Sign In

- Or use -
Forgot Password Create Account
Introduction:

The Forbes Purchase, completed around 1804, was one of the largest land transactions in Spanish Florida, transferring over 1.4 million acres of land from the Creek and Seminole nations to John Forbes & Company. This acquisition settled significant debts owed by Native nations to the firm, originally established as Panton, Leslie & Company—a dominant force in the southeastern Indian trade. John Forbes, born in Gamrie Parish, Banffshire, Scotland, joined the company in 1784, eventually creating John Forbes & Company after William Panton’s death in 1801.

The company’s deep involvement in the Indian trade was rooted in historical circumstances. After Spain regained control of Florida from Great Britain following the 1783 Peace of Paris, Panton, Leslie & Company skillfully positioned itself as an essential intermediary between the Spanish authorities and southeastern Native nations. The firm secured Spanish support by emphasizing its ability to stabilize relations with the Creeks, Cherokees, Chickasaws, and Choctaws, thereby preventing American expansion into Spanish-held Florida. 

By the early 19th century, southeastern Native nations had become heavily dependent on European-manufactured goods—textiles, firearms, salt, and gunpowder—supplied by John Forbes & Company. The Native nations paid for these goods primarily with deerskins, but overhunting and economic pressures rendered them unable to meet their growing obligations. By 1803, the debts had reached insurmountable levels, with the Creek nation alone owing $113,512, followed by the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Cherokee nations with lesser amounts.

Adding to this financial burden were claims by John Forbes for losses resulting from two robberies at the company’s trading post on the Wakulla River in 1792 and 1800. To resolve these issues, U.S. officials encouraged Forbes to accept land grants from the Native nations as compensation for the outstanding debts, an idea endorsed by then-Secretary of War Henry Dearborn. 

The negotiations culminated in several treaties between the Native nations and John Forbes & Company, endorsed by the Spanish government. The first set of treaties in 1805 ceded significant tracts of land to the company. A second series of treaties in 1810 expanded the holdings to form a contiguous estate that stretched from the barrier islands of Apalachicola Bay to the Upper Sweetwater Creek, covering large portions of present-day Franklin, Liberty, Wakulla, Gadsden, and Leon counties in Florida.  In total, the Forbes Purchase amounted to over 1.4 million acres, making it the largest land grant in Spanish Florida. It was intended to settle the Native nations’ debts while providing Forbes with a vast expanse of fertile land that could be sold to settlers or developed.

Despite the scale of the acquisition, John Forbes struggled to profit from his newly acquired lands. Efforts to sell parcels to settlers proved difficult, and attempts to secure direct compensation from the Spanish Crown were equally unsuccessful. In December 1817, Forbes sold most of the land east of the Apalachicola River for $66,666 to two merchants, Richard Carnochan and Colin Mitchel, retaining a small portion, including Forbes Island in the Apalachicola River.

However, the sale of the Forbes Purchase became mired in decades of litigation. The U.S. government challenged the legitimacy of the Spanish land grants, claiming that the Native nations had no legal right to cede the land. In 1824, a Board of Commissioners declared that the Native nations did not hold fee simple rights to the land and thus could not transfer ownership to Forbes & Company. This ruling set off a protracted legal battle, which was resolved in 1835 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mitchel in the landmark case Mitchel v. United States. The court recognized that the Native nations, as the original possessors of the land, had the right to convey it under treaties with Spain. This decision affirmed the validity of the Forbes Purchase, bringing a measure of closure to the long-standing dispute. 



Archived