FLORIDA INDIAN WAR: HISTORICAL SPEECH OF MR. BENTON
A senator from New Jersey [Mr. SOUTHARD] has brought forward an
accusation which must affect the character of the late and present
administrations at home, and the character of the country abroad;
and which, justice to these administrations, and to the country,
requires to be met and answered upon the spot. That senator has
expressly charged that a fraud was committed upon the Florida
Indians in the treaty negotiated with them for their removal to
the West; that the war which has ensued was the consequence of
this fraud; and that our government was responsible to the moral
sense of the community, and of the world, for all the blood that
has been shed, and for all the money that has been expended, in
the prosecution of this war. This is a heavy accusation. At home,
it attaches to the party in power, and is calculated to make them
odious; abroad, it attaches to the country, and is calculated to
blacken the national character. It is an accusation, without the
shadow of a foundation! and, both, as one of the party in power,
and as an American citizen, I feel myself impelled by an imperious
sense of duty to my friends, and to my country, to expose its
incorrectness at once, and to vindicate the government, and the
country, from an imputation as unfounded as it is odious.
The senator from New Jersey first located this imputed fraud in the
Payne's Landing treaty, negotiated by General Gadsden, in Florida,
in the year 1832; and, after being tendered an issue on the fairness
and generosity of that treaty by the senator from Alabama [Mr.
CLAY], he transferred the charge to the Fort Gibson treaty, made
in Arkansas, in the year 1833, by Messrs. Stokes, Ellsworth and
Schermerhorn. This was a considerable change of locality, but no
change in the accusation itself; the two treaties being but one,
and the last being a literal performance of a stipulation contained
in the first. These are the facts; and, after stating the case, I
will prove it as stated. This is the statement: The Seminole Indians
in Florida being an emigrant band of the Creeks, and finding game
exhausted, subsistence difficult, and white settlements approaching,
concluded to follow the mother tribe, the Creeks, to the west of the
Mississippi, and to reunite with them. This was conditionally agreed
to be done at the Payne's Landing treaty; and in that treaty it was
stipulated that a deputation of Seminole chiefs, under the sanction
of the government of the United States, should proceed to the Creek
country beyond the Mississippi--there to ascertain first whether a
suitable country could be obtained for them there; and, secondly,
whether the Creeks would receive them back as a part of their
confederacy: and if the deputation should be satisfied on these two
points, then the conditional obligation to remove, contained in the
Payne's Landing treaty, to become binding and obligatory upon the
Seminole tribe. The deputation went: the two points were solved
in the affirmative the obligation to remove became absolute on
the part of the Indians; and the government of the United States
commenced preparations for effecting their easy, gradual, and
comfortable removal.
The entire emigration was to be completed in three years, one-third
going annually, commencing in the year 1833, and to be finished in
the years 1834, and 1835. The deputation sent to the west of the
Mississippi, completed their agreement with the Creeks on the 28th
of March, 1833; they returned home immediately, and one-third of
the tribe was to remove that year. Every thing was got ready on the
part of the United States, both to transport the Indians to their
new homes, and to subsist them for a year after their arrival there.
But, instead of removing, the Indians began to invent excuses, and
to interpose delays, and to pass off the time without commencing
the emigration. The year 1833, in which one-third of the tribe were
to remove, passed off without any removal; the year 1834, in which
another third was to go, was passed off in the same manner; the year
1835, in which the emigration was to have been completed, passed
away, and the emigration was not begun. On the contrary, on the last
days of the last month of that year, while the United States was
still peaceably urging the removal, an accumulation of treacherous
and horrible assassinations and massacres were committed. The United
States agent, General Thompson, Lieutenant Smith, of the artillery,
and five others, were assassinated in sight of Fort King; two
expresses were murdered; and Major Dade's command was massacred.
In their excuses and pretexts for not removing, the Indians never
thought of the reasons which have been supplied to them on this
floor. They never thought of alleging fraud. Their pretexts were
frivolous; as that it was a long distance, and that bad Indians
lived in that country, and that the old treaty of Fort Moultrie
allowed them twenty years to live in Florida. Their real motive was
the desire of blood and pillage on the part of many Indians, and
still more on the part of the five hundred runaway negroes mixed
up among them; and who believed that they could carry on their
system of robbery and murder with impunity, and that the swamps of
the country would for ever protect them against the pursuit of the
whites.
This, Mr. President, is the plain and brief narrative of the causes
which led to the Seminole war; it is the brief historical view of
the case; and if I was speaking under ordinary circumstances, and
in reply to incidental remarks, I should content myself with this
narrative, and let the question go to the country upon the strength
and credit of this statement. But I do not speak under ordinary
circumstances; I am not replying to incidental and casual remarks.
I speak in answer to a formal accusation, preferred on this floor;
I speak to defend the late and present administrations from an
odious charge; and, in defending them, to vindicate the character
of our country from the accusation of the senator from New Jersey
[Mr. SOUTHARD], and to show that fraud has not been committed upon
these Indians, and that the guilt of a war, founded in fraud, is not
justly imputable to them.
