Chapter I: RISE under feelings of deeper regret than I have ever experienced (3)

I will pass over the report lately made to the house by the department of state, respecting the state of South America, with only one remark――that it appears to me to exhibit evidence of an adroit and experienced diplomatist, negotiating, or rather conferring on a subject with a young and inexperienced minister, from a young and inexperienced republic. From the manner in which this report was communicated, after a call for information so long made, and after a lapse of two months from the last date in the correspondence on the subject, I was mortified at hearing the report read. Why talk of the mode of recognition? Why make objections to the form of the commission? If the minister has not a formal power, why not tell him to send back for one? Why ask of him to enumerate the particular states whose independence he wished acknowledged? Suppose the French minister had asked of Franklin what number of states he represented? Thirteen, if you please, Franklin would have replied. But Mr. Franklin, will you tell me if Pennsylvania, whose capital is in possession of the British, be one of them? What would Dr. Franklin have said? It would have comported better with the frankness of the American character, and of American diplomacy, if the secretary, avoiding cavils about the form of the commission, had said to the minister of Buenos Ayres, ‘at the present moment we do not intend to recognise you, or to receive or to send a minister to you.’

But among the charges which gentlemen have industriously brought together, the house has been told of factions prevailing in Buenos Ayres. Do not factions exist every where? Are they not to be found in the best regulated and most firmly established governments? Respecting the Carreras, public information is abused; they were supposed to have had improper views, designs hostile to the existing government, and it became necessary to deprive them of the power of doing mischief. And what is the fact respecting the alleged arrest of American citizens? Buenos Ayres has been organizing an army to attack Chili. Carrera arrives at the river La Plata with some North Americans; he had before defeated the revolution in Chili, by withholding his coöperation; the government of Buenos Ayres therefore said to him, we do not want your resources; our own army is operating; if you carry yours there, it may produce dissension, and cause the loss of liberty; you shall not go. On his opposing this course, what was done which has called forth the sympathy of gentlemen? He and those who attended him from this country were put in confinement, but only long enough to permit the operations of the Buenos Ayrean army to go on; they were then permitted to go, or made their escape to Montevideo, and afterwards where they pleased. With respect to the conduct of that government, I would only recall the attention of gentlemen to the orders which have lately emanated from it, for the regulation of privateers, which has displayed a solicitude to guard against irregularity, and to respect the rights of neutrals, not inferior to that ever shown by any government, which has on any occasion attempted to regulate this licentious mode of warfare.

The honorable gentleman from Georgia commenced his remarks the other day by an animadversion which he might well have spared, when he told us, that even the prayers of the chaplain of this house had been offered up in behalf of the patriots. And was it reprehensible, that an American chaplain, whose cheeks are furrowed by age, and his head as white as snow, who has a thousand times, during our own revolution, implored the smiles of heaven on our exertions, should indulge in the pious and patriotic feelings flowing from his recollections of our own revolution? Ought he to be subject to animadversion for so doing, in a place where he cannot be heard? Ought he to be subject to animadversion for soliciting the favor of heaven on the same cause as that in which we fought, the good fight, and conquered our independence? I trust not.

But the gentleman from Georgia, it appears, can see no parallel between our revolution and that of the Spanish provinces. Their revolution, in its commencement, did not aim at complete independence, neither did ours. Such is the loyalty of the Creole character, that, although groaning under three hundred years of tyranny and oppression, they have been unwilling to cast off their allegiance to that throne, which has been the throne of their ancestors. But, looking forward to a redress of wrongs, rather than a change of government, they gradually, and perhaps at first unintentionally, entered into a revolution. I have it from those who have been actively engaged in our revolution, from that venerable man (chancellor Wythe), whose memory I shall ever cherish with filial regard, that, a very short time before our declaration of independence, it would have been impossible to have got a majority of congress to declare it. Look at the language of our petitions of that day, carrying our loyalty to the foot of the throne, and avowing our anxiety to remain under the crown of our ancestors; independence was then not even remotely suggested as our object.

