Produced by Chuck Greif and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images available at the University of Florida
Digital Collections.)
[Illustration: Death of Waxe hadjo]
THE
EXILES OF FLORIDA:
OR,
THE CRIMES COMMITTED BY OUR GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE MAROONS,
WHO FLED FROM SOUTH CAROLINA AND OTHER SLAVE STATES,
SEEKING PROTECTION UNDER SPANISH LAWS.
BY
JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS.
"I, as commander of the army, pledged the national faith that they
should remain under the protection of the United States."
GENERAL JESSUP.
COLUMBUS, OHIO:
PUBLISHED BY FOLLETT, FOSTER AND COMPANY.
1858.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1858.
BY FOLLETT, FOSTER & CO.,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for
the Southern District of Ohio.
TO
MY CONSTITUENTS,
THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SO LONG HONORED ME
WITH THEIR CONFIDENCE,
THIS WORK IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED.
J. R. GIDDINGS.
INTRODUCTION.
Discarding that code of morals which teaches the suppression of truth,
for the purpose of upholding the honor, either of the Government, or of
the individuals who wield its administration, the Author of the
following work has endeavored to give a faithful record of those
interesting events which appear directly connected with the Exiles of
Florida.
Torn from their native land, their friends and homes, they were sold in
the markets of Carolina and Georgia. Feeling the hand of oppression
bearing heavily upon them, they fled to Florida, and, under Spanish
laws, became free. Holding lands of the Spanish Crown, they became
citizens of that Territory, entitled to protection. To regain possession
of their truant bondmen, Georgia made war upon Florida, but failed to
obtain her object.
At a time of profound peace, our army, acting under the direction of the
Executive, invaded Florida, murdered many of these free men, and brought
others to the United States and consigned them to slavery. An expensive
and bloody war followed; but failing to capture more of the Exiles, our
army was withdrawn.
This war was followed by diplomatic efforts. Florida was purchased;
treaties with the Florida Indians were made and violated; gross frauds
were perpetrated; dishonorable expedients were resorted to, and another
war provoked. During its protracted continuance of seven years, bribery
and treachery were practiced towards the Exiles and their allies, the
Seminole Indians; flags of truce were violated; the pledged faith of the
nation was disregarded. By these means the removal of the Exiles from
Florida was effected. After they had settled in the Western Country,
most of these iniquities were repeated, until they were driven from our
nation and compelled to seek an asylum in Mexico.
Men who wielded the influence of Government for the consummation of
these crimes, assiduously labored to suppress all knowledge of their
guilt; to keep facts from the popular mind; to falsify the history of
current events, and prevent an exposure of our national turpitude.
The object of this work is to meet that state of circumstances; to
expose fraud, falsehood, treachery, and other crimes of public men, who
have prostituted the powers of Government to the perpetration of
murders, at the contemplation of which our humanity revolts.
The Author has designed to place before the public a faithful record of
events appropriately falling within the purview of the proposed history;
he has endeavored, as far as possible, to do justice to all concerned.
Where the action of individuals is concerned, he has endeavored to make
them speak for themselves, through official reports, orders, letters, or
written evidences from their own hands; and he flatters himself that he
has done no injustice to any person.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION v
CHAPTER I.
Circumstances attending the Early History of Slavery in the Colonies.
Exiles: efforts to restore them 1
CHAPTER II.
Further efforts to restore Exiles 16
CHAPTER III.
Hostilities maintained by Georgia; First Seminole War commenced 28
CHAPTER IV.
General Hostilities 46
CHAPTER V.
Further efforts of the Government to restore Exiles to servitude 57
CHAPTER VI.
Further efforts to enslave the Exiles 69
CHAPTER VII.
Commencement of the Second Seminole War 97
CHAPTER VIII.
Hostilities continued 115
CHAPTER IX.
Hostilities continued 125
CHAPTER X.
The War continued--Peace declared--General Jessup assumes
command of the Army 135
CHAPTER XI.
