CHAPTER IX.

THE WEST,

FROM THE TREATY OF PEACE WITH FRANCE, 1763, TO THE TREATY OF PEACE WITH

ENGLAND, 1783.

BY WILLIAM FREDERICK POOLE, LL.D.

_Librarian of the Newberry Library, Chicago._

THE treaty of peace signed at Paris, February 10, 1763, marks perhaps

the most important epoch in the political and social history of North

America.[1422] It settled forever a question which had been in doubt

for a century,—whether the rule and civilization of France or of

Great Britain were to shape the destinies of the western continent.

It was the culmination of a seven years' war, in which the vigorous

administration of William Pitt had crushed the allied forces of France

and Spain. The capture of Quebec by Wolfe, and the surrender of the

French army to Amherst at Montreal, were but incidents in the general

humiliation which France and Spain had experienced on the continent

of Europe, in India, in the West Indies, and on the ocean. They could

fight no longer, and were glad to accept any terms of peace which Great

Britain might dictate.[1423]

The Treaty of Paris made a strange transformation of the political map

of North America, and for the first time brought under British sway the

territory which now comprises the Western States of the American Union.

Great Britain in the preceding century had granted in the charters of

her American colonies boundaries extending from ocean to ocean; but

her actual possessions until 1763 were a fringe of country along the

Atlantic coast, and extending west to the crests of the Alleghanies.

Spain was in possession of Florida and Mexico, and the remainder of the

continent was in the real or nominal possession of France. Her imperial

domain extended from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Ocean, and from

the Alleghanies to undetermined limits beyond the Rocky Mountains. By

the Treaty of Paris, Canada and that portion of Louisiana between the

Alleghanies and the Mississippi came to Great Britain. In a secret

treaty with his Bourbon ally, Carlos III. of Spain, made November 3,

1762, the day when the preliminary articles of peace were signed,[1424]

Louis XV. ceded to Spain that part of Louisiana which lay west of the

Mississippi, with the island on which New Orleans is situated. France

therefore, in this desperate crisis, parted with all her American

possessions on the main land, and her name nearly disappeared from the

map of North America.[1425] Spain in the war had lost Havana, and in

order to recover this key to her other West India possessions she gave

up to Great Britain Florida in exchange for Havana.

Severer terms than these would have been exacted by Great Britain from

both the allies, except for the recent accession of George III. to the

throne, and the changes he made in his cabinet and policy. In the midst

of the negotiations of the treaty, Pitt resigned in disgust, and they

were concluded by his successor, the Earl of Bute, and by the Duke of

Bedford. The transfers of the immense territories ceded by the treaty

were not immediate, and several years elapsed before they came into

possession of their new rulers.

In the discussions by the new cabinet as to the terms of the treaty,

a question arose which was alarming to the American colonies. Should

Canada or the Island of Guadaloupe be restored to France? The sugar

trade of the latter, it was claimed, was more important to Great

Britain than the Canadian for trade. It was further claimed that,

if the colonies were relieved from the menace of the French and

their savage allies, they would cover the continent, become a great

nation, manufacture their own goods, and eventually declare themselves

independent.[1426] Many pamphlets appeared in England advocating and

opposing the restoration of Canada to France, but there was no abler

advocate of the retention of Canada than Dr. Franklin, who was then in

London.[1427]

On the 7th of October, 1763, George III. issued a proclamation,[1428]

providing for four new governments or colonies, namely: Quebec, East

Florida, West Florida, and Grenada, and defining their boundaries. The

limits of Quebec did not vary materially from those of the present

province of that name, and those of East and West Florida comprised the

present State of Florida and the country north of the Gulf of Mexico to

the parallel of 31° latitude.

It will be seen that no provision was made for the government of nine

tenths of the new territory acquired by the Treaty of Paris, and the

omission was not an oversight, but was intentional. The purpose was

to reserve as crown lands the Northwest territory, the region north

of the great lakes, and the country between the Alleghanies and the

Mississippi, and to exclude them from settlement by the American

colonies. They were left, for the time being, to the undisputed

possession of the savage tribes.[1429] The king's "loving subjects"

were forbidden making purchases of land from the Indians, or forming

any settlements "westward of the sources of the rivers which fall

into the sea from the West and Northwest", "and all persons who have

wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any lands" west of

this limit were warned "forthwith to remove themselves from such

settlements." Certain reasons for this policy were assigned in the

proclamation, such as "preventing irregularities in the future, and

that the Indians may be convinced of our justice", etc.; but the real

explanation appears in the Report of the Lords Commissioners for

Trade and Plantations, in 1772, on the petition of Thomas Walpole and

others for a grant of land on the Ohio. The report was drawn by Lord

Hillsborough, the president of the board. The report states:—

"We take leave to remind your Lordships of that principle which was

adopted by this Board, and approved and confirmed by his Majesty,

immediately after the Treaty of Paris, viz.: the confining the western

extent of settlements to such a distance from the seacoast as that

those settlements should lie within reach of the trade and commerce

of this kingdom, ... and also of the exercise of that authority and

jurisdiction which was conceived to be necessary for the preservation

of the Colonies in a due subordination to, and dependence upon, the

mother country. And these we apprehend to have been the two capital

objects of his Majesty's proclamation of the 7th of October, 1763....

The great object of colonizing upon the continent of North America has

been to improve and extend the commerce, navigation, and manufactures

of this kingdom.... It does appear to us that the extension of the

fur trade depends entirely upon the Indians being undisturbed in the

possession of their hunting-grounds, and that all colonizing does in

its nature, and must in its consequences, operate to the prejudice

of that branch of commerce.... Let the savages enjoy their deserts

in quiet. Were they driven from their forests the peltry-trade would

decrease; and it is not impossible that worse savages would take

refuge in them."[1430]

Such in clear and specific terms was the cold and selfish policy which

the British crown and its ministers habitually pursued towards the

American colonies; and in a few years it changed loyalty into hate, and

brought on the American Revolution.[1431]

* * * * *

Before the royal proclamation of 1763 had been issued, or even

drafted, a new and fierce Indian war, which is known in history as

the Pontiac War, was raging on the frontier settlements. With the

conquest of Canada and the expulsion of France as a military power

from the continent, the English colonists were abounding in loyalty

to the mother country, were exultant in the expectation of peace, and

in the assurance of immunity from Indian wars in the future; for it

did not seem possible that, with the loose system of organization and

government common to the Indians, they could plan and execute a general

campaign without the co-operation of the French as leaders.

This feeling of security among the English settlements was of short

duration. A general discontent pervaded all the Indian tribes from the

frontier settlements to the Mississippi, and from the great lakes to

the Gulf of Mexico. The extent of this disquietude was not suspected,

and hence no attempt was made to gain the good-will of the Indians.