The Seminoles had stipulated that the agent, Major Phagan, and their
own interpreter, the negro Abraham, should accompany them; and this
was done. It so happened, also, that an extraordinary commission
of three members sent out by the United States to adjust Indian
difficulties generally, was then beyond the Mississippi; and these
commissioners were directed to join in the negotiations on the part
of the United States, and to give the sanction of our guarantee
to the agreements made between the Seminoles and the Creeks for
the reunion of the former to the parent tribe. This was done. Our
commissioners, Messrs. Stokes, Ellsworth, and Schermerhorn, became
party to a treaty with the Creek Indians for the reunion of the
Seminoles, made at Fort Gibson, the 14th of February, 1833. The
treaty contained this article:
"ARTICLE IV. It is understood and agreed that the Seminole
Indians of Florida, whose removal to this country is provided
for by their treaty with the United States, dated May 9, 1832,
shall also have a permanent and comfortable home on the lands
hereby set apart as the country of the Creek nation; and they,
the Seminoles, will hereafter be considered as a constituent
part of the said nation, but are to be located on some part
of the Creek country by themselves, which location shall be
selected for them by the commissioners who have seen these
articles of agreement."
This agreement with the Creeks settled one of the conditions on
which the removal of the Seminoles was to depend. We will now see
how the other condition was disposed of.
In a treaty made at the same Fort Gibson, on the 28th of March,
1833, between the same three commissioners on the part of the United
States, and the seven delegated Seminole chiefs, after reciting the
two conditions precedent contained in the Payne's Landing treaty,
and reciting, also, the convention with the Creeks on the 14th of
February preceding, it is thus stipulated:
"Now, therefore, the commissioners aforesaid, by virtue of the
power and authority vested in them by the treaty made with the
Creek Indians on the 14th of February, 1833, as above stated,
hereby designate and assign to the Seminole tribe of Indians,
for their separate future residence for ever, a tract of country
lying between the Canadian River and the south fork thereof, and
extending west to where a line running north and south between
the main Canadian and north branch will strike the forks of
Little River; provided said west line does not extend more than
twenty-five miles west from the mouth of said Little River. And
the undersigned Seminole chiefs, delegated as aforesaid, on
behalf of the nation, hereby declare themselves well satisfied
with the location provided for them by the commissioners, and
agree that their nation shall commence the removal to their new
home as soon as the government will make the arrangements for
their emigration satisfactory to the Seminole nation."
This treaty is signed by the delegation, and by the commissioners
of the United States, and witnessed, among others, by the same
Major Phagan, agent, and Abraham, interpreter, whose presence was
stipulated for at Payne's Landing.
Thus the two conditions on which the removal depended, were complied
with; they were both established in the affirmative. The Creeks,
under the solemn sanction and guarantee of the United States, agree
to receive back the Seminoles as a part of their confederacy, and
agree that they shall live adjoining them on lands designated for
their residence. The delegation declare themselves well satisfied
with the country assigned them, and agree that the removal should
commence as soon as the United States could make the necessary
arrangements for the removal of the people.
This brings down the proof to the conclusion of all questions beyond
the Mississippi; it brings it down to the conclusion of the treaty
at Fort Gibson--that treaty in which the senator from New Jersey
[Mr. SOUTHARD] has located the charge of fraud, after withdrawing
the same charge from the Payne's Landing treaty. It brings us to the
end of the negotiations at the point selected for the charge; and
now how stands the accusation? How stands the charge of fraud? Is
there a shadow, an atom, a speck, of foundation on which to rest it?
No, sir: Nothing--nothing--nothing! Every thing was done that was
stipulated for; done by the persons who were to do it; and done in
the exact manner agreed upon. In fact, the nature of the things to
be done west of the Mississippi was such as not to admit of fraud.
Two things were to be done, one to be seen with the eyes, and the
other to be heard with the ears. The deputation was to see their new
country, and say whether they liked it. This was a question to their
own senses--to their own eyes--and was not susceptible of fraud.
They were to _hear_ whether the Creeks would receive them back as a
part of their confederacy; this was a question to their own _ears_,
and was also unsusceptible of fraud. Their own eyes could not
deceive them in looking at land; their own ears could not deceive
them in listening to their own language from the Creeks. No, sir:
there was no physical capacity, or moral means, for the perpetration
of fraud; and none has ever been pretended by the Indians from that
day to this. The Indians themselves have never thought of such a
thing. There is no assumption of a deceived party among them. It
is not a deceived party that is at war--a party deceived by the
delegation which went to the West--but that very delegation itself,
with the exception of Charley Emarthla, are the hostile leaders at
home! This is reducing the accusation to an absurdity. It is making
the delegation the dupes of their own eyes and of their own ears,
and then going to war with the United States, because their own eyes
deceived them in looking at land on the Canadian River, and their
own ears deceived them in listening to their own language from the
Creeks; and then charging these frauds upon the United States. All
this is absurd; and it is due to these absent savages to say that
they never committed any such absurdity--that they never placed
their objection to remove upon any plea of deception practised upon
them beyond the Mississippi, but on frivolous pretexts invented long
after the return of the delegation; which pretexts covered the real
grounds growing out of the influence of runaway slaves, and some
evilly disposed chiefs, and that thirst for blood and plunder, in
which they expected a long course of enjoyment and impunity in their
swamps, believed to be impenetrable to the whites.
