much for the United States; but this is only one side of the subject: Julius Cesar was a celebrated general, and achieved great victories for Rome; but Julius Cesar became a tyrant.
I do not pretend to know what were the motives of General Jackson in putting to death the above mentioned Indians, who, it appears, had been decoyed into the custody of his officers, and were prisoners of war; but we have reason to believe that they were bad motives. Conscious of his high military reputation, the native ferocity of his disposition, cloaking itself under the garb of energy, burst upon these poor, ignorant savages, who, being prisoners of war, were perfectly harmless. And why was this? because they refused to answer a question which he put for the purpose of entrapping them.—The very essence of tyranny!
Neither General Jackson, nor the government had any more right to take the lives of these Indians, than the British, even setting aside the idea of rebellion, would have had to execute General Washington, had he, during the Revolutionary war, been taken prisoner. The Indians, engaged in the Seminole war, were at issue with the United States. The parties were equally independent,—their rights were equal. The law of nature is the original source of all national right, and Indian tribes are in a state of nature.
General Jackson's conduct upon this occasion is a disgrace to the country. The act was as unmanly as it was inhuman. It may be said by ignorance, affectation, and prejudice, that Indians sometimes destroy our men when taken prisoners. What! shall we abandon the precepts of religion, the principles of humanity, and the polish of civilization, to {246} learn manners and customs in the ferocious schools of savage life? The displeasure of the