General Jessup overthrows his own efforts in favor of Peace 142
CHAPTER XII.
The renewal and prosecution of the War 156
CHAPTER XIII.
Vigorous prosecution of the War 172
CHAPTER XIV.
Great difficulties interrupt the progress of the War 189
CHAPTER XV.
Difficulties in enslaving Exiles continued 214
CHAPTER XVI.
Further difficulties in the work of enslaving the Exiles 224
CHAPTER XVII.
Total failure of all efforts to enslave the Exiles 233
CHAPTER XVIII.
Further difficulties in prosecuting the War 251
CHAPTER XIX.
Hostilities continued 274
CHAPTER XX.
Hostilities continued 284
CHAPTER XXI.
Close of the War 308
CHAPTER XXII.
History of Exiles continued 317
CHAPTER XXIII.
The re-union and final Exodus 323
THE EXILES OF FLORIDA.
CHAPTER I.
CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE EARLY HISTORY OF SLAVERY IN THE COLONIES.
Settlement of Florida--Boundaries of Carolina--Enslaving
Indians--They flee from their Masters--Africans follow the
example--Spanish policy in regard to Fugitive Slaves--Carolina
demands the surrender of Exiles--Florida refuses--Colony of Georgia
established--Its object--Exiles called Seminoles--Slavery
Introduced Into Georgia--Seminole Indians separate from
Creeks--Slaves escape from Georgia--Report of Committee of
Safety--Report of General Lee--Treaty of Augusta--Treaty of
Galphinton--Singular conduct of Georgia--War between Creeks and
Georgia--Resolution of Congress--Treaty of
Shoulderbone--Hostilities continue--Georgia calls on United States
for assistance--Commissioners sent to negotiate
Treaty--Failure--Col. Willett's mission--Chiefs, head men and
Warriors repair to New York--Treaty formed--Secret
article--Extraordinary covenants.
Florida was originally settled by Spaniards, in 1558. They were the
first people to engage in the African Slave trade, and sought to supply
other nations with servants from the coast of Guinea. The Colonists held
many slaves, expecting to accumulate wealth by the unrequited toil of
their fellow-man.
[Sidenote: 1630.]
[Sidenote: 1700.]
Carolina by her first and second charters claimed a vast extent of
country, embracing St. Augustine and most of Florida. This conflict of
jurisdiction soon involved the Colonists in hostilities. The Carolinians
also held many slaves. Profiting by the labor of her servants, the
people sought to increase their wealth by enslaving the Indians who
resided in their vicinity. Hence in the early slave codes of that
colony we find reference to "negro and _other_ slaves."
When the boundaries of Florida and South Carolina became established,
the Colonists found themselves separated by the territory now
constituting, the State of Georgia, at that time mostly occupied by the
Creek Indians.
The efforts of the Carolinians to enslave the Indians, brought with them
the natural and appropriate penalties. The Indians soon began to make
their escape from service to the Indian country. This example was soon
followed by the African slaves, who also fled to the Indian country,
and, in order to secure themselves from pursuit, continued their journey
into Florida.
We are unable to fix the precise time when the persons thus exiled
constituted a separate community. Their numbers had become so great in
1736, that they were formed into companies, and relied on by the
Floridians as allies to aid in the defense of that territory. They were
also permitted to occupy lands upon the same terms that were granted to
the citizens of Spain; indeed, they in all respects became free subjects
of the Spanish crown. Probably to this early and steady policy of the
Spanish Government, we may attribute the establishment and continuance
of this community of Exiles in that territory.[1]
[Sidenote: 1738.]
A messenger was sent by the Colonial Government of South Carolina to
demand the return of those fugitive slaves who had found an asylum in
Florida. The demand was made upon the Governor of St. Augustine, but was
promptly rejected. This was the commencement of a controversy which has
continued for more than a century, involving our nation in a vast
expenditure of blood and treasure, and it yet remains undetermined.