There were many real causes for this discontent. The French had been

politic and sagacious in their intercourse with the Indian. They gained

his friendship by treating him with respect and justice. They came to

him with presents, and, as a rule, dealt with him fairly in trade. They

came with missionaries, unarmed, heroic, self-denying men, who labored

without pay for what they deemed the highest welfare of their dusky

brethren. Many Frenchmen married Indian wives, dwelt with the native

tribes, and adopted their customs. To the average Englishman, on the

other hand, Indians were disgusting objects; he would show them no

respect, nor treat them with justice except under compulsion. To him

the only good Indians were dead Indians, and hence he shot savages as

he would wild beasts.[1432] So long as the English had the French as

competitors for the good-will of the Indian, they treated him with some

measure of tact and justice; but when this competition was withdrawn,

it was a sad day for both races. The fur trade, by which the Indians

obtained their necessary supplies, had been mainly in the hands of the

French; and when it was cut off, the Northern and Western Indians,

as they had lost the use of bows and arrows, and needed firearms and

ammunition in order to take their game, were often in distress for want

of food. When the military posts in the West were in possession of the

French, the Indians were habitual visitors, and they loitered about the

forts. The French tolerated the custom, and treated the intruders with

kindness, although their indolent and filthy habits greatly taxed the

patience of the garrisons. When these posts came into possession of

the English, the visitors were insulted and driven away, and they were

fortunate if they were not clubbed.[1433]

The French had shown little disposition to make permanent settlements;

but the English, when they appeared, came to stay, and they occupied

large tracts of the best land for agricultural purposes. The French

hunters and traders, who were widely dispersed among the native tribes,

kept the Indians in a state of disquietude by misrepresenting the

English, exaggerating their faults, and making the prediction that

the French would soon recapture Canada and expel the English from the

Western territories.

Pontiac, the chief of the Ottawas, was the Indian who had the motive,

the ambition, and capacity for organization which enabled him to

concentrate and use all these elements of discontent for his own

malignant and selfish purposes. After the defeat of the French, he

professed for a time to be friendly with the English, expecting

that, under the acknowledged supremacy of Great Britain, he would be

recognized as a mighty Indian prince, and be assigned to rule over his

own, and perhaps a confederacy of other tribes.[1434] Finding that the

English government had no use for him, he was indignant, and he devoted

all the energies of his vigorous mind to a secret conspiracy of uniting

the tribes west of the Alleghanies to engage in a general war against

the English settlements. In the autumn of 1762 he sent messengers with

war-belts to the tribes living north of the great lakes, to those in

the Ohio and Illinois countries, and they went as far south as the

mouth of the Mississippi. His scheme was to make a simultaneous attack

on all the Western posts in the month of May, 1763; and each attack

was assigned to the neighboring tribes. His summer home was on a small

island at the entrance of Lake St. Clair; and being near Detroit, he

was to conduct in person the capture of that fort.[1435]

On the 6th of May, 1763, Major Gladwin,[1436] in command at Detroit,

had warning from an Indian girl that the next day an attempt would be

made to capture the fort by treachery. When Pontiac, on the appointed

morning, accompanied by sixty of his chiefs, with short guns concealed

under their blankets, appeared at the fort, and, as usual, asked for

admission, he was startled at seeing the whole garrison under arms, and

that his scheme of treachery had miscarried. For two months the savages

assailed the fort, and the sleepless garrison gallantly defended it,

when they were relieved by the arrival of a schooner from Fort Niagara,

with sixty men, provisions, and ammunition.

Fort Pitt, on the present site of Pittsburg, Pa.,[1437] was in command

of Captain Ecuyer, another trained soldier, who had been warned of

the Indian conspiracy by Major Gladwin in a letter written May 5th.

Captain Ecuyer, having a garrison of three hundred and thirty soldiers

and backwoodsmen, immediately made every preparation for defence. On

May 27th, a party of Indians appeared at the fort under the pretence of

wishing to trade, and were treated as spies. Active operations against

Fort Pitt were postponed until the smaller forts had been taken.

Fort Sandusky was captured May 16th; Fort St. Joseph (on the St. Joseph

River, Mich.), May 25th; Fort Ouatanon (now Lafayette, Ind.), May 31st;

Fort Michillimackinac (now Mackinaw, Mich.), June 2d; Fort Presqu'

Isle (now Erie, Pa.), June 17th; Fort Le Bœuf (Erie County, Pa.), June

18th; Fort Venango (Venango County, Pa.), June 18th; and the posts at

Carlisle and Bedford, Pa., on the same day. No garrison except that

at Presqu' Isle had warning of danger. The same method of capture was

adopted in each instance. A small party of Indians came to the fort

with the pretence of friendship, and were admitted. Others soon joined

them, when the visitors rose upon the small garrisons, butchered them,

or took them captive. At Presqu' Isle the Indians laid siege to the

fort for two days, when they set it on fire. At Venango no one of the

garrison survived to give an account of the capture.[1438]

On June 22d, a large body of Indians surrounded Fort Pitt and opened

fire on all sides, but were easily repulsed. The next day they informed

Captain Ecuyer[1439] that every other English fort had been taken,

and that all the tribes were coming to take Fort Pitt. If he and his

garrison would then leave, they would assure him a safe conduct to the

English settlements; but otherwise they would be unable to protect him

from the bad Indians who would soon arrive. The commander thanked them

for their kind solicitude in his behalf, and informed them that he had

plenty of men, provisions, and ammunition, and could hold the fort

against all the Indians in the woods. He told them also that an army of

six thousand English would soon arrive at Fort Pitt, and that another

army of three thousand had gone up the lakes to punish the Ottawas and

Ojibwas. "Therefore", he said, "take pity on your women and children,

and get out of the way as soon as possible." The Indians departed the

next day, and did not reappear until July 26th, when they repeated

their old story of "love for the English", and grieved that "the chain

of friendship had been broken." The following night they surrounded

the fort, and with knives dug burrows in the river banks, from which

they threw fire-arrows into the fort and shot bullets whenever they had

sight of a soldier above the parapets. This sort of warfare was more

dangerous to the besiegers than to the besieged. During five days and

nights of ceaseless attack the losses of the Indians were more than

twenty killed and wounded. In the garrison seven were slightly wounded,

and none killed. The Indians then disappeared in order to intercept the

expedition of Colonel Bouquet, which was approaching from the east with

a convoy of provisions for the relief of Fort Pitt.

[Illustration: HENRY BOUQUET.

From an original by Benjamin West, in the gallery of the Penna. Hist.

Society.]

It was fortunate for the country that there was an officer stationed at

Philadelphia who fully understood the meaning of the alarming reports

which were coming in from the Western posts. Colonel Henry Bouquet was

a gallant Swiss officer who had been trained in war from his youth, and

whose personal accomplishments gave an additional charm to his bravery

and heroic energy. He had served seven years in fighting American

Indians, and was more cunning than they in the practice of their own

artifices.[1440] General Amherst, the commander-in-chief, was slow in

appreciating the importance and extent of the Western conspiracy;[1441]

yet he did good service in directing Colonel Bouquet to organize an

expedition for the relief of Fort Pitt.

[Illustration: BUSHY RUN BATTLE, AUG. 5 AND 6, 1763.

