Capt. Marryatt, Part I [pp. 253-276]

1841.] Ca~. Marryat and Ais Diary. 273
there was a party here which advocated such a measure,
we admit; but we are well assured that the proposition was
condemned by the majority of our citizens, Surely an un authorized act, perpetrated by a band of lawless men on a
distant frontier, to gratify their own cupidity, should not, in
fairness, be charged to the ambition of the government, or
be relied on as proof of its want of faith.
It is not pretended by our author, that, in our intercourse
with foreign nations, we have manifested a culpable indif ference to our compacts and obligations; but he appeals to
our treatment of the Indians to show, that, where our ad versary is weak, we do not scruple to trample on his rights,
and to violate the most sacred engagements. Ill the nume rous colonies and settlements, planted by modern adven ture in various regions of the world, it has been the prac tice of all civilized nations, (with what justice it is not now
necessary to inquire) to consider the savage inhabitants as
mere tenants at will, while they claimed for themselves the
paramount and exclusive dominion of the soil. The British
commissioners, with a view to cripple our resources, and
check the extension of our western settlements, insisted,
for the first time, on an opposite principle in the negotia tions at Ghent, but, in effect, abandoned their ground be fore the close of the discussions, which terminated in the
treaty of peace irn 1815. Acting on this principle, it will be
found, that all nations, who have intruded their settlements
into new countries, have paid too little regard to the prior
claims of those roving hordes of savages, that were the ori ginal occupants of the soil.
A slight glance at the history of the past will suffice to
show, that England, in the establishment of her enormous
colonial system, has not been scrupulously attentive to the
rights of savages. Without ransacking the records of anti quity, we nmay readily find the evidence of this fact in re cent occurrences. What, we ask, has become of the nu merous tribes which lately peopled the country north of
Cape Town? Have they not been slaughtered, pillaged, and
expelled from their ancient possessions by British subjects,
without an effort on the part of that strong government to
stay these enormities? Are the rights of the aborigines of
New-Holland respected? And are not the authorities of
BotanyBay, with that tendency to "larcenous abstraction,"
acquired by this community of pickpockets in their native
country, pushing their settlements into the interior of that
vast continent, under the sanction of the British government, regardless of the claims of the native inhabitants? If
the subjugation of distant nations, and the acts of rapacity,
perfidy and injustice, by which it was consummated, are
sufficient to convict a government of ambition and faithlessness, what epithets will Capt. Marryatt apply to England,
when he contemplates the history of her East Indian conquests?-a history written in blood, and stained with every
variety of crime, if we may trust the testimony of some of
her most eloquent and illustrious statesmen. What motive
but commercial aggrandizement, has impelled England to
invade that fertile and prolific land, and to extend her sway
over its feeble and effemiinate inhabitants? At this very
moment, events are in progress on the extreme verge of the
Asiatic continent, which evince how little the rights of
other nations are respected by England, in matters that
concern its interests, or its power. As we understand the
case, China had prohibited the trade in opium; but the
law was permitted to slumber for a series of years, and the
English merchants, availing themselves of this relaxation
of vigilance, openly exported to that country large quantities of the contraband article. Recently, the Chinese government gave notice that the law would be rigidly enforced, and the introduction of opium wholly suppressed.
Heedless of this warning, the English merchants continued
to prosecute the illegal traffic, and the Chinese authorities,
as they had an undoubted right to do, seized on the pro
VOL. VII-35
hibited goods as a forfeiture to the offended laws of the
country. Because China has thus vindicated the authority
of her own municipal regulations, England has determined
on war: and has actually sent a powerful armament to
blockade the ports, and probably to overrun the territories
of that opulent and extensive empire. If this be the true
state of the case, what assignable motive can be suggested
for this unjustifiable aggression, but commercial rapacity,
or the thirst of dominion? These instances are cited
without reference to books, which we have neither time
nor opportunity to consult; and we challenge the impartial
world to say whether they do not exhibit far stronger evi dence of ambition and breach of faith, than any produced
by Capt. Marryatt against the American government. It
may be thought that this is perilous recrimination, and that
the injustice of one nation forms no apology for the injus tice of another. Our sole object in this comparison, was to
expose the fallacy of our author's reasoning, by showing,
that, on his own principles, England is obnoxious to the
very charges which he urges so illiberally against us.
In our intercourse with the red man, we doubt not that
many cases of oppression and injustice have occurred.
Our negotiations with these savages have always been em barrassed with great difficulties, fromtheir habitual treachery;
from the impossibility of ascertaining in their crude state
of society, whether, in our compacts with them, we are
treating with persons clothed by the tribe with competent
authority; from the lawless character of our frontier popu lation; and from the garbled and distorted report of these
remote transactions, which designing men contrive to fur nish to our government. From these causes, the federal
administration is, frequently, placed in a position, in which
it must either act with apparent injustice towards the In dians, or abandon our defenceless settlements to their ra vages. Capt. Marryatt gives implicit credence to Black
Hawk's version of the origin of the war, which he waged
on our frontiers; but the whites might, and actually do give
a very different color to the affair. Between these conflict ing statements it was surely excusable, that our govern ment relied more upon the representations of our own citi zens, than on the assertions of untutored and treacherous
savages. Before any culpable motive can be brought home
to the federal authorities on the faith of these transactions,
it should appear, that they were fully apprized of the facts
stated by Black Hawk, and wilfully enforced the execution
of a treaty procured by fraud.
We have not space to discuss thoroughly the case of the
Cherokees, nor have we access at this time, to all the docu ments necessary to such an investigation. We will remark
however, that Georgia, by virtue of the principle in relation
to savages heretofore recognized among civilized nations,
claimed the territorial dominion of the country occupied by
the Cherokees, and denied the authority of the general government to annul her title, or in any wise to hinder its enforcement by treaties entered into with that tribe without
her concurrence. Furthermore, in consideration of the cession of her rights to that immense territory now composing
the states of Alabama and Mississippi, Georgia alleged that
the general government had stipulated to extinguish the
Indian title to occupancy within her limits as speedily as it
could be effected, and complained that no efforts had been
made to comply with that engagement. We will not enter
into the merits of the controversy, but merely add, that it is
at least questionable whether the general government could,
constitutionally, interfere with any disposition, made by
that state, of the territory within her acknowledged limits;
and that, if the Cherokees have been treated with injustice,
the blame rests with Georgia, and not the United States.
The Seminole war, in its origin, its progress and its results, is calculated, we confess, to cover usjwith shame and
mortification. Though the government, no doubt, believed,
1841.]
Capt. Marryatt and hi-s Diary.
273