The Exiles of Florida. Giddings Joshua Reed

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ for separate lands was introduced into the “additional treaty,” by commissioners who were not fully informed of the President’s views. This compact, entered into at Fort Gibson, erroneously called an “additional treaty,” was known to be void: neither the Seminole chiefs nor the United States commissioners had authority to negotiate any treaty whatever; and this stipulation, for holding separate lands by the Seminoles, appears to have been totally disregarded by the Executive, as will more fully appear hereafter.

      Another circumstance had induced the Creeks to remain silent in regard to the Exiles. By the treaty of Indian Spring, they had placed at the President’s disposal $250,000, out of which the slaveholders of Georgia were to be paid for slaves and property lost prior to 1802. The commissioners appointed to make the examination found but $109,000 due the claimants under this stipulation, leaving in the hands of the President $141,000 belonging to the Creeks. This, however, was claimed by the slaveholders, in addition to the amount allowed by the treaty. To obtain this money the slaveholders sent their petition to Congress. The subject was referred to a committee, of which Mr. Gilmer, of Georgia, was Chairman. The committee made a very elaborate report, setting forth that the claimants had an equitable right to this money as an indemnity “for the loss of the offspring which the Exiles would have borne to their masters had they remained in bondage,” and it is among the inexplicable transactions of that day, that the bill passed, giving the money to those claimants without the uttering of a protest, or the statement of an objection, by any Northern representative or senator.

      Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

      Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

      Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

      Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.

      1

      Vide Bancroft’s and Hildreth’s Histories of the United States.

      2

      Vide both Histories above cited.

      3

      Vide Schoolcraft’s History of Indian Tribes.

      4

      Vide American Archives, Vol. I. Fifth Series: 1852.

      5

      This was the residence of George Galphin, an Indian trader, who, in 1773, aided in obtaining a treaty by which the Creek Indians ceded a large tract of land to the British Government. Georgia succeeded the British Government in its title to these lands, by the treaty of peace in 1783. Some fifty years afterwards, the descendants of Galphin petitioned the State of Georgia for compensation, on account of the services rendered by Galphin in obtaining the treaty of 1773. But the Legislature repudiated the claim. The heirs, or rather descendants of Galphin, then applied to Congress, who never had either legal or beneficial interest, in the lands obtained by the treaty. The Representatives from Georgia and from the South generally supported the claim. Northern

1

Vide Bancroft’s and Hildreth’s Histories of the United States.

2

Vide both Histories above cited.

3

Vide Schoolcraft’s History of Indian Tribes.

4

Vide American Archives, Vol. I. Fifth Series: 1852.

5

This was the residence of George Galphin, an Indian trader, who, in 1773, aided in obtaining a treaty by which the Creek Indians ceded a large tract of land to the British Government. Georgia succeeded the British Government in its title to these lands, by the treaty of peace in 1783. Some fifty years afterwards, the descendants of Galphin petitioned the State of Georgia for compensation, on account of the services rendered by Galphin in obtaining the treaty of 1773. But the Legislature repudiated the claim. The heirs, or rather descendants of Galphin, then applied to Congress, who never had either legal or beneficial interest, in the lands obtained by the treaty. The Representatives from Georgia and from the South generally supported the claim. Northern men yielded their objections to this absurd demand, and in 1848 a bill passed both Houses of Congress by which the descendants of Galphin, and their attorneys and agents, obtained from our National Treasury $243,871 86, and the term “Galphin” has since become synonymous with “peculation” upon the public Treasury.

6

Vide Report of Hugh Knox, Secretary of War, to the President, dated July 6, 1789. American State Papers. Vol. V. page 15, where the Treaty is recited in full.

7

Vide papers accompanying the Report of the Secretary of War, above referred to, marked A, and numbered 1, 2 and 3.

8

Vide letter of James White to Major General Knox, of the 24th May, 1787. American State Papers, Vol II, Indian Affairs.

9

American State Papers, Vol. V, page 25.

10

Vide Documents accompanying the Treaty of New York; Am. State Papers, Vol. I, Indian Affairs.

11

The reader need not be informed, that these demands of indemnity for slaves were promptly rejected by the English government; and Jay’s Treaty of 1794, surrendered them forever.

12

Hildreth, in his History of the United States, speaks of in that light.

13

Vide Annals of Congress, Vol. I, pages 1068-70-74.

14

Vide Correspondence on this subject between Seagrove and the War Department. American State Papers, Vol. V, pages 304-5, 320, 336, 387, and 392.

15

American State Papers, “Indian Affairs.” Vol. II, p. 306.

16

Vide talk of principal Chief at Treaty of Colerain.

17

Vide Annals of Congress of that date.

18

Vide papers accompanying the Treaty of Colerain. American State Papers, Vol. I, “Indian Affairs.”

19

Vide the papers accompanying this Treaty when submitted to the Senate. They are collected in the second volume of American State Papers, entitled “Indian Affairs.” They will afford much interesting matter as to the doctrines of “State Rights” and Nullification, which it is unnecessary to embrace in this work.

20

Vide Annals of IVth Congress, 2d Session

21

The claims of these ancient Spanish inhabitants for indemnity against these robberies, have been pressed upon the consideration of Congress for the last twenty-five years, and were recently pending before the Court of Claims. When the bill for their relief was under discussion before the House of Representatives, In 1843, Hon. John Quincy Adams presented a list of some ninety slaves, for the loss of whom the owners claimed compensation from the United States. But the discussions which arose on private bills were not at that time reported; and СКАЧАТЬ