Thus, sir, it is clearly and fully proved that there was no fraud
practised upon these Indians; that they themselves never pretended
such a thing; and that the accusation is wholly a charge of recent
origin sprung up among ourselves. Having shown that there was no
fraud, this might be sufficient for the occasion, but having been
forced into the inquiry, it may be as well to complete it by showing
what were the causes of this war. To understand these causes, it
is necessary to recur to dates, to see the extreme moderation with
which the United States acted, the long time which they tolerated
the delays of the Indians, and the treachery and murder with which
their indulgence and forbearance was requited. The emigration was to
commence in 1833, and be completed in the years 1834 and 1835. The
last days of the last month of this last year had arrived, and the
emigration had not yet commenced. Wholly intent on their peaceable
removal, the administration had despatched a disbursing agent,
Lieutenant Harris of the army, to take charge of the expenditures
for the subsistence of these people. He arrived at Fort King on the
afternoon of the 28th of December, 1835; and as he entered the fort,
he became almost an eye-witness of a horrid scene which was the
subject of his first despatch to his government. He describes it in
these words:
"I regret that it becomes my first duty after my arrival here
to be the narrator of a story, which it will be, I am sure, as
painful for you to hear, as it is for me, who was almost an eye
witness to the bloody deed, to relate to you. Our excellent
superintendent, General Wiley Thompson, has been most cruelly
murdered by a party of the hostile Indians, and with him
Lieutenant Constant Smith, of the 2d regiment of artillery,
Erastus Rogers, the suttler to the post, with his two clerks,
a Mr. Kitzler, and a boy called Robert. This occurred on the
afternoon of the 28th instant (December), between three and
four o'clock. On the day of the massacre, Lieutenant Smith had
dined with the General, and after dinner invited him to take a
short stroll with him. They had not proceeded more than three
hundred yards beyond the agency office, when they were fired
upon by a party of Indians, who rose from ambush in the hammock,
within sight of the fort, and on which the suttler's house
borders. The reports of the rifles fired, the war-whoop twice
repeated, and after a brief space, several other volleys more
remote, and in the quarter of Mr. Rogers's house, were heard,
and the smoke of the firing seen from the fort. Mr. Rogers and
his clerks were surprised at dinner. Three escaped: the rest
murdered. The bodies of General Thompson, Lieutenant Smith, and
Mr. Kitzler, were soon found and brought in. Those of the others
were not found until this morning. That of General Thompson
was perforated with fourteen bullets. Mr. Rogers had received
seventeen. All were scalped, except the boy. The cowardly
murderers are supposed to be a party of Micasookees, 40 or
50 strong, under the traitor Powell (Osceola), whose shrill,
peculiar war-whoop, was recognized by our interpreters, and the
one or two friendly Indians we have in the fort, and who knew it
well. Two expresses (soldiers) were despatched upon fresh horses
on the evening of this horrid tragedy, with tidings of it to
General Clinch; but not hearing from him or them, we conclude
they were cut off. We are also exceedingly anxious for the fate
of the two companies (under Major Dade) which had been ordered
up from Fort Brooke, and of whom we learn nothing."
Sir, this is the first letter of the disbursing agent, specially
detached to furnish the supplies to the emigrating Indians. He
arrives in the midst of treachery and murder; and his first letter
is to announce to the government the assassination of their agent,
an officer of artillery, and five citizens; the assassination of two
expresses, for they were both waylaid and murdered; and the massacre
of one hundred and twelve men and officers under Major Dade. All
this took place at once; and this was the beginning of the war.
Up to that moment the government of the United States were wholly
employed in preparing the Indians for removal, recommending them to
go, and using no force or violence upon them. This is the way the
war was brought on; this is the way it began; and was there ever a
case in which a government was so loudly called upon to avenge the
dead, to protect the living, and to cause itself to be respected
by punishing the contemners of its power? The murder of the agent
was a double offence, a peculiar outrage to the government whose
representative he was, and a violation even of the national law of
savages. Agents are seldom murdered even by savages; and bound
as every government is to protect all its citizens, it is doubly
bound to protect its agents and representatives abroad. Here, then,
is a government agent, and a military officer, five citizens, two
expresses, and a detachment of one hundred and twelve men, in all
one hundred and twenty-one persons, treacherously and inhumanly
massacred in one day! and because General Jackson's administration
did not submit to this horrid outrage, he is charged with the guilt
of a war founded in fraud upon innocent and unoffending Indians!
Such is the spirit of opposition to our own government! such the
love of Indians and contempt of whites! and such the mawkish
sentimentality of the day in which we live--a sentimentality which
goes moping and sorrowing about in behalf of imaginary wrongs to
Indians and negroes, while the whites themselves are the subject of
murder, robbery and defamation.
