The Exiles of Florida

After burying their own dead, they returned to the island in the swamp long before nightfall. To this point, they brought the spoils of victory, which were deemed important for carrying on the war. Night had scarcely closed around them, however, when Osceola and his followers arrived from Fort King, bringing intelligence of the death of Thompson and Lieutenant Smith, together with the sutler and his two clerks. There, too, was Louis, the guide to Dade’s command. He was now free! He engaged in conversation with his sable friends. Well knowing the time and place at which the attack was to be made, he had professed necessity for stopping by the way-side before entering the defile; thus separating himself from the troops and from danger. Soon as the first fire showed him the precise position of his friends, he joined them; and swearing eternal hostility to all who enslave their fellow men, lent his own efforts in carrying forward the work of death, until the last individual of that doomed regiment sunk beneath their tomahawks.

The massacre of the unfortunate Dade and his companions, and the murder of Thompson and his friends, at Fort King, occurred on the same day, and constituted the opening scenes of the second Seminole War.

1847

We bespeak the indulgence of the reader, while we digress from the chronological narration of events which followed consecutively upon this opening of the second Seminole War, in order to give a short sketch of some incidents which occurred in Congress, and were connected with the employment of Louis, and his subsequent service with the enemy.

Twelve years after the massacre of Dade’s command, Antonio Pacheco presented his petition to Congress, setting forth that he had been the owner of a valuable slave named Louis; that he hired him as guide to Major Dade to conduct his command from “Fort Brooke” to “Fort King;” that at the time of Dade’s defeat, Louis had been captured by the Indians, and by them had been subsequently surrendered to Major General Jessup, and by that officer sent to the Indian country, west of the Mississippi, whereby he became lost to his owner, who, therefore, prayed Congress to grant him full indemnity for his loss.

Among the proofs accompanying this petition was a letter from General Jessup, setting forth that, after Louis had been employed to act as guide, he had kept up a correspondence with the “Seminole negroes,” informing them of the intended march of Major Dade, etc. He also represented Louis as a man of extraordinary intellect and learning, declaring that he regarded him as a dangerous man; that he would have had him tried and hanged, instead of sending him West, if he had found leisure to attend to it; that from prudential motives he had sent him to the Indian country; and stated that he was worth a thousand dollars.

The case was most interesting in its character. Louis was probably the most dangerous enemy of the United States at that time in Florida. With his intelligence, he must have felt an inveterate hostility to the Government and the people, who robbed him of his most sacred right to liberty. Probably his former master and family were in greater danger from his vengeance than any other persons. He had surrendered to General Jessup as prisoner of war with arms in his hands; had been treated – very properly treated – as a prisoner of war: therefore, the master called on the people of the nation to pay him a thousand dollars for protecting him, his family, friends and nation from the fury of his own slave; and General Jessup and many Northern Representatives exerted their personal and political influence to sustain the claim.

The petition and accompanying papers were referred to the committee on Military Affairs, a majority of whom were known to be favorable to the interests of slavery. At the head of it was the Hon. Armisted Burt, of South Carolina, a man of intelligence and influence. He appeared devoted to the interests of the “peculiar institution.”

1848

Having examined the case, he presented it to the consideration of the committee, and a majority at once agreed to sustain a bill giving to the owner a fair compensation for the loss of his slave. The Chairman agreed to draw up a report sustaining the bill, and present it to the committee the next morning.

