TOTAL FAILURE OF ALL EFFORTS TO ENSLAVE THE EXILES.
Indians and Exiles complain--Government disregards their
complaints--Further efforts to enslave Exiles--They fail--General
Arbuckle's Report--Collins charges Reynolds with
misconduct--Reynolds called on to explain--His reply and
proofs--Collins desires claim to be made against Creek
Warriors--They refuse to notice it--Political feelings--Watson
presents his claim to Congress--Resolution of that body calling for
information--Answer--House Doc. 225--Digression--Proceedings on
claim before Congress--Its final settlement.
[Sidenote: 1838.]
The Indians and Exiles who had emigrated, now found themselves separated
at the distance of more than a thousand miles from their brethren in
Florida, with whom they could hold no intercourse. They were without a
country--without permanent homes--residing upon the lands of the
Cherokees, at the mere sufferance of that Tribe, whose humanity had been
awakened, and whose sympathy had been extended to them. Their situation
and discontent were duly communicated to the Executive; but it appears
to have been regarded as of too little importance to receive attention.
But while the President and the War Department disregarded all
complaints coming from the Seminoles and Exiles, they relaxed no effort
to secure Watson in the possession of the ninety human beings whom he
had purchased of the Creek Indians, at the request of the Executive.
As the last resort, instructions were sent to General Arbuckle,
commanding in the West, to make investigations, and ascertain what more
could be done for the reënslavement of those people. That officer
replied to this communication as follows:
"HEAD QUARTERS 2D DEPARTMENT, WESTERN DIVISION,}
_Fort Gibson_, Aug. 27th, 1838. }
"SIR: I had the honor, on the 22d instant, to receive your
instructions of the 21st ultimo, together with the papers to which
they refer. I extremely regret that the United States is liable to
suffer loss in consequence of the Creek warriors having sold, and
received pay, for the negroes they captured from the Seminole
Indians in Florida; and these negroes having been imprudently
returned to the possession of their former owners at New Orleans,
and brought to this place, with two hundred or more other negroes
belonging to the Seminoles. Owing to these transactions, it would
be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to identify at most but
few of them; and from the present position of this case, it is not
probable _that one of the negroes will be obtained except by
force_. For further information in relation to this subject, I beg
leave to refer you to my letter to Captain Armstrong, Acting
Superintendent of the Western Territory, of this date, a copy of
which is herewith enclosed. I shall do all in my power to prevent
loss to the Government, and will at an early period have the honor
to advise you of the measures taken in the case."
"I have the honor to be, Sir, with great respect,
Your obedient servant,
M. ARBUCKLE,
_Brevet Brig. Gen'l, U. S. A._
Hon. J. R. POINSETT,
Secretary of War."
The letter to Captain Armstrong, Superintendent of the Western
Territory, was as follows:
"HEAD QUARTERS 2D DEPARTMENT, WESTERN DIVISION,}
_Fort Gibson_, Aug. 27, 1838. }
"SIR: I received by the last mail, from the honorable the Secretary
of War, a communication under date of the 21st ultimo, on the
subject of the negroes captured by the Creek warriors, together
with a letter from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the
Secretary of War, under date of the 19th ultimo, relating to this
subject, copies of which are herewith enclosed. All other papers or
transactions in relation to this matter, it is presumed, you are
apprized of. It will be seen by the communication first referred
to, that it was not known at Washington, at the date of that
letter, that the Creek warriors had been paid for the negroes. That
circumstance, however just to the warriors and proper, so far as
you have had an agency in the affair, will increase the difficulty
of obtaining the negroes, as it is believed the Creek warriors will
not now give themselves any trouble to have the negroes delivered
to the individuals to whom they sold them. And notwithstanding the
pledge of the Seminole chiefs to me, to surrender the negroes in
the event the Government should so require (after reconsidering
their claim to them), I do not believe they will comply with their
promise, with the knowledge that the negroes are to be taken from
this country as the servants of a white man. Finally, as the
Seminoles are greatly under the influence of their negroes, there
is scarcely a hope that the captured negroes will be surrendered
without the application of force (which is not required); and, in
that event, it is not probable they could be had, as they would no
doubt run away the moment they are informed a military force is to
be employed to take them. And in such case, it is believed, they
would be assisted, when necessary, by most of the Seminoles, and by
all the Seminole and Creek negroes; and if the captured negroes
could be placed in the possession of the Creek agent, he would not
detain them a moment without he had a suitable guard for that
purpose. I am therefore of the opinion, that the best means that
can now be resorted to, to prevent loss to the United States, is,
if possible, to induce the Seminoles to refund, from their annuity,
the sum paid to the Creek warriors for the negroes, and the
interest on the same until paid. I will be much gratified if you
can visit this post in six or eight days, when the Seminole chiefs
can be assembled here, with the object of inducing them to agree to
the measure proposed, or such other as may be deemed advisable. In
the event that it may not be convenient for you to be at this post
at an early period, I request that you will favor me with your
views on the subject of this communication by the return of mail."