The prime mover in all this mischief, and the leading agent in the
most atrocious scene of it, was a half-blooded Indian of little
note before this time, and of no consequence in the councils of
his tribe; for his name is not to be seen in the treaty either of
Payne's Landing or Fort Gibson. We call him Powell; by his tribe
he was called Osceola. He led the attack in the massacre of the
agent, and of those who were killed with him, in the afternoon of
the 28th of December. The disbursing agent, whose letter has been
read, in his account of that massacre, applies the epithet _traitor_
to the name of this Powell. Well might he apply that epithet to
that assassin; for he had just been fed and caressed by the very
person whom he waylaid and murdered. He had come into the agency
shortly before that time with seventy of his followers, professed
his satisfaction with the treaty, his readiness to remove, and
received subsistence and supplies for himself and all his party. The
most friendly relations seemed to be established; and the doomed
and deceived agent, in giving his account of it to the government,
says: "The result was that we closed with the utmost good feeling;
and I have never seen Powell and the other chiefs so cheerful and in
so fine a humor, at the close of a discussion upon the subject of
removal."
This is Powell (Osceola), for whom all our sympathies are so
pathetically invoked! a treacherous assassin, not only of our
people, but of his own--for he it was who waylaid, and shot in the
back, in the most cowardly manner, the brave chief Charley Emarthla,
whom he dared not face, and whom he thus assassinated because he
refused to join him and his runaway negroes in murdering the white
people. The collector of Indian curiosities and portraits, Mr.
Catlin, may be permitted to manufacture a hero out of this assassin,
and to make a poetical scene of his imprisonment on Sullivan's
island; but it will not do for an American senator to take the same
liberties with historical truth and our national character. Powell
ought to have been hung for the assassination of General Thompson;
and the only fault of our officers is, that they did not hang him
the moment they caught him. The fate of Arbuthnot and Ambrister was
due to him a thousand times over.
I have now answered the accusation of the senator from New Jersey
[Mr. SOUTHARD]. I have shown the origin of this war. I have shown
that it originated in no fraud, no injustice, no violence, on the
part of this government, but in the thirst for blood and rapine on
the part of these Indians, and in their confident belief that their
swamps would be their protection against the pursuit of the whites;
and that, emerging from these fastnesses to commit robbery and
murder, and retiring to them to enjoy the fruits of their marauding
expeditions, they had before them a long perspective of impunity in
the enjoyment of their favorite occupation. This I have shown to be
the cause of the war; and having vindicated the administration and
the country from the injustice of the imputation cast upon them, I
proceed to answer some things said by a senator from South Carolina
[Mr. PRESTON], which tended to disparage the troops generally which
have been employed in Florida; to disparage a particular general
officer, and also to accuse that general officer of a particular and
specified offence. That senator has decried our troops in Florida
for the general inefficiency of their operations; he has decried
General Jesup for the general imbecility of his operations, and
he has charged this General with the violation of a flag, and the
commission of a perfidious act, in detaining and imprisoning the
Indian Powell, who came into his camp.
I think there is great error and great injustice in all these
imputations, and that it is right for some senator on this floor
to answer them. My position, as chairman of the Committee on
Military Affairs, would seem to assign that duty to me, and it
may be the reason why others who have spoken have omitted all
reply on these points. Be that as it may, I feel impelled to say
something in behalf of those who are absent, and cannot speak for
themselves--those who must always feel the wound of unmerited
censure, and must feel it more keenly when the blow that inflicts
the wound falls from the elevated floor of the American Senate. So
far as the army, generally, is concerned in this censure, I might
leave them where they have been placed by the senator from South
Carolina [Mr. PRESTON], and others on that side of the House, if
I could limit myself to acting a political part here. The army,
as a body, is no friend of the political party to which I belong.
Individuals among them are friendly to the administration; but, as a
body, they go for the opposition, and would terminate our political
existence, if they could, and put our opponents in our place, at
the first general election that intervenes. Asa politician, then,
I might abandon them to the care of their political friends; but,
as an American, as a senator, and as having had some connection
with the military profession, I feel myself called upon to dissent
from the opinion which has been expressed, and to give my reasons
for believing that the army has not suffered, and ought not to
suffer, in character, by the events in Florida. True, our officers
and soldiers have not performed the same feats there which they
performed in Canada, and elsewhere. But why? Certainly because they
have not got the same, or an equivalent, theatre to act upon, nor an
enemy to cope with over whom brilliant victories can be obtained.
The peninsula of Florida, where this war rages, is sprinkled all
over with swamps, hammocks, and lagoons, believed for three hundred
years to be impervious to the white man's tread. The theatre of
war is of great extent, stretching over six parallels of latitude;
all of it in the sultry region below thirty-one degrees of north
latitude. The extremity of this peninsula approaches the tropic of
Capricorn; and at this moment, while we speak here, the soldier
under arms at mid-day there will cast no shadow: a vertical sun
darts its fiery rays direct upon the crown of his head. Suffocating
heat oppresses the frame; annoying insects sting the body; burning
sands, a spongy morass, and the sharp cutting saw grass, receive the
feet and legs; disease follows the summer's exertion; and a dense
foliage covers the foe. Eight months in the year military exertions
are impossible; during four months only can any thing be done. The
Indians well understand this; and, during these four months, either
give or receive an attack, as they please, or endeavor to consume
the season in wily parleys. The possibility of splendid military
exploits does not exist in such a country, and against such a foe:
but there is room there, and ample room there, for the exhibition
of the highest qualities of the soldier. There is room there for
patience, and for fortitude, under every variety of suffering, and
under every form of privation. There is room there for courage
and discipline to exhibit itself against perils and trials which
subject courage and discipline to the severest tests. And has there
been any failure of patience, fortitude, courage, discipline, and
subordination in all this war? Where is the instance in which the
men have revolted against their officers, or in which the officer
has deserted his men? Where is the instance of a flight in battle?