Slightly reduced from a plate in the London edition of _An Historical

Account_, as "surveyed by Thos. Hutchins, assistant engineer." KEY: 1,

grenadiers; 2, light infantry; 3, battalion men; 4, rangers; 5, cattle;

6, horses; 7, intrenchment of bags for the wounded; 8, first position

of the troops; X, the enemy. The small squares on the hillock near "the

action of the 5th" mark "graves." The map is also in Jefferys' _Gen.

Topog. of N. Amer., etc._ (London, 1768), and in I. D. Rupp's _Early

Hist of Western Penna._ (Pittsburg, 1847).]

The promptness and energy with which this duty was performed, under

the most embarrassing conditions, make the expedition one of the most

brilliant episodes in American warfare. The only troops available for

the service were about five hundred regulars recently arrived from the

siege of Havana, broken in health, and many of them better fitted for

the hospital than the field.[1442] Orders for collecting supplies and

means of transportation had been sent to Carlisle; but when the colonel

arrived with the troops, nothing had been done towards their execution.

Such, however, was his energy and sagacity that in eighteen days the

horses, oxen, wagons, and provisions needed had been collected, and he

was ready to march. As the long train moved out of Carlisle towards the

west, where lay the bleaching bones of Braddock's army, the inhabitants

looked on in anxious silence. The sight of sixty invalid soldiers

conveyed in wagons did not add to the cheerfulness of the scene.

Bouquet's most efficient soldiers were the 42d regiment of Highlanders,

whom he used as flankers.[1443]

On the 25th of July he reached Fort Bedford, where he left his

invalids to recuperate, and engaged thirty backwoodsmen as guides. All

communication with Fort Pitt, one hundred and five miles distant, was

cut off, and the woods were filled with prowling savages. On August

2d he reached Fort Ligonier, fifty miles from Bedford, where he left

his draught-oxen and wagons, and went on with three hundred and fifty

pack-horses. About a day's march further west lay the defiles of

Turtle Creek, where he expected the Indians would lay an ambuscade.

He therefore determined to proceed as far as a small stream called

Bushy Run, rest till night, and pass Turtle Creek under cover of

darkness. At one o'clock in the afternoon of August 5th, when the train

was half a mile from Bushy Run, a report of rifles was heard at the

front, indicating that the advanced guard was engaged. Two companies

were ordered forward to support it. The woods were quickly cleared,

when firing was heard in the rear, and the troops were ordered back

to protect the baggage train. Forming a circle around the convoy, the

troops kept up the fight gallantly until night. As they were exposed

in the open field, while the Indians were under cover in the woods,

their loss was heavy compared with that of the enemy. Several officers

and about sixty soldiers were killed or wounded, and the situation

had become desperate. They had no choice but to camp on the hill

where the engagement had taken place, and without a drop of water.

Sentinels and outposts were stationed to guard against a night attack,

and the morrow was awaited with anxious solicitude. During the night

Colonel Bouquet wrote to General Amherst: "Whatever our fate may be,

I thought it necessary to give your excellency this information.... I

fear insurmountable difficulties in protecting and transporting our

provisions, being already so much weakened by the losses of this day in

men and horses."

[Illustration: BOUQUET'S COUNCIL WITH THE INDIANS.

This follows in fac-simile a plate in the London edition of the

_Historical Account_ (1766), drawn by Benjamin West; and as that artist

painted the portrait of Bouquet given on another page, the sitting

figure in the left of the plate may safely be considered not unlike

that soldier. This plate was reëngraved by Paul Revere, in the _Royal

Amer. Mag._, Dec., 1774.]

With the early morning light the woods rang with the exultant war-cries

of the Indians. The battle was renewed, and the savages, seeing the

distress of the troops, pressed closer and closer, expecting an easy

victory. Colonel Bouquet, with a quick perception of the situation

and full knowledge of the Indian character, saw that his only hope of

escaping the fate of Braddock's army was to draw the enemy from their

cover and bring them into close engagement with his regulars. This

he did by a stratagem. He ordered his most advanced troops, when in

action, to fall back suddenly, as if in retreat, behind a second line

lying in ambush. The Indians he expected would follow, eager to seize

the train.

[Illustration: BOUQUET'S CAMPAIGN.

Reduced from Smith's _Historical Account of the Expedition against the

Ohio Indians_, London, 1766. It is also included in Jefferys' _Gen.

Topog. of N. Amer., etc._ (London, 1768). It is reproduced in full size

fac-simile, in the Cincinnati edition, 1868, and is reëngraved in the

Amsterdam edition and in Parkman's _Pontiac_, vol. ii.]

The line in ambush would then open fire, and in the surprise and

confusion of the savages the remaining troops would charge upon them.

The stratagem was a complete success. As the advanced line retreated,

the Indians rushed out of the woods, supposing they were victors. When

the line in ambush had delivered its fire and stopped the progress of

the Indians, the retreating line had changed direction and were ready

to make a charge upon the flank. The ambuscading line then rose and

fell upon the enemy in front, who fled, leaving sixty of their number

on the field, and among them several prominent chiefs. The pursuit

was continued, and the victory was complete.[1444] The next day the

expedition, carrying their wounded on litters, moved on towards Fort

Pitt, twenty-five miles distant, and arriving four days after the

fight, to the great joy of the beleaguered garrison.

The battle of Bushy Run, both for its military conduct and its

political results, deserves a place among the memorable battles in

America. The Indians fought with a courage and desperation rarely seen

in Indian warfare, and the English troops with a steadiness and valor

which was due to their training as regulars and the direction of so

able a commander. The tidings of this victory broke the spirit of the

Indian conspiracy, and the reports were received with rejoicing in all

the English colonies.[1445]

The ultimate purpose of Colonel Bouquet's expedition, after relieving

Fort Pitt, was to invade the Ohio country, punish the Shawanese,

Delawares, and other tribes, extort from them treaties of peace, and

recover the English captives in their possession. On account of his

losses of men, horses, and supplies at Bushy Run, he was unable to

carry out this design until he was reinforced, and it was now too late

in the season to expect that his wants could be supplied from the East.

His Ohio expedition was therefore postponed until the next year.

* * * * *

On the 29th of July Detroit was reinforced by two hundred and eighty

men under Captain Dalzell, who in June had left Fort Niagara in

twenty-two barges, with several cannon and a supply of provisions and

ammunition. The day after his arrival, Captain Dalzell proposed, with

two hundred and fifty men, to make a night attack on Pontiac's camp

and capture him. Major Gladwin discouraged the attempt, but finally,

against his judgment, consented. Some Canadians obtained the secret and

carried it to Pontiac, who waylaid the party in an ambuscade. Twenty

of the English were killed and thirty-nine wounded. Among the killed

was Captain Dalzell himself.[1446] Pontiac could make no use of this

success, as the fort was strongly garrisoned and well supplied with

provisions and ammunition. Elsewhere there was nothing to encourage

him. The battle of Bushy Run and the arrival of Colonel Bouquet at Fort

Pitt alarmed the Western tribes and ruptured the Pontiac confederation.

In October some of the chiefs who beleaguered the fort at Detroit

sued for peace, and in November the siege was raised. All hope of

capturing Fort Pitt had vanished, and the warriors returned to their

hunting-grounds. There was quietness on the frontiers during the winter

of 1763-64.

