dreaded.

the slaveholders of georgia, who had so long pressed their claims for fugitive slaves, now became more clamorous. they saw, with intense interest, the pertinacity with which the executive had pressed the claims of those who lost slaves, in the then recent war with england. under the treaty of ghent, the president insisted upon full indemnity to those whose slaves had left the country, under british aid; and when the english ministry refused, and insisted upon the same construction as that placed upon the treaty of 1783, which contained the same words, the american executive refused, and the question was referred to the umpirage of the autocrat of russia, who held an entire nation in slavery, and could not be expected to decide in any other manner, than that most favorable to the institution.[48]

1820.

the influence of the slave power having increased so greatly since 1796, as to induce the british government to change its policy, adopted at the framing of jay’s treaty, was now believed competent to compel the creek indians to comply with the treaties of new york and colerain. a quarter of a century had passed, since the signing of the last of these treaties, and they had been forgotten by many; but the people of the free states, and their representatives and senators in congress, had quietly submitted to this prostitution of our national character and influence, and none appeared to doubt the propriety of continuing these efforts.

1821.

georgia now demanded of the federal government a new treaty with the creek indians,[49] in order to obtain from them indemnity for the slaves she had lost, subsequent to the close of the revolution, and prior to the act of 1802. to this demand the federal executive assented. the secretary of war, mr. calhoun, with his attachment to the institution, could do no less than to exert what influence he was able to wield, in assisting georgia to obtain a compensation for the loss of her slaves. on him devolved the burthen of selecting commissioners to negotiate the contemplated treaty. careful to place the subject in the hands of men who would be likely to wield their power for the benefit of the “peculiar institution,” he appointed general andrew pickens of his own state, and general thomas flournoy of georgia, to conduct the negotiation.

in his letters of instruction to those gentlemen, he was careful to inform them that the treaty was to be negotiated for the benefit of georgia;[50] that she would also appoint commissioners to attend the negotiation, and watch over the interests of her people. the commissioners proceeded to make arrangements for the treaty. they appointed the time and place for holding it; employed an agent to furnish the requisite supplies, and made arrangements for the necessary payments. at this point a correspondence arose between them and the commissioners of georgia, who assumed to dictate the terms on which the treaty was to be founded. the commissioners of the united states, finding those of georgia inclined to dictate the course of action which they were to pursue, were unwilling to submit to such dictation, and reported the difficulty to the secretary of war; while the commissioners on the part of georgia, feeling perfect confidence in the devotion of that officer to the interests of slavery, made their report of the matter to him also.[51]

the secretary returned an answer, reproving the commissioners whom he had himself appointed, so severely for their refusal to obey the dictation of those appointed by georgia, that they both immediately resigned their offices, appearing to feel that their own self-respect must be compromised by acting under the instruction of the state commissioners.[52]

apparently determined to appoint no man who should again prove refractory, the executive—probably at the instance of the secretary of war—next selected as commissioner, in the place of mr. flournoy, david meriwether, who had, up to the time of receiving the appointment, acted as commissioner on the part of georgia. at the request of the secretary of war, he resigned his office of commissioner on behalf of the state, and accepted the appointment from the federal government. hon. d. m. forney, of north carolina, was selected as the other commissioner, in place of mr. pickens. these commissioners were expressly instructed to assist the state of georgia in obtaining the objects for which she was striving.[53]

these preliminary arrangements could not fail to foreshadow the character of the treaty negotiated under such auspices. anticipating no other motive for the treaty than the settlement of the boundary between the state of georgia and the creeks, the chiefs, head-men and principal warriors of the tribe assembled at the time and place appointed. after the ordinary formalities on such occasions, the commissioners on the part of the united states opened the business by simply stating, that the people of georgia complained to the president that the creeks had not returned the property (negroes, cattle and horses), which they were under obligations to return to their owners in georgia, by the treaties of new york and colerain.

the commissioners on the part of georgia now delivered their talk, saying, that by the treaty of augusta (1783), of galphinton (1785), and of shoulderbone (1786), the creeks had agreed to return to their owners, negroes who had left their masters, and other property; that these treaties were all made before the formation of the government of the united states under their present constitution; but they were ratified by the treaty of new york (1790), and of colerain (1796), made with the united states, and georgia now demanded compensation for the loss of her negroes and other property.