The constant escape of slaves, and the difficulties resulting therefrom,
constituted the principal object for establishing a free colony between
South Carolina and Florida, which was called Georgia.[2] It was thought
that this colony, being free, would afford the planters of Carolina
protection against the further escape of their slaves from service.
These Exiles were by the Creek Indians called "Seminoles," which in
their dialect signifies "runaways," and the term being frequently used
while conversing with the Indians, came into almost constant practice
among the whites; and although it has now come to be applied to a
certain tribe of Indians, yet it was originally used in reference to
these Exiles long before the Seminole Indians had separated from the
Creeks.
Some eight years after the Colony of Georgia was first established,
efforts were made to introduce Slavery among its people. The ordinary
argument, that it would extend the Christian religion, was brought to
bear upon Whitfield and Habersham, and the Saltzbergers and Moravians,
until they consented to try the experiment, and Georgia became
thenceforth a Slaveholding Colony, whose frontier bordered directly upon
Florida; bringing the slaves of her planters into the very neighborhood
of those Exiles who had long been free under Spanish laws.
[Sidenote: 1750.]
A difficulty arose among the Creek Indians, which eventually becoming
irreconcilable, a chief named Seacoffee, with a large number of
followers, left that tribe--at that time residing within the present
limits of Georgia and Alabama--and continuing their journey south
entered the Territory of Florida, and, under the Spanish colonial
policy, were incorporated with the Spanish population, entitled to lands
wherever they could find them unoccupied, and to the protection of
Spanish laws.[3]
From the year 1750, Seacoffee and his followers rejected all Creek
authority, refused to be represented in Creek councils, held themselves
independent of Creek laws, elected their own chiefs, and in all respects
became a separate Tribe, embracing the Mickasukies, with whom they
united. They settled in the vicinity of the Exiles, associated with
them, and a mutual sympathy and respect existing, some of their people
intermarried, thereby strengthening the ties of friendship, and the
Indians having fled from oppression and taken refuge under Spanish laws,
were also called Seminoles, or "runaways."
After Georgia became a Slaveholding Colony, we are led to believe the
practice of slaves leaving their masters, which existed in South
Carolina, became frequent in Georgia. But we have no definite
information on this subject until about the commencement of the
Revolutionary War (1775), when the Council of Safety for that colony
sent to Congress a communication setting forth, that a large force of
Continental troops was necessary to _prevent their slaves from deserting
their masters_.[4] It was about the first communication sent to Congress
after it met, in 1776, and shows that her people then sought to make the
nation bear the burthens of their slavery, by furnishing a military
force sufficient to hold her bondmen in fear; and if she adheres to that
policy now, it merely illustrates the consistency of her people in
relying upon the freemen of the North to uphold her system of
oppression.
[Sidenote: 1776.]
General Lee, commanding the military forces in that colony, called the
particular attention of Congress to the fact, that slaves belonging to
the planters, fled from servitude and sought freedom among the "_Exiles
of Florida_."
There also yet remained in Georgia many descendants of those who, at the
establishment of that colony and since that time, had opposed the
institution of Slavery. These people desired to testify their abhorrence
of human servitude. They assembled in large numbers, in the district of
Darien, and publicly resolved as follows: "To show the world that we are
not influenced by any contracted or interested motives, but by a general
philanthropy for all mankind, of whatever climate, language or
_complexion_, we hereby declare our disapprobation and abhorrence of
slavery in America." The public avowal of these doctrines, naturally
encouraged slaves to seek their freedom by such means as they possessed.
One day's travel would place some of them among friends, and in the
enjoyment of liberty; and they were sure to be kindly received and
respectfully treated, soon as they could reach their brethren in
Florida. Of course many availed themselves of this opportunity to escape
from service.
The Exiles remained in the undisturbed enjoyment of liberty during the
war of the Revolution. The Creeks were a powerful and warlike people,
whose friendship was courted during the sanguinary struggle that secured
our National Independence. During those turbulent times it would not
have been prudent for a master to pursue his slave through the Creek
country, or to have brought him back to Georgia if once arrested.