Hon. John Dickey, of Beaver County, Pennsylvania, now deceased, was also a member of the committee. He boarded at the same house with the author of this narrative. While at tea that evening, Mr. Dickey remarked, that his committee were about to report a bill to pay for this slave, and said, if he were familiar with the subject, he would draw up a minority report against the bill. A gentleman sitting at the table remarked, that other gentlemen, who were familiar with the subject, would doubtless feel willing to lend him any aid in their power. All however agreed, that an evening was too short a time to draw up a suitable report on so important a question; yet it was known that slaveholders controlled the action of the House, and they showed no courtesy to those opposed to the “peculiar institution,” and would of course grant no time to draw up a minority report. After tea, Mr. Dickey and another gentleman retired to a room by themselves, and before sunrise the next morning, had completed the report, which now appears among the House Documents, Thirtieth Congress, first session, numbered 187, filling sixteen heavy octavo pages of printed matter. At ten o’clock the committee met, and, having listened to the report of their Chairman, they were called on to hear that of Mr. Dickey, which took distinct and unmistakable grounds against the right of men to hold their fellow-beings as property, under the Federal Constitution. This case furnishes the first instance in which the records of the nation show a minority report from any committee against slavery. Mr. Dickey, having taken his position, stood firmly upon the doctrines he had avowed in his report; and the other members of the committee took their choice between the report of Mr. Burt and that of Mr. Dickey.

General Dudley Marvin, of New York, General James Wilson, of New Hampshire, and Hon. David Fisher, of Ohio, signed the report of Mr. Dickey; while the four Democratic members, all of whom resided in the slave States, signed that of Mr. Burt. So far as the committee were concerned, the five Democratic members assumed the position now occupied by that party, to wit, that under our Federal Constitution, man may hold, sell and transfer human beings as property; while the four Whig members based their action upon the doctrine now occupied by the Republican party – that, under our Federal Constitution, men cannot be transformed into brutes; nor can one man hold property in another.

The reports of the majority and minority were printed, and attracted attention among the members; but the bill did not come up for discussion until the next session. On the twenty-third of the following December, the committee of the whole House, in passing through its calendar of private claims, reached this case. Mr. Dickey led off in a short, but well-arranged argument, sustaining his report. His remarks were so well directed and so pertinent, that, near the close of his speech, Mr. Burt called him to order, for discussing the subject of slavery. Upon the conclusion of Mr. Dickey’s remarks, General Wilson of New Hampshire obtained the floor, and the House adjourned.

The bill did not come up again for discussion until the twenty-ninth. Before going into committee on that day, Mr. Rockwell, of Connecticut, Chairman of the committee on Claims, offered a resolution closing debate on this bill at half-past one o’clock, allowing but one hour and a quarter for the discussion of this important question, which now agitates the whole Union; but it was regarded at that time as meritorious in any member to prevent agitation of the subject of slavery, and the resolution passed with little opposition. When the House resolved itself into committee of the whole, Mr. Wilson, of New Hampshire, delivered his views, sustaining the report of the minority of the committee; making the question distinctly to depend upon the right of men to hold property in men, under the Federal Constitution.

Mr. Brown, of Mississippi, followed in a few remarks, taking strong ground in favor of the principle, that slaves are property, to the same extent that horses and cattle are property. Mr. Cabel, of Florida, followed in a few words to the same point. Here the time for closing the debate arrived; but Mr. Burt, having reported the bill, held the right to speak one hour, under the rules, in reply to those who opposed its passage. He had evidently expected the bill would pass without serious opposition, and had become somewhat excited by the difficulties with which he had to contend; confident however of final success, he at once declared the only question to be, that of property in human flesh. Many Northern men were unwilling to meet this bald question. Mr. Collamer, of Vermont, interrupted Mr. Burt, inquiring, if there were not other questions of law involved? Burt replied, with some degree of arrogance, that he would “leave no other loop-hole for gentlemen to escape.” This supercilious bearing of Mr. Burt greatly delighted some Northern members, while it appeared greatly to embarrass others; but his speech was the last, and, there being no opportunity for reply, every thing gave promise of a triumphant victory to the slaveholders.

After the conclusion of this speech, the vote was taken in committee, where no record was kept, and stood for the bill seventy, against it forty-four– the majority being even greater than the slaveholders expected. The bill was then reported to the House, and Mr. Crowell, of Ohio, moved to lay it on the table, and called for the yeas and nays; and the recorded vote stood, ayes sixty-six, noes eighty-five– being a majority of nineteen in favor of the claim. The bill was then ordered to a third reading without division.

Soon as this result was announced, the Author moved a reconsideration of this vote. The reconsideration being a privileged question, he held the floor, and was proceeding to deliver his views, but gave way for an adjournment.