In the spring of 1764 scattered war parties were again ravaging the

borders. Colonel Bouquet was recruiting in Pennsylvania, and preparing

an outfit for his march into the valley of the Ohio. In June, Colonel

Bradstreet, with a force of twelve hundred men, was sent up the great

lakes. On arriving at Fort Niagara he found assembled a large body

of Indians whom Sir William Johnson had summoned into council, using

threats when they did not readily respond to his summons. It was

apparent that the haughty spirit of the tribes was broken. Treaties of

peace were concluded, and a strip of land between the lakes Erie and

Ontario, four miles wide on each side of the river Niagara, was ceded

to the British government.[1447]

Bradstreet proceeded up Lake Erie, and near Presqu' Isle made, on his

own authority, an absurd treaty of peace with some alleged deputies of

the Ohio Indians who had made the Western settlements so much trouble;

and he added to his folly by writing to his superior officer, Colonel

Bouquet, that the Colonel need not march into the Ohio country, as

the business of pacifying the Western Indians had been attended to.

Bradstreet went on to Sandusky; and instead of punishing the Wyandots,

Ottawas, and Miamis, as he was instructed to do, accepted their promise

to follow him to Detroit and there make treaties. He arrived in Detroit

on the 26th of August. Pontiac had departed, and sent messages of

defiance from the banks of the Maumee.[1448]

Colonel Bouquet met with every obstacle in raising troops and

collecting supplies for his Ohio expedition, from the stubborn Quakers

in the Assembly of Pennsylvania. It was not until September 17th that

his convoy arrived at Fort Pitt. Early in October he marched with

fifteen hundred men and a long train of pack-horses into the valley

of the Muskingum. Wherever he appeared with his strong force the

Indian tribes were ready, after much talk, to make treaties of peace

and deliver up their white captives, two hundred of whom, and some

with reluctance, were taken back to the settlements.[1449] Colonel

Bouquet marched to the forks of the Muskingum,[1450] meeting with

no opposition, and, having accomplished his purposes, retraced his

march, and arrived at Fort Pitt on the 28th of November. The success

of the expedition and the return of the captives to their homes were

the occasion of joy through the whole country. The assemblies of

Pennsylvania and Virginia passed votes of thanks to Colonel Bouquet,

and the king conferred on him the rank of brigadier-general. Early in

the summer of 1765 he was put in command of the Southern district,

and died of fever at Pensacola, September 2, ten days after his

arrival.[1451] Had he lived he would have made a brilliant record in

the war of the Revolution.[1452]

[Illustration: VICINITY OF FORT CHARTRES.

Reproduced from Thomas Hutchins's _Historical narrative and

topographical description of Louisiana and West Florida, comprehending

the river Mississippi with its branches_ (Philad., 1784). The same

map is in his _Topographical description of Virginia, Pennsylvania,

Maryland, and North Carolina, comprehending the rivers Ohio, Kenhawa,

&c., the climate, soil; the mountains, latitudes, &c., and of every

part, laid down in the annexed map. Published by Thomas Hutchins.

With a plan of the rapids of the Ohio, a plan of the several villages

in the Illinois country, a table of the distances between Fort Pitt

and the mouth of the Ohio. And an appendix, containing Mr. Patrick

Kennedy's Journal up the Illinois river_ (Boston, 1787). From this

edition Parkman reproduced the map in his _Pontiac_, vol. ii. The map

was reëngraved in the French edition, _Description topographique de la

Virginie_, etc., Paris, 1781. The original edition was published in

London in 1778. It is reprinted in Imlay's _Western Territories_, 3d

ed., p. 485. Cf. Thomson's _Bibliography of Ohio_, no. 625.—ED.]

The Pontiac War, so far as battles and campaigns were concerned, was

ended; but Pontiac was still at large and as untamed as ever. His last

hope was the Illinois country, where the foot of an English soldier

had never trod. Thither he went, and applying to M. Neyon, in command

of Fort Chartres, for aid, was refused. He returned to his camp on the

Maumee, and collecting four hundred of his own warriors, and as many

of other tribes as would join him, reappeared at Fort Chartres. M.

Neyon had left the country in disgust, with many French residents of

the Illinois country, and M. Saint Ange de Bellerive was his successor

in command of the fort. His visitors, with a mob of Illinois Indians,

clamored for weapons and ammunition to fight the English. St. Ange's

position was embarrassing, if not dangerous; but he acted with prudence

and sagacity. He was under orders to deliver up the fort whenever a

British force arrived. He refused to comply with the demands of the

Indians, but pacified them with pleasant words and a few presents. The

most agreeable sight to this worthy Frenchman, at that time, would have

been the arrival of a regiment of British infantry.

Pontiac, again baffled, sent an embassy of warriors down the

Mississippi, with an immense war-belt, and with instructions to show it

at every Indian village on the river, and to procure from the French

commandant at New Orleans the aid he could not get at Fort Chartres.

The warriors reached New Orleans soon after the distressing news had

come that Western Louisiana had been ceded to Spain by the secret

treaty of November 3, 1762. The health of the governor, D'Abbadie, had

given way under the intelligence that a Spanish governor and garrison

might arrive any day. The governor gave the Indians one hearing, and

postponed the interview until the next day. Before the hour named

had arrived he was dead.[1453] M. Aubry, his successor, received

the warriors, and said he could do nothing for them. Sullen and

disappointed, they paddled their canoes northward, and the last hope of

the conspiracy expired.[1454]

An attempt was made early in 1764 to take possession of the Illinois

country by sending English troops up the Mississippi River. Major

Arthur Loftus, with four hundred regulars, ascended two hundred and

forty miles above New Orleans, where Indians in ambuscade fired on

them, killed six men, and wounded six others.[1455] The expedition

turned back, and returned to Pensacola. Captain Philip Pittman[1456]

arrived at New Orleans a few months later with the same design, and

ascertaining the temper of the Western Indians, did not make the

attempt.[1457]

General Gage, who in November, 1763, succeeded General Amherst as

commander-in-chief, saw that there would be no permanent peace with

the Western Indians until Fort Chartres and the Illinois country were

occupied by British troops, and he resolved to send a force by way of

Fort Pitt and the Ohio River. Before executing the plan he thought it

advisable to send a messenger in advance, who would visit the tribes,

ascertain their dispositions, and allay their enmities if he could not

secure their friendship. George Croghan was the person selected for

this responsible and dangerous mission. He was deputy-superintendent

of Indian affairs under Sir William Johnson. As a fur-trader he

had been on friendly relations with the Western tribes, and spoke

their language. Lieutenant Alexander Fraser, who spoke French, was

to accompany him. They arrived at Fort Pitt in February, 1765,

where Croghan was delayed for three months, holding councils with

Indians.[1458]

Croghan left Fort Pitt on the 14th of May, in two bateaux, with a few

soldiers and fourteen[1459] Indian deputies, Shawanese, Mingos, and

Delawares, as evidence and pledge that there was peace between the

English and the Western tribes.