The Exiles being thus free from annoyance, cultivated the friendship of
their savage neighbors; rendered themselves useful to the Indians, both
as laborers and in council. They also manifested much judgment in the
selection of their lands for cultivation--locating their principal
settlements on the rich bottoms lying along the Appalachicola and the
Suwanee Rivers. Here they opened plantations, and many of them became
wealthy in flocks and herds.
[Sidenote: 1783.]
Immediately after the close of the war, the authorities of Georgia are
said to have entered into a treaty with the Creek Indians, at Augusta,
in which it is alleged that the Creeks agreed to grant to that State a
large tract of land, and to restore such slaves as were then resident
among the Creeks. But we find no copy of this treaty in print, or in
manuscript. As early as 1789, only six years after it was said to have
been negotiated, Hugh Knox, Secretary of War, in a communication to
Congress, declared that no copy of this treaty was then in the
possession of Congress; and it has not been since reprinted. Indeed, it
is believed never to have been printed.
[Sidenote: 1785.]
The difficulty between Georgia and the Creeks becoming more serious, the
aid of the Continental Congress was invoked, for the purpose of securing
that State in the enjoyment of what her people declared to be their
rights. Congress appointed three commissioners to examine the existing
causes of difficulty, and if possible to negotiate a treaty with the
Creeks that should secure justice to all the people of the United
States.
Communities, like individuals, often exhibit in early life those
characteristics which distinguish their mature age, and become ruling
passions when senility marks the downhill of life. Thus Georgia, in her
very infancy, exhibited that desire for controlling our National
Government which subsequently marked her manhood. Possessing no power
under the Constitution to enter into any treaty except by consent of
Congress, her Executive appointed three Commissioners to attend and
supervise the action of those appointed by the Federal Legislature. The
time and place for holding the treaty had been arranged with the Indians
by the Governor of Georgia. At Galphinton,[5] the place appointed, the
Commissioners of the United States met those of Georgia, who presented
them with the form of a treaty fully drawn out and ready for signatures,
and demanded of the Commissioners of the United States its adoption.
This extraordinary proceeding was treated by the Federal Commissioners
in a dignified and appropriate manner, in their report to Congress. One
important provision of this inchoate treaty stipulated for the return to
the people of Georgia of such fugitive negroes as were then in the
Indian country, and of such as might thereafter flee from bondage.
The Commissioners appointed by Congress waited at Galphinton several
days, and finding only _two_ of the one hundred towns composing the
Creek tribe represented in the council about to be held, they refused to
regard them as authorized to act for the Creek nation, and would not
consent to enter upon any negotiation with them as representatives of
that tribe. This course was not in accordance with the ideas of the
Commissioners appointed by Georgia. After those of the United States had
left, they proceeded to enter into a treaty with the representatives
from the two towns, who professed to act for the whole Creek nation.
This pretended treaty gave the State of Georgia a large territory; and
the eighth article provided, that "the Indians shall restore all the
negroes, horses and other property, that are or may hereafter be among
them, belonging to the citizens of this State, or to any other person
whatever, to such person as the governor shall appoint."[6]
This attempt to make a treaty by the State of Georgia, in direct
violation of the articles of Confederation, and to bind the Creek nation
by an act of the representatives of only two of their towns, constitutes
the first official transaction of which we have documentary evidence, in
that long train of events which has for seventy years involved our
nation in difficulty, and the Exiles of Florida in persecutions and
cruelties unequaled under Republican governments.
The Commissioners of the United States made report of their proceedings
to Congress; and those of Georgia reported to the governor of that
State.[7] Their report was transmitted to the Legislature, and that
body, with an arrogance that commands our admiration, passed strong
resolutions denouncing the action of the Federal Commissioners,
commending the action of those of Georgia, and asserting her State
sovereignty in language somewhat bombastic.
