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_: