Save now,——and again, a death knell rung;
And the flap of her sails, with night fog hung.”
The late conduct of General Jackson has excited much interest, both in Europe and America. Some advocate his proceedings, and like himself, seem determined to brave the tempest which is ready to overwhelm him. That is a dear and glorious cause, which involves moral strength and physical weakness; and I should rejoice in enlisting under the banners of a virtuous man, when unjustly assailed by popular prejudice, and popular indignation. But General Jackson has violated the principles of humanity, and tarnished the glory of the nation. Whatever may be the services of our public men they must be taught that they are the servants of the [245] people, and at all times officially accountable to them. No one is disposed to deny that General Jackson has done much for the United States; but this is only one side of the subject: Julius Cesar was a celebrated general, and achieved great victories for Rome; but Julius Cesar became a tyrant.
I do not pretend to know what were the motives of General Jackson in putting to death the above mentioned Indians, who, it appears, had been decoyed into the custody of his officers, and were prisoners of war; but we have reason to believe that they were bad motives. Conscious of his high military reputation, the native ferocity of his disposition, cloaking itself under the garb of energy, burst upon these poor, ignorant savages, who, being prisoners of war, were perfectly harmless. And why was this? because they refused to answer a question which he put for the purpose of entrapping them.—The very essence of tyranny!
Neither General Jackson, nor the government had any more right to take the lives of these Indians, than the British, even setting aside the idea of rebellion, would have had to execute General Washington, had he, during the Revolutionary war, been taken prisoner. The Indians, engaged in the Seminole war, were at issue with the United States. The parties were equally independent,—their rights were equal. The law of nature is the original source of all national right, and Indian tribes are in a state of nature.
General Jackson’s conduct upon this occasion is a disgrace to the country. The act was as unmanly as it was inhuman. It may be said by ignorance, affectation, and prejudice, that Indians sometimes destroy our men when taken prisoners. What! shall we abandon the precepts of religion, the principles of humanity, and the polish of civilization, to [246] learn manners and customs in the ferocious schools of savage life? The displeasure of the American people alone can remove from themselves the disgrace, with which such conduct on the part of a public servant naturally clothes them.
As to the course which General Jackson took, relative to the execution of Arbuthnot and Ambrister, it was entirely inconsistent with that dispassionate investigation which ought ever to characterize the American Government.[[205]] Admitting, for the sake of argument, that this course is sanctioned by the law of nations, is this law our only guide? And is this law perfect?—It is the work of man,—the work of those civilians, whose dust has long since been scattered by the winds! It is, too, the common law of independent communities. But what are they? Precisely what their courts are made of:—tyranny, intrigue, and dissipation. Oh! there is a higher rule of action than the law of nations. Our conduct should be regulated by those great and pure principles, which will stand the test of reason and conscience, both on earth and in heaven.
Why is General Jackson so fond of blood? Why so disposed to crush every forsaken individual, whom the fortune of war places in his hands? Is this moral energy?—or is it a barbarous animal impulse? With the modesty of a true soldier, General Jackson should have transferred to the Government his prisoners and his trophies. Time might have thrown some light upon the subject of the persons executed; and they might, at some future period, have had a fairer trial. There is reason to believe, that both General Jackson and the Court Martial were prejudiced against the prisoners. As these persons were supposed to have been the instigators of the war—a war which was, at first, so lamely [247] maintained on our part—a war which resulted in the death of some of our people, it was natural for General Jackson, and the persons composing the Court Martial, to entertain hostile feelings towards the accused. And shall prejudice and hostility be the triors in a case of life and death? This transaction too, is a disgrace to the country; and although, as Mr. Secretary Adams says, General Jackson will not, in relation to it, incur the censure of the Government, those of the people who wish to see their country exemplary in every thing, will endeavour, by condemning the act, to shield that country from reproach.
Mr. Adams’ letter to our Minister at the Court of Spain, relative to this subject, does the nation injustice; and it is surprising that it should be so much eulogized.[[206]] I am disposed to entertain a high opinion of the talents and patriotism of Mr. Adams; but his communication is undignified. It evinces spirit, but it is the ephemeral spirit of political paragraphists. Why does this great man condescend to flourish about “M’Gregor’s mock-patriots, and Nicholls’ negroes?” To say nothing respecting the ostentatious threats, which the communication contains, its pinks and posies but illy become the silvered brow of a diplomatic veteran. To threaten is the peculiar privilege of little minds. To warn with gravity, and to act with decision, become the United States in her negociations with Spain.
Admitting, as I have said, that the proceeding, relative to Arbuthnot and Ambrister, is warranted by the law of nations, yet as this law, as far as it respects the present question, is unjust and unreasonable; and as it also is grounded upon principles which, relative to expatriation, we have ever contested, both duty and policy dictate our decided opposition to it. It is a rule which originated in the [248] despotic courts of Europe; and one which Freedom detests. May not an individual expatriate himself? And if so, may he not become a citizen or subject in a foreign country? He may become a member of a savage as well as of a civilized community. And by acquiring the right of citizenship under a foreign government, an individual may attain to the distinction of a leader. By being a citizen he becomes interested in the destinies of the state, and is bound to defend its rights.