1849

On the sixth of January, the bill again came up in the regular order of business, and Mr. Giddings concluded his remarks. He endeavored to meet the arrogance of Mr. Burt, clearly and as fully as his abilities would permit. He accepted the challenge thrown out by that member, that he would leave no other loop-hole for gentlemen to escape, than by meeting the question of property in human flesh. To this point he directed his remarks, attempting to show the doctrine of Mr. Burt to be opposed to the Declaration of Independence, to the Constitution of the United States, to civilization, to the dictates of our common humanity.83 When he concluded his remarks, he withdrew his motion to reconsider, in order to test the sense of the House on the passage of the bill, which would be the next question in order.

As the roll was called, and the votes given, the result became doubtful, and much interest was manifested in all parts of the hall. The bill and discussion had been thrust upon the House by slaveholders: its whole merits were based upon the most vital principles of slavery. The question of property in human flesh, constitutes one of the essential elements of the institution, without which it could not survive one hour. The slave power had not for many years been defeated on any proposition touching slavery, and it appeared painful for those interested in that institution to have their influence doubted.

The Clerk (a deputy) was engaged a long time in counting the votes, and ascertaining the result. He was a slaveholder, and appeared perplexed; some members, even before he made report of the vote, expressed doubts of his accuracy. At length he passed his report to the Chair. The Speaker, Mr. Winthrop of Massachusetts, casting his eye upon the figures, rose from his seat, and announced the vote – “ayes ninety, noes eighty-nine,” and then remarking that the rules of the House made it his duty to vote in all cases when such vote would change the result, began to give his reasons for the vote he was about to record, and as he proceeded it became evident that he was opposed to the bill. The Clerk then handed him another paper, and the Speaker, after reading it, announced that the Clerk had mistaken the vote, and without saying more, announced – “ayes ninety-one, noes eighty-nine,” and declared the bill “passed.”

The interest had now become intense in all parts of the hall. It was perfectly natural that men should be suspicious of the Clerk. Mr. Dickey, in particular, had taken a deep interest in the question. He was sitting near the Author, and expressed freely the opinion, that the Clerk had reported the vote incorrectly. So strong was this belief, that he went to the Clerk, and demanded a copy of the record giving the ayes and noes. The Clerk promised to give it soon. Dickey waited a short time, and renewed his call on the Clerk, who again promised. Dickey, after waiting a proper time, went to the Clerk’s table, and took the record of yeas and nays, and brought it to the seat of the Author, and requested his assistance in counting the vote. They counted and re-counted several times, but were unable to make the vote other than “eighty-nine ayes, and eighty-nine noes” – showing a tie vote; which, without the Speaker’s vote, would have defeated the bill. Dickey returned the record to the Clerk, and then called the attention of the House and the Speaker to the fact, that the Clerk had inaccurately reported the vote. The Speaker replied, if an error had occurred, the proper time to correct it would be the next morning, on reading the Journal, when a motion to correct the entry would be in order, in preference to any other business.

On looking over the list, it was subsequently discovered, that the vote of Hon. John W. Farrelly of Crawford county, Pennsylvania, was not recorded. This added intensity to the interest already felt on the subject.

The next meeting of the House was on Monday, when the Speaker recited the facts as they occurred on Saturday, and declared that, on a more careful examination, it was found that the vote stood – “ayes eighty-nine, noes eighty-nine.”

Mr. Farrelly inquired, if his vote was recorded? The Speaker informed him it was not, but that it was his right to have it recorded, if he had actually voted on the passage of the bill. That gentleman declared that he had voted no, on the passage of the bill, and the vote being recorded, the Speaker declared the result to be “ayes eighty-nine, noes NINETY,” and then announced the bill “lost!”