"I am, Sir, with much respect,
Your obedient servant,
M. ARBUCKLE,
_Brevet Brig. Gen'l, U. S. A._
Capt. W. ARMSTRONG,
Acting Sup't W. Ter., Choctaw Agency."
This correspondence might well have concluded the efforts of the
Executive to deliver these ninety Exiles to the slave-dealer. It were
unnecessary to say, that General Arbuckle's labors in this behalf proved
useless. He had foretold such failure in his letter to the War
Department. In January, 1837, the Creek warriors captured these people,
and for almost two years the influence of the Executive had been exerted
to enslave them; but a series of incidents, unequaled in real life, had
constantly succeeded each other, preventing the consummation of this
intended crime; yet the slave power was inexorable in its demands.
These circumstances failed to convince the President that it was useless
for the Executive of a great nation to contend against the plainest
dictates of justice; against those convictions of right which dwell in
the breast of every human being who has not extinguished the moral
feelings of his nature.
Collins having returned to his plantation in Alabama, deliberately, drew
up and transmitted his report to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs,
which we have heretofore quoted. But when he was subsequently informed
that the thirty-two Exiles who were in the hands of the Sheriff at New
Orleans had, on the day of his leaving that city, been delivered over to
Reynolds, and sent West, his indignation was further excited, and he
immediately wrote the Commissioner of Indian Affairs again more
distinctly charging the officers engaged in the emigration of these
people with bad faith. He wrote as follows:
"MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA, Aug. 8, 1838.
SIR: Since writing you a week since, I have understood that
Lieutenant Reynolds has informed you that on his arrival in New
Orleans the negroes that were detained there had been surrendered
to him, and that, in consequence of my not being there, they were
sent off to, etc. After seeing so much duplicity and management as
has been manifested by the officers with whom I have recently had
intercourse, particularly Lieutenant R., I am not surprised at the
above statement. Lieutenant R. is well apprised that the negroes
had been turned over to him while I was in New Orleans; and it is
also susceptible of proof that during my stay there arrangements
were privately making to charter a boat to transport them. After I
learned this, I purposely threw myself in his way; but he said not
a word to me in relation to the negroes, until I addressed him the
note which is herewith enclosed. After receiving his answer, I, in
his presence, addressed the enclosed copy to Major Clark; but
before I had procured a messenger to carry it to Major C.,
Lieutenant R., after being a short time absent from the room,
returned, and informed me he had seen the Sheriff, and he had
refused to turn over the negroes to him, which rendered it, as I
conceived, unnecessary to send the note to Major C. After my return
home, he wrote that (the next day after I left it seems) the
Sheriff reviewed his decision, and a _second time_ turned them over
to Lieutenant R.; and as he states in his letter to me, that Major
Clark _ordered them to proceed forthwith to Arkansas_. Why was it
necessary, then, for me to have been there, since he had yielded
everything to his senior officer, and that officer he knew had
determined not to respect the order he had received, and had
determined (as his previous statement and subsequent conduct prove)
to send them forthwith to Arkansas? It is about such a subterfuge
as the Sheriff turning the negroes and withholding them after my
letter to Major C. was seen, and then turning them over again after
it was known I had left. It is due Lieutenant R. to observe, that
he stated to me the Sheriff had told him a lie. I know not what
object he could have had in view in doing so.
