Newspaper Page Text
SOUTHERN
RECORDER.
VOL. I.
M1LLEDGEVILLE, TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1320.
No. 9.
PUBLISHED WEEKLY,
(on Tuesdays)
BY S. GRAJYTLAJYD if R. M. ORATE,
at three dollars, in advance, or
four dollars at the expiration
OF THE YEAR.
Advertisements connpicuously inser
ted at the customary rates.
GENERAL JACKSOJY'S memorial.
The Memorial of Andrew Jackson, Major
General of the Army of the U. States,
and commander of the Southern Divi
sion.
To the honorable Senate of the United States:
On the 18th December, 1818, your
honorable body resolved, “ That the
message of the President, and documents
relative to the Seminole war, be referred
to a select committee, who shall have
authority, if necessary, to send for per
sons and papers ; that said committee in
quire relative to the advance of the U-
nited States’ troops into West Florida ;
whether the officers in command at Pen
sacola and St. Marks were amenable to,
and under the control of Spain; and, par
ticularly, what circumstances existed to
authorize or justify the commanding
general in taking possession cf those
posts.”
In conformity with this resolution a
select committee of live persons, of your
honorable body, was appointed, who, on
the 24th February, 1819, made a report.
The committee had ample time for a
correct examination of the subject sub
mitted to their consideration, and the
means by which to have been fully sa
tisfied of the innocence of your respon
dent ; yet in their report has he been ac
cused of crimes against the laws and con
stitution of his country. Upon a review
of that document, your respondent is free
to declare, that both the narrative of
facts, and the arguments deduced from
tuein, are unsound and erroneous. The
incorrect impressions with which the
committee seem to have labored, have,
in the opinion of your memorialist, given
to this subject a distorted aspect, and
thrown around it a deceptive coloring.
With striking a deadly blow at the li
berty of his country, and with acts of
wanton usurpation, which, for their e-
nonnity, would vie with the most ab-
nolute despots—with the directory of
France, during their short career of
madness and folly—has your respondent
Keen charged. These accusations have
fir their object the rendering your res
pondent obnoxious to his fellow-citizens
Still, he will not so far forget the duty
he owes himself, and the respect due the
Senate and the American people, as to
indulge recrimination. It is not the
mean by which truth can be arrived at,
or the cause of justice and impartiality
promoted. But, to vindicate himself
from reproach, to ward off unmerited im
putations, an-l to stand in opposition to
a report of a committee of your body,
which casts the severest censure, is a
right secured to him, because it is the
right of every citizen.
With all the respect, therefore,, which
is due to an august branch ofthe govern
ment, but with that frankness and since
rity which conscious innocence demands
to assume, does he present himself. It
is a duty which he owes to himself, to
his office, to his family ; nay, to his coun
try, for which he has encountered pri
vations, and whose interest has always
been dear, and paramount to all other
considerations. In doing this he will
not depart from that respect which is
proper to be observed ; nor will he he
sitate to believe, but that the Senate, on
an impartial examination of the facts, will
come to conclusions different from what
their committee have arrived at.
The manner in which the inquiry was
conducted by the committee is believed
to have been novel: a mass of testimony
tending seriously to affect the reputation
of an individual, was collected ; and, al
though it was proposed, yet was an op
portunity denied him, of appearing be
fore them, to offer any statement or ex
planation in his power, in relation to those
subjects upon which doubts nnd difficul
ties might arise. He was deprived, by
this refusal, ofthe privilege of confront'
big his accusers, and of interrogating and
cross-examining witnesses, summoned for
his conviction. Such testimony only
the committee chose to select, was heard
and when published to the world declar
*d a language different from what the
witnesses intended.
_ By refusing the accused an opportu
Bity to confront and cross-examine wit
oesses. how easily may he indulged in
rancorous invective, and occasions sought
to vent malignant and implacable resent
Brents ! Your respondent does not pre
tend to assert that any thing of the kind
occurred during the present investigation,
hut has barely adverted to it, as forming
a portion of the evil consequences which
Blight arise from so informal a method
inquiry. To adopt such a course is
prostrate the rules of judicial proceed
ln S 9 . to violate every maxim of justice
and to trample down all the sacred gua
rantees of the constitution. He has been
taught to believe that, agreeably to th
provision ofour magna cliarta, every in
dividual was secured in his life, liberty,
property, and reputation, and that he
could not be tried before any constituted
authority ol the nation without being
heard in his defence—permitted to intro
duce exculpatory evidence—to cross-
examine and confront his accusers. This
is one of the choicest fruits of our re
publican institutions, and is an essential
preservative of liberty : it should be
guarded with vestal vigilance, and for no
purpose whatever subjected to violation
by any branch or department of the go
vernment. In its maintenance there is
safety ; but danger in departure.
