The Exiles of Florida / or, The crimes committed by our government against the Maroons, who fled from South Carolina and other slave states, seeking protection under Spanish laws.

by Joshua R. Giddings

In the Thirty-first Congress, Mr. Daniels, Chairman of the committee on Claims, reported it in February. But General Crowell, of Trumbull County, Ohio, being on the committee, opposed its passage, and caused a postponement for that session; and at the next session it was, after a short discussion, passed over without any final action upon it.

At the Thirty-second Congress, the committee on Claims was yet more favorably constituted for the slave interest—Mr. Sacket, of New York, and Mr. Rantoul, of Massachusetts, being the only two members upon it who openly resisted the slave power. Mr. Edgerton, of Ohio, Mr. Seymour, of Connecticut, and Mr. Curtis, of Pennsylvania, being Northern Democrats, remained silent during the discussion of this claim. It was however again reported by the Chairman, Mr. Daniels, of North Carolina, at an early day, and a full determination to carry it through was manifested by the slaveholders.

Both of the great political parties were at that time (1852) endeavoring to suppress all agitation of the slave question. Southern men, particularly, were horrified at every appearance of discussion in relation to the “pecculiar institution;” and they hoped to pass this bill without even an examination of its merits before the House. But the opponents of slavery were not idle. Efforts were privately made to call attention of gentlemen to this claim, that they might examine its merits before it came up for discussion; and on looking into it, a number of members prepared to oppose its passage.

1852.

After one or two postponements, it came on for discussion on the twentieth of February, 1852. Mr. Sacket, of New York, met the case at once, in a speech which showed that he had studied it very thoroughly, and understood it perfectly. He insisted that slaves were not plunder, and did not come within the contract of General Jessup, which gave to Creeks the “plunder” they might capture. 2d. That the whole transaction was one of speculation on the part of Watson, inasmuch as the report set forth that the negroes were worth at least sixty thousand dollars, while he paid only fourteen thousand and six hundred dollars—being less than one-fourth their value, evidently taking upon himself all risk of title and possession. 3d. That the officers of Government had no authority to involve the nation in this slave-dealing transaction. 4th. That those officers were not the Government, and could not bind the people to pay their funds for human flesh.

Mr. Abercrombie, of Alabama, was in favor of the claim. He declared that he was in Florida at the time of this contract, and knew all about it, and that it was well understood that the term “plunder” did include slaves.

Mr. Daniels, Chairman of the committee, felt called on by the effort of Mr. Sacket to speak early in the discussion. He insisted that General Jessup, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and Secretary of War, fully understood the case; that it was understood by the parties that the term “plunder” did include slaves; that Watson was drawn into this matter, partly, to relieve the Government from the transaction in which it had become involved. He insisted that the negroes captured were slaves of the Seminoles; but when inquired of on that point, could only say, that officers engaged in the Florida War had spoken of them as such. He was much embarrassed by interrogatories propounded to him by Mr. Stanton, of Ohio, and other gentlemen.

Mr. Mace, of Indiana, a Democrat, took a short and comprehensive view of the case. He, nor any other man could tell whether these negroes were slaves or freemen. On the part of the officers of Government, there was not a single impulse of humanity manifested in regard to these people; but all their endeavors were put forth to enslave them. He was entirely opposed to the bill.

Hon. John W. Howe, of Pennsylvania, would never give his vote in favor of regarding men, and women, and children, as plunder. He commented with much force upon the contract, and the documentary evidence before the House, and would maintain the humanity of all prisoners captured in war. He sustained the position of General Gaines, that they were prisoners of war.

On the tenth of March the bill came up again for consideration, when Mr. Johnson, of Georgia, advocated its passage in a very elaborate speech. He differed from Mr. Sacket, Mr. Howe, and those who opposed the bill, mostly upon the great question—insisting that slaves were property under our Federal Constitution; that the people captured by the Creek Indians were not possessed of any rights; that they were to be regarded as mere chattels: indeed, this point lay at the foundation of the entire discussion. He however sought to add strength to the claim by reading letters from Mr. Crawford, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and from Mr. Poinsett, Secretary of War, to show that they sympathized with the slave-dealer, and were desirous that this bill should pass.