Diary in America, Series Two

by Frederick Marryat

An American author states that two men, Robinson and Wilburn, belonging to Georgia, contrived to steal from one chief twenty slaves, to the value of 15,000 dollars, and carried them to New Orleans. I will however quote a portion of the work.

“Another influential chief, Emachitochustern, commonly called John Walker, was robbed of a number of slaves in a somewhat similar manner. After making an appeal to the government agent, without the least chance of redress, he says: ‘I don’t like to make any trouble or to have any quarrel with white people, but, if they will trespass on my lands and rights, I must defend myself the best way I can, and if they do come again they must bear the consequences. But is there no civil law to protect me? Are the negroes belonging to me to be stolen away publicly in the face of all law and justice? carried off and sold to fill the pockets of these land pirates? Douglass and his company have hired a man, who has two large trained dogs for the purpose, to come here and take off others. He is from Mobile, and follows catching negroes.’

“Colonel John Blount, another estimable chief, was inhumanly beaten by a party of white men, who robbed him of several hundred dollars; he made application to the authorities, but the villains were allowed to escape.

“These facts show how mild and forbearing the Seminoles have acted under the most trying circumstances; and even when their property has been assailed in this way, they have, in numerous instances, refrained from making resistance; their hands were bound, as the severest punishment awaited any attack they might make upon the intruders, even though circumstances justified it. But as the Indian’s evidence could not be received in a court of justice, the white man’s oath would condemn him to the most torturing punishment.”

But in every way were the poor Indians the prey of the white men. The same author says, among many other cases brought forward, “A man, by the name of Floyd, was employed by an Indian woman to recover some negroes for her, and instead of presenting a mere power of attorney for her signature, she found, alas! it was a bill of sale for all her negroes! Another individual was requested by Miconopy, governor of the Seminoles, to draw a piece of writing for him, to which, without suspicion of its character, he attached his name; it was soon after discovered to be a conveyance of a large tract of land!”

Another source of profit to these scoundrels was the obtaining by fraudulent means from the Indians, orders upon the American Government for the payment of portions of their annuity granted in return for the cession of the territory. “One of the government agents was a delinquent to them for a considerable amount. He robbed the principal interpreter of the nation, a very influential black chief by the name of Abraham, of several hundred dollars, by getting a receipt from him without paying the money, under the plea that it was necessary to send the receipt to Washington, where it was filed to the credit of the agent. Several other Indians of influence were robbed in a similar manner; and when they demanded the money from the succeeding agent, they were told that the government would not pay them. Is not this an unsound principle to adopt in our intercourse with the Indians? Is it just or honourable for us to send our own agents among them, without their approval, and not hold ourselves responsible for their conduct? If we were indebted to a nation, and the funds are sent through an agent to pay over, and he neglects to do so, are we not still liable, and would not a civilised power still hold us responsible?”

I have mentioned these facts to show that the Indians were justified in their want of faith in the white men: they were robbed and pillaged and had no redress; nay, they were imprisoned as thieves for taking away their own cattle which had been stolen from them, although they showed their own marks and brands upon them. Whether the American Government suffered all this spoliation with a view to disgust the Indians and incline them to remove to the westward, the reader will be better able to judge for himself when he has read a few pages more.

The Florida people were now subjected to retaliation, on the part of the Indians, who, finding that they could obtain no redress, naturally took the law into their own hands, and loss of life on both sides was the consequence. This produced petition after petition from the Florida white population to the government, requesting that the Indians might be moved west prior to 1843, the period agreed upon by the treaty of Camp Moultrie. Colonel Gadsden, a citizen of Florida, was appointed commissioner to treat with the Indians, and on the 8th of April 1832, had an interview with Mic-e-no-pah, and a few other chiefs. The Indians requested thirty days to collect the opinions of the absent chiefs, and on the 8th of May 1832, they met the commissioner, according to appointment, at Payne’s Landing. The commissioner had a great deal of difficulty in obtaining their consent to the removal, which was ultimately given upon certain conditions.

By this treaty, the Indians agreed to remove west upon being paid a certain sum for the reserved land; an annuity for a certain number of years; and other advantages, which would occupy too much space to particularise here. The treaty was signed by Mic-e-no-pah, the head chief, Jumper, and thirteen more.

But the treaty was assented to upon one condition, which was, that the Seminoles were satisfied with the lands apportioned to them west of the Mississippi. This is acknowledged by Colonel Gadsden, in his letter to the Secretary of War, who says—“There is a condition prefixed to the agreement, without assenting to which the Florida Indians most positively refused to negotiate for their removal west of the Mississippi. Even with the condition annexed, there was a reluctance (which with some difficulty was overcome) on the part of the Indians, to bind themselves by any stipulations before a knowledge of facts and circumstances would enable them to judge of the advantages or disadvantages of the disposition the government of the United States wished to make of them. They were finally induced, however, to assent to the agreement.” “The final ratification of the treaty will depend upon the opinion of the seven chiefs selected to explore the country west of the Mississippi river. If that corresponds to the description given, or is equal to the expectations formed of it, there will be no difficulty on the part of the Seminoles.”