"I remained in New Orleans four days, in which time I became
convinced from the maneuvering that was evinced that nothing would
be gained by a longer stay, and as the sickly season was
approaching, I left with the conviction that the Sheriff would
alter his decision as soon as I left there.
"I am, with the highest respect, sir,
Yours, etc.,
N. F. COLLINS,
_Agent Creek Warriors_."
C. A. HARRIS, Esq.,
Commissioner Indian Affairs.
It is worthy of notice that this agent of a slave-dealer should thus
address, to one of the Executive Departments of this august nation,
complaints against the sworn officers of our Government; but it is still
more worthy of note that the War Department should call on its
authorized and sworn agents to respond to complaints coming from such a
source. Copies of Collins's two letters were immediately enclosed to
Lieutenant Reynolds, accompanied by a letter from Commissioner Harris,
of which we give a copy:
"WAR DEPARTMENT, }
_Office of Commissioner of Indian Affairs_,}
August 27, 1837. }
"SIR: I enclose copies of two letters from N. F. Collins, Esq.,
(one of the twenty-ninth ultimo and the other of the eighteenth
instant,) in relation to the negroes which you were directed to
turn over to him as the agent of the Creeks. From these papers, and
from other information received here, it would seem there has been
great disregard, if not a violation, of the orders of the War
Department in this matter. I trust you will be able to make such
explanations of your conduct as will relieve you from censure--_a
prompt answer is desired_.
"It may not be amiss to inform you that, when on duty in the Indian
Department, you are bound to obey the orders of no military
officer, unless you have been placed under his direction. Captain
Morrison is the only army officer authorized to control your
movements."
"Very, etc.,
C. A. HARRIS, _Commissioner_.
Lieut. J. G. REYNOLDS."
These intimations to Lieutenant Reynolds of _censure_, and the distinct
call for _explanations_, could be neither misinterpreted nor
misunderstood; and, although the complaints and charges had been
preferred not merely by a man in private life, but by an individual
whose very employment as an assistant slave-dealer had rendered him
odious and infamous among honorable men, yet this officer who had fought
under the flag of his country, and was ready at any moment to peril his
life in the support of his country's honor, was now constrained to meet
charges coming from an infamous source. The surprise of Lieutenant
Reynolds at this procedure was expressed in the following letter:
/* "NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 20, 1838. */
"SIR: Your letter, dated twenty-seventh ultimo, enclosing copies of
two communications received at your office from Mr. N. F. Collins,
the Creek attorney, came to hand on the tenth instant. I was
surprised at being called upon to answer for 'my conduct' toward
Mr. Collins, as also the Department for disregarding its orders.
Indeed, sir, I have been, in my own estimation, too faithful a
servant in the special department in which it was the pleasure of
General Jessup to assign, and you to continue, me, to make a
defense to the allegations advanced by Collins. At the time of Mr.
Collins's departure from this city, he did not evince that
virulence of feeling that he has thought proper to express in his
letter; on the contrary, he was then apparently under the full
conviction that I had done all that was possible to aid him, and
carry out the orders received in relation to the negroes in
question. What object could I possibly have in wishing
clandestinely, and in the very face of orders, to send those
negroes to Arkansas? Had Mr. Collins been here, sir, so far as I
was concerned, he should have had the negroes upon _identity_. I
enclose papers, sir, from various gentlemen to disprove the
assertion of Mr. Collins, 'that the negroes were in my possession
during the time he was here;' on the contrary, they did not come
into my hands until some time after his departure. It is true, I
have frequently referred to Major Clark for advice in matters
relative to my official situation. It was on account of the high
regard I have of his character as a gentleman, and an officer of
long standing and experience, and whose integrity stands
preeminently and deservedly high.
"I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully,
Your obd't servant,
JNO. G. REYNOLDS,
_U. S. M. C. Disb. Agent, Ind. Dep't._
C. A. HARRIS,
Com. Ind. Affairs, Washington City, D. C."
We have too little space in this work to copy official papers to any
considerable extent. Those which accompanied Lieutenant Reynolds's reply
were--
First. A full statement of facts from Sheriff Buisson, showing that the
thirty-one prisoners, who had been in his charge, were not turned over
to Major Clark until the twenty-eighth of June, 1838.
