Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1819-02-02

the lie oil his prisoner. his humane
author seems disposed to guard this dan
gerous principle US effectually as possible.
II presents two distinc, propositions. -.
The General, when in the field, at "a dis
| lance from his government, when his
safety, and that OF his men, require il,
! appears, tin The words of the autllor,) TO
have the RICH, 10 take the life OF his rri-
! soner. To justify the General in exer-
cising this high and important power OF
denying TO an unfortunate captive life,
The safety of the General IL his men must
really require the sacrifice. lean scarce
~ believe that il viii be pretended, that
the safety of the General or his men re-,
CURED The execution of these prisoners.
Did then the safety of the prince, that is,
IN ibis country, the people. require the
execution OF these men? Was II neces-
sary 10 Offer Them up OH the altar OF pub
lie saIeiy-to hold them up as Il terrible
example TO future instigaiOrs and abcf-
tors of Indian wars? II so, their fate
should have been referred 10 the people,
That Is, 10 their representatives-io the
Congress Of Tie United States. The
commanding Gereral had no right, TO
authority TO decide the question, whether
the safety of The people required the su-
| criice of these capi,ves. We are told,
and very seriously told, that this execu-
ton of prisoners may be justified on the
! principles OF retaliation. What, retaIiate
the crueliies aud shocking barbariiies OF
savages? Not precisely thai sort OF re-
taiialiOn. You execute indi.idua!s-not
under the authority OF the law 81 nations,
during the continuance oi war, having
given notice TO the enemy of The particu
aracts OF inhumanity which you mean
TO r"taliate-noi for the purpose of pu-
nishing, through these individuals, the
nation wiihwhicb they are identified and
| fighting, but 10 punish them, as iDdivi-
duals, tor their crimes-ilie crimes of
aiding, and abetiing, and instigai,ng IN
dian tribes 10 war upon us; not as AN
example, To operate OH nations, hut on
| individuals. And we are seriously and
gravely informed, by honorable gentle
men, that AN American General has au
ihorlty 10 execute individuals, for indivi-
dual offences, as a warning 10 other indi-
| viduals, without the form of trial, and
even contrary to the srnte:,.e of The
court, detailed by tile General himself
Tor the purpose of trying the offenders.
Ii is doctrine unsupported by precedent
I and law, and is shocking TO the principles
Of humanity. Ii may he said, as il was
remarked the other day, by gentleman
from Virginia, (Mr. Nelson,) that this is
"a sympathy for miscreanis-a sympathy
resulting FROM morbid sensibiliiy-a sym
! patty for British subjects. Ii is not so,
Mr.. Chairman have no sympathy for
British subjects. When | look al yon
ruin, (pointing 10 the Capitol;) when
recolleci the massacre at the river Raisin,
| Frencltown. aud many other places in
the United States, during The late war, l
recognize in the late British forces an e.
nemy not less cruel and savage than the
Seminole lndians-ihe out lawed Red
| Sticks; acts of wanion and shocking
! cruelty occur TO me, at which my soul
sIckeus, and which should have rejoic-
ed to see retaliaied ON the most disiin-
guisied officer in the British army. What
has been the opinion, as deliberately ex-
pressed by this government, OIL the sub
Ject of retaliation Did the highest OFF,
Ger i'll this government, during the late
war. the commander IN chief of your
army, the President of the United States,
consider himself vested with authority 10
retaliate the acts OF cruelty perpetraied
by the enemy, or those threatened The
answer will he furnished by referring TO
the act OF Congress, passed during that
war, tor the express purpose of authorlZ-
ing the President TO rctaIiate. What has
been, since the period of our indci pen
dence, the uniform and unvarying policy
pursued by this government, towards the
Indian tribes Has it been policy tenn
per, dby mercy, Enlightened by generosity,
and amelioraied by christianity? Have we
ben constantly engaged in tl,e humane
work of eiviliziHg them of sending ennis
saries among them to preach the gospel
10 distribute The copies OF the bible,
collected by different societies Is this
policy 10 be suddenly changed, under the
auspices Of General Jackson Shall we,
al The close of war of determination,
80 through the ceremony of appointing
committees 10 meet members from the
society OF Friends, 10 devise the means
OF civillZing Ibis unfortunate, misguided,
and deluded race of being Such com
mlttecs have becn appointed during tie
present session. have seen members oil
the society OF Friends giyin, their viii
ling attendance. But Arbulbnot and Am
bTlsler were christian savages they were
worse than the Indians they were the
eXciters and instigators Of the war: they
deserved death. In a moral point oil
view, admit that fiie instiga;or TO acts
OF wickedncss, and of dark, malignant
ami criminal character, is worse than The
actor. HE question recurs, had ih Gen
era, on bis own authority, without trial,
! and against The sentence Of lie court. the
right TO take the life Of his prisonrr-a
prisoner completely in his power. from
whose hand the weapons OF death, the
tOmabawk and the scalping knife, had
been sirickent Were these men, accord
ing TO any known principle of The law OF
nations, subject 20 any other or different
treatment than the subjects or citizens OF
the nation with which jrey had identified
themselves, aud by whose sides tlIev
were fighting? Most certainly not. The
gentleman from Massachusetts MIR