Report relative to the seizure of certain Negroes in the Seminole Nation by Creeks

Report relative to the seizure of certain Negroes in the Seminole Nation by Creeks & others, by F. T. Dent, Fort Gibson, July 15, 1850.

Sir,

In answer to your communication of the 10th inst, I have the honor to reply, that on or about the 24th ultimo, a party of Creek Indians, accompanied by several white men Citizens of the United States and a few Cherokees, arrived in the vicinity of Wewoka Seminole Nation armed and equipped. I soon learned their object was to take forcible possession of a number of Negroes, at that time residing in the Seminole Nation, known as Seminole Negroes, but claimed by some of the leaders of the aforesaid party. Much excitement was produced among the Seminole people in the vicinity, as the object of these men was not clearly known to them and when they did learn that it was their intention to attack the Negro town, many of them asserted their firm determination to assist the Negroes in defending themselves. At this stage of the affair, I considered it my duty to interfere, and I immediately by letter informed Mr. Marcellus Duval the Seminole Agent, of the arrival of the party, of the intentions of both parties, and requested his immediate presence, to prevent the pending difficulties. I also called on Mr. N. Mackintosh, the chief or leader of the Creek party, and pointed out to him the consequences of an attack by his party. I made him clearly understand that himself and followers as individuals were by the course they were about to pursue, likely to bring on a war between the Seminole Nation and his own, and told him I should consider it my duty to interfere if he proceeded. I also informed him of my having sent for the Agent, and suggested that before he proceeded a thorough understanding should be had with the Seminole Chief. Mr. Duval arrived the next day. Mr. Mackintosh the leader of the Creek party was directed by him to remove his party to the North Side of the North Fork of Canadian, into the Creek Country, which he did. The Agent then called a council of the Seminole Chiefs, and Mr. Nimin Mackintosh, and four others of the Creeks, were appointed to meet the Seminoles. In this Council the Seminoles agreed to admit the Creek force, and to assist them in taking and delivering over a number of Negroes, how many I did not learn. As soon as the Seminole Chiefs came to this decision I considered that any further interference on my part would presumption.

I learned from a good source, that about one hundred and eighty Negroes have been taken, many of them are only retained as prisoners for a time, in order to prevent them from giving information and support to those who had fled. All that had been taken were at the Seminole Agency, when I left Wewoka some five days since. A large number of the Negroes about one hundred and eighty had not been taken, and were "en route" for Texas, armed and bidding defiance to any person or persons who shall attempt to take them. This party I am informed is commanded by Jim Bowlegs, a slave of Billy Bowlegs, now in Florida. All the Negroes that have been taken as yet, have been taken by the Seminoles themselves and turned over to the Creeks, who were encamped about six miles from the Negro town.

I am directed in your letter to state who are the principal men of the Creek party, and also what White men & Cherokees are engaged with them or took part in the affair. In answer I have to state that of the Creek Indians Nimin Mackintosh, Siah Hardridge, Tom Carr, Joe Smith and John Sells were the principals. The only Cherokees I observed were William Drew, Dick Drew, and Martin Vann. The White men were P. H. White of Van Buren Arks, J. M. Smith of Fort Smith Arks, Mathews a trader near the Creek Agency, and Gabriel Duval a Citizen of Montgomery Alabama.

As to the claims of the above name individuals to the Negroes they have taken, I know nothing, except from report Mr. G. Duval is acting on the part of his brother William Duval, recently deceased. The Seminole Chiefs, had made an agreement to give to W. Duval, a certain number of Negroes, for services he had rendered the Nation, which Negroes are now being turned over to G. Duval, for the estate of his brother William.

This list contains the names, description, and value of the Negroes that was taken from me to wit.

James, a male 46 years of age	$450
Jeney, a female 35 years of age	400
Campbell, a male 20 years of age	500
Molley, a female 15 years of age	450
Rose, a female 13 years of age	350
Dyaner, a female 12 years of age	300
Jupiter, a male 10 years of age	250
Eady, a female 8 years of age	200
Betty, a female 3 years of age	150
and an infant child, name not known	100

We the undersigned have examined the above list and valuation of the Negroes and we think that they are valued at a low rate to what Negroes sell at hear.