The present state of facts, and not what has passed and gone in South America, must be consulted. At the present moment, the patriots of the south are fighting for liberty and independence; for precisely what we fought. But their revolution, the gentleman told the house, was stained by scenes which had not occurred in ours. If so, it was because execrable outrages had been committed upon them by troops of the mother country, which were not upon us. Can it be believed, if the slaves had been let loose upon us in the south, as they have been let loose in Venezuela; if quarters had been refused; capitulations violated; that general Washington, at the head of the armies of the United States, would not have resorted to retribution? Retaliation is sometimes mercy, mercy to both parties. The only means by which the coward soul that indulges in such enormities can be reached, is to show to him that they will be visited by severe but just retribution. There are traits in the history of this revolution, which show what deep root liberty has taken in South America. I will state an instance. The only hope of a wealthy and reputable family was charged, at the head of a small force, with the care of the magazine of the army. He saw that it was impossible to defend it. ‘Go,’ said he to his companions in arms, ‘I alone am sufficient for its defence.’ The assailants approached; he applied a match and blew up the magazine, with himself, scattering death and destruction on his enemy. There is another instance of the intrepidity of a female of the patriot party. A lady in New Granada had given information to the patriot forces, of plans and instructions by which the capitol might be invaded. She was put upon the rack to divulge her accomplices. She bore the torture with the greatest fortitude, and died exclaiming, ‘you shall not hear it from my mouth; I will die, and may those live who can free my country.’

But the house has been asked, and asked with a triumph worthy of a better cause, why recognise this republic? Where is the use of it? And is it possible that gentlemen can see no use in recognising this republic? For what did this republic fight? To be admitted into the family of nations. Tell the nations of the world, says Pueyrredon, in his speech, that we already belong to their illustrious rank. What would be the powerful consequences of a recognition of their claim? I ask my honorable friend before me (general Bloomfield), the highest sanction of whose judgment in favor of my proposition, I fondly anticipate, with what anxious solicitude, during our revolution, he and his glorious compatriots turned their eyes to Europe and asked to be recognised, I ask him, the patriot of ’76, how the heart rebounded with joy, on the information that France had recognised us. The moral influence of such a recognition, on the patriot of the south, will be irresistible. He will derive assurance from it, of his not having fought in vain. In the constitution of our natures there is a point, to which adversity may pursue us, without perhaps any worse effect than that of exciting new energy to meet it. Having reached that point, if no gleam of comfort breaks through the gloom, we sink beneath the pressure, yielding reluctantly to our fate, and in hopeless despair lose all stimulus to exertion. And is there not reason to fear such a fate to the patriots of La Plata? Already enjoying independence for eight years, their ministers are yet spurned from the courts of Europe, and rejected by the government of a sister republic. Contrast this conduct of ours with our conduct in other respects. No matter whence the minister comes, be it from a despotic power, we receive him; and even now, the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Smith) would have us send a minister to Constantinople, to beg a passage through the Dardanelles to the Black Sea, that, I suppose, we might get some hemp and bread-stuffs there, of which we ourselves produce none; he, who can see no advantage to the country from opening to its commerce the measureless resources of South America, would send a minister to Constantinople for a little trade. Nay, I have seen a project in the newspapers, and I should not be surprised, after what we have already seen, at its being carried into effect, for sending a minister to the porte. Yes, sir, from Constantinople, or from the Brazils; from Turk or christian; from black or white; from the dey of Algiers or the bey of Tunis; from the devil himself, if he wore a crown, we should receive a minister. We even paid the expenses of the minister of his sublime highness, the bey of Tunis, and thought ourselves highly honored by his visit. But, let the minister come from a poor republic, like that of La Plata, and we turn our back on him. The brilliant costumes of the ministers of the royal governments are seen glistening in the circles of our drawing-rooms, and their splendid equipages rolling through the avenues of the metropolis; but the unaccredited minister of the republic, if he visit our president or secretary of state at all, must do it _incognito_, lest the eye of don Onis should be offended by so unseemly a sight! I hope the gentleman from South Carolina, who is so capable of estimating the effect of moral causes, will see some use in recognising the independence of La Plata. I appeal to the powerful effect of moral causes, manifested in the case of the French revolution, when, by their influence, that nation swept from about her the armies of the combined powers, by which she was environed, and rose up, the colossal power of Europe. There is an example of the effect of moral power. All the patriots ask, all they want at our hands, is, to be recognised as, what they have been for the last eight years, an independent power.

But, it seems, we dare not do this, lest we tread on sacred ground; and an honorable gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Smyth), who, when he has been a little longer in this house, will learn to respect its powers, calls it an usurpation on the part of this house. Has the gentleman weighed the terms which he employed? If I mistake not, the gentleman, in the debate respecting the power to make internal improvements, called that too an usurpation on the part of this house. That power, too, however, he admitted to belong to the executive, and traced it to an imperial source, informing us that Cæsar or somebody else, had exercised it. Sir, the gentleman has mistaken his position here; he is a military chieftain, and an admirable defender of executive authority, but he has yet to learn his horn-book as to the powers of this branch of the legislature. Usurpation is arrogating to yourself authority which is vested elsewhere. But what is it that I propose, to which this term has been applied? To appropriate money to pay a foreign minister his outfit and a year’s salary. If that be an usurpation, we have been usurping power from the commencement of the government to the present time. The chairman of the committee of ways and means has never reported an appropriation bill without some instance of this usurpation.