The friends of freedom were greatly cheered, from the consideration, that party ties had not been strong enough to control members on this important vote. Of the twenty-one members from Ohio, only Mr. Ritchey of Perry, Mr. Cummins of Tuscarawas, and Mr. Taylor of Ross, voted with the slaveholders; while such Democrats as Messrs. Faran, Fries, Kennon, Lamb, Miller, Morris, Sawyer and Starkweather voted against the doctrine that men and women may be held and treated as property. Indeed, there were but few Representatives from the free States willing to recognize that doctrine. No member from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, Michigan, Wisconsin or Iowa voted for it. From Maine, Messrs. Clapp, Clarke and Williams; from New York, Messrs. Birdsal, McClay, Murphy, Necoll and Tallmadge; from Pennsylvania, Messrs. Brady, Bridges, Brodhead, Charles Brown, C. J. Ingersol, Levin and Job Mann; from Indiana, Messrs. Dunn, R. W. Thompson and Wick; and from Illinois, Messrs. McClernand and Richardson voted to pay Pacheco a thousand dollars, because General Jessup sent a most dangerous enemy out of Florida.

Mr. Burt, and the friends of slavery generally, appeared irritated by defeat. They had driven their Northern allies to revolt. The more they reflected upon the subject, the more important the issue appeared. They had caused great agitation, while professing to deprecate all discussion in regard to slavery. If slaves were not property under the Federal Constitution, they must be regarded as persons. If the civilized world looked upon them as persons, those who held them in bondage must of course be considered as oppressors of mankind, and could have no claim to the title of Democrats or of Christians. In every point of view, the result appeared disastrous to the slave power.

It was under these circumstances, that the Hon. William Sawyer of Ohio, was induced to move a reconsideration of the vote by which the bill was lost. From the fact that none but those voting in the negative could by the rules of the House move a reconsideration, and that he subsequently voted against his own motion, it is probable he made it from personal kindness to those who supported the bill. On this motion, a long discussion subsequently arose, which did not terminate until the nineteenth of January, when the motion to reconsider prevailed, and on the final passage of the bill the vote stood – ayes 101, noes 95. So the bill was passed by the House of Representatives, and the struggle in that body terminated. But the bill was never brought up for discussion in the Senate, and the claim was never more moved in either House of Congress. The question of property in human flesh, however, continued to be discussed by the people, and in Congress, until it has become one of the great issues on which political parties now base their action.

NOTE – The life of this slave Louis is perhaps the most romantic of any man now living. Born and reared a slave, he found means to cultivate his intellect – was fond of reading; and while gentlemen in the House of Representatives were engaged in discussing the value of his bones and sinews, he could probably speak and write more languages with ease and facility than any member of that body. In revenge for the oppression to which he was subjected, he conceived the purpose of sacrificing a regiment of white men, who were engaged in the support of slavery. This object effected, he asserted his own natural right to freedom, joined his brethren, and made bloody war upon the enemies of liberty. For two years, he was the steady companion of Coacoochee, or, as he was afterwards called, “Wild Cat,” who subsequently became the most warlike chief in Florida. They traversed the forests of that territory together, wading through swamps and everglades, groping their way through hommocks, and gliding over prairies. They bivouacked together; suffered heat and cold, hunger and thirst, together. For two years, they stood shoulder to shoulder in every battle; shared their victories and defeats together; and when General Jessup had pledged the faith of the nation that all Indians who would surrender should be protected in the enjoyment of their slaves, Wild Cat appeared at head quarters, followed by Louis, whom he claimed as his property, under slaveholding law, as he said he had captured him at the time of Dade’s defeat. The ruse took. General Jessup, being a slaveholder, and believing that slaves, like horses and cattle, were the subjects of capture, immediately sent Louis with other black warriors to Fort Pike, near New Orleans, and thence with the first emigrating party of Seminoles to the western country, where he was three years subsequently joined by Coacoochee, and these friends, again united, became intimate, sharing together the fortunes which awaited them, of which we shall speak in due time.

CHAPTER VIII.

