The Exiles of Florida. Giddings Joshua Reed

7

Vide papers accompanying the Report of the Secretary of War, above referred to, marked A, and numbered 1, 2 and 3.

8

Vide letter of James White to Major General Knox, of the 24th May, 1787. American State Papers, Vol II, Indian Affairs.

9

American State Papers, Vol. V, page 25.

10

Vide Documents accompanying the Treaty of New York; Am. State Papers, Vol. I, Indian Affairs.

11

The reader need not be informed, that these demands of indemnity for slaves were promptly rejected by the English government; and Jay’s Treaty of 1794, surrendered them forever.

12

Hildreth, in his History of the United States, speaks of in that light.

13

Vide Annals of Congress, Vol. I, pages 1068-70-74.

14

Vide Correspondence on this subject between Seagrove and the War Department. American State Papers, Vol. V, pages 304-5, 320, 336, 387, and 392.

15

American State Papers, “Indian Affairs.” Vol. II, p. 306.

16

Vide talk of principal Chief at Treaty of Colerain.

17

Vide Annals of Congress of that date.

18

Vide papers accompanying the Treaty of Colerain. American State Papers, Vol. I, “Indian Affairs.”

19

Vide the papers accompanying this Treaty when submitted to the Senate. They are collected in the second volume of American State Papers, entitled “Indian Affairs.” They will afford much interesting matter as to the doctrines of “State Rights” and Nullification, which it is unnecessary to embrace in this work.

20

Vide Annals of IVth Congress, 2d Session

21

The claims of these ancient Spanish inhabitants for indemnity against these robberies, have been pressed upon the consideration of Congress for the last twenty-five years, and were recently pending before the Court of Claims. When the bill for their relief was under discussion before the House of Representatives, In 1843, Hon. John Quincy Adams presented a list of some ninety slaves, for the loss of whom the owners claimed compensation from the United States. But the discussions which arose on private bills were not at that time reported; and neither this exhibit, nor the speech of Mr. Adams, are to be found in the Congressional Debates of that day.

22

Many slaves actually fled from their masters and found an asylum on board British vessels. Some sixty, belonging to a planter named Forbes, who resided in Georgia, left his plantation and took shelter on board the ship commanded by Lord Cochrane. They were transported to Jamaica, where they settled and lived as other free people. After the restoration of peace, Forbes sued his Lordship, before the British courts, for damages sustained by the loss of these slaves. The case elicited much learning in regard to the law of Slavery and, next to that of Sommerset, may be regarded as the most important on that subject ever litigated before an English court.

23

“Monette,” In his “History of the Valley of the Mississippi,” says Woodbine erected this fort in the summer of 1816; and such were the representations made before the Committee appointed in 1819, to investigate the conduct of General Jackson, in taking possession of Florida. But the reader will notice the Letter of General Gaines, hereafter quoted, which bears date on the 14th May, 1815, and officially informed the Secretary of War that “negroes and outlaws have taken possession of a Fort on the Appalachicola River.” This was more than a year before the time of erecting the fort, according to “Monette.”

The parapet of the fort was said to be fifteen feet high and eighteen thick, situated upon a gentle cliff, with a fine stream emptying into the river near its base, and a swamp in the rear, which protected it from the approach of artillery by land. On its walls were mounted one thirty-two pounder, three twenty-four pounders, two nine pounders, two six pounders, and one brass five and a half-inch howitzer. Vide Official Report of Sailing-Master Loomis.

24

This is the official account of Sailing-Master Loomis, who commanded the naval expedition subsequently sent to reduce this fortress.

“Monette,” in his History of the Valley of the Mississippi, says, “Near the Fort the fields were fine, and extended along the river nearly fifty miles.”

25

The reader will at once see, that these people were as much under the protection of Spain, as the fugitive slaves now in Canada are under the protection of British laws. They were as clearly Spanish subjects as the latter are British subjects. By the law of nations, Spain had the same right to permit her black subjects to occupy “Blount’s Fort,” that the Queen of England has to permit Fort Malden to be occupied by her black subjects. The only distinction between the two cases is, Spain was weak and unable to maintain her national honor, and national rights; while England has the power to do both.

26

Vide the voluminous Correspondence on this subject contained in Ex. Doc. 119, 2d Session, XVth Congress.

27

Perhaps no portion of our national history exhibits such disregard of International law, as this unprovoked invasion of Florida. For thirty years, the slaves of our Southern States have been in the habit of fleeing to the British Provinces. Here they are admitted to all the rights of citizenship, in the same manner as they were in Florida. They vote and hold office under British laws; and when our Government demanded that the English Ministry should disregard the rights of these people and return them to slavery, the British Minister contemptuously refused even to hold correspondence with our Secretary of State on a subject so abhorrent to every principle of national law and self-respect. Our Government coolly submitted to the scornful arrogance of England; but did not hesitate to invade Florida with an armed force, and to seize the faithful subjects of Spain, and enslave them.

28

Hon. Duncan L. Clinch. He left the service in 1841, and was subsequently a Member of Congress for several years, and died in 1852.

29

War was thus waged against Spain, by Executive authority, without consulting Congress; and no member of that body uttered a protest, or denunciation of the act.

30

In Ex. Doc. No. 119, 2d Session, XVth Congress, may be found the official correspondence between the War Department and General Jackson; also that between General Jackson and General Gaines, together with the orders of each, as well as the correspondence between the Secretary of the Navy and Commodore Patterson; and the order of the latter officer to Sailing-Master Loomis; and the final report of Sailing-Master Loomis and General Clinch. In none of these papers is there any act of hostility mentioned or referred to as having been committed by the Exiles, or the Seminole Indians, prior to their reaching the vicinity of the Fort.

31

Hildreth states that three gun-boats were detailed on that occasion; but the report of Sailing-Master Loomis speaks only of two.

32

Hildreth states the number to have been about three hundred, partly Indians and partly negroes.

33

Monette says this expedition was undertaken by Col. Clinch upon his own responsibility, to enable some boats laden with provisions to pass up the river. A strange misapprehension of facts, as shown by official documents.

34

At this conference, Sailing-Master Loomis informed Colonel Clinch that, on the day previous, while a party of his men were on shore, they were fired on by Indians and one man killed. This was the first and only act of hostility against our troops. It was committed by Indians, not by Exiles; but it was subsequently seized upon and published as a justification for carrying out General Jackson’s order, bearing date more than two months prior to the occurrence, directing General Gaines to destroy the fort and return the negroes to slavery.

35

Monette says, “The scene in the fort was horrible beyond description. Nearly