[Illustration: RUINS OF MAGAZINE AT FORT CHARTRES.

After a photograph. The magazine is now used by a farmer for the

storage of vegetables, etc.

Description at the time of the surrender to the English in 1765: "Four

toises [25.6 feet] in front, with its gate in cut stone, furnished with

two doors, one of sheet iron and the other of wood, furnished with

their iron-work; five toises and a half [35.2 feet] wide, six toises

[38.4 feet] long; one building, two toises [12.8 feet] high; one window

above, in cut stone, furnished with its shutters in wood, and one of

iron" (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, x. 1164).]

On the 23d he arrived at the mouth of the Scioto, where the Shawanese

delivered to him seven French traders. On the 6th of June he came to

the mouth of the Wabash, where there were indications of the presence

of hostile Indians. He dropped down the Ohio six miles further and

encamped. On the morning of the 8th his party was fired into by

eighty Kickapoos and Mascoutins, and two white men and three of the

Shawanese deputies were killed. Croghan himself, and all the rest of

the party except two white men and one Indian, were wounded. They were

robbed of their outfit, and carried as prisoners to Vincennes.[1460]

Here Croghan found Indian acquaintances and friends who treated him

and his party with kindness, and rebuked their assailants.[1461] At

Post Ouatanon[1462] Croghan found more of his Indian acquaintances;

and his captivity being ended, he resumed his official character of

ambassador, received deputations from the neighboring tribes, held

councils, heard and made speeches, and smoked the pipe of peace. He

here received a message from St. Ange, requesting him to visit Fort

Chartres, and arrange matters there, which had become exceedingly

annoying. He started for the Illinois country on the 18th of July,

accompanied by the chiefs of the neighboring tribes. He soon met

Pontiac and the deputies from the Illinois tribes on their way to visit

him. Both parties returned to the fort and held a council. Pontiac and

the Illinois tribes agreed to make peace with the English, as the other

nations had done.[1463]

The object of his visit being accomplished, Croghan turned his face

homeward, and reached Detroit on the 17th of August. Here he called

the Ottawas and the other neighboring tribes into a council, which

continued for several days. The Indians acknowledged that they now

saw that the French were indeed conquered; that henceforth they would

listen no more to the whistling of evil birds, but would lay down the

hatchet, and sit quiet on their mats. Pontiac was present, and said:

"Father, I declare to all nations that I had made my peace with you

before I came here; and I now deliver my pipe to Sir William Johnson,

that he may know that I have made peace, and taken the King of England

to be my father in the presence of all the nations now assembled."[1464]

From Detroit, Croghan communicated to the commander at Fort Pitt

tidings of the complete success of his Western mission; and a

company of the 42d regiment of Highlanders, the veterans of Quebec,

Ticonderoga, and Bushy Run, under the command of Captain Thomas

Stirling, was dispatched in boats for Fort Chartres. Captain Stirling

arrived early in October,[1465] and on the 10th relieved St. Ange from

his embarrassing command.[1466] These were the first English troops who

ever set foot in the Illinois country.[1467]

Croghan left Detroit on the 26th of November, visited Fort Niagara,

and arrived at Fort Stanwix, October 21, where he prepared his report

to Sir William Johnson, which Sir William transmitted to the Lords of

Trade, November 16, 1765.[1468]

For the next decade, the discreet management of the native tribes

by Sir William Johnson secured the Western settlements from Indian

depredations. During this period there was a constant emigration

from Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania into the country between

the mountains and the Ohio River, and explorations were begun in

Kentucky. The treaty of Fort Stanwix, made with the Six Nations and

their dependants in the autumn of 1768, transferred to the British

crown the Indian title to what is now the State of Kentucky east of

the Tennessee (then Cherokee) River, and a large part of Western

Virginia. To the province of Pennsylvania it ceded an extensive tract

on its western borders, and defined the boundaries between the English

settlements and the Indian territory.[1469] In making this important

treaty, Sir William was acting under instructions from the crown, and

was furnished with a map[1470] indicating the boundaries desired, for

which concessions the crown would give money and presents. He summoned

the deputies of the Six Nations and their dependent tribes to meet him

in council at Fort Stanwix (now Rome, N. Y.), on the 20th of September,

1768. By the 22d, 2,200 Indians had arrived,[1471] and when the council

opened on the 24th, 3,102[1472] deputies were present. For seven weeks

Sir William fed[1473] and hospitably entertained this immense concourse

of savages, conducting their deliberations, making speeches in their

own languages, humoring and repressing their wayward dispositions, and

bringing them reluctantly to accept his terms.[1474]

[Illustration: DANIEL BOONE.

From a picture by Chester Harding, in the Mass. Hist. Society's

gallery. Cf. _Proc._, v. 197.]

Open hostilities between the Indians and settlers on the Western

frontier, which had been suspended since 1765, broke out anew in the

spring of 1774,[1475] and raged for a few months in what has been

called "Cresap's War", but is now more properly known as the "Dunmore

War." Lord Dunmore was then governor of Virginia, and commander of

the English forces engaged in the brief campaign. As to the specific

cause of the Dunmore War there has been much controversy. The killing

of Logan's family, wrongly charged upon Captain Michael Cresap, was one

of the causes assigned. Another was the conduct of Dr. John Connolly,

the agent of Lord Dunmore in West Virginia, who was charged with being

concerned in a plot to bring on a conflict between the settlers and the

Indians, in order to serve British interests in the Revolutionary War

which was then coming on.[1476] Lord Dunmore was suspected at the time

of being in the plot,[1477] and the charge was probably as groundless

as that made against Captain Cresap. The occasion of the outbreak lay

upon the surface of events,—the growing disquietude and jealousy of

the Indians in view of the advancing settlements of the whites, which

had reached the eastern bank of the Ohio and was moving farther west.

The Shawanese and Delawares had been robbing traders and scalping

settlers, whenever an opportunity occurred, ever since they had made

a treaty of peace with Colonel Bouquet in 1764. Sir William Johnson's

letters to the home government during these nine years are full of

narratives of these outrages, and forebodings that another Indian war

might break out at any time. More white persons were killed by these

Indians during this period of nominal peace than in the whole campaign

of the Dunmore War.

A bitter controversy between Virginia and Pennsylvania for possession

of the country between the mountains and the Ohio added to the

complications arising from the Indian troubles.[1478] Virginia held

Fort Pitt and was in possession of the country. In 1774 the tide

of emigration was setting strongly towards Kentucky, which had been

explored by Daniel Boone in 1769, and later by other parties.[1479] In

April, a party of eighty or ninety Virginians made a rendezvous at the

mouth of the Little Kanawha, with the intention of descending the Ohio

and making a settlement in Kentucky. George Rogers Clark, whose name is

to appear later in more important transactions, then twenty-one years

of age, was one of the party. In a letter,[1480] written some years

later, to Dr. Samuel Brown, professor in Transylvania University, he

gives a clear account of the manner in which the Dunmore War began.

While camping at the rendezvous, "reports", says Clark, "from the

Indian towns were alarming, which caused many to decline meeting. A

small party of hunters below us had been fired on by the Indians,

which led us to believe that the Indians were determined to make war."