Where the instance of orders disobeyed, ranks broken, or confusion
of corps? On the contrary, we have constantly seen the steadiness,
and the discipline, of the parade maintained under every danger, and
in the presence of massacre itself. Officers and men have fought
it out where they were told to fight; they have been killed in the
tracks in which they were told to stand. None of those pitiable
scenes of which all our Indian wars have shown some--those harrowing
scenes in which the helpless prisoner, or the hapless fugitive,
is massacred without pity, and without resistance: none of these
have been seen. Many have perished; but it was the death of the
combatant in arms, and not of the captive or the fugitive. In no one
of our savage wars have our troops so stood together, and conquered
together, and died together, as they have done in this one; and
this standing together is the test of the soldier's character.
Steadiness, subordination, courage, discipline,--these are the
test of the soldier; and in no instance have our troops, or any
troops, ever evinced the possession of these qualities in a higher
degree than during the campaigns in Florida. While, then, brilliant
victories may not have been seen, and, in fact, were impossible,
yet the highest qualities of good soldiership have been eminently
displayed throughout this war. Courage and discipline have shown
themselves, throughout all its stages, in their noblest forms.
From the general imputation of inefficiency in our operations in
Florida, the senator from South Carolina [Mr. PRESTON] comes to
a particular commander, and charges inefficiency specifically
upon him. This commander is General Jesup. The senator from South
Carolina has been lavish, and even profuse, in his denunciation
of that general, and has gone so far as to talk about military
courts of inquiry. Leaving the general open to all such inquiry,
and thoroughly convinced that the senator from South Carolina has
no idea of moving such inquiry, and intends to rest the effect of
his denunciation upon its delivery here, I shall proceed to answer
him here--giving speech for speech on this floor, and leaving the
general himself to reply when it comes to that threatened inquiry,
which I undertake to affirm will never be moved.
General Jesup is charged with imbecility and inefficiency; the
continuance of the war is imputed to his incapacity; and he is
held up here, on the floor of the Senate, to public reprehension
for these imputed delinquencies. This is the accusation; and now
let us see with how much truth and justice it is made. Happily for
General Jesup, this happens to be a case in which we have data to
go upon, and in which there are authentic materials for comparing
the operations of himself with those of other generals--his
predecessors in the same field--with whose success the senator from
South Carolina is entirely satisfied. Dates and figures furnish
this data and these materials; and, after refreshing the memory of
the Senate with a few dates, I will proceed to the answers which
the facts of the case supply. The first date is, as to the time
of the commencement of this war; the second, as to the time that
General Jesup assumed the command; the third, as to the time when
he was relieved from the command. On the first point, it will be
recollected that the war broke out upon the assassination of General
Thompson, the agent, Lieutenant Smith, who was with him; the sutler
and his clerks; the murder of the two expresses; and the massacre
of Major Dade's command;--events which came together in point of
time, and compelled an immediate resort to war by the United States.
These assassinations, these murders, and this massacre, took place
on the 28th day of December, 1835. The commencement of the war,
then, dates from that day. The next point is, the time of General
Jesup's appointment to the command. This occurred in December, 1836.
The third point is, the date of General Jesup's relief from the
command, and this took place in May, of the present year, 1838. The
war has then continued--counting to the present time--two years and
a half; and of that period, General Jesup has had command something
less than one year and a half. Other generals had command for a year
before he was appointed in that quarter. Now, how much had those
other generals done? All put together, how much had they done? And
I ask this question not to disparage their meritorious exertions,
but to obtain data for the vindication of the officer now assailed.
The senator from South Carolina [Mr. PRESTON] is satisfied with
the operations of the previous commanders; now let him see how
the operations of the officer whom he assails will compare with
the operations of those who are honored with his approbation. The
comparison is brief and mathematical. It is a problem in the exact
sciences. General Jesup reduced the hostiles in the one year and a
half of his command, 2,200 souls: all his predecessors together had
reduced them 150 in one year. Where does censure rest now?
Sir, I disparage nobody. I make no exhibit of comparative results
to undervalue the operations of the previous commanders in Florida.
I know the difficulty of military operations there, and the ease
of criticism here. I never assailed those previous commanders; on
the contrary, often pointed out the nature of the theatre on which
they operated as a cause for the miscarriage of expeditions, and
for the want of brilliant and decisive results. Now for the first
time I refer to the point, and, not to disparage others, but to
vindicate the officer assailed. His vindication is found in the
comparison of results between himself and his predecessors, and in
the approbation of the senator from South Carolina of the results
under the predecessors of General Jesup. Satisfied with _them_, he
must be satisfied with _him_; for the difference is as fifteen to
one in favor of the decried general.