There are three modes under our constitution, in which a nation may be recognised; by the executive receiving a minister; secondly, by its sending one thither; and, thirdly, this house unquestionably has the right to recognise, in the exercise of the constitutional power of congress to regulate foreign commerce. To receive a minister from a foreign power, is an admission that the party sending him is sovereign and independent. So the sending a minister, as ministers are never sent but to sovereign powers, is a recognition of the independence of the power to whom the minister is sent. Now, the honorable gentleman from South Carolina would prefer the expression of our opinion by a resolution, independent of the appropriation bill. If the gentleman will vote for it in that shape, I will readily gratify him; all that I want to do is, to convey to the president an expression of our willingness, that the government of Buenos Ayres should be recognised. Whether it shall be done by receiving a minister or sending one, is quite immaterial. It is urged, that there may be an impropriety in sending a minister, not being certain, after what has passed, that he will be received; but that is one of the questions submitted to the direction of the executive, which he will determine, upon a view of all the circumstances; and who, of course, will previously have an understanding, that our minister will be duly respected. If gentlemen desire to know what a minister from us is to do, I would have him congratulate the republic on the establishment of free government and on their liberation from the ancient dynasty of Spain; assure it of the interest we feel in its welfare, and of our readiness to concur in any arrangement which may be advantageous to our mutual interest. Have we not a minister at the Brazils, a nation lying along side of the provinces of La Plata; and, considering the number of slaves in it, by no means so formidable as the latter, and about equi-distant from us? In reference to the strength of the two powers, that of La Plata is much stronger, and the government of Brazil, trembling under the apprehension of the effect of the arms of La Plata, has gone further than any other power to recognise its independence, having entered into a military convention with the republic, by which each power guaranties the possessions of the other. And we have exchanged ministers with the Brazils. The one, however, is a _kingdom_, the other a _republic_; and if any gentleman can assign any other better reason why a minister should be sent to one and not to the other of these powers, I shall be glad to hear it disclosed, for I have not been able myself to discover it.

A gentleman yesterday told the house that the news from Buenos Ayres was unfavorable. Take it altogether, I believe it is not. But I put but little trust in such accounts. In our revolution, incredulity of reports and newspaper stories, propagated by the enemy, was so strengthened by experience, that at last, nothing was believed which was not attested by the signature of ‘Charles Thomson.’ I am somewhat similarly situated; I cannot believe these reports; I wish to see ‘Charles Thomson’ before I give full credit to them. The vessel which has arrived at Baltimore――and, by the way, by its valuable cargo of specie, hides, and tallow, gives evidence of a commerce worth pursuing――brought some rumor of a difference between Artigas and the authorities of Buenos Ayres. With respect to the Banda Oriental, which is said to be occupied by Artigas, it constitutes but a very subordinate part of the territory of the United Provinces of La Plata; and it can be no more objection to recognising the nation, because that province is not included within its power, than it could have been to our recognition, because several states held out against the adoption of the constitution. Before I attach any confidence to a letter not signed ‘Charles Thomson,’ I must know who the man is who writes it, what are his sources of information, his character for veracity, and so forth, and of all those particulars, we are deprived of the information, in the case of the recent intelligence in the Baltimore papers, as extracted from private letters.

But we are charged, on the present occasion, with treading on sacred ground. Let me suppose, what I do not believe to be the case, that the president has expressed an opinion one way and we another. At so early a period of our government, because a particular individual fills the presidential chair――an individual whom I highly respect, more perhaps than some of those who would be considered his exclusive friends――is the odious doctrine to be preached here, that the chief magistrate can do no wrong? Is the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance, are the principles of the Stuarts, to be revived in this free government? Is an opinion to be suppressed and scouted, because it is in opposition to the opinion of the president? Sir, as long as I have a seat on this floor, I shall not hesitate to exert the independence which belongs to the representative character; I shall not hesitate to express my opinions, coincident or not with those of the executive. But I can show that this cry has been raised on the present occasion without reason. Suppose a case――that the president had sent a minister to Buenos Ayres, and this house had been called on to make an appropriation for the payment of his salary. I ask of gentlemen, whether in that case they would not have voted an appropriation? And has not the house a right to deliberate on the propriety of doing so, as well before, as after a minister is sent? Will gentlemen please to point out the difference? I contend that _we_ are the true friends of the executive; and that the title does not belong to those who have taken it. We wish to extend his influence, and give him patronage; to give him means, as he has now the power, to send another minister abroad. But, apart from this view of the question, as regards the executive power, this house has the incontestable right to recognise a foreign nation in the exercise of its power, to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Suppose, for example we pass an act to regulate trade between the United States and Buenos Ayres, the existence of the nation would be thereby recognised, as we could not regulate trade with a nation which does not exist.