They resolved to surprise an Indian town on the Scioto, but had no

competent leader. "We knew of Captain Cresap being on the river, about

fifteen miles above us, with some hands, settling a plantation, and

intending to follow us to Kentucky as soon as he had fixed his people.

We also knew he had experience in a former war.[1481] It was proposed,

and unanimously agreed on, to send for him to command the party."

The messenger met Cresap on his way to Clark's camp. "A council was

called, and to our astonishment our intended general was the person

who dissuaded us from the enterprise, alleging that appearances were

suspicious, but there was no certainty of a war; that if we made the

attempt proposed, he had no doubt of success, but that a war would be

the result, and that we should be blamed for it, and perhaps justly. He

was asked what measure he would recommend to us. His answer was that

we should return to Wheeling to obtain intelligence of what was going

forward; that a few weeks would determine the matter; and if we should

find the Indians not hostilely disposed, we should have full time

to prosecute the intended settlements in Kentucky. This measure was

adopted, and in two hours we were under weigh."

On arriving at Wheeling, the people, being in a state of alarm,

flocked into their camp from every direction. All the hunters and men

without families joined them, and they became a formidable party. From

Pittsburg they received a message from Dr. Connolly requesting them to

keep their position until the messengers returned who had been sent to

the Indian towns. Before an answer could be received, a second message,

addressed to Captain Cresap, arrived by express from Pittsburg, stating

that war was inevitable. Cresap was entreated to use his influence

with the party to cover the country until the inhabitants could fortify

themselves. "The time of the reception of this letter", says Clark,

"was the epoch of open hostilities with the Indians. The war-post was

planted, a council called, the letter read, the ceremonies used by

the Indians on so important an occasion acted, and war was formally

declared. The same evening two scalps were brought into camp. The

following day some canoes of Indians were discovered descending the

river, taking advantage of an island to cover themselves from our view.

They were chased by our men fifteen miles down the river. They were

forced ashore, and a battle ensued. A few were wounded on both sides,

and we got one scalp only."

The more important charge brought against Cresap, of killing Logan's

family, George Rogers Clark disposed of in the same letter, as

follows:—

"On our return to camp [from Grave Creek] a resolution was formed

to march next day and attack Logan's camp on the Ohio [at Baker's

Bottom, opposite the mouth of Yellow Creek], about thirty miles above

Wheeling. We actually marched about five miles, and halted to take

refreshment. Here the impropriety of executing the proposed enterprise

was argued; the conversation was brought on by Cresap himself. It was

generally agreed that those Indians had no hostile intentions, as it

was a hunting party, composed of men, women, and children, with all

their stuff with them.... In short, every person present, particularly

Cresap, upon reflection, was opposed to the projected measure. We

returned, and on the same evening decamped and took the road to

Redstone. It was two days after this that Logan's family was killed;

and from the manner in which it was done, it was viewed as a horrid

murder by the whole country."

The killing of Logan's family was done by a party of whites living in

the vicinity, under the lead of one Greathouse, who was not a member of

the party of Cresap, nor, so far as appears, had he any acquaintance

with Cresap.[1482] The "Speech of Logan", which Jefferson printed

in his _Notes on Virginia_ (1787, p. 105), and accompanied with the

comment that Cresap was "a man infamous for his many murders he had

committed on these injured people",[1483] has perpetuated an unmerited

stigma upon the memory of an innocent and patriotic man. The speech for

a century has been regarded as a choice specimen of Indian eloquence,

and the youth of the land have worn it threadbare as a declamation

exercise.[1484]

The savagery and miseries of a border war now burst upon the Western

frontier. The settlers left their homes and took refuge in the forts,

and many new stockades were constructed. Roving bands of Indians swept

over the country, pillaging the farms and murdering every white person

they found. The Virginia government took prompt action in raising two

armies to invade the Indian country. One assembled at Lewisburg, in

Greenbriar County, under General Andrew Lewis; and the other at Fort

Pitt, under Lord Dunmore. General Lewis had orders to march to the

mouth of the Great Kanawha; and Lord Dunmore, descending the Ohio,

promised to meet him there. Early in June, while these forces were

collecting, Colonel Angus McDonald, with four hundred men, dropped down

the Ohio from Wheeling, and landing at Grave Creek, marched against

the Indians on the Muskingum, and found their village deserted. The

Indians, expecting the whites would cross the river in pursuit, were

prepared to receive them in an ambuscade; but finding that the whites

were now as well skilled in woodcraft as they, came in and proposed

terms of peace. Five chiefs were required of them as hostages. One of

these was liberated under the promise that he would bring in the chiefs

of other tribes to make peace. A second was sent out to find the first,

and neither returning, Colonel McDonald burnt their town, destroyed the

crops, and went back to Wheeling with the three hostage chiefs, whom he

sent to Williamsburg as prisoners.[1485]

General Lewis took up his march with eleven hundred men on the 11th

of September, and arriving at Point Pleasant, near the mouth of the

Great Kanawha, on the 6th of October, found that Lord Dunmore was not

there. On the 9th a despatch was received from his lordship, stating

that he had changed his plans, and should land at the mouth of the

Big Hockhocking. Lewis was ordered to cross the Ohio and meet him

near the Indian towns. The Indians had this information, doubtless,

before it was received by General Lewis, and resolved to attack his

camp forthwith before a junction of the two armies was made. The

battle came on the next morning while General Lewis was preparing to

cross the river, and was fought with the highest courage and skill on

both sides until evening, when the Indians were surprised by a flank

movement which they supposed was a reinforcement. They gave way and

retreated across the river. The Indians were commanded by the noted

chief Cornstalk.[1486] The battle of Point Pleasant ranks with Bushy

Run as one of the most plucky and evenly contested battles ever fought

between Indians and white soldiers. The losses of the Virginians were

seventy-five killed and one hundred and forty wounded. The losses of

the Indians, who fought under cover, were probably about the same, but

were not ascertained, as they threw their dead into the river.[1487]

Reinforced by several companies under Colonel Christian, General Lewis

crossed the river, with the intention of joining Lord Dunmore near

Chillicothe. At Salt Licks (now Jackson, Ohio) he had orders to halt

his troops. Suspecting the motives of Lord Dunmore, he disregarded the

orders and pressed on. Near Chillicothe Dunmore made a treaty with the

Ohio Indians, who promised not to hunt south of the Ohio, and not to

molest voyagers on the river. Lord Dunmore's conduct in changing the

plan of the campaign, which left General Lewis exposed to a separate

attack, and his subsequent conduct in making peace with the Indians

before he had punished them for their breach of former treaties, were

regarded by the soldiers engaged as premeditated treachery. This

impression was confirmed by the plot he later made with Indians to

ravage the settlements of Virginia, and by his hasty departure from the

colony. His real motives will never be known. The initial scenes in

the drama of the Revolutionary War were in progress. His position as a

Tory governor was embarrassing, and naturally inspired suspicion in the

minds of the colonists.[1488]