on the following day, general mcintosh, principal chief of the creeks, replied, that he came to meet the commissioners of the united states, and had no expectation of meeting those of georgia; nor had he or his friends any idea that such claims were to be presented. that the chief, mcgillivray, when he returned, after the treaty of new york, informed them that they were to deliver up such negroes as were then in the nation; that they were to pay for none who had removed or died; that they all so understood that treaty, and that nothing was then said about any other claims than for negroes; that the prisoners, both black and white, were delivered up under the treaty of new york; that the claims now presented were also presented at the treaty of colerain, in 1796, but the creeks then absolutely refused to acknowledge any further obligation than that contained in the treaty of new york, and by that they were under obligation to surrender no property except persons held as prisoners, and negroes then in the nation. that many of these negroes were carried away by the british, during the war of 1812; that others were in the fort at appalachicola, when he and his warriors went with colonel clinch and blew it up, and killed nearly all who were in it; and the others were with the seminoles, and not with the creeks.

to this answer the commissioners of georgia replied, that by the treaties of augusta, and galphinton, and shoulderbone, the creeks were bound to deliver all negroes who had left their masters in georgia; that, if they had done so, the british would not have carried them off, nor would they have been killed in the fort; that the seminoles were a part of the creek nation, who were responsible, not only for the slaves and their increase, but also for the loss of the labor which they would have performed had they remained in bondage.

of the means used to obtain the treaty, we have no other information than appears of record. those acquainted with the usual modes of negotiating indian treaties, by the use of intoxicating liquors, by bribery, and those appliances generally used on such occasions, will not wonder at the stipulations contained in the treaty of “indian spring.”

by the first article, the creeks ceded to the united states, for the benefit of georgia, about five million acres of their most valuable territory. the second article provided for the reservation of certain lands, to be retained by those who were then living upon them. the third reserved certain lands for the use of the united states agency; and the fourth is in the following words:

“it is hereby stipulated and agreed, on the part of the united states, as a consideration for the land ceded by the creek nation, by the first article, that there shall be paid to the creek nation, by the united states, ten thousand dollars in hand, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, forty thousand dollars as soon as practicable after the ratification of this convention, five thousand dollars annually for two years thereafter, sixteen thousand dollars annually for five years thereafter, and ten thousand dollars annually for six years thereafter; making in the whole fourteen payments, in fourteen successive years, without interest, in money or goods, and implements of husbandry, at the option of the creek nation, seasonably signified, from time to time, through the agent of the united states residing with said nation, to the department of war. and as a further consideration for said cession, the united states do hereby agree to pay to the state of georgia, whatever balance may be found due by the creek nation to the citizens of said state, whenever the same shall be ascertained, in conformity with the reference made by the commissioners of georgia and the chiefs, head-men and warriors of the creek nation, to be paid in five annual installments, without interest, provided the same shall not exceed the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars; the commissioners of georgia executing to the creek nation a full and final relinquishment of all the claims of the citizens of georgia against the creek nation, for property taken or destroyed prior to the act of congress, of one thousand eight hundred and two, regulating the intercourse with the indian tribes.”

the fifth article merely provides for running the boundaries of the several reservations. it was duly signed and witnessed, and bears date on the eighth of january, 1821.

deeming the treaty not sufficiently explicit in its terms, the commissioners on the part of georgia, entered into a further agreement with the indians, which reads as follows:

“whereas at a conference, opened and held at the indian spring, in the creek nation, the citizens of georgia, by the aforesaid commissioners, have represented that they have claims to a large amount against the said creek nation of indians: now, in order to adjust and bring the same to a speedy and final settlement, it is hereby agreed by the aforesaid commissioners, and the chiefs, head-men and warriors of the said nation, that all the talks had upon the subject of these claims, at this place, together with all claims on either side, of whatever nature or kind, prior to the act of congress of one thousand eight hundred and two, regulating the intercourse with the indian tribes, with the documents in support of them, shall be referred to the decision of the president of the united states, by him to be decided upon, adjusted, liquidated and settled, in such manner and under such rules, regulations and restrictions as he shall prescribe: provided, however, if it should meet the views of the president of the united states, it is the wish of the contracting parties, that the liquidation and settlement of the aforesaid claims shall be made in the state of georgia, at such place as he may deem most convenient for the parties interested; and the decision and award thus made and rendered, shall be binding and obligatory upon the contracting parties.”