Second. A full statement of facts by George Whitman, owner of the
steamboat, who contracted to carry the prisoners West.
Third. A similar statement by Major Clark of the facts that came within
his knowledge, accompanied by a copy of a communication from Jno. C.
Casey, Acting Seminole Agent.
All these statements showed that Lieutenant Reynolds had strictly obeyed
his orders; and whether they proved satisfactory to the War Department
or not, we are unable to state. It is, however, believed, that no
further proceedings were had in relation to the conduct of that officer.
Mr. Collins, finding that he possessed some influence with the War
Department, on the eighteenth of October, wrote the Commissioner of
Indian Affairs, saying, "I have now to request that, should General
Arbuckle be unable to comply with the instructions I understand he has
received, (which from my knowledge of the Indian character I have no
doubt he will,) this claim may be laid before the agent who may be
appointed to investigate the claims of the Creeks with the necessary
documents; that it may be examined and reported on by him."
In answer to this letter, Mr. Crawford, Acting Commissioner of Indian
Affairs, replied, stating that General Arbuckle had, on the
twenty-eighth of September, informed the Department that the negroes
could only be obtained by military force. Mr. Crawford also assured Mr.
Collins that General Arbuckle had been instructed to act in concert with
Captain Armstrong for the purpose of obtaining a treaty with the Indians
by which provisions for this claim would be made; and that the necessary
papers had been transmitted to those gentlemen to enable them to act
with a correct understanding of the subject.
But the Creek Indians appear to have become impressed with the opinion,
that the whole proceeding was either unjust or dishonorable, and they
wholly refused to participate any further in the transaction.
The Exiles and Indians were now living on the Cherokee lands. The Creeks
would have nothing further to do with Watson, nor with the United
States, in regard to the _captured_ negroes. The Seminole Indians showed
no disposition to surrender them to slavery, and the Exiles themselves
exhibited no intention of going voluntarily into bondage. General
Arbuckle advised against the employment of military force to effect that
object; and to all present appearances these ninety Exiles had, through
a train of mysterious incidents, been preserved from bondage. The
Florida War had become unpopular; and Watson, the purchaser of the
supposed slaves, had warm personal friends among the Whigs of Georgia.
They were quite willing to subject Mr. Van Buren to any degree of odium
in their power. Watson, therefore, sent his petition to Congress, asking
indemnity for the loss of slaves whom he had purchased of the Creeks at
the instance, and by the recommendation, of the Executive officers of
Government.
In order to sustain the claim of Watson, it was necessary to place the
facts attending this transaction before the House of Representatives.
For this purpose a resolution was adopted, on the twenty-eighth of
January, 1839, calling on the Secretary of War for "such information as
was to be found in his office touching the capture of negroes and other
property from the hostile Indians, during the present war in Florida."
In answer to this resolution, the Secretary of War, on the
twenty-seventh of February, made report, embracing one hundred and
twenty-six pages of printed matter. It was numbered H. Doc. 225, and
ordered to be printed. From that document much information has been
obtained in regard to the capture and emigration of this first party of
Indians and Exiles to the Western Country.
The result of this speculation in human flesh is so essential to a
correct appreciation of the whole transaction, that we deem it proper to
give, in this connection, the proceedings of Congress upon that subject;
although it may appear to be rather a digression from the chronological
narration of events which constitute the subject of our history.
It will be recollected that the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in his
letter to the Secretary of War, dated the first of May, 1838, suggests
that it might create agitation, were the Department to ask Congress for
an appropriation of money to carry these Exiles to Africa, or for any
other disposition of them; that, to suppress all discussion in Congress
upon the subject of slavery, gag-resolutions and gag-rules had been
adopted at each session since 1835. It was under the operation of these
rules that the advocates of slavery expected to pass a bill to indemnify
Watson for his loss in failing to enslave these Exiles.
[Sidenote: 1839.]
During the summer of 1839, the document, No. 225, above referred to, was
printed. According to the practice of that day, few, even of the members
of Congress, examined these documents. A copy of this, however, was
placed on file, with Watson's petition and other papers, as evidence on
which his claim rested.