The committee, whilst adverting to the
origin of the Seminole war, have omit
ted to enumerate the Spanish and Indian
aggressions on our rights, as a justifica
tion of the measures which were adopted
in its prosecution. They have rather
employed palliatives for the outrages of
the enemy, and given an aggravated as
pect to the measures which were adopt
ed for the peace and security of our fron
tiers. Add to this the manner in which
the testimony was collected—the mis
conception of facts, and incorrect argu
ments contained in the report—the time
at which it was published, and tlie style
in which it was composed, and your res
pondent cannot forego the belief that it
evinces a hostility to the Executive, and
to the military officers under his com
mand.
It is a subject of no small surprise, that
this spirit of opposition should have dif
fused itself after the luminous arrange
ment of facts, with the conclusive rea
soning and inferences arising from the
laws of nations, and the United States,
by Mr. Secretary Adams ; as well as the
ample and satisfactory discussion in the
House of Representatives, the great in
quest of the nation. Moreover, Con
gress had made provision for a vigorous
prosecution of the Seminole war, in the
spring of 1818, in conformity to the sug
gestion of tile President, in his message
the month of March, when he detail
ed to them every information in relation
that subject. The citizens ofGeor-
ia and Alabama had made repeated calls
on the general government for protec
tion ; and, with a full knowledge of all
the circumstances touching die causes
and progress of that war, Congress au
thorized the caliing out an additional bri
gade of militia, and made liberal appro
priations for the payment ofthe Georgia
oops, then in service. The President,
too, who is commander in chief of the
army and navy of the United Stati‘3, nnd
who should be the proper judge to de
termine whether his orders be Faithfully
xecuted, had made the acts of his offi
cers his own, not only by the express
uthority which lie had conferred, but
by subsequent adoption also.
With a large majority of tlie people of
the United States, the defensive mea
sures adopted by the government, as al
so the reasons by which they had been
governed, were entirely satisfactory, in
consequence of its being distinctly per
ceived that no other course could have
been pursued which would have secured
the indispensable purposes for which the
Seminole war had been prosecuted.
That those measures should be denoun
ced as a violation of the laws and consti
tution, by those very persons who origi
nallv gave them their suffrages, is ccr-
ainly calculated to excite the astonish
ment of every impartial observer.
Under such circumssances, it was to
have been anticipated that all controver
sy, relative to the agency of your res
pondent in giving rise to the war, would
have been completely put to rest. It
was confidently expected, that he would
have escaped the crimination of your
committee—reproaches which, if sanc
tioned by your honorable body, are lit
tle inferior to cashiering: besides, no
instance is to he found on record where
a similar course was adopted in relation
to any of the Indian wars in which the
United States have been engaged.
After all the above circumstances had
transpired, and it was supposed that the
subject of the Seminole war had been fi
nally disposed of, in the House of Re
presentatives, your committee took it up
with avidity, prosecuted it with an assi
duity that was unexampled, and animad
verted upon the conduct of the Execu
tive, and his official agents, in a man
ner which is believed to he nltogeher
strange and novel. By reiterations of
mal-conduct, they seem to have evinced
a disposition to stamp umm the whole
and those cormeoted with it,
and the perpetuity of her republican in
stitutions. The venerable fabric of out
liberties, which lias been consecrated b\
the blood of our heroes and the wisdom
of our sages, will be imminently endan
gered, if not entirely buried in ruins.
That the charges preferred should
have been published to the world, at a
time to preclude nil investigation, is a
circumstance but little calculated to im
part consolation, or to quiet tlie alarms
of reputation assailed. No other senti
ment can be indulged, than that it was
intended, by counteracting the decision
ofthe Mouse of Representatives previ
ously made, to produce an unfavorable
impression on the public mind, before
any thing could be offered as an antidote
to the impressions it was intended to dis
seminate. Twelve months have almost
elapsed since the publication of the re
port ; nil investigation has been neces
sarily postponed, and hence has addition
al, unmerited injury been sustained.—
The effect has been to excite prejudice,
and thereby prevent that impartial exa
mination which is so essential to correct
determination. Calumny has been aid
ed, suspicion left, free to act, and tlie
means of exciting public odium amply
afforded. Resting on the eternal prin
ciples of truth and justice, and claiming
for himself the high prerogative secured
by the constitution, this respondent asks
to appear in his own vindication, nnd to
submit the grounds of his defence, and
the “ motives" by which he has been ac
tuated.
