ON THE SEMINOLE WAR.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 8, 1819.

[in the year 1814, General Jackson, then in command of the South Western Military District of the United States, then expecting an invasion from a formidable British force, was aroused by the arrival of a small British force at Pensacola, which was received as friends and allies by the Spanish commander of that post, and the British commander thence issued a Proclamation threatening hostile movements against our government, and inviting the Louisianians to rally around the British standard. It was also a subject of complaint on our part, that the Creek and Seminole Indians engaged in ferocious hostilities against us were sheltered, if not protected in Florida, and that its authorities lacked the power, if not the will to restrain them. Impelled by these provocations, General Jackson, without authority from our government, marched his army into Florida, then the possession of a nation at peace with us, took Pensacola, hung two Indian traders, and committed many acts of great temerity and harshness, not to say cruelty. These high-handed proceedings came under review in Congress in 1819, upon resolutions of censure on General Jackson for exceeding his authority and for tyranny, when Mr. CLAY addressed the House as follows:]

MR. CHAIRMAN:-In rising to address you, sir, on the very interesting subject which now engages the attention of Congress, I must be allowed to say, that all inferences drawn from the course which it will be my painful duty to take in this discussion, of unfriendliness either to the chief magistrate of the country, or to the illustrious military chieftain whose operations are under investigation, will be wholly unfounded. Towards that distinguished captain, who shed so much glory on our country, whose renown constitutes so great a portion of its moral property, I never had, I never can have any other feelings than those of the most profound respect, and of the utmost kindness. With him my acquaintance is very limited, but, so far as it has extended, it has been of the most amicable kind. I know the motives which have been, and which will again be attributed to me, in regard to the other exalted personage alluded to. They have been

and will be unfounded. I have no interest, other than that of seeing the concerns of my country well and happily administered. It is in finitely more gratifying to behold the prosperity of my country advanc ing by the wisdom of the measures adopted to promote it, than it would be to expose the errors which may be committed, if there be any, in the conduct of its affairs. Little as has been my experience in public life, it has been sufficient to teach me that the most humble station is surrounded by difficulties and embarrassments. Rather than throw obstructions in the way of the President, I would precede him, and pick out those, if I could, which might jostle him in his progress-I would sympathize with him in his embarrassments, and commiserate with him in his misfortunes. It is true, that it has been 'my mortification to differ from that gentleman on several occasions. I may be again reluctantly compelled to differ from him; but I will with the utmost sincerity assure the committee that I have formed no resolution, come under no engagements, and that I never will form any resolution, or contract any engagements, for systematic opposition to his administration, or to that of any other chief magistrate.

I beg leave further to premise, that the subject under consideration presents two distinct aspects, susceptible, in my judgment, of the most clear and precise discrimination. The one I will call its foreign, the other its domestic aspect. In regard to the first, I will say, that I approve entirely of the conduct of our government, and that Spain has no cause of complaint. Having violated an important stipulation of the treaty of 1795, that power has justly subjected herself to all the consequences which ensued upon the entry into her dominions, and it belongs not to her to complain of those measures which resulted from her breach of contract; still less has she a right to examine into the considerations connected with the domestic aspect of the subject.

What are the propositions before the committee? The first in order is that reported by the military committee, which asserts the disapprobation of this House, of the proceedings in the trial and execution of Arbuthnot and Ambrister. The second, being the first-contained in the proposed amendment, is the consequence of that disapprobation, and contemplates the passage of a law to prohibit the execution hereafter of any captive, taken by the army, without the approbation of the President. The third proposition is, that this

House disapproves of the forcible seizure of the Spanish posts, as contrary to orders, and in violation of the constitution. The fourth proposition, as the result of the last, is, that a law shall pass to prohibit the march of the army of the United States, or any corps of it, into any foreign territory, without the previous authorization of Congress, except it be in fresh pursuit of a defeated enemy. The first and third are general propositions, declaring the sense of the House in regard to the evils pointed out; and the second and fourth propose the legislative remedies against the recurrence of those evils.

It will be at once perceived, by this simple statement of the propositions, that no other censure is proposed against General Jackson himself, than what is merely consequential. His name even does not appear in any one of the resolutions. The legislature of the country, in reviewing the state of the Union, and considering the events which have transpired since its last meeting, finds that particular occurrences, of the greatest moment, in many respects, have taken place near our southern border. I will add, that the House has not sought, by any officious interference with the duties of the executive, to gain jurisdiction over this matter. The President, in his message at the opening of the session, communicated the very information on which it was proposed to act. I would ask, for what purpose? That we should fold our arms and yield a tacit acquiescence, even if we supposed that information disclosed alarming events, not merely as it regards the peace of the country, but in respect to its constitution and character? Impossible. In communicating these papers, and voluntarily calling the attention of Congress to the subject, the President must himself have intended that we should apply any remedy that we might be able to devise. Having the subject thus regularly and fairly before us, and proposing merely to collect the sense of the House upon certain important transactions which it discloses, with the view to the passage of such laws as may be demanded by the public interest, I repeat, that there is no censure any where, except such as is strictly consequential upon our legislative action. The supposition of every new law, having for its object to prevent the recurrence of evil, is, that something has happened which ought not to have taken place, and no other than this indirect sort of censure will flow from the resolutions before the committee.