At the commencement of the next session, the Author of this work, being
a member of the House of Representatives, was placed upon the committee
of Claims; at the head of which was Hon. David Russel, of Washington
County, New York, a man of great industry, integrity and ability; always
independent, according to the general views of that day, and upright in
the discharge of official duties. Hon. William C. Dawson, of Georgia,
was also a member of that committee, and appeared to take much interest
in this claim. He was a man of much suavity of manner; one of that class
of Southern statesmen who felt it necessary to carry every measure by
the influence of personal kindness, and an expression of horror at all
agitation of the slave question, under the apprehension that it might
dissolve the Union.
Mr. Dawson was anxious to get this claim of Watson through Congress,
and, not expecting the Chairman of the committee on Claims to favor its
passage, requested the Author to examine and give support to it. It was
that examination which gave him the first information as to the real
cause of the Florida War. After a full and thorough investigation, he
assured Mr. Dawson that he would be constrained to oppose the passage of
any bill giving indemnity to Watson. At that time it was the usual
practice for the committee on Claims to leave all petitions asking pay
for slaves, or which involved the question of slavery, without reporting
upon them, lest they should cause agitation. There being no prospect of
obtaining from the committee a favorable report, the case was at the
next session of Congress referred to the committee on Indian Affairs,
who reported in its favor, providing for the payment of the full sum
which Watson gave the Creeks, and interest thereon from the time of the
contract up to the time of passing the bill.
[Sidenote: 1841.]
This bill was placed on the calendar, and in 1841 the Author endeavored
to call attention to it, in a speech made in the House of
Representatives on the "Florida War." This led some members to examine
it; and some of them, more independent than others, declared their
hostility to its passage.
In the Twenty-eighth Congress, the Author, having become obnoxious to
the slaveholders, was removed from the committee on Claims,[121] and
Watson's petition was again referred to that committee, in order that it
should receive the prestige of its influence; but it was reported upon
late, and was so low on the calendar that it was not reached during that
Congress.
[Sidenote: 1848.]
[Sidenote: 1849.]
In the Thirty-first Congress, Mr. Daniels, Chairman of the committee on
Claims, reported it in February. But General Crowell, of Trumbull
County, Ohio, being on the committee, opposed its passage, and caused a
postponement for that session; and at the next session it was, after a
short discussion, passed over without any final action upon it.
At the Thirty-second Congress, the committee on Claims was yet more
favorably constituted for the slave interest--Mr. Sacket, of New York,
and Mr. Rantoul, of Massachusetts, being the only two members upon it
who openly resisted the slave power. Mr. Edgerton, of Ohio, Mr. Seymour,
of Connecticut, and Mr. Curtis, of Pennsylvania, being Northern
Democrats, remained silent during the discussion of this claim. It was
however again reported by the Chairman, Mr. Daniels, of North Carolina,
at an early day, and a full determination to carry it through was
manifested by the slaveholders.
Both of the great political parties were at that time (1852) endeavoring
to suppress all agitation of the slave question. Southern men,
particularly, were horrified at every appearance of discussion in
relation to the "pecculiar institution;" and they hoped to pass this
bill without even an examination of its merits before the House. But the
opponents of slavery were not idle. Efforts were privately made to call
attention of gentlemen to this claim, that they might examine its merits
before it came up for discussion; and on looking into it, a number of
members prepared to oppose its passage.
[Sidenote: 1852.]
After one or two postponements, it came on for discussion on the
twentieth of February, 1852. Mr. Sacket, of New York, met the case at
once, in a speech which showed that he had studied it very thoroughly,
and understood it perfectly. He insisted that slaves were not _plunder_,
and did not come within the contract of General Jessup, which gave to
Creeks the "plunder" they might capture. 2d. That the whole transaction
was one of _speculation_ on the part of Watson, inasmuch as the report
set forth that the negroes were worth at least sixty thousand dollars,
while he paid only fourteen thousand and six hundred dollars--being less
than one-fourth their value, evidently taking upon himself all risk of
title and possession. 3d. That the officers of Government had no
authority to involve the nation in this slave-dealing transaction. 4th.
