The Exiles of Florida: or, The crimes committed by our government against the Maroons, who fled from South Carolina and other slave states, seeking protection under Spanish laws.Giddings, Joshua R. (Joshua Reed)
Philosophy
The Exiles of Florida: or, The crimes committed by our government against the Maroons, who fled from South Carolina and other slave states, seeking protection under Spanish laws.
Giddings, Joshua R. (Joshua Reed)
Maroons; Seminole War, 1st, 1817-1818; Seminole War, 2nd, 1835-1842
[23] "Monette," In his "History of the Valley of the Mississippi," says
Woodbine erected this fort in the summer of 1816; and such were the
representations made before the Committee appointed in 1819, to
investigate the conduct of General Jackson, in taking possession of
Florida. But the reader will notice the Letter of General Gaines,
hereafter quoted, which bears date on the 14th May, 1815, and
_officially_ informed the Secretary of War that "_negroes and outlaws
have taken possession of a_ FORT ON THE APPALACHICOLA RIVER." This was
more than a year before the time of erecting the fort, according to
"Monette."
The parapet of the fort was said to be fifteen feet high and eighteen
thick, situated upon a gentle cliff, with a fine stream emptying into
the river near its base, and a swamp in the rear, which protected it
from the approach of artillery by land. On its walls were mounted one
thirty-two pounder, three twenty-four pounders, two nine pounders, two
six pounders, and one brass five and a half-inch howitzer. Vide Official
Report of Sailing-Master Loomis.
[24] This is the official account of Sailing-Master Loomis, who
commanded the naval expedition subsequently sent to reduce this
fortress.
"Monette," in his History of the Valley of the Mississippi, says, "_Near
the Fort the fields were fine_, and extended along the river nearly
_fifty miles_."
[25] The reader will at once see, that these people were as much under
the protection of Spain, as the fugitive slaves now in Canada are under
the protection of British laws. They were as clearly Spanish subjects as
the latter are British subjects. By the law of nations, Spain had the
same right to permit her black subjects to occupy "Blount's Fort," that
the Queen of England has to permit Fort Malden to be occupied by her
black subjects. The only distinction between the two cases is, Spain was
weak and unable to maintain her national honor, and national rights;
while England has the power to do both.
[26] Vide the voluminous Correspondence on this subject contained in Ex.
Doc. 119, 2d Session, XVth Congress.
[27] Perhaps no portion of our national history exhibits such disregard
of International law, as this unprovoked invasion of Florida. For thirty
years, the slaves of our Southern States have been in the habit of
fleeing to the British Provinces. Here they are admitted to all the
rights of citizenship, in the same manner as they were in Florida. They
vote and hold office under British laws; and when our Government
demanded that the English Ministry should disregard the rights of these
people and return them to slavery, the British Minister contemptuously
refused even to hold correspondence with our Secretary of State on a
subject so abhorrent to every principle of national law and
self-respect. Our Government coolly submitted to the scornful arrogance
of England; but did not hesitate to invade Florida with an armed force,
and to seize the faithful subjects of Spain, and enslave them.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account