Besides the general denunciation for inefficiency, which the
senator from South Carolina has lavished upon General Jesup, and
which denunciation has so completely received its answer in this
comparative statement; besides this general denunciation, the
senator from South Carolina brought forward a specific accusation
against the honor of the same officer--an accusation of perfidy, and
of a violation of flag of truce, in the seizure and detention of the
Indian Osceola, who had come into his camp. On the part of General
Jesup, I repel this accusation, and declare his whole conduct in
relation to this Indian, to have been _justifiable_, under the laws
of civilized or savage warfare; that it was _expedient_ in point of
policy; and that if any blame could attach to the general, it would
be for the contrary of that with which he is blamed; it would be for
an excess of forbearance and indulgence.
The justification of the general for the seizure and detention of
this half-breed Indian, is the first point; and that rests upon
several and distinct grounds, either of which fully justifies the
act.
1. _This Osceola had broken his parole; and, therefore, was liable
to be seized and detained._
The facts were these: In the month of May, 1837, this chief,
with his followers, went into Fort Mellon, under the cover of a
white flag, and there surrendered to Lieutenant Colonel Harney.
He declared himself done with the war, and ready to emigrate
to the west of the Mississippi, and solicited subsistence and
transportation for himself and his people for that purpose.
Lieutenant Colonel Harney received him, supplied him with
provisions, and, relying upon his word and apparent sincerity,
instead of sending him under guard, took his parole to go to Tampa
Bay, the place at which he preferred to embark, to take shipping
there for the West. Supplied with every thing, Osceola and his
people left Fort Mellon, under the pledge to go to Tampa Bay.
He never went there! but returned to the hostiles; and it was
afterwards ascertained that he never had any idea of going West,
but merely wished to live well for a while at the expense of the
whites, examine their strength and position, and return to his work
of blood and pillage. After this, he had the audacity to approach
General Jesup's camp in October of the same year, with another
piece of white cloth over his head, thinking, after his successful
treacheries to the agent, General Thompson, and Lieut. Colonel
Harney, that there was no end to his tricks upon white people.
General Jesup ordered him to be seized and carried a prisoner to
Sullivan's Island, where he was treated with the greatest humanity,
and allowed every possible indulgence and gratification. This is one
of the reasons in justification of General Jesup's conduct to that
Indian, and it is sufficient of itself; but there are others, and
they shall be stated.
2. _Osceola had violated an order in coming in, with a view to
return to the hostiles; and, therefore, was liable to be detained._
The facts were these: Many Indians, at different times, had come
in under the pretext of a determination to emigrate; and after
receiving supplies, and viewing the strength and position of the
troops, returned again to the hostiles, and carried on the war
with renewed vigor. This had been done repeatedly. It was making a
mockery of the white flag, and subjecting our officers to ridicule
as well as to danger. General Jesup resolved to put an end to
these treacherous and dangerous visits, by which spies and enemies
obtained access to the bosom of his camp. He made known to the
chief, Coi Hadjo, his determination to that effect. In August, 1837,
he declared peremptorily to this chief, for the information of all
the Indians, that none were to come in, except to remain, and to
emigrate; that no one coming into his camp again should be allowed
to go out of it, but should be considered as having surrendered with
a view to emigrate under the treaty, and should be detained for that
purpose. In October, Osceola came in, in violation of that order,
and was detained in compliance with it. This is a second reason for
the justification of General Jesup, and is of itself sufficient to
justify him; but there is more justification yet, and I will state
it.
3. _Osceola, had broken a truce, and, therefore, was liable to be
detained whenever he could be taken._
The facts were these: The hostile chiefs entered into an agreement
for a truce at Fort King, in August, 1837, and agreed: 1. Not to
commit any act of hostility upon the whites; 2. Not to go east of
the St. John's river, or north of Fort Mellon. This truce was broken
by the Indians in both points. A citizen was killed by them, and
they passed both to the east of the St. John's and far north of Fort
Mellon. As violators of this truce, General Jesup had a right to
detain any of the hostiles which came into his hands, and Osceola
was one of these.
Here, sir, are three grounds of justification, either of them
sufficient to justify the conduct of General Jesup towards Powell,
as the gentlemen call him. The first of the three reasons applies
personally and exclusively to that half-breed; the other two apply
to all the hostile Indians, and justify the seizure and detention of
others, who have been sent to the West.
