Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1819-02-23
CONGRESS.
tReported FOR the National Infeifigeneer.l
HOUSE OF. REP PERSONALITIES
DEBATE ON TIE SEMINOLE WAR.

tReporfedJor the National InfsafgeHesr.1
HOUSE OF. REPRESENTATIVES.
DEBATE ON TIE SEMINOLE WAR.
CONTINUED.
Mr.. BARBOUR. of Virginia, rose, and
addressed the committee as follows:
MIR. Cliairman-lt was my wish TO have
addressed the committee at an earlier
period of the debate. but have not been
so fortunate as 10 get the floor The sub
Iect nnder consideration is one which has
excited much interest in This house, AZ
well as in The patton. have bestowed
upon il all that reflection which was due
to its importance feel disposition TO
state the conclusions 10 which have ar
rived, and the course Of reasoning which
has conducted me TO them. feel that l
tabor under great disadvantages i'm fol r
lowing gentlemen, whose eloquent and
pathetic appeals have affected the feel
iDgs and commanded the attention of fhe
committee whilst. on my part, | have
nothing 10 offer them but the piaincsi
kind OF argument, consisting of a state
ment Of The case, aud the principles of
public and constitutional law, which ap
ply Ia il. feel another disadvantage:
Gentlemen who have gone before me have
necessarily anticipated some of the points
which l,sye intended 10 discuss. In
presenting my view, then. in continuity.
mist unavoidably recur 10 some topics
which have been already touched upon:
but will promise, as far as am able,
when this shall he The case, 10 avoid the
tedium of mere reifeyotion and 10 endeavor
10 present them in some new point of
light, and with some variety of illusira-
ton. will. however, without further
preface orapology, proceed at once TO the
argument
This subject seems 10 me 10 present
three distinct questions to our considera-
ton: Isl. the propriety of marching The
army of the United States across the, To-
ride line: 2dly, The propriely Of the occu-
patton of the Spanish posts of ST Marks
and Pensacola, and the Barancas; and,
Sdly, the trial and execution Of Arbuthnot
and Ambrister. These are the questions
Which, il seems TO me, we are called upon
to decide, and this the natural aud con
secHtve order i'll which they present
themselves. Each Of these questions,
too, as had hen Justly remarked by the
Speaker IN an early part of the debate,
presents itself in twofold aspect-Ist.
as between orr own and foreign gope,n-
ment; and, 2diy, as between our gore,n-
menf and lis o6fcers. First, then, as be-
Inc government OF the United States
and Spain, had we right TO march our
armies across the Florida line? | shall
endravor 20 prove that we had There
would be no sort of difficulty i'm this aues-
ton. u II were the case Of nation con.
fessedly sovereign and independent, 80.
That one nation, when at war with ano-
ther, has a right 10 pursue that other into
us own territory, am persuad d no mem
Der OF the committee would question
\ hstH t.,k. "a f.
as oue o those principles which, in public
law, have become a1'ons; but the diff
Guilty arises from the anomalous character
OF The Indian tribes. Gentlemen have
gone much into the discussion upon the
question, whether they are or are not
sovereign. shall not enter into CON
fruversy about words; care not whether
they are called sovereign, dem-sovereipn.
or by what other name they are designa,.
ed. shall attempt 20 hcfiue their cha
racter by some of The attributes of sove
reignty which belong 10 them, or which
at least they have been in The habilnal
practice of exercising. One of The cri,eria
OF sovereignty which has been adopted
by Martens, a writer of some celebrity ON
public law, is this: "That nation is
governed by lis own laws, and acknow.
Lodges no legislative superior on earth:
though there are certain limitations or
restrictions on It's sovereignty. by treaty
or otherwise, if il possess this attribute.
n is sovereign and examples are given
OF states. which. though under treaties Of
alliance, OF protection, and even Of vas
salagP, are nevertheless considered soye-
reign. 1t the character Of The Indian
tribes be fred by ibis standard, believe
they will be able to SUI Stain their claim to
sovereignty. True il is, they have no re
gnlar legislative body, and no code of
written laws, but they have customs and
maxins which may be considered as a
sori OF common law amongst them. which
have beers adopted either by EXPRESS
consent or tacit acquiescepce--whi h
have been consecraied by time. and hand
ed down from one generation 10 another.
by iraeiiionsry history: bythese maxims
and customs are they governed, without
any legislative superior, thongl, we claim
right OF regulating their trade, and a
KIND OF pre-einpiive right Of purchasing
their lands: yet, have never heard thai
we pretended TO any right of egislaiing
tor them, or interfering in their interior
concerns--m The administration Of iWs
tee, or Otherwise. But there is another
distinguishing and characteristic ai,ri-
butte OF sovereignty which belongs 10
them, and which, from tie earliest settle
ment OF this country, they have exercis-
ed: mean thai OF making war. This
bears directly upon The present question.
II they have right of making war, they
have right 10 make IT against whom
they please, and they have chosenio make
u against us. Have sc not right TO de-
fend ourselves against them! Yes, sir.
aud will point you 10 tie source from
which we derive IT.: lie principle Of self
deience IS part of the instinct Of our
nature; not written on the heart by
precepi, but engraven by destiny: not