The first consideration which presents
itself, is the authority under which your
committee acted. Three propositions
only are contained in the resolution of
your honorable body ; upon the second
of which no report has been made, nor
has your committee stated “ what cir
cumstances ex*-ted to authorize or jus
tify the commanding general in taking
possession of the Spanish posts.” In
stead of confining themselves within tlie
pale of their powers, they have travell
ed over the whole ground occupied by
the House of Representatives, in search
of nrzy subjects of enquiry, not before
touched on or embraced within their
powers.
So far as the committee have embrac
ed, within their investigation, the origi
nal causes of the war ; the. withdrawal
of the regular troops from the frontiers
ol'Georgia ; the employment of volun
teers and friendly Indians ; the execu
tion of Arbuthnni and Amhrister; theor-
r to take possession of St. Augustine,
transaction,
infamy and disgrace
Should the time ever arrive when a
majority of any of the superior tribunals
of the nation, influenced by party feel
ings, shall proceed to criminate a public
officer, or effect his removal, in order to
create a vacancy, or to gratify the ambi
tion of a favorite partizan, then may pri
vate resentment, and the most angry
passions, acquire an unbounded and dan
gerous control over their proceedings.
Every sentiment ofjustice and humanity
will be completely stifled, as well as ail
regard for the constitution and laws.—
and the reasons and motives of your res
potidenl in the conduct and management
iff ilia war, it is believed to be an act of
supererogation, and a departure from
sound practice. This objection i» not
made by your respondent upon the
ground that r : considers his conduct vul
nerable, or from a wish to elude enqui
ry ; but is barely mentioned as presump
tion of the strong di»p>- ilion of your
committee to affix censure upon his mo
tives and actions.
Upon a careful examination ofthe dis
erttionary orders which were directed
to your respondent from the Department
of War, there can be no question but
that they authorized and justified every
measure which was adopted during the
Seminole war, and should at once have
acquitted him of all censure and respon
sibility. He was ordered to engage in
offensive operations; to bring the war
with the Seminolcs to a speedy and suc
cessful termination, with exemplary pun
ishment for hostilities so unprovoked];
and to establish a peace on such condi
tions as would make it honorable and pet-
manent. He was, in effect, charged w ith
the management of the war, and vested
with the powers necessary to give it ef
fect. No orders could have been more
ample ns to the selection of means, as
well as to their application
The massacre of Mrs. Garret k chil
dren, and the butchery of lieut. Scott
nd comrades, your respondent is in
formed, were the events which induced
the government to order him to take
command ofthe operating army, and to
prosecute the war with vigor and effect
Thev had determined to abandon the
cautious and defensive policy hitherto a
dopted, and to pursue a new system of
operations against the enemy. The or
ders directed to your respondent and ge
neral Gaines, Subsequent to those tragi
cal events, were entirely different from
former ones ; inasmuch as they were pe
remptory as to carrying on operations in
Florida against the Seminole Indians.
The first order to your respondent
had no reference to those issued to Gen.
Gaines, save that of the same date with
his own, which was directed to him at
Amelia Island, requiring hi# co-operation
in the attack upon the Seminolcs. la no
part of it was a reference to any previ
ous order to your respondent, or to any
other person, pointing out the most ad
visabie means to he adop . d, or limiting
him in their choice or application. And
even had the orders of Gun. Gaines been
obligatory, as the case which they con
templated never occurred, they must en
tirely have lost their force and effect.
limitation us to the means to be employ
ed, leaves, it is conceived, an entire dis
cretion with the officer, as to their cha
racter and application—it then becomes
a general power. It is also believed to
he true, that the limits of such an order
cannot he transcended without an entire
desertion ofthe object contemplated.—
flic orders of your respondent com
pletely superseded those directed to ge
neral Gaines ; and if so, he must stand
acquitted of the high charge of having
been guilty of their violation. Yet, if
any doubt could exist upon this subject,
the subsequent approval of the measures
and motives of your respondent, by the
Executive of the United States, com
pletely settles all controversy.