So much for justification; now for the expediency of having detained
this Indian Powell. I hold it was expedient to exercise the right
of detaining him, and prove this expediency by reasons both _a
priori_ and _a posteriori_. His previous treachery and crimes, and
his well known disposition for further treachery and crimes, made
it right for the officers of the United States to avail themselves
of the first justifiable occasion to put an end to his depredations
by confining his person until the war was over. This is a reason
_a priori_. The reason _a posteriori_ is, that it has turned out
right; it has operated well upon the mass of the Indians, between
eighteen and nineteen hundred of which, negroes inclusive, have
since surrendered to Gen. Jesup. This, sir, is a fact which contains
an argument which overturns all that can be said on this floor
against the detention of Osceola. The Indians themselves do not view
that act as perfidious or dishonorable, or the violation of a flag,
or even the act of an enemy. They do not condemn General Jesup on
account of it, but no doubt respect him the more for refusing to
be made the dupe of a treacherous artifice. A bit of white linen,
stripped, perhaps from the body of a murdered child, or its murdered
mother, was no longer to cover the insidious visits of spies and
enemies. A firm and manly course was taken, and the effect was good
upon the minds of the Indians. The number since surrendered is proof
of its effect upon their minds; and this proof should put to blush
the lamentations which are here set up for Powell, and the censure
thrown upon General Jesup.
No, sir, no. General Jesup has been guilty of no perfidy, no
fraud, no violation of flags. He has done nothing to stain his own
character, or to dishonor the flag of the United States. If he
has erred, it has been on the side of humanity, generosity, and
forbearance to the Indians. If he has erred, as some suppose, in
losing time to parley with the Indians, that error has been on
the side of humanity, and of confidence in them. But has he erred?
Has his policy been erroneous? Has the country been a loser by his
policy? To all these questions, let results give the answer. Let the
twenty-two hundred Indians, abstracted from the hostile ranks by his
measures, be put in contrast with the two hundred, or less, killed
and taken by his predecessors. Let these results be compared; and
let this comparison answer the question whether, in point of fact,
there has been any error, even a mistake of judgment, in his mode of
conducting the war.
The senator from South Carolina [Mr. PRESTON] complains of the
length of time which General Jesup has consumed without bringing
the war to a close. Here, again, the chapter of comparisons must be
resorted to in order to obtain the answer which justice requires.
How long, I pray you, was General Jesup in command? from December,
1836, to May, 1838; nominally he was near a year and a half in
command; in reality not one year, for the summer months admit of no
military operations in that peninsula. His predecessors commanded
from December, 1835, to December, 1836; a term wanting but a few
months of as long a period as the command of General Jesup lasted.
Sir, there is nothing in the length of time which this general
commanded, to furnish matter for disadvantageous comparisons to him;
but the contrary. He reduced the hostiles about one-half in a year
and a half; they reduced them about the one-twentieth in a year.
The whole number was about 5,000; General Jesup diminished their
number, during his command, 2,200; the other generals had reduced
them about 150. At the rate he proceeded, the work would be finished
in about three years; at the rate they proceeded, in about twenty
years. Yet he is to be censured here for the length of time consumed
without bringing the war to a close. He, and he alone, is selected
for censure. Sir, I dislike these comparisons; it is a disagreeable
task for me to make them; but I am driven to it, and mean no
disparagement to others. The violence with which General Jesup is
assailed here--the comparisons to which he has been subjected in
order to degrade him--leave me no alternative but to abandon a
meritorious officer to unmerited censure, or to defend him in the
same manner in which he has been assailed.
The essential policy of General Jesup has been to induce the
Indians to come in--to surrender--and to emigrate under the treaty.
This has been his main, but not his exclusive, policy; military
operations have been combined with it; many skirmishes and actions
have been fought since he had command; and it is remarkable that
this general, who has been so much assailed on this floor, is the
only commander-in-chief in Florida who has been wounded in battle
at the head of his command. His person marked with the scars of
wounds received in Canada during the late war with Great Britain,
has also been struck by a bullet, in the face, in the peninsula of
Florida; yet these wounds--the services in the late war with Great
Britain--the removal of upwards of 16,000 Creek Indians from Alabama
and Georgia to the West, during the summer of 1836--and more than
twenty-five years of honorable employment in the public service--all
these combined, and an unsullied private character into the bargain,
have not been able to protect the feelings of this officer from
laceration on this floor. Have not been sufficient to protect his
feelings! for, as to his character, that is untouched. The base
accusation--the vague denunciation--the offensive epithets employed
here, may lacerate feelings, but they do not reach character; and
as to the military inquiry, which the senator from South Carolina
speaks of, I undertake to say that no such inquiry will ever take
place. Congress, or either branch of Congress, can order an inquiry
if it pleases; but before it orders an inquiry, _a probable cause
has to be shown for it_; and that probable cause never has been, and
never will be, shown in General Jesup's case.
The senator from South Carolina speaks of the large force which
was committed to General Jesup, and the little that was effected
with that force. Is the senator aware of the extent of the country
over which his operations extended? that it extended from 31 to 25
degrees of north latitude? that it began in the Okefenokee swamp in
Georgia, and stretched to the Everglades in Florida? that it was
near five hundred miles in length in a straight line, and the whole
sprinkled over with swamps, one of which alone was equal in length
to the distance between Washington City and Philadelphia? But it
was not extent of country alone, with its fastnesses, its climate,
and its wily foe, that had to be contended with; a new element
of opposition was encountered by General Jesup, in the poisonous
information which was conveyed to the Indians' minds, which
encouraged them to hold out, and of which he had not even knowledge
for a long time. This was the quantity of false information which
was conveyed to the Indians, to stimulate and encourage their
resistance. General Jesup took command just after the presidential
election of 1836. The Indians were informed of this change of
presidents, and were taught to believe that the white people had
_broke_ General Jackson--that was the phrase--had _broke_ General
Jackson for making war upon them. They were also informed that
General Jesup was carrying on the war without the leave of Congress;
that Congress would give no more money to raise soldiers to fight
them; and that he dared not come home to Congress. Yes, he dared not
come home to Congress! These poor Indians seem to have been informed
of intended movements against the general in Congress, and to have
relied upon them both to stop supplies and to punish the general.