While the Dunmore War was in progress, the "Quebec Bill" was discussed

and enacted by the British Parliament. The bill so enlarged the

boundaries of the province of Quebec that it made the Ohio and

Mississippi rivers its southern and western limits, and the whole

Northwest territory a part of Canada. The bill in its passage did

not escape the protest of Lord Chatham, Edmund Burke, Charles James

Fox, Colonel Barré, and the corporation of the city of London.[1489]

The colonies, at the time of the enactment of the Quebec Bill, made

complaint concerning it "for establishing the Roman Catholic religion

in the province of Quebec, abolishing the equitable system of English

laws, and erecting a tyranny there, to the great danger (from so total

a dissimilarity of religion, law, and government) of the neighboring

colonies."[1490] Its real purpose and effect, however, of robbing

the American colonies of 240,000 square miles of territory which had

already been ceded to them in their charters, and establishing the

Mississippi and the Ohio rivers as Canadian boundaries, in case of war

and a separation of the Eastern colonies from the mother country, were

not mentioned, and seem not to have been considered. The colonies then

had little interest in, and scarcely a thought of, the country beyond

the Alleghanies. During the war, however, they learned something of the

value of the West; and in the negotiations for peace, in 1782-3, the

Quebec Bill was often recurred to as one of the principal causes of the

Revolution.[1491]

* * * * *

For several years after the close of the Dunmore War the Western

Indians were again quiet. They heard with satisfaction of the opening

battles of the Revolution, and were not in haste to take the war-path

for either side. Except at the British post of Detroit, the sentiments

of the settlers west of the mountains were intensely anti-English. The

Eastern colonies were too much occupied in their own defence to give

any attention to what was happening at the West. The hardy pioneers,

left to themselves, conducted their own campaigns. They were not

enrolled in the Continental army, and they knew little of, and cared

less for, the Continental Congress and the great commander-in-chief

of the army. They recognized only the authority of Virginia; and,

as voluntary and patriotic rangers, they achieved some of the most

important and brilliant victories of the war, concerning which the

official proceedings of Congress, and the voluminous correspondence of

Washington and of other prominent actors in the war, make scarcely a

mention.

The northeastern portion of Kentucky was explored by Dr. Walker in

1747, the central portion by Daniel Boone and others in 1769, and the

northwestern portion in 1773. The first log cabin in Kentucky was built

by James Harrod at Harrodsburg, Mercer County, in 1774, and the first

fort by Boone, at Boonesborough, Madison County, in June, 1775.[1492]

About this time George Rogers Clark made an exploring tour in

Kentucky, and in the autumn returned to his home in Albemarle County,

Virginia.[1493] In the following spring he went back to Kentucky; and,

in view of the depredations which the Ohio Indians were committing on

the settlements, called a meeting of the pioneers at Harrodsburg to

devise a plan of defence. His plan was to appoint delegates who should

proceed to Williamsburg and petition the Assembly that Kentucky be

made a county of Virginia. The meeting, however, acting before his

arrival and against his judgment, elected him and Gabriel Jones to be

members of the Virginia Assembly. Their journey through the trackless

wilderness and across the mountains was attended with great suffering,

and they arrived after the legislature had adjourned. Patrick Henry

was the governor. Before him and the Council, Clark laid the claim

of Kentuckians to be regarded as citizens of Virginia, and asked for

five hundred pounds of powder as a gift for their protection. He was

heard with attention and respect, but was told that the Council had

no authority to furnish the gunpowder as a gift. It could be loaned

to the Kentuckians as friends, but not as citizens. Clark refused to

accept it on such conditions, and left, saying, "A country which is

not worth defending is not worth claiming." He was called back, and an

order on the commandant at Fort Pitt was given to him for the powder.

At the autumn session of the legislature Kentucky was made a county of

Virginia.[1494]

On returning to Kentucky Clark found the country more disturbed than

ever. The Ohio Indians were invading it with larger parties; they

lay in ambush about every fort,[1495] and murdered the luckless

soldier of the garrison who ventured outside the stockade. Clark

seriously pondered over this alarming state of affairs, and came to

the conclusion that the strategic points for defending Kentucky were

on the north side of the Ohio River. He had probably never heard

of Scipio Africanus and of his policy of fighting the enemy in the

enemy's country. Without disclosing his thoughts to any one, he sent,

during the summer of 1777, two young hunters as spies to Kaskaskia

and Vincennes, and, having received favorable reports, started in

October[1496] for Williamsburg. There, on December 10th, he laid before

Governor Henry his plan for the conquest of the Northwest territory

from the British, whom he regarded as the instigators of the Indian

raids upon Kentucky. He also consulted confidentially with George

Mason, George Wythe, and Thomas Jefferson. They, with the governor,

were enthusiastic for the execution of his scheme and took immediate

steps to furnish him with ammunition and supplies.

[Illustration: A PLAN OF CASCASKIES (_Kaskaskia_).

Reduced from a plate in Philip Pittman's _Present State of the European

Settlements on the Mississippi_ (London, 1770). KEY: A, The fort. B,

The Jesuits. C, Formerly commanding officer's house. D, The church. The

river is about 450 feet wide, which will afford a scale to the rest of

the plan.—ED.]

The recent surrender of Burgoyne at Saratoga had inspired a new energy

in the conduct of the war. The necessary legislation was obtained under

the pretext that the supplies were for the defence of Kentucky. Twelve

hundred pounds, in the depreciated currency of Virginia, was voted him

for expenses in the enemy's country. In January, 1778, Clark received

from Governor Henry the rank of colonel, and two sets of instructions:

one, which was public, for the defence of Kentucky; and the other,

which was secret, for an "attack on the British post at Kaskaskia."

He was empowered to raise seven companies, of fifty men each, in any

county of the commonwealth, to act as militia under his orders.[1497]

He began recruiting, under his public orders, at Fort Pitt, but with

little success, owing to quarrels between Virginia and Pennsylvania,

and the opposition to the policy of sending soldiers, who were needed

there, to defend Kentucky.[1498] After much tribulation he raised

three companies, and took them down the river to Corn Island, at the

Falls of the Ohio, opposite Louisville. Several companies that had

been recruited elsewhere were promised him, but they did not arrive.

Some of his men deserted, but enough Kentuckians joined him to make

up four companies, or nearly two hundred men.[1499] Here he divulged

the secret of their destination, and read to the men his confidential

instructions. They willingly accepted the situation, and the next day

the expedition started. As their boats shot the falls, the sun was

in total eclipse, which fixes the date as June 24, 1778. He had just

received from Fort Pitt the news of the treaty of alliance between

France and the United States, which he could use to advantage with the

French settlers at Kaskaskia. With two relays at the oars, he ran the

boats day and night, and on the 28th landed on an island at the mouth

of the Cherokee (Tennessee) River. Here a party of white hunters, who

had been at Kaskaskia eight days before, was brought in, and they

volunteered to accompany him. Nine miles below the island, and one

mile above old Fort Massac, they ran into a small creek, concealed

their boats, and without a cannon,[1500] a horse, or any means of

transporting baggage or supplies, took up their march of more than a

hundred miles across the prairies.[1501]

On the afternoon of July 4th they arrived within three miles of

Kaskaskia, the river of that name lying between them and the town.