The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Smyth), the great champions of executive power, and the opponent of legislative authority, have contended that recognition would be cause of war. These gentlemen are reduced to this dilemma. If it is cause of war, the executive ought not to have the right to produce a war upon the country, without consulting congress. If it is no cause of war, it is an act which there is no danger in performing. There is very little difference in principle, between vesting the executive with the power of declaring war, or with the power of necessarily leading the country into war, without consulting the authority to whom the power of making war is confided. But I deny that it is cause of war; but if it is, the sense of congress ought certainly in some way or other to be taken on it, before that step is taken. I know that some of the most distinguished statesmen in the country have taken the view of this subject, that the power to recognise the independence of any nation does not belong to the president; that it is a power too momentous and consequential in its character, to belong to the executive. My own opinion, I confess, is different, believing the power to belong to either the president or congress, and that it may, as most convenient, be exercised by either. If aid is to be given, to afford which will be cause of war, however, congress alone can give it.

This house, then, has the power to act on the subject, even though the president has expressed an opinion, which he has not, further than, as appears by the report of the secretary of state, to decide that in January last, it would not be proper to recognise them. But the president stands pledged to recognise the republic, if on the return of the commissioners whom he has deputed, they shall make report favorable to the stability of the government. Suppose the chairman of the committee of foreign relations had reported a provision for an appropriation of that description which I propose, should we not all have voted for it? And can any gentleman be so pliant, as, on the mere ground of an executive recommendation, to vote an appropriation without exercising his own faculties on the question; and yet, when there is no such suggestion, will not even so far act for himself as to determine whether a republic is so independent that we may fairly take the step of recognition of it? I hope that no such submission to the executive pleasure will characterize this house.

One more remark, and I have done. One gentleman told the house that the population of the Spanish provinces is eighteen millions; that we, with a population of two millions only, have conquered our independence; and that, if the southern provinces willed it, they must be free. This population, I have already stated, consists of distinct nations, having but little, if any, intercourse, the largest of which is Mexico; and they are so separated by immense distances, that it is impossible there should be any coöperation between them. Besides, they have difficulties to encounter which we had not. They have a noblesse; they are divided into jealous castes, and a vast proportion of Indians; to which adding the great influence of the clergy, and it will be seen how widely different the circumstances of Spanish America are, from those under which the revolution in this country was brought to a successful termination. I have already shown how deep-rooted is the spirit of liberty in that country. I have instanced the little island of Margarita, against which the whole force of Spain has been in vain directed; containing a population of only sixteen thousand souls, but where every man, woman, and child, is a Grecian soldier, in defence of freedom. For many years the spirit of freedom has been struggling in Venezuela, and Spain has been unable to conquer it. Morillo, in an official despatch, transmitted to the minister of marine of his own country, avows that Angostura and all Guayana are in possession of the patriots, as well as all that country from which supplies can be drawn. According to the last accounts, Bolivar and other patriot commanders, are concentrating their forces, and are within one day’s march of Morillo; and if they do not forsake the Fabian policy, which is the true course for them, the result will be, that even the weakest of the whole of the provinces of Spanish America, will establish their independence, and secure the enjoyment of those rights and blessings, which rightfully belong to them.

ON THE SEMINOLE WAR.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 17, 1819.

[THE Seminoles were a tribe of Indians inhabiting Florida, and
parts of the adjacent country. During the war between the United
States and Great Britain, from 1812 to 1815, the Seminoles and
Creek Indians made attacks upon our frontier settlements in the
southwest, and in consequence, general Andrew Jackson, then a
major-general of militia in Tennessee, was sent against them, at
the head of a considerable force, by which, after a sanguinary
contest, the Indians were subdued, and a treaty concluded
with the Creek nation, in 1814. After the peace of 1815, the
Seminoles, being sheltered in Florida, at that time a Spanish
province, made frequent depredations upon the people of the
United States. In December, 1817, the department of war ordered
general Jackson, who in 1814 was appointed a major-general in
the United States army, to assume the command of the forces
in the southwest, and march against the Indians; also to adopt
the necessary measures to terminate a conflict which has since
been called ‘the Seminole war.’ In the early part of 1818,
general Jackson took command of an army of regulars, militia,
and friendly Creeks, and pursued the Seminoles into Florida,
destroying their towns, and killing and capturing many Indians
and run-a-way negroes. He also took possession of the Spanish
fortresses of St. Marks, Pensacola, and the Barancas, during a
period of peace between Spain and the United States. Two Indian
traders, Arbuthnot, a Scotchman, and Ambrister, an Englishman,
were taken prisoners, (being found among the Indians and
Spaniards,) tried by a court martial, and executed by order
of general Jackson. Two Indian chiefs, who were captured, were
also put to death by his order, and sundry other cruel and
high-handed acts committed, to which the attention of congress
was called, at the session of 1818–19.