[Sidenote: 1786.]
[Sidenote: 1787.]
Soon after the making of this pretended treaty, the Creeks commenced
hostilities, murdering the people on the frontiers of Georgia, and
burning their dwellings. The Spanish authorities of Florida were charged
with fomenting these difficulties, and the Congress of the United States
felt constrained to interfere.[8] The Commissioners previously appointed
to form a treaty with the Creeks, were, by a resolution of the
Continental Congress, adopted Oct. 26, instructed to obtain a treaty
with the Indians which would secure a return of all prisoners, of
whatever age, sex or complexion, and to _restore all fugitive slaves
belonging to citizens of the United States_.[9]
This resolution was the first act on the part of the Continental
Congress in favor of restoring fugitive slaves. It was adopted under the
articles of Confederation, before the adoption of our present
constitution, and of course constitutes no precedent under our present
government; yet it introduced a practice that has long agitated the
nation, and may yet lead to important and even sanguinary results.
[Sidenote: 1788.]
Without awaiting the action of Congress, the authorities of Georgia, by
her agents, entered into another treaty, at a place called
"Shoulderbone," by which the Creeks appear to have acknowledged the
violation of the Treaty of Galphinton, and again stipulated to observe
its covenants.[10]
We have no reliable information as to the number of the Creek towns
represented at the making of this third treaty by Georgia. The whole
transaction was by the State, in her own name, by her own authority,
without consent of Congress, and all papers relating to it, if any
exist, would of course be among the manuscript files of that State. It
is believed that Georgia never printed any of these treaties; and we can
only state their contents from recitals which we find among the State
papers of the Federal Government. It is however certain, that the Creeks
denied that any such treaty had been entered into; and they continued
hostilities, as though no such treaty had been thought of by them. This
pretended Treaty of Shoulderbone exerted no more moral influence among
the Creeks than did that of Galphinton. The war continued between the
people of Georgia and the Creeks. The savages appeared to be aroused to
indignation by what they regarded as palpable frauds. Excited at such
efforts to impose upon them stipulations degrading to their character,
they prosecuted the war with increased bitterness.
[Sidenote: 1788.]
The natural results of such turpitude, induced Georgia to be one of the
first in the sisterhood of States to adopt the Federal Constitution
(Aug. 28). Her statesmen expected it to relieve their State from the
burthens of the war which then devastated her border.
[Sidenote: 1789.]
Soon as the Federal Government was organized under the constitution, the
authorities of Georgia invoked its aid, to protect her people from the
indignation of the Creek Indians.
General Washington, President of the United States, at once appointed
Commissioners to repair to the Indian country, ascertain the real
difficulty, and if able, they were directed to negotiate a suitable
treaty, in the name of the United States. The State of Georgia claimed
title to the territory ceded by the treaties of Galphinton and
Shoulderbone; while the Creeks entirely repudiated them, declaring them
fraudulent, denying their validity, and refusing to abide by their
stipulations. The governor of Georgia placed in the hands of the
Commissioners of the United States, a list of property which had been
lost since the close of the Revolution by the people of Georgia, for
which they demanded indemnity of the Creeks. This list contained the
names of one hundred and ten negroes, who were said to have left their
masters _during the Revolution_, and found an asylum among the Creeks.
The Treaty of Galphinton contained a stipulation on the part of the
Creeks, to return all prisoners, of whatever age, sex or color, and all
negroes belonging to the citizens of Georgia, "_then residing with the
Creeks_."
Arrangements had already been made with the chiefs, warriors and
principal men of the Creek nation, to meet the Commissioners of the
United States at Rock Landing, on the Oconee River. The Commissioners
were received by the Indians with great respect and formality; but soon
as they learned that the Commissioners were not authorized to restore
their lands, they broke off all negotiation, promising to remain in
peace, however, until an opportunity should be presented for further
negotiations.
The failure of this mission was followed by the appointment of Col.