there was also an assignment of the title, or right of property claimed, executed to the united states by the commissioners of georgia, which is in the following language:

“whereas a treaty, or convention, has this day been made and entered into, by and between the united states and the creek nation, by the provisions of which the united states have agreed to pay, and the commissioners of the state of georgia have agreed to accept, for and on behalf of the citizens of the state of georgia having claims against the creek nation, prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and two, the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars:

“now know all men by these presents, that we, the undersigned, commissioners of the state of georgia, for and in consideration of the aforesaid sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, secured by the said treaty, or convention, to be paid to the state of georgia, for the discharge of all bona fide and liquidated claims which the citizens of the said state may establish against the creek nation, do, by these presents, release, exonerate and discharge the said creek nation from all and every claim and claims, of whatever description, nature or kind the same may be, which the citizens of georgia now have, or may have had, prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and two, against the said nation. and we do hereby assign, transfer and set over unto the united states, for the use and benefit of the said creek nation, for the consideration hereinbefore expressed, all the right, title and interest of the citizens of the said state to all claims, debts, damages, and property of every description and denomination, which the citizens of the said state have or had, prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and two, as aforesaid, against the said creek nation.”

it were useless for the historian to criticise the language of these several instruments. the “claims” mentioned in them, and referred to the president, were mostly for slaves who left their masters during the revolution, and prior to 1802; at least such was the construction given to the treaty, the agreement and assignment by the parties; and we cannot, at this day, assert that they did not understand their own compacts.

the creeks were to receive two hundred thousand dollars in cash; and the united states agreed to pay to georgia her claims, provided they did not exceed two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. the amount due to georgia was to be ascertained by the president, and paid by the united states. the third, and a very important point was the assignment to the united states, for the benefit of the creek indians, of the interest vested in the claimants to the property and persons claimed—the united states to hold such interest in trust for the creek indians.

by this arrangement, our government became owners of the exiles referred to, in trust for the benefit of the creeks, according to the construction which the indians, the authorities of the united states and those of georgia, placed upon the assignment, the agreement and treaty. this important point, if borne in mind, will aid the reader in understanding the subsequent action of the federal authorities in relation to this subject.

1822.

in pursuance of this treaty, the president promptly appointed a commissioner to ascertain the amounts due the several claimants. but great difficulties had to be encountered. the claims commenced in 1775 and extended down to 1802, and it was extremely difficult to obtain evidence of facts which transpired so long prior to the examination. sufficient proof was produced, however, to satisfy the commissioner that ninety-two slaves had, within the periods mentioned, left their masters, in georgia, and fled to the indians; and the estimated value of slaves and other property lost to the owners in this manner, amounted to one hundred and nine thousand dollars.[54]

1823.

this amount of money was duly appropriated by congress. so far as we are informed, no member of the house of representatives, or of the senate, appears to have entertained doubts as to the propriety of this governmental slave-dealing. the whole negotiation and arrangement had been conducted and managed by southern men, and northern statesmen quietly submitted. thus, after a struggle of thirty-eight years, the slaveholders of georgia, by the aid of our federal government, obtained compensation for the loss of their fugitive bondmen.

after the distribution of the amount found due to the claimants, there yet remained in the hands of the president one hundred and forty-one thousand dollars, being the remainder of the two hundred and fifty thousand appropriated by the treaty to secure the payment of these claims. this money apparently belonged to the indians. the claimants for slaves could not have any title to it, for they had expressly stipulated, that the award of the commissioner should be conclusive upon the parties. the claimants, by that award, received full compensation for their loss; yet they next demanded of the president the hundred and forty-one thousand dollars which remained in his hands. notwithstanding the commissioners on the part of georgia expressly agreed to abide by the award, and had assigned all interest in the property and in the persons residing with the indians, to the united states, and had received their money in full, under the treaty; yet they desired to get the remainder, which was considerably larger than the amount awarded them by the commissioner.