It never occurred to me to question the genuineness of Jake's story.
What the "black folks" said was true; I had no doubt of it. The whole
transaction was redolent of the Ringgolds and lawyer Grubbs--the latter
a half planter, half legal practitioner of indifferent reputation.
Jake further informed me that Spence and Williams had disappeared during
the progress of the trial. Both afterwards returned to the settlement,
but no ulterior steps were taken against them, as there was no one to
prosecute!
As for the stolen negroes, they were never seen again in that part of
the country. The robbers had no doubt carried them to the slave-markets
of Mobile or New Orleans, where a sufficient price would be obtained to
remunerate Grubbs for his professional services, as also Williams and
Spence for theirs. The land would become Ringgold's, as soon as the
Indians could be got out of the country--and this was the object of the
"bill of sale."
A transaction of like nature between white man and white man would have
been regarded as a grave swindle, an atrocious crime. The whites
affected not to believe it; but there were some who knew it to be true,
and viewed it only in the light of a clever _ruse_!
That it was true, I could not doubt. Jake gave me reasons that left no
room for doubt; in fact it was only in keeping with the general conduct
of the border adventures towards the unfortunate natives with whom they
came in contact.
Border adventures did I say? Government agents, members of the Florida
legislature, generals, planters, rich as Ringgold, all took part in
similar speculations. I could give names. I am writing truth, and do
not fear contradiction.
It was easy enough, therefore, to credit the tale. It was only one of
twenty similar cases of which I had heard. The acts of Colonel Gad
Humphreys, the Indian agent--of Major Phagan, another Indian agent--of
Dexter, the notorious negro-stealer--of Floyd--of Douglass--of Robinson
and Millburn, are all historic--all telling of outrages committed upon
the suffering Seminole. A volume might be filled detailing such
swindles as that of Grubbs and Ringgold. In the mutual relations
between white man and red man, it requires no skillful advocate to shew
on which side must lie the wrongs unrepaired and unavenged. Beyond all
doubt, the Indian has ever been the victim.
It is needless to add that there were retaliations: how could it be
otherwise?
One remarkable fact discloses itself in these episodes of Floridian
life. It is well-known that slaves thus stolen from the Indians _always
returned to their owners whenever they could_! To secure them from
finding their way back, the Dexters and Douglasses were under the
necessity of taking them to some distant market, to the far "coasts" of
the Mississippi--to Natchez or New Orleans.
There is but one explanation of this social phenomenon; and that is,
that the slaves of the Seminole were _not_ slaves. In truth they were
treated with an indulgence to which the helot of other lands is a
stranger. They were the agriculturists of the country, and their Indian
master was content if they raised him a little corn--just sufficient for
his need--with such other vegetable products as his simple _cuisine_
required. They lived far apart from the dwellings of their owners.
Their hours of labour were few, and scarcely compulsory. Surplus
product was their own; and in most cases they became rich--far richer
than their own masters, who were less skilled in economy. Emancipation
was easily purchased, and the majority were actually free--though from
such claims it was scarcely worth while to escape. If slavery it could
be called, it was the mildest form ever known upon earth--far differing
from the abject bondage of Ham under either Shem or Japheth.
It may be asked how the Seminoles became possessed of these black
slaves? Were they "runaways" from the States--from Georgia and the
Carolinas, Alabama, and the plantations of Florida? Doubtless a few
were from this source; but most of the runaways were not claimed as
property; and, arriving among the Indians, became free. There was a
time when by the stern conditions of the Camp Moultrie Covenant these
"absconding" slaves were given up to their white owners; but it is no
discredit to the Seminoles, that they were always _remiss_ in the
observance of this disgraceful stipulation. In fact, it was not always
possible to surrender back the fugitive negro. Black communities had
concentrated themselves in different parts of the Reserve, who under
their own leaders were socially free, and strong enough for
self-defence. It was with these that the runaways usually found refuge
and welcome. Such a community was that of "Harry" amidst the morasses
of Pease Creek--of "Abram" at Micosauky--of "Charles" and the "mulatto
king."
No; the negro slaves of the Seminoles were _not_ runaways from the
plantations; though the whites would wish to make it appear so. Very
few were of this class. The greater number was the "genuine property"
of their Indian owners, so far as a slave can be called _property_. At
all events, they were _legally_ obtained--some of them from the
Spaniards, the original settlers, and some by fair purchase from the
American planters themselves.
How purchased? you will ask. What could a tribe of savages give in
exchange for such a costly commodity? The answer is easy. Horses and
horned cattle. Of both of these the Seminoles possessed vast herds. On
the evacuation by the Spaniards the savannas swarmed with cattle, of
Andalusian race--half-wild. The Indians caught and reclaimed them--
became their owners.
This, then, was the _quid pro quo_--quadrupeds in exchange for bipeds!
The chief of the crimes charged against the Indians was the _stealing of
cattle_--for the white men had their herds as well. The Seminoles did
not deny that there were bad men amongst them--lawless fellows difficult
to restrain. Where is the community without scamps?
One thing was very certain. The Indian chiefs, when fairly appealed to,
have always evinced an earnest desire to make restoration: and exhibited
an energy in the cause of justice, entirely unknown upon the opposite
side of their border.
It differed little how they acted, so far as regarded their character
among their white neighbours. These had made up their mind that the dog
should be hanged; and it was necessary to give him a bad name. Every
robbery, committed upon the frontier was of course the act of an Indian.
White burglars had but to give their faces a coat of Spanish brown, and
justice could not see through the paint.