Moreover, they were told, that, if they surrendered to emigrate,
they would receive the worst treatment on the way; that, if a child
cried, it would be thrown overboard; if a chief gave offence, he
would be put in irons. Who the immediate informants of all these
fine stories were, cannot be exactly ascertained. They doubtless
originated with that mass of fanatics, devoured by a morbid
sensibility for negroes and Indians, which are now _Don Quixoting_
over the land, and filling the public ear with so many sympathetic
tales of their own fabrication.
General Jesup has been censured for writing a letter disparaging
to his predecessor in command. If he did so, and I do not deny it,
though I have not seen the letter, nobly has he made the amends.
Publicly and officially has he made amends for a private and
unofficial wrong. In an official report to the war department,
published by that department, he said:
"As an act of justice to all my predecessors in command, I
consider it my duty to say that the difficulties attending
military operations in this country, can be properly appreciated
only by those acquainted with them. I have advantages which
neither of them possessed, in better preparations and more
abundant supplies; and I found it impossible to operate with
any prospect of success, until I had established a line of
depots across the country. If I have at any time said aught in
disparagement of the operations of others in Florida, either
verbally or in writing, officially or unofficially, knowing the
country as I now know it, I consider myself bound as a man of
honor solemnly to retract it."
Such are the amends which General Jesup makes--frank and
voluntary--full and kindly--worthy of a soldier towards brother
soldiers; and far more honorable to his predecessors in command than
the disparaging comparisons which have been instituted here to do
them honor at his expense.
The expenses of this war is another head of attack pressed into this
debate, and directed more against the administration than against
the commanding general. It is said to have cost twenty millions of
dollars; but that is an error--an error of near one-half. An actual
return of all expenses up to February last, amounts to nine and a
half millions; the rest of the twenty millions go to the suppression
of hostilities in other places, and with other Indians, principally
in Georgia and Alabama, and with the Cherokees and Creeks. Sir, this
charge of expense seems to be a standing head with the opposition at
present. Every speech gives us a dish of it; and the expenditures
under General Jackson and Mr. Van Buren are constantly put in
contrast with those of previous administrations. Granted that these
expenditures are larger--that they are greatly increased; yet
what are they increased for? Are they increased for the personal
expenses of the officers of the government, or for great national
objects? The increase is for great objects; such as the extinction
of Indian titles in the States east of the Mississippi--the removal
of whole nations of Indians to the west of the Mississippi--their
subsistence for a year after they arrive there--actual wars with
some tribes--the fear of it with others, and the consequent
continual calls for militia and volunteers to preserve peace--large
expenditures for the permanent defences of the country, both by
land and water, with a pension list for ever increasing; and other
heads of expenditure which are for future national benefit; and not
for present individual enjoyment. Stripped of all these heads of
expenditure, and the expenses of the present administration have
nothing to fear from a comparison with other periods. Stated in the
gross, as is usually done, and many ignorant people are deceived
and imposed upon, and believe that there has been a great waste of
public money; pursued into the detail, and these expenditures will
be found to have been made for great national objects--objects which
no man would have undone, to get back the money, even if it was
possible to get back the money by undoing the objects. No one, for
example, would be willing to bring back the Creeks, the Cherokees,
the Choctaws, and Chickasaws into Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia,
Tennessee and North Carolina, even if the tens of millions which it
has cost to remove them could be got back by that means; and so of
the other expenditures: yet these eternal croakers about expense are
blaming the government for these expenditures.
Sir, I have gone over the answers, which I proposed to make to the
accusations of the senators from New Jersey and South Carolina. I
have shown them to be totally mistaken in all their assumptions
and imputations. I have shown that there was no fraud upon the
Indians in the treaty at Fort Gibson--that the identical chiefs
who made that treaty have since been the hostile chiefs--that the
assassination and massacre of an agent, two government expresses,
an artillery officer, five citizens, and one hundred and twelve men
of Major Dade's command, caused the war--that our troops are not
subject to censure for inefficiency--that General Jesup has been
wrongfully denounced upon this floor--and that even the expense of
the Florida war, resting as it does in figures and in documents, has
been vastly overstated to produce effect upon the public mind. All
these things I have shown; and I conclude with saying that cost,
and time, and loss of men, are all out of the question; that, for
outrages so wanton and so horrible as those which occasioned this
war, the national honor requires the most ample amends; and the
national safety requires a future guarantee in prosecuting this war
to a successful close, and completely clearing the peninsula of
Florida of all the Indians that are upon it.