In the first page of the report, an ef
fort is made to induce a belief that the
treaty of Fort Jackson was negociated
by your respondent, and that the hostili
ties of the Seminoles proceeded from its
unjust and tyrannical demands. Upon
this branch of the subject, your respon
dent begs leave to remark, that the ge
neral government had some, time previ
ously settled the, terms of capitulation,
nnd your respondent, not as a commis
sioner or negociator, but as the conquer
or of the country, received their sub
mission upon those terms—terms which
demanded the surrender of their prophets,
as zccll as the instigators of the war.
Those Indians, after being routed at
Hoithlewallee, in April, 1814, fled to
Fcnsac.ola, where they were protected,
clothed, fed, and supplied with muniti
ons of war, by the Spanish authorities.
They never were parties to the treaty
at Fort Jackson ; and, however they
might have been dissatisfied with its con
ditions. as demanded by the government,
their dissatisfaction and hostility were
excited Spanish agents and British
emissaries, resident among them ; one
of whom was the infamous Woodbine,
who was then engaged in enlisting them
in his sen ice, hv the distribution of pre
sents, and in disciplining them for war.
These facts might have been ascertain
ed by a reference to the correspondence
between your respondent and the gov
ernor of l'ensacola, which were oil tile
in the 'I ar Department.
Upon tlie subject of occupying tlie
Spanish posts, your respondent thinks
proper to observe, that he deemed it ec-
entially necessary to the execution of
hi# orders. It would have been impos
sible to have obtained a speedy and effec
tual termination of the war. so longas'the
commandants of those fortresses furnish
ed the enemy with supplies and muniti
ons of war, nnd aided, abetted, and en
couraged them in their savage hostilities
igainst our frontier settlements
They had both become the rendezvous
for embodying hostile Negroes and In
dians, and for giving them comfort and
protection. According to the acknow
ledgement# of her own commanding offi
cers, tlie authority of Spain over Flori
da bad ceased, nnd was to be considered
is derelict to all intents and purposes.—
Your respondent did not believe himself
under any obligation to respect an autho
rity that did not exist ; a sovereignty
that was not asserted or exercised : rea
son nor law could require him to respect
rights that were suffered to be usurped
for the purpose of promoting a most cru
el and sanguinary war against the citi
zens of the United States. These posts
had been alternately substituted for the
fort on the Appalachicola, and thither
the Negroes and Indians had retreated
tor shelter and protection, after their de
feats at Micka-uky. They constituted
the laboratories of the war; and there
were their materials collected and orga
nized for active service. They were,
iu reality, Indian forts and store-houses
attempted to be protected by tlie Span
ish flag ; and had they been in the ex
clusive possession of our savage ene
mies, they could not have derived great
er advantages, been more benelitted,
nor wc more seriously injured.
Against such an enemy, what measures
were to be adopted under orders that re
quired a speedy and effectual termination
ofthe war ; and which were to give per
manent peace and security to our South
ern frontier ? They were not to be met
and fought in the open plain, where a
decisive blow might be given, and the
contest ended ; but were to be sought
for in the fortresses of Spain, nnd in the
Swamps of a wilderness, where they
might contend at leisure, and recede
from the contest the moment it became
hazardous. Partial remedies to prevent
such evils had already been adopted by
the American government. During the
war oE 1812, Spain had suffered Great
Britain to violate her neutrality in Flo
rida, to the injury and annoyance of the
United States. In 1814, Pensacola was
entered by United States troops, and a
lesson, it was hoped, enforced, that how
ever this government was disposed to
cultivate peace, she could not preserve
it by permitting Spain, regardless of ex
istiiig treaties, to outrage her dearest
The patriot will have ample cause to An order to perform a particular service
tremble for the honor of his country lor to effect a specific object, without any
government forgave the injury. Peace
was at length restored to the U. States ;
yet still Spain, regardless of her obliga
tions, permitted British agents to reside
within the bosom cf Florida, nnd to ex
cite the Indians nnd Negroes to pillage
and to bloodshed. Remonstrance was
again employed, but in vain. Inability
w as still the pretext, and the same tragi
cal scenes witnessed in 1814, were now
repeated. Tlie savages who had cause
lessly made war, and who were shed
ding tlie blood ofour border settlers, be
ing thus openly received nnd comforted
by the Spanish authorities, were such
acts of hostility, were so flagrant a vio
lation of the good understanding existing
between the United States and Spain, as
in the opinion of your respondent, whol
ly to merge the neutral character. And
your respondent considers, that lie would
have been guilty of a dereliction of duty
had he drawn up his troops by way of
cordon, and remained on the Georgia
frontier, receiving the reports of Indian
obberies and massacres, only that he
might transmit them to the Secretary of
War ; for he could have done no more.