That those officers were not the Government, and could not bind the
people to pay their funds for human flesh.
Mr. Abercrombie, of Alabama, was in favor of the claim. He declared that
he was in Florida at the time of this contract, and knew all about it,
and that it was well understood that the term "plunder" did include
slaves.
Mr. Daniels, Chairman of the committee, felt called on by the effort of
Mr. Sacket to speak early in the discussion. He insisted that General
Jessup, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and Secretary of War, fully
understood the case; that it was understood by the parties that the term
"plunder" _did_ include slaves; that Watson was drawn into this matter,
partly, to relieve the Government from the transaction in which it had
become involved. He insisted that the negroes captured were _slaves_ of
the Seminoles; but when inquired of on that point, could only say, that
officers engaged in the Florida War had spoken of them as such. He was
much embarrassed by interrogatories propounded to him by Mr. Stanton, of
Ohio, and other gentlemen.
Mr. Mace, of Indiana, a Democrat, took a short and comprehensive view of
the case. He, nor any other man could tell whether these negroes were
slaves or freemen. On the part of the officers of Government, there was
not a single impulse of humanity manifested in regard to these people;
but all their endeavors were put forth to _enslave_ them. He was
entirely opposed to the bill.
Hon. John W. Howe, of Pennsylvania, would never give his vote in favor
of regarding men, and women, and children, as _plunder_. He commented
with much force upon the contract, and the documentary evidence before
the House, and would maintain the humanity of all prisoners captured in
war. He sustained the position of General Gaines, that they were
prisoners of war.
On the tenth of March the bill came up again for consideration, when Mr.
Johnson, of Georgia, advocated its passage in a very elaborate speech.
He differed from Mr. Sacket, Mr. Howe, and those who opposed the bill,
mostly upon the great question--insisting that slaves were _property_
under our Federal Constitution; that the people captured by the Creek
Indians were not possessed of any rights; that they were to be regarded
as mere chattels: indeed, this point lay at the foundation of the entire
discussion. He however sought to add strength to the claim by reading
letters from Mr. Crawford, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and from Mr.
Poinsett, Secretary of War, to show that they sympathized with the
slave-dealer, and were desirous that this bill should pass.
Mr. Welch, of Ohio, in few words, declared his conviction that these
negroes were prisoners of war, to be treated as such, and not to be
regarded as slaves or chattels.
Mr. Evans, of Maryland, thought it difficult to understand the case, but
would adopt the views of Judge Iverson, of Georgia; that gentleman had
been a member of the House of Representatives, and his statements could
be relied upon. He read a long affidavit showing the recollections of
Mr. Iverson, and, as the United States had the _property in possession_,
he would vote for the bill.
Mr. Stuart, of Michigan, now a Democratic Senator, thought the
Government had been in great difficulty in getting these Seminoles to go
West; they would not go without the negroes, many of whom had
intermarried with the Seminoles. By the treaty which General Jessup
made, in 1837, our Government was bound to send the negroes West, and
having done so, was bound to pay Watson for his loss.
Mr. Skelton, of New Jersey, a Democrat, recognized no power in this or
any other government to treat prisoners of war as _slaves_. The
discussion had become interesting, and, in some degree, constituted an
agitation of the slave question; and as the committee rose without
taking a vote upon the bill, Mr. Orr, of South Carolina, moved a
resolution precluding further debate upon it; but the House adjourned
without taking a vote on the resolution.
The case came up again on the tenth of April, when a resolution to close
debate in one hour was adopted. The House then resolved itself in
committee; and Mr. Bartlett, of Vermont, a Democrat, took the position
that the Government, nor its officers, had power to enter into any
agreement with Indians or white men, by which they should enjoy any
privilege, or receive any compensation, not authorized by law; that the
contract between General Jessup and the Creeks was of no validity, but
absolutely void; and every transaction touching the enslavement of the
Exiles was without authority, and of no effect.
Mr. Walsh, of Maryland, insisted that the Indian tribes were not
nations, and ought not to be treated as such; that it was not incumbent
on the friends of the bill to show that slavery existed among the
Seminoles; if they lived within a slave State, they might hold slaves;
that the Government had the right to enslave the negroes when captured.