Willett, an intrepid officer of the Revolution, who was authorized to
proceed to the Creek nation, and, if possible, to induce its chiefs and
headmen to repair to New York, where they could negotiate a new treaty,
without the interference of the authorities or people of Georgia.
Col. Willett was successful. He induced the principal chief,
McGillivray, the son of a distinguished Indian trader, together with
twenty-eight other chiefs and warriors, to come on to New York, for the
purpose of forming a treaty with the United States, and settling all
difficulties previously existing between Georgia and their nation. On
their way to New York, they were received at Philadelphia, by the
authorities of that city, with great ceremony and respect. Their vanity
was flattered, and every effort made to induce them to believe peace
with the United States would be important to both parties.
At New York they found Congress in session. Here they mingled with the
great men of our nation. The "Columbian Order," or "Tammany Society,"
was active in its attentions. They escorted the delegation to the city,
and entertained them with a public dinner; and made McGillivray, the
principal chief, a member of their society. In this way, the minds of
the Indians were prepared for entering into the treaty which followed.
[Sidenote: 1790.]
There was, among the people of the entire nation, an intense anxiety to
render every part of the Union satisfied and pleased with the Federal
Government, then just formed, as they felt that their only hope of
prosperity depended upon a continuance of the federal union. There was
also a general sympathy throughout the nation with the slaveholders of
the South, who were supposed to have suffered much, by the loss of their
servants, during the war of the Revolution; few people at that time
realizing the moral guilt of holding their fellow-men in bondage.
While the revolutionary contest was going on, many slaves in the
Southern States escaped from the service of their masters, and, under
the proclamations of various British commanders, enlisted into the
service of his Britannic Majesty; and having taken the oath of
allegiance to the crown of England, were regarded as British subjects.
Others escaped with their families, and getting on board British
vessels, sailed to the West Indies, where they settled as "_free
persons_." Thus, while one class of masters had sustained great losses
by the enlistment of their slaves, another class had suffered by the
escape of their bondmen, through the aid of British vessels; while a
third sustained an equal loss by the escape of their servants to the
Seminoles in Florida. These three different interests united in claiming
the aid of government to regain possession of their slaves, or to obtain
indemnity for their loss.
The timely arrival of Mr. Pinckney, secured the insertion of a clause in
the Treaty of Paris, providing that his Britannic Majesty should
withdraw his troops from all American forts, arsenals, shipyards, etc.,
without destroying ordnance or military stores, or "carrying away any
negroes or other property of the inhabitants." This provision was
regarded by the slaveholders of the South as securing a compensation to
all those whose slaves had enlisted in the British army, as well as to
those whose slaves had escaped to the British West India Islands by aid
of English vessels; while those whose servants were quietly living with
the Seminoles, had not been provided for by the treaty of peace.[11]
These circumstances rendered the owners of the Exiles more clamorous for
the interposition of the State Government, inasmuch as the federal
authority had entirely omitted to notice their interests, while it was
supposed to have secured a compensation to the other two classes of
claimants.
It was under these circumstances, that General Washington proceeded to
the negotiation of the first treaty, entered into under our present form
of government. The chiefs, headmen and warriors of the Creek nation were
present at New York: Georgia was also there by her senators and
representatives, who carefully watched over her interests; and General
Knox, the Secretary of War, was appointed commissioner to negotiate a
treaty, thus to be formed, under the personal supervision of the
President.
The object of the President was effected, a treaty was formed, and bears
date August 1, 1790. It constitutes the title-page of our diplomatic
history. This first exercise of our treaty-making power under the
constitution, was put forth for the benefit of the Slave interests of
Georgia. It surrendered up to the Creeks certain lands, which the
authorities of Georgia claimed to hold under the treaty of Galphinton,
but retained substantially the stipulation for the surrender of negroes,
which had been inserted in that extraordinary compact.
