of little minds. To warn with gravity, and to act with decision, become the United States in her negociations with Spain.
Admitting, as I have said, that the proceeding, relative to Arbuthnot and Ambrister, is warranted by the law of nations, yet as this law, as far as it respects the present question, is unjust and unreasonable; and as it also is grounded upon principles which, relative to expatriation, we have ever contested, both duty and policy dictate our decided opposition to it. It is a rule which originated in the {248} despotic courts of Europe; and one which Freedom detests. May not an individual expatriate himself? And if so, may he not become a citizen or subject in a foreign country? He may become a member of a savage as well as of a civilized community. And by acquiring the right of citizenship under a foreign government, an individual may attain to the distinction of a leader. By being a citizen he becomes interested in the destinies of the state, and is bound to defend its rights.
If Arbuthnot and Ambrister expatriated themselves, and united their fortunes with those of the Indians, they were, upon every view of the subject, mere prisoners of war; and as such should have been treated. By taking it for granted that they had not expatriated themselves, we act upon the ground that there can be no such principle as expatriation, and thereby do injustice to the cause of liberty, and expose our own citizens to terrible inflictions from those tyrannical governments, who advocate this side of the question.
As to General Jackson entering the territory of Spain, and taking possession of Spanish posts, it was illegal, because unnecessary; and highly improper, because not authorized by the government. The Indians were dispersed; and an immediate renewal of the war on their