HOSTILITIES CONTINUED

The Allies in their Camp – News of General Clinch’s advance – Two hundred men volunteer to meet him – His force – The Allies await his approach in ambush – He crosses the river in another place – They attack him – The battle – His intrepidity saves his army – The loss of the Allies – The loss of General Clinch – Escape of Florida slaves – Their blood-thirsty conduct – Families murdered – Dwellings burned – Inhabitants flee to villages – Their suffering – Effects of the War – General Jackson – Members of Congress – General Cass – His views and policy – Orders General Scott to Florida – General Gaines moves upon Florida with his Brigade – Reaches the scene of Dade’s massacre – Buries the dead – Visits Fort King – While returning, is attacked – Ino, the Exile Chief – His character – The Allies surround General Gaines – His position – Is closely invested – Sends for assistance – Provisions fail – Unauthorized Interference of Cæsar – Flag of Truce – General Clinch arrives, and fires upon the Allies – They flee – General Gaines returns to Fort Brooks – General Clinch returns to Fort Drane.

The night after the massacre of Dade and his companions was spent in exultation by the allies. Osceola and his friends brought with them from the sutler’s store various goods, with which they decorated their persons; while the numerous scalps taken from the heads of their enemies, were displayed as trophies of victory. They had also found among the stores with which Major Dade’s party were provided, sufficient rum and whisky to intoxicate most of them, and their rejoicings and felicitations continued, for hours, amid the darkness of night.

It was a late hour in the morning when they awoke from the stupor occasioned by severe labors of the previous day, and the night’s debauch. Before they had refreshed themselves with the morning’s meal, their scouts arrived, bringing intelligence that troops were advancing towards the Withlacoochee, in pursuit of Indians and Exiles. General Clinch had been lying at Fort Drane. He clearly saw the evidence of approaching hostilities; and, although wholly unconscious of the danger which had threatened Major Dade, had felt it his duty to raise such forces as he could command, and advance into the Indian country as far as the Withlacoochee. He gathered about two hundred Regulars, from the 1st, 2d and 3d Artillery, and, with some four hundred Florida volunteers, under General C. K. Call, had nearly reached the Withlacoochee before the captors of Dade were informed of his approach.

About two hundred warriors, fifty of whom were Exiles, volunteered to meet this army, of three times their own number, under the command of one of the most able and gallant officers at that time in the service of the United States.

Osceola and Halpatter-Tustenuggee commanded the allies. They hastened to the crossing of the Withlacoochee, and there lay awaiting the approach of General Clinch. Here the water was not more than two feet in depth, and they entertained no doubt that the advancing forces would seek this place for the purpose of fording the stream. Here they waited until the morning of the thirtieth, when they learned that General Clinch, with his two hundred Regulars, had already passed the stream some two miles below. He had effected his passage by the aid of a bark canoe, which carried only eight men at a time.

Having attained a position on the south side of the river with his Regulars, General Clinch was ready for battle; although the four hundred volunteers were yet on the north side of the stream. The Indians and Exiles immediately engaged these veteran troops, although sustained by a heavy force of volunteers, who were yet on the opposite side of the river. At twelve o’clock, on the thirtieth of December, the contending forces engaged, and a severe and deadly conflict followed.

As Osceola now for the first time engaged in battle, he felt anxious to distinguish himself by his intrepidity. His voice was heard on every part of the field, urging on his troops to deeds of daring. Undaunted by the shrill war-whoop, and the constant report of Indian rifles and the whistling balls around him, General Clinch charged his enemy. The allies fell back, and he continually advanced until he drove them from the thick hommock into the open forest. The gallant general coolly passed along the lines during the action encouraging his men, and stimulating them to effort by his presence and bravery. A ball passed through his cap and another through the sleeve of his coat, to which he paid no attention, but continued to encourage his men.

The Exiles also displayed unusual gallantry. Feelings which had descended from father to son through several generations, had been recently inflamed to the highest degree of indignant hatred. Conscious that they were contending for their homes, their firesides, their families, their liberties, they fought with desperation, and their aim was fatal. Unfortunately, Osceola was wounded and disabled early in the contest, and it was said that the Indians did not exhibit that undaunted firmness on the field that was manifested by their more dusky allies. They suffered less than our troops. Two negroes and one Indian were killed, and three negroes and two Indians wounded – the loss of the Exiles being twice as great as that of the Indians, although they numbered but one-fourth of the allied force.