Having thus given my view of the nature and character of the

propositions under consideration, I am far from intimating that it is not my purpose to go into a full, a free, and a thorough investigation. of the facts, and of the principles of law, public, municipal, and constitutional, involved in them. And, whilst I trust I shall speak with the decorum due to the distinguished officers of the government whose proceedings are to be examined, I shall exercise the independence which belongs to me as a representative of the people, in freely. and fully submitting my sentiments.

In noticing the painful incidents of this war, it is impossible not to inquire into its origin. I fear that it will be found to be the famous treaty of Fort Jackson, concluded in August, 1814; and I must ask the indulgence of the Chairman while I read certain parts of that treaty.

Whereas an unprovoked, inhuman, and sanguinary war, waged by the hostile Creeks against the United States, hath been repelled, prosecuted, and determined, successfully on the part of the said States, in conformity with principles of national justice and honorable warfare: and whereas consideration is due to the rectitude of proceedings dictated by instructions relating to the re-establishing of peace: be it remembered, that, prior to the conquest of that part of the Creek nation hostile to the United States, numberless aggressions had been committed against the peace, the property, and the lives of citizens of the United States, and those of the Creek Nation in amity with her, at the mouth of Duck river, Fort Mimms, and elsewhere, contrary to national faith, and the regard due to an article of the treaty concluded at New York, in the year 1790, between the two nations: that the United States, previous to the perpetration of such outrages, did, in order to ensure future amity and concord between the Creek Nation and the said States, in conformity with the stipulations of former treaties, fulfil, with punctuality and good faith, her engagements to the said Nation: that more than two-thirds of the whole number of Chiefs and Warriors of the Creek Nation, disregarding the genuine spirit of existing treaties, suffered themselves to be instigated to violations of their national honor, and the respect due to a part of their own nation, faithful to the United States, and the principles of humanity, by impostors, denominating themselves Prophets, and by the duplicity and misrepesrentations of foreign emissaries, whose governments are at war, open or understood, with the United States.

Article 2.-The United States will guaranty to the Creek Nation the integrity of all their territory eastwardly and northwardly of the said line, (described in the first Article,) to be run and described as mentioned in the first Article

Article 3.-The United States demand that the Creek Nation abandon all communication, and cease to hold intercourse with any British post, garrison, or town; and that they shall not admit among them any agent or trader, who shall not derive authority to hold commercial or other intercourse with them, by license from the President or other authorized agent of the United States.

Article 4-The United States demand an acknowledgment of the right to establish military posts and trading houses, and to open roads within the territory guarantied to the Creek Nation by the second Article, and a right to the free navigation of all its waters.

Article 5.-The United States demand that a surrender be immediately made, of all the persons and property taken from the citizens of the United States, the friendly part of the Creek Nation, the Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Choctaw Nations, to the

respective owners; and the United States will cause to be immediately restored to the formerly hostile Creeks all the property taken from them since their submission, either by the United States, or by any Indian Nations in amity with the United States, together with all the prisoners taken from them during the war.

Article 6.-The United States demand the caption and surrender of all the Prophets and instigators of the war, whether foreigners or natives, who have not submitted to the arms of the United States, and become parties to these articles of capitulation, if ever they shall be found within the territory guarantied to the Creek Nation by the second Article.

Article 7.-The Creek Nation being reduced to extreme want, and not at present having the means of subsistence, the United States, from motives of humanity, will continue to furnish gratuitously the necessaries of life, until the crops of com can be considered competent to yield the Nation a supply, and will establish trading houses in the Nation, at the discretion of the President of the United States, and at such places as he shall direct, to enable the Nation, by industry and economy, to procure clothing.

I have never perused this instrument until within a few days past, and I have read it with the deepest mortification and regret. A more dictatorial spirit I have never seen displayed in any instrument. I would challenge an examination of all the records of diplomacy, not excepting even those in the most haughty period of imperial Rome, when she was carrying her arms into the barbarian nations that surrounded her, and I do not believe a solitary instance can be found of such an inexorable spirit of domination pervading a compact purporting to be a treaty of peace. It consists of the most severe and humiliating demands of the surrender of a large territory-of the privilege of making roads through the remnant which was retained-of the right of establishing trading houses-of the obligation of delivering into our hands their prophets. And all this of a wretched people reduced to the last extremity of distress, whose miserable existence we have to preserve by a voluntary stipulation to furnish them with bread! When did the all-conquering and desolating Rome ever fail to respect the altars and the gods of those whom she subjugated? Let me not be told that these prophets were impostors, who deceived the Indians. They were their prophets-the Indians believed and venerated them and it is not for us to dictate a religious belief to them. It does not belong to the holy character of the religion which we profess, to carry its precepts, by the force of the bayonet, into the bosoms of other people. Mild and gentle persuasion was the great instrument employed by the meek Founder of our religion. We leave to the humane and benevolent efforts of the reverend professors of Christianity to convert from barbarism those unhappy nations yet immersed in its gloom. But, sir, spare them their prophets! spare their delusions.