Both of those fortresses were clearly
identified as “ associates’’ in the war,
and were both equally under the control
ofthe Negroes and Indians. Arnbristcr
had appeared before Saint Marks with
4 or 500 under his command ; and an c-
qual number had been seen about Pen
sacola, the most of whom were equipp
ed tor war by Governor Mazot. In
both instances the strength of the enemy
was amply sufficient for a forcible occu
pation ofthe posts. Moreover, the go
vernor of Pensacola had refused the pas
sage of provisions up the Escambia,des
tined for our starving troops at Fort
Crawford. An United States’schooner,
called the Amelia, had been detained at
that place, until the town was taken,
wIicb were obtained from her provisi
ons for the troops. Another provision
vessel, ordered into the Perdido, had
been captured by boats sent from the Ba-
rancas, and placed under the guns ofthe
fort, but fortunately made her escape
under cover of the darkness of the night.
In this state of things, had your res
pondent been compelled to suspend ope
rations, and to wait for additional orders
from the War Department, the object of
anticipating the enemy would have been
entirely defeated. He would have been
compelled to retrograde to the interior,
for the want of supplies, leaving many
points of the frontier exposed to the
ruthless barbarities of exasperated sava
ges. The militia force would have be
come inactive and discontented ; their
time would have expired before any
thing effectual could have been dono ;
and the campaign thus rendered com
pletely abortive. If St. Marks was ne
cessary to the defence of the frontier of
Georgia, Pensacola was much more so
for the peace arid security of Alabama,
In consequence, too, of its being located
on the seaboard, it afforded much great
er facilities to our enemies, for it com
manded the navigation of the Escambia,
up which had, necessarily, to pass all tlie
supplies for our forts erected on its tri
butary streams. The occupation of this
post was not determined upon, until the
•eception of Governor Bibb’s letter, at
‘he Escambia, detailing many outrages,
uid communicating the intelligence that
Holmes and his warriors were then in
Pensacola ; as, also, the receipt of Gov
ernor Mazot’s protest, complaining of a
violation of his neutrality, and ordering
your respondent to retire from West-
Florida, accompanied with a threat to co
erce him, if he did not comply. Lieut.
Sands had been despatched from Saint
Murks, with orders to hold his artillery
in readiness to meet future contingen
cies, should they occur ; but he never
was directed to convey it to a given point,
until after your respondent reached the
Choctaw-hatcliy
Nor were those proceedings consider
ed acts of war, as represented by the
committee. By adverting to the cor
respondence with the commandant of
Saint Marks, the Governor of Pensaco
la, and the Secretary of War, it may be
distinctly seen that your respondent en
tered the territory of Spain as a friend
to chastise an enemy of both nations,
and to enforce those obligations and du
ties which the Spanish authorities had
pleaded inability to perforin ; that all
his operations were bottomed on the
broad principle of self-defence, autho
rized by the law of nature and of nations.
They were not directed against the go
vernment of Spain, but against the for
tresses which had become the strong
holds, the rendezvous of Negroeg and
Indians, and whose neutrality was pros
trated to the basest purposes. They
were seized because they were Indian
posts to all intents and purposes. Spain
has disavowed the conduct of her oflici
al agents ; and the American govern
ment has declared that a war was not in
tended with that nation.
Although the Spanish authorities were
the savage#, and that the Indian chief:
and British emitsaric# were procedin
contrary to their wiibea, and in violation
of their law* ; hence were theie fort re*
ses occupied, a# the only measure which
could give a speedy and permanent peace-'
to our bleeding frontiers. The Spanish
government did not consider it an net oi
war, nor did Mr. Pizarro or Don Onis
complain of it as a measure of that .de
scription. The two governments have
acknowledged themselves at peace, and
have since kept up a regular and friend
ly intercourse with each other in the
shape of ncgociation.