Mr. Sweetzer, of Ohio, Democrat, denied the authority of General Jessup
to make any contract for the services of the Creek warriors other than
the law had provided; nor could he have authority to make any
stipulation as to the disposal of prisoners when captured.
Mr. Southerland, of New York, a Whig, thought the question of slavery
was not necessarily involved in this case; that the United States,
having sent the negroes West, were bound to indemnify Watson for his
loss.
Mr. Daniels, by the rules of the House, had one hour to reply, after the
expiration of the time for closing debate. He attempted to reply to some
of the arguments offered against the bill, but advanced no new position.
At the expiration of his speech the vote was taken, and the bill
reported to the House as agreed to in committee. The previous question
was then called, and under its operation the bill passed--seventy-nine
members voting in favor of its passage, and fifty-three against it.
One member from the slave States, Williamson R. W. Cobb, of Alabama,
voted against the bill. All the other members from the slave States
voted for it; and were aided by the votes of members from the free
States, as follows:
From _New Hampshire_: Harry Hibbard--1.
_Massachusetts_: Wm. Appleton, Zeno Scudder--2.
_New York_: Abram M. Schemmerhorn, James Brooks, Gilbert Dean, F. S.
Martin, Abram P. Stevens, Joseph Southerland--6.
_Connecticut_: Collins M. Ingersoll--1
_New Jersey_: R. M. Price--1.
_Pennsylvania_: Joseph R. Chandler, Thomas Florence, Joseph H. Kuhns,
Joseph McNair, Andrew Packer, John Robbins, Thomas Ross--7.
_Ohio_: John L. Taylor--1.
_Indiana_: Sam'l W. Parker, Richard W. Thompson--2.
_Michigan_: E. S. Penniman, Charles E. Stuart--2.
_Iowa_: Lincoln Clark, Bernard Henn--2.
_California_: Joseph W. McCorkle--1. In all the free States twenty-five.
The vote against the bill was given by the following members, from the
free States:
From _Maine_: E. K. Smart, Israel Washburn, jr.--2.
_New Hampshire_: Jared Perkins, Amos Tuck--2.
_Massachusetts_: Orrin Fowler, Z. Goodrich, Horace Mann--3.
_New York_: Henry Bennet, George Briggs, John G. Floyd, Timothy Jenkins,
Daniel F. Jones, Preston King, William Murray, Joseph Russel, Wm. A.
Sacket, W. W. Snow, Hiram S. Wallbridge, John Wells--12.
_New Jersey_: Charles Skelton, N. T. Stratton--2.
_Vermont_: Thomas W. Bartlett, James Meacham--2.
_Connecticut_: Charles Chapman--1.
_Pennsylvania_: James Allison, John L. Dawson, James Gamble, Galusha A.
Grow, John W. Howe, Thomas M. Howe, Milo M. Dimmick, Thaddeus
Stevens--8.
_Ohio_: Nelson Barrere, Joseph Cable, Alfred P. Edgerton, J. M. Gaylord,
Alex. Harper, Wm. F. Hunter, John Johnson, Eben Newton, Edson B. Olds,
Charles Sweetzer--10.
_Indiana_: Samuel Brenton, John G. Davis, Graham N. Fitch, Thomas A.
Hendricks, Daniel Mace--5.
_Illinois_: Wyllis Allen, R. S. Molony--2.
_Wisconsin_: James D. Doty, Solomon Durkee, Ben. C. Eastman--3.
These fifty-two members, with Mr. Cobb, of Alabama, made up the entire
opposition to the bill in the House of Representatives. In the Senate
there was very little opposition to its passage; and after thirteen
years, the people of the United States paid for the slaves whom Watson
bought on speculation, but of whom he failed to obtain possession. The
Northern advocates of the bill justified their support of it more
generally upon the principle, that our officers sent the negroes West,
and thereby rendered it difficult, if not impossible, for Watson to
obtain possession of them; and they insisted that, in refunding to
Watson his money, they did not pay him for human flesh, but for the
money he had paid out at the instance of federal officers. This vote
closed the controversy in regard to General Jessup's contract, to give
the Creek warriors such _plunder_ as they might capture from the enemy.