Signed this 12 January 1832

Fushatche Micco
Hospodock harjo
Warloco harjo
Ben Derasaw
Benjamin Hawkins

On a critical examination of Book (H) which accompanied the report of Col. Full who was appointed a Commissioner to adjust the claims of the friends & followers of Genl. William McIntosh for the property taken or destroyed by the Creek Indians where that Chief was murdered, as provided for by the 10th Article of the Treaty concluded between James Barbour Secretary of War and a Delagation from the Creek Indian at Washington City in 1824. I find what is stated to be a "list of Negroes taken on the 30th April 1825" - this list extends to seventy four, and contains all the names which Susannah McIntosh presents as her claim, with two exceptions, to wit: Jupiter & Eady. Gipter and Eggy in the list of seventy four may have been intended for Jupiter & Eady. I take it for granted that this Book of accounts &c. was made out by the fugitives while in Georgia as Col Lott supposes in his report, and that therefore implicit reliance can not be placed on the statement which it contains especially as I find in another list on a second page "of Negroes and horses delivered to Chilly McIntosh & Benjamin Hawkins by the Agent" only fifty four Negroes in number, and some of them with names different from the names contained in the proceeding list. I presume that Book H contains the only exhibition of claims which was made to the commissioner by the fugitive Indians. The list of seventy four Negroes was no doubt intended as an exhibition of claim in favor of the family of McIntosh, for property which belonged to him at his death, and that the list of fifty four Negroes was intended to show a delivery of part of the Negroes which was taken from McIntosh, which delivery I presume was made subsequent to the adjudication of the claims by the Commissioner, as the entry appears in a hand writing and with ink totally different from all other entries in the book and especially as the delivery purports to have been made by the Agent. The list of seventy four contained the names of the Negroes claimed by Susannah McIntosh with the exception before expressed. There is contained in Book H an exhibition of the claim of several other individuals for Negroes. The Commissioner in his report takes no notice of any claim for Negroes which had been thus presented to him, with the single exception of the claim of Chilly McIntosh exhibited in Book H for these Negroes. This claim was founded in circumstances totally different from all the others. The Commissioner awarded a return of the Negroes or their value in money to be paid by the Nation under prescribed limitations; and by a sweeping decision, rejected all claims which had been exhibited to him, and which are not specifically admitted by his written report. This sweeping rejection founded the ground for the subsequent rejection of Susannah McIntosh's claim, by the National Council.

In addition to the testimony furnished by Mrs. McIntosh and heretofore presented to you in support of her claim; I enclose to you the affidavit of John Winslett, which shows Mrs. McIntosh's right to the Negroes claimed by her, how she was deprived of possession, where the Negroes now are, and that she is still deprived of her property. It being thus shown, that those Negroes were taken from her by the Creek Indians when her husband was murdered by which wrongful act she has ever since been kept out of her rightful property. This question arises - has not Susannah McIntosh a fair claim under the 10th Article of the Treaty of 1826 against the Creek Indians? To this question the answer must it seems to me, be affirmation. To what source then must she apply for relief? If she appeals to Congress she will be told that the 10th Article of Treaty of 1826 makes ample provision for the adjudication of her claim. Should it be urged there that the Commissioner who was appointed under the 10th Article, has rejected all claims which were exhibited to him; and which are no provided for by his report, the reply would be that the Commissioner could not have intended to include in that rejection the claims for Negroes taken by the Nation, as all the Negroes so taken were subsequently returned to the rightful owners, with the exception of those claimed by Mrs. McIntosh.

The power of the War Department, to cause this claim to be adjusted according to the provisions of the aforesaid Treaty, cannot I presume be questioned. I therefore respectfully submit to the Hon. Secretary of War, whether it is not the duty of the Department to institute an investigation of this claim forthwith.

PS
I solicit the early attention of the Secretary of War to this subject, and an answer from him is respectfully requested.