_not_ been guilty of outrages on the Seminoles, subsequent to the date of the treaty, yet its unjustly oppressive character, the paucity of their chieftains’ signatures attached to it, and the obligations imposed on the United States, by the ninth article of the treaty of Ghent, towards the Indian tribes, to say nothing of the law of nature, justified, in our humble opinion, the attempts of the Seminoles to shake off the insupportably heavy burden which military despotism had bound upon them. In view of these facts, in relation to general Jackson’s treatment of the Seminoles, it is unnecessary to say, that his second expedition against them was not marked by _one mitigating or lenient feature_; that they were treated more like _dogs_ than men; that their chiefs were decoyed by him into his camp, and there seized and instantly put to death. In short, that every principle of honor, humanity, and justice, which ought to accompany the operations of a civilized army, was _utterly disregarded_. It is not surprising, therefore, that the patriotically disposed, in congress, on beholding the dark spot gathering on the escutcheon of their country’s fame, in consequence of such high-handed proceedings, should rise up and attempt to efface it. General Jackson’s conduct in the Florida war, was made the subject of special investigation, during the session of 1818–19. A series of resolutions were offered to congress, severely censuring it, which Mr. Clay sustained in a speech of unparalleled ability. Although on terms of personal intimacy with the general, although he accorded to him his just meed of praise, for the distinguished service he had rendered his country in the battle of New Orleans, still Mr. Clay thought he had transcended the limits of both law and equity, and did not allow his feelings of friendship for him to interpose any obstacle to the frank and fearless avowal of his sentiments. He commented very severely upon his treatment of _Indian prisoners, in ordering their inhuman massacre_, after obtaining possession of them, by the artifice of a ‘_false flag_,’ not hesitating to pronounce it wanton, barbaric, and uncalled for. But his flagrant violations of the rights of neutrality called forth his sharpest animadversions. During the campaign, two Indian traders, Messrs. Arbuthnot and Ambrister, the former a Scotchman, the latter an Englishman, had fallen into the hands of general Jackson. Ambrister was found in the Indian camp, Arbuthnot within the limits of Spanish jurisdiction. The Englishman was suspected of having instigated the savages to make war upon the whites, and the Scotchman was charged with informing the Indians of their rights, as secured to them by the treaty of Ghent, and of having advised them to maintain them by force of arms. These unfortunate men, he ordered the one to be shot and the other hung, in direct opposition to the decision of a court martial of his own choosing. The turpitude of this act, Mr.