Neither were the garrisons made pri
soners of war, or treated like conquered
enemies, as it is stated by your commit
tee. The contrary will be made clear
ly apparent, by an examination of tlifc
conditions upon which the Spanish post#
were occupied ; to which your respon
dent begs leave to refer. Your commit
tee acknowledge that the Spanish autho
rities in Florida were guilty of acts of
war against the United States ; but that
her neutral character was not wholly
merged in that ofthe enemy, in conse
quence of her employing moral and not
physical force. If giving the Negroes
and Indians encouragement in their out
rages, by the ptirnha.se of their plunder;
furnishing them with aid nnd protection,
supplies and munitions of war, did not
wholly merge the neutrality of the Span
ish authorities, and make them associate#
in the war, your respondent confesses
that he is at a loss for a definition of terms.
Agreeable to this idea, it would he impro
per to consider the population of a nation
with whom we were at war, as enemies,
save those who were in the field ; for it
is only the latter who resort, to “ physi
cal force.” This distinction is entirely
new, and is in contradiction to many of
the most clear and long established prin*
ciples of good sense and national law.
It is stated by your committee that nil
authority at Pensacole was put down by
the sword, and that a new government
was established, M the powers of which,
both civil and military, were vested in
military officers.” Every one would bd
induced to understand, from this, that
the terms of capitulation were arbitrarily
nnd tyrannically imposed upon governor
Mazot; when, in fact, they were propo-'
sed by himself, and the civil and military
government was dissolved at hiwown in
stance. The temporary governor, colo
nel King, was an officer of the United
States army ; but civil officers were ap
pointed to the different departments,
from amongst the citizens ; and Mr. M’-
Kenzie, a citizen of Mobile, was placed
at the head of the magistracy. All that
was contemplated, was to organise some
kind of civil anthority, for the protection
of the lives, liberty and property of the
itizens during the temporary occupancy
ofthe fortress. The same government
to which the people had been accustom
ed was retained. It became absolutely
necessary to establish the revenue laws
ofthe United States, in order to check
the smuggling which had been carried on
succo sjfally in this quarter for many
years ; as well as to admit the American
merchant to an equal participation in
trade, which would have been denied,
under the partial operations of the Span
ish commercial code.
The executions of the Indian chiefs,
and British outlaws, are justifiable on the
ground of precedent, and the laws of
nations. One. of the former was a pro
phet, who had employed his supersti
tious influence, and the promises of hi#
transatlantic friends, to stimulate his delu
ded brethren to deeds of rapine and mas
sacre. The other commanded in person
the party who perpetrated the cold
blooded butchery of lieutenant Scott, and
his unfortunate companions. Both had
been engaged in most of the robberies
and murders committed, and were active
instigators ofthe savage war which raged
on our defenceless frontier.
Acting as chiefs ofthe Negroes and In
dians, Arbuthnot and Ambrister, by nu
merous acts of atrocity, had become iden
tified with those monsters—associates in
the war. They were the principal au
thors ofthe hostilities ofthe ferocious sa
vages, who observed none of the rules of
civilized warfare ; who never gave quar
ter, and only took prisoners for the pur
pose of torturing! They were, without
authority, principals in an unlawful wac.
Their inode of carrying it on was charac
terised by plunder, massacre, destruc
tion and revenge ; and was in open vio
lation of the laws of war and of nations.
Great Britain would not interfere to pre
vent those miscreants from instigating the
fugitive Negroes and the Indians from
burning, and pillaging, and scalping the
inhabitants of Georgia and Alabama ; but
she disowned them, and left them to their
fate. The Spanish authorities would
not, or could not, interfere, nnd the In
dians regarded them as friends and as
sociates. Both acted as chiefs of the
motley banditti, giving them counsel, and
exciting them to war ; and one of them
rights. She was called upon to maintain 1 guilty of many open and undisguised acts (actually led those black and red edmba-
hcr neutrality according to the injunc-l of hostility, yet the sovereignty of Spain’ tants to battle They both officiated as
lions ofthe law of nations, and the provi-j over Florida was altogether ideal. Her! Indian agents, in writing to Spanish go-
sions ofthe treaty of 1795. She plead-1 commandants had repeatedly acknow- vernors and British ministers, statin;
od inability to comply, and the American I ledged that they were unable'to restrain. their grievances, and soliciting agsjslansq