The subject having been referred to the committee on military
affairs, that committee brought in a report, concluding
with the following resolution: ‘Resolved, that the house of
representatives disapproves the proceedings in the trial and
execution of Alexander Arbuthnot and Robert C. Ambrister.’ To
this resolution, Mr. Cobb, of Georgia, moved to add others,
disapproving of the execution of Indian captives, and declaring
that the seizure of the Spanish posts was contrary to the
constitution, and so forth. The discussion on these resolutions
caused one of the most exciting and interesting debates ever
known in congress. Thirty-one of the most distinguished members
of the house participated in the debate, which was opened on the
eighteenth of January, in committee of the whole, and concluded
on the tenth of February, when the question on the resolutions
was taken, and decided in the negative, by majorities varying
from thirty to forty-six, in a house of one hundred and seventy
members present. General Jackson, besides his own popularity, as
the victor of New Orleans, had the advantage of being sustained
by the influence and power of Mr. Monroe’s administration, the
president being considered as implicated with him in some of
his transactions in Florida, by having sanctioned the same.
Among those who coincided with Mr. Clay, in condemning these
proceedings, were Messrs. Cobb, of Georgia, Storrs, of New York,
Colston, J. Johnson, T. M. Nelson, and Mercer, of Virginia,
Hopkinson, of Pennsylvania, Williams, of Connecticut, Harrison,
of Ohio, Tyler, of Virginia, (the two latter since presidents
of the United States,) Lowndes, of South Carolina, and Reed,
of Maryland; while, on the other side, Messrs. Holmes, of
Massachusetts, Tallmadge, of New York, P. P. Barbour, and
Floyd, of Virginia, Baldwin, of Pennsylvania, R. M. Johnson,
of Kentucky, and others, made able speeches in support of the
administration, and general Jackson’s military course in this
campaign.

Mr. Clay twice addressed the committee of the whole on the
subject; the first speech only, is reported at length, as
follows.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

IN rising to address you, sir, on the very interesting subject which now engages the attention of congress, I must be allowed to say, that all inferences drawn from the course which it will be my painful duty to take in this discussion, of unfriendliness either to the chief magistrate of the country, or to the illustrious military chieftain whose operations are under investigation, will be wholly unfounded. Towards that distinguished captain, who shed so much glory on our country, whose renown constitutes so great a portion of its moral property, I never had, I never can have, any other feelings than those of the most profound respect, and of the utmost kindness. With him my acquaintance is very limited, but, so far as it has extended, it has been of the most amicable kind. I know the motives which have been, and which will again be, attributed to me, in regard to the other exalted personage alluded to. They have been and will be unfounded. I have no interest, other than that of seeing the concerns of my country well and happily administered. It is infinitely more gratifying to behold the prosperity of my country advancing by the wisdom of the measures adopted to promote it, than it would be to expose the errors which may be committed, if there be any, in the conduct of its affairs. Little as has been my experience in public life, it has been sufficient to teach me that the most humble station is surrounded by difficulties and embarrassments. Rather than throw obstructions in the way of the president, I would precede him, and pick out those, if I could, which might jostle him in his progress; I would sympathize with him in his embarrassments, and commiserate with him in his misfortunes. It is true that it has been my mortification to differ from that gentleman on several occasions. I may be again reluctantly compelled to differ from him; but I will with the utmost sincerity, assure the committee, that I have formed no resolution, come under no engagements, and that I never will form any resolution, or contract any engagements, for systematic opposition to his administration, or to that of any other chief magistrate.

I beg leave further to premise, that the subject under consideration, presents two distinct aspects, susceptible, in my judgment, of the most clear and precise discrimination. The one I will call its foreign, the other its domestic aspect. In regard to the first, I will say, that I approve entirely of the conduct of our government, and that Spain has no cause of complaint. Having violated an important stipulation of the treaty of 1795, that power has justly subjected herself to all the consequences which ensued upon the entry into her dominions, and it belongs not to her to complain of those measures which resulted from her breach of contract; still less has she a right to examine into the considerations connected with the domestic aspect of the subject.