By the third article of this new treaty, it was stipulated as follows:
"The Creek nation shall deliver, as soon as practicable, to the
commanding officer of the troops of the United States stationed at
Rock Landing, on the Oconee River, all citizens of the United
States, white inhabitants or negroes, who are now prisoners in any
part of the said nation. And if any such prisoners or negroes
should not be so delivered, on or before the first day of June
ensuing, the governor of Georgia may empower three persons to
repair to the said nation, in order to claim and receive such
prisoners and negroes."
Historians have referred to this clause as containing merely a
stipulation for the surrender of _prisoners_;[12] but the manner in
which the term "_negroes_" stands connected in the disjunctive form with
that of "_prisoners_," would appear to justify, at least to some extent,
the subsequent construction put upon it, so far as regarded negroes then
resident with the Creeks; but it certainly makes no allusion to those
who were residing with the Seminoles in Florida.
It is a remarkable feature of this treaty, that the Creek chiefs,
principal men and warriors should, in its first article, profess to act,
not only for the Upper and Lower Creek Towns, but for the Seminoles who
were in Florida, protected by Spanish laws. They had not been invited to
attend the negotiation, had sent no delegate, were wholly unrepresented
in the Council; indeed, so far as we are informed, were wholly ignorant
of the objects which had called such a council, and of the fact even
that a council was held, or a treaty negotiated.
Our fathers had just passed through seven years of war and bloodshed,
rather than submit to "_taxation without representation_;" but this
attempt to bind the Seminole Indians to surrender up the Exiles, who
were their friends and neighbors, and who now stood connected with them
by marriage, and in all the relations of domestic life, without their
consent or knowledge, constitutes an inconsistency which can only be
accounted for by the desire then prevalent, to gratify and please those
who wielded the slaveholding influence of our nation.
Another extraordinary feature of this treaty may be found in the secret
article, by which the United States stipulated to pay the Creeks fifteen
hundred dollars annually, in all coming time. The reason for making this
stipulation secret is not to be learned from any documentary authority
before the public, and cannot now be accounted for, except from the
delicacy which the authorities of our nation then felt in taxing the
people of the free States, to pay southern Indians for the return of
those Exiles. And it is interesting at this day to look back and
reflect, that for nearly seventy years the people of the nation have
contributed their funds to sustain the authority of those slaveholders
of Georgia over their bondmen, while Northern statesmen have constantly
assured their constituents, they have nothing to do with that
institution.
It would be uncharitable to believe, that General Washington was at that
time conscious that he was thus precipitating our nation upon a policy
destined to involve its government in difficulties, whose termination
would be uncertain.
After the treaty had been agreed to by the parties making it, General
Washington met the chiefs, headmen and warriors, assembled in the Hall
of Representatives, in the presence of members of Congress and a large
concourse of spectators. The treaty was publicly read, and to each
article the Indians expressed their assent, and signed it in the
presence of the people, each receiving from the President a string of
wampum. The President then shook hands with each, which concluded the
ceremonies of the day.
The treaty was transmitted on the following day to the Senate,
accompanied by a Message from the President, saying: "I flatter myself
that this treaty will be productive of present peace and prosperity to
our Southern frontier. It is to be expected, also, that it will be the
means of firmly attaching the Creeks and neighboring tribes to the
interests of the United States." The President also alluded in his
message to the treaty of Galphinton, as containing a stipulation to cede
to Georgia certain other lands, which it was believed would be
detrimental to the interests of the Indians, and, therefore, that
covenant had been disregarded in the "treaty of New York." In another
Message to the Senate, on the eleventh of August, the President says:
"This treaty may be regarded as the main foundation of the future peace
and prosperity of the Southwestern frontier of the United States."
On the ninth of August, a motion was made in the Senate to refer the
treaty to a select committee, which was rejected by a vote of ten nays
to eight yeas; and on the twelfth, it was approved by a vote of fifteen
yeas to four nays; but we have no report of any discussion upon the
subject, nor do we know at this day the objections which dictated the
votes given against its ratification.[13]