What are the propositions before the committee? The first in order, is that reported by the military committee, which asserts the disapprobation of this house, of the proceedings in the trial and execution of Arbuthnot and Ambrister. The second, being the first contained in the proposed amendment, is the consequence of that disapprobation, and contemplates the passage of a law to prohibit the execution hereafter of any captive, taken by the army, without the approbation of the president. The third proposition is, that this house disapproves of the forcible seizure of the Spanish posts, as contrary to orders, and in violation of the constitution. The fourth proposition, as the result of the last, is, that a law shall pass to prohibit the march of the army of the United States, or any corps of it, into any foreign territory, without the previous authorization of congress, except it be in fresh pursuit of a defeated enemy. The first and third are general propositions, declaring the sense of the house in regard to the evils pointed out; and the second and fourth, propose the legislative remedies against the recurrence of those evils.

It will be at once perceived, by this simple statement of the propositions, that no other censure is proposed against general Jackson himself, than what is merely consequential. His name even does not appear in any of the resolutions. The legislature of the country, in reviewing the state of the union, and considering the events which have transpired since its last meeting, finds that particular occurrences, of the greatest moment, in many respects, have taken place near our southern border. I will add, that the house has not sought, by any officious interference with the doings of the executive, to gain jurisdiction over this matter. The president, in his message at the opening of the session, communicated the very information on which it was proposed to act. I would ask, for what purpose? That we should fold our arms and yield a tacit acquiescence, even if we supposed that information disclosed alarming events, not merely as it regards the peace of the country, but in respect to its constitution and character? Impossible. In communicating these papers, and voluntarily calling the attention of congress to the subject, the president must himself have intended, that we should apply any remedy that we might be able to devise. Having the subject thus regularly and fairly before us, and proposing merely to collect the sense of the house upon certain important transactions which it discloses, with the view to the passage of such laws as may be demanded by the public interest, I repeat, that there is no censure any where, except such as is strictly consequential upon our legislative action. The supposition of every new law, having for its object to prevent the recurrence of evil, is, that something has happened which ought not to have taken place, and no other than this indirect sort of censure will flow from the resolutions before the committee.

Having thus given my view of the nature and character of the propositions under consideration, I am far from intimating that it is not my purpose to go into a full, a free, and a thorough investigation of the facts, and of the principles of law, public, municipal, and constitutional, involved in them. And, whilst I trust I shall speak with the decorum due to the distinguished officers of the government whose proceedings are to be examined, I shall exercise the independence which belongs to me as a representative of the people, in freely and fully submitting my sentiments.

In noticing the painful incidents of this war, it is impossible not to inquire into its origin. I fear that it will be found to be the famous treaty of Fort Jackson, concluded in August, 1814; and I must ask the indulgence of the chairman while I read certain parts of that treaty.

‘_Whereas_ an unprovoked, inhuman, and sanguinary war, waged by
the hostile Creeks against the United States, hath been repelled,
prosecuted, and determined, successfully on the part of the said
states, in conformity with principles of national justice and
honorable warfare: and _whereas_ consideration is due to the
rectitude of proceedings dictated by instructions relating to
the reëstablishing of peace: Be it remembered, that, prior to
the conquest of that part of the Creek nation hostile to the
United States, numberless aggressions had been committed against
the peace, the property, and the lives of citizens of the United
States, and those of the Creek nation in amity with her, at
the mouth of Duck river, Fort Mimms, and elsewhere, contrary
to national faith, and the regard due to an article of the
treaty concluded at New York, in the year 1790, between the two
nations; that the United States, previous to the perpetration of
such outrages, did, in order to insure future amity and concord
between the Creek nation and the said states, in conformity with
the stipulations of former treaties, fulfil, with punctuality
and good faith, her engagements to the said nation; that more
than two thirds of the whole number of chiefs and warriors of
the Creek nation, disregarding the genuine spirit of existing
treaties, suffered themselves to be instigated to violations
of their national honor, and the respect due to a part of their
own nation, faithful to the United States, and the principles
of humanity, by impostors, denominating themselves prophets, and
by the duplicity and misrepresentations of foreign emissaries,
whose governments are at war, open or understood, with the
United States.

Article 2. The United States will guaranty to the Creek nation
the integrity of all their territory eastwardly and northwardly
of the said line, (described in the first article,) to be run
and described as mentioned in the first article.

Article 3. The United States _demand_ that the Creek nation
abandon all communication, and cease to hold intercourse with
any British post, garrison, or town; and that they shall not
admit among them any agent or trader, who shall not derive
authority to hold commercial or other intercourse with them,
by license from the President or other authorized agent of the
United States.

Article 4. The United States _demand_ an acknowledgment of the
right to establish military posts and trading houses, and to
open roads within the territory guarantied to the Creek nation
by the second article, and a right to the free navigation of all
its waters.

Article 5. The United States _demand_ that a surrender be
immediately made, of all the persons and property taken from
the citizens of the United States, the friendly part of the
Creek nation, the Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations,
to the respective owners; and the United States will cause to
be immediately restored to the formerly hostile Creeks all the
property taken from them since their submission, either by the
United States, or by any Indian nations in amity with the United
States, together with all the prisoners taken from them during
the war.

Article 6. The United States _demand_ the caption and surrender
of all the _prophets_ and instigators of the war, whether
foreigners or natives, who have not submitted to the arms of
the United States, and become parties to these articles of
capitulation, if ever they shall be found within the territory
guarantied to the Creek nation by the second article.

Article 7. The Creek nation _being reduced to extreme want_,
and not at present having the means of subsistence, the United
States, from motives of humanity, will continue to furnish
gratuitously the necessaries of life, until the crops of corn
can be considered competent to yield the nation a supply, and
will establish trading houses in the nation, at the discretion
of the president of the United States, and at such places as he
shall direct, to enable the nation, by industry and economy, to
procure clothing.’

I have never perused this instrument until within a few days past, and I have read it with the deepest mortification and regret. A more dictatorial spirit I have never seen displayed in any instrument. I would challenge an examination of all the records of diplomacy, not excepting even those in the most haughty period of imperial Rome, when she was carrying her arms into the barbarian nations that surrounded her, and I do not believe a solitary instance can be found of such an inexorable spirit of domination pervading a compact purporting to be a treaty of _peace_. It consists of the most severe and humiliating demands――of the surrender of a large territory; of the privilege of making roads through the remnant which was retained; of the right of establishing trading-houses; of the obligation of delivering into our hands their prophets. And all this of a wretched people reduced to the last extremity of distress, whose miserable existence we have to preserve by a voluntary stipulation to furnish them with bread! When did the all-conquering and desolating Rome ever fail to respect the altars and the gods of those whom she subjugated? Let me not be told that these prophets were impostors, who deceived the Indians. They were _their_ prophets; the Indians believed and venerated them, and it is not for us to dictate a religious belief to them. It does not belong to the holy character of the religion which we profess, to carry its precepts, by the force of the bayonet, into the bosoms of other people. Mild and gentle persuasion was the great instrument employed by the meek founder of our religion. We leave to the humane and benevolent efforts of the reverend professors of christianity to convert from barbarism those unhappy nations yet immersed in its gloom. But, sir, spare them their prophets! spare their delusions! spare their prejudices and superstitions! spare them even their religion, such as it is, from open and cruel violence. When, sir, was that treaty concluded? On the very day, after the protocol was signed, of the first conference between the American and British commissioners, treating of peace, at Ghent. In the course of that negotiation, pretensions so enormous were set up by the other party, that, when they were promulgated in this country, there was one general burst of indignation throughout the continent. Faction itself was silenced, and the firm and unanimous determination of all parties was, to fight until the last man fell in the ditch, rather than submit to such ignominious terms. What a contrast is exhibited between the contemporaneous scenes of Ghent and of Fort Jackson! what a powerful voucher would the British commissioners have been furnished with, if they could have got hold of that treaty! The United States _demand_, the United States _demand_, is repeated five or six times. And what did the preamble itself disclose? That two thirds of the Creek nation had been hostile, and one third only friendly to us. Now I have heard, (I cannot vouch for the truth of the statement,) that not one hostile chief signed the treaty. I have also heard that perhaps one or two of them did. If the treaty were really made by a minority of the nation, it was not obligatory upon the whole nation. It was void, considered in the light of a national compact. And, if void, the Indians were entitled to the benefit of the provision of the ninth article of the treaty of Ghent, by which we bound ourselves to make peace with any tribes with whom we might be at war on the ratification of the treaty, and to restore to them their lands, as they held them in 1811. I do not know how the honorable senate, that body for which I hold so high a respect, could have given their sanction to the treaty of Fort Jackson, so utterly irreconcilable as it is with those noble principles of generosity and magnanimity which I hope to see my country always exhibit, and particularly toward the miserable remnant of the aborigines. It would have comported better with those principles, to have imitated the benevolent policy of the founder of Pennsylvania, and to have given to the Creeks, conquered as they were, even if they had made an unjust war upon us, the trifling consideration, to them an adequate compensation, which he paid for their lands. That treaty, I fear, has been the main cause of the recent war. And, if it has been, it only adds another melancholy proof to those with which history already abounds, that hard and unconscionable terms, extorted by the power of the sword and the right of conquest, serve but to whet and stimulate revenge, and to give old hostilities, smothered, not extinguished, by the pretended peace, greater exasperation and more ferocity. A truce, thus patched up with an unfortunate people, without the means of existence, without bread, is no real peace. The instant there is the slightest prospect of relief from such harsh and severe conditions, the conquered party will fly to arms, and spend the last drop of blood rather than live in such degraded bondage. Even if you again reduce him to submission, the expenses incurred by this second war, to say nothing of the human lives that are sacrificed, will be greater than what it would have cost you to grant him liberal conditions in the first instance. This treaty, I repeat it, was, I apprehend, the cause of the war. It led to those excesses on our southern borders which began it. Who first commenced them, it is perhaps difficult to ascertain There was, however, a paper on this subject, communicated at the last session by the president, that told, in language pathetic and feeling, an artless tale; a paper that carried such internal evidence, at least, of the belief of the authors of it that they were writing the truth, that I will ask the favor of the committee to allow me to read it.

_To the Commanding Officer at Fort Hawkins_:

DEAR SIR:

Since the last war, after you sent word that we must quit the
war, we, the red people, have come over on this side. The white
people _have carried all the red people’s cattle off_. After the
war, I sent to all my people to let the white people alone, and
stay on this side of the river; and they did so; but the white
people _still continued to carry off their cattle_. Bernard’s
son was here, and I inquired of him what was to be done; and
he said we must go to the head man of the white people and
_complain_. I did so, and there was no head white man, and
_there was no law in this case_. The whites first began, and
there is nothing said about that; but great complaint _about
what the Indians do_. This is now three years since the white
people killed three Indians; since that time they have killed
_three other Indians_, and taken their horses, and what they
had; and this summer they killed _three more_; and very lately
they killed one more. We sent word to the white people that
these murders were done, and the answer was, that they were
people that were _outlaws_, and we ought to go and kill them.
The white people killed our people first; the Indians then took
satisfaction. There are yet three men that the red people have
never taken satisfaction for. You have wrote that there were
houses burnt; but we know of no such thing being done; the truth,
in such cases, ought to be told, but this appears otherwise.
On that side of the river, the white people have killed five
Indians, but there is nothing said about that; and all that the
Indians have done is brought up. _All the mischief the white
people have done, ought to be told to their head man._ When
there is any thing done, you write to us; but never write to
your head man what the white people do. When the red people send
talks, or write, they always send the truth. You have sent to us
for your horses, and we sent all that we could find; but there
were some dead. It appears that all the mischief is laid on this
town; but all the mischief that has been done by this town, is
two horses; one of them is dead, and the other was sent back.
The cattle that we are accused of taking, were cattle _that the
white people took from us_. Our young men went and brought them
back, with the same marks and brands. There were some of our
young men out hunting, and they were killed; others went to take
satisfaction, and the kettle of one of the men that was killed,
was found in the house where the woman and two children were
killed; and they supposed it had been her husband who had killed
the Indians, and took their satisfaction there. We are accused
of killing the Americans, and so on; but since the word was sent
to us that peace was made, we stay steady at home, _and meddle
with no person_. You have sent to us respecting the black people
on the Suwany river; we have nothing to do with them. They were
put there by the English, and to them you ought to apply for
any thing about them. We do not wish our country desolated by
an army passing through it, for the concern of other people. The
Indians have slaves there also; a great many of them. When we
have an opportunity, we shall apply to the English for them; but
we cannot get them now.

This is what we have to say at present.

Sir, I conclude by subscribing myself,

Your humble servant, &c.

September, the 11th day, 1817.

N. B. There are ten towns have read this letter, and this is the
answer.

_A true copy of the original._

WM. BELL, Aid-de-camp.

I should be very unwilling to assert, in regard to this war, that the fault was on our side; I fear it was. I have heard that a very respectable gentleman, now no more, who once filled the executive chair of Georgia, and who, having been agent of Indian affairs in that quarter, had the best opportunity of judging of the origin of this war, deliberately pronounced it as his opinion, that the Indians were not in fault. I am far from attributing to general Jackson any other than the very slight degree of blame that attaches to him as the negotiator of the treaty of Fort Jackson, and will be shared by those who subsequently ratified and sanctioned that treaty. But if there be even a doubt as to the origin of the war, whether we were censurable or the Indians, that doubt will serve to increase our regret at any distressing incidents which may have occurred, and to mitigate, in some degree, the crimes which we impute to the other side. I know that when general Jackson was summoned to the field, it was too late to hesitate; the fatal blow had been struck, in the destruction of Fowl-town, and the dreadful massacre of lieutenant Scott and his detachment; and the only duty which remained to him, was to terminate this unhappy contest.