There they remained concealed until dark, when they marched to a

farm-house on the east bank of the river, about a mile north of the

town, captured boats, crossed the river, and found that the people

of the town, who a few days before had been under arms expecting an

attack, were not aware of their approach. "I immediately", writes

Clark, "divided my little army into two divisions: ordered one to

surround the town; with the other I broke into the fort,[1502] secured

the governor, Mr. Rocheblave, [and] in fifteen minutes had every

street secured; sent runners through the town, ordering the people on

pain of death to keep close to their houses, which they observed; and

before daylight had the whole town disarmed."[1503]

[Illustration: A SECTION OF LIEUT. ROSS'S MAP OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.]

Clark had been informed by the hunters who accompanied him that the

French residents of Kaskaskia regarded the Kentuckians, whom they

called _Big-Knives_, as more savage than Indians; and resolving to

make use of this impression, he gave them a shock which would enable

them later to appreciate his lenity. The troops, therefore, kept up

during the night the most hideous noises; and the residents, believing

they had indeed fallen into the hands of savages, gave themselves up as

lost. In the morning Clark had for them another surprise. M. Gibault,

the priest, with some aged citizens, came to him and begged that the

people might once more assemble in their church, hold a service, and

take leave of each other, which request was readily granted. When the

service was over a deputation came and said the people would submit to

the fate of war and the loss of their property, but asked that they

might not be separated from their wives and children. "Do you mistake

us for savages?" said Clark. "My countrymen disdain to make war upon

women and children. It was to prevent the horrors of Indian butchery

upon our wives and children that we have taken up arms and appear in

this stronghold of British and Indian barbarity. Now please inform

your fellow-citizens that they are at liberty to conduct themselves as

usual without the least apprehension." They were told of the treaty

of alliance with France, and that if he could have surety of their

attachment to the American cause they could enjoy all the privileges

of its government, and their property would be secure to them. The

people were transported with joy, and took the oath of allegiance to

the State of Virginia. They also raised a company of volunteers, who

accompanied Major Bowman to Cahokia, a French settlement sixty miles

north of Kaskaskia. That town readily gave its adhesion to the American

cause. Clark also put himself in friendly relations with the Spanish

commandant at St. Louis.[1504]

Clark next turned his attention to the British post of Vincennes.

M. Gibault, the friendly priest, in view of what had taken place

at Kaskaskia and Cahokia, thought that it was unnecessary to send

troops to Vincennes. The post was in his spiritual jurisdiction, and

he offered to undertake the mission himself, with several persons

accompanying him. The result was the same as at Cahokia. The few

British soldiers at the post could make no resistance to the popular

sentiment, and withdrew to Detroit. Clark, having no troops to spare,

allowed the residents, after taking the oath, to garrison and to be

responsible for the safety of the fort, which he put in charge of one

of his own officers, Captain Leonard Helm, who retained one of his own

privates. M. Gibault returned to Kaskaskia about the 1st of August;

and Clark, in less than one month after his arrival, was in possession

of every British post in the Illinois country, without a battle or the

loss of a life.[1505]

A problem now demanded solution which was of so difficult a nature that

it would challenge the sagacity and resources of a veteran commander,

and Clark was not a veteran. He was twenty-five years of age, and his

only military experience had been as a ranger in Kentucky, and as a

captain in the short and bloodless campaign of Lord Dunmore. How was he

to hold this immense territory with less than two hundred three-months

militiamen, whose term of enlistment had already expired, and with

no hope of receiving recruits from Kentucky or Virginia? The British

commander could send down a force which would outnumber his ten to one.

The savage tribes which had ravaged Kentucky could by concerted action

overwhelm his scanty force. The Virginia currency which he brought to

pay for supplies he found would buy nothing in the Illinois country. It

was fortunate for the nation and the Western States that George Rogers

Clark was equal to the emergency, and that he had the self-reliance and

sagacity to solve the problem successfully.

By his personal entreaties and promises to pay his men, about one

hundred of them reënlisted. The others he sent home, with despatches,

and with M. Rocheblave, the late commander at Kaskaskia, as a prisoner,

to Governor Henry at Williamsburg.[1506] His four companies he soon

filled up with resident French recruits, and pretended that he could

get all the American soldiers he wanted at the Falls of the Ohio.

He next undertook the pacification and control of the Indian tribes.

His sudden appearance in the Illinois country and rapid capture of the

Western posts was the occasion of astonishment to the Western tribes;

and their chiefs from a range of five hundred miles flocked to Cahokia

to see the strange warrior of the "Big Knives." Clark met them there

in council with a stern and haughty dignity. Soft speeches to Indians

before they were under control he regarded as bad policy. He showed no

fear in their presence, and no anxiety for their friendship. He laid

before them a war-belt and a peace-belt, and told them to take their

choice. If they did not want to have their own women and children

killed, they must stop killing the women and children of the Americans.

One chief after another rose and made submissive speeches. He refused

to smoke the peace-pipe with any until he had heard from every tribe

represented, and treaties were concluded. All the tribes gave in their

allegiance to the American cause, and he had no further trouble with

the Illinois Indians. The councils at Cahokia lasted five weeks, and

their influence extended to all the nations around the great lakes.

Captain Helm, under Clark's instructions, made similar treaties with

the Wabash Indians.

The training and discipline of his little army now received his

attention, and in order to conceal his weakness in numbers he allowed

no parade except of the guards. About Christmas, 1778, he heard from

his spies that Governor Hamilton was preparing to send an army into the

Illinois country; and later, that Hamilton with eight hundred men had

descended the Wabash and recaptured Vincennes.[1507] Early in January

Hamilton sent a scouting party to Kaskaskia to waylay and capture

Clark, and it came near succeeding while Clark was returning from a

visit to Cahokia. This party was supposed to be an advanced guard of

Hamilton's army, and every preparation was made to defend the town.

On the 29th of January, 1779, Colonel François Vigo,[1508] a Spanish

merchant of St. Louis, arrived from Vincennes, and reported that

Hamilton had sent away his Indians and most of his troops, leaving

only eighty in the garrison; and that he was intending to collect them

in the spring, and with five hundred Southern Indians make a campaign

against Kaskaskia.

Clark now conceived the project of capturing Vincennes with his small

force before Hamilton could reassemble his troops, and its execution

forms one of the most daring and brilliant expeditions in American

warfare. On the 4th of February he sent off a large boat called "The

Willing", mounting two four-pounders and six swivels, under command of

Lieutenant John Rogers, who had forty-six men and orders to sail for

the Wabash, and, ten leagues below Vincennes, await further orders. On

the next day Clark crossed the Kaskaskia River with one hundred and

seventy men, marched three miles, and encamped. On the 7th he began

his painful march across the Illinois prairies, a distance as a bird

flies of one hundred and forty miles, but as he marched, of more than

two hundred. The winter was breaking up, the rivers were swollen, the

prairies were covered with water and ice, and the mud was such as can

only be found in that rich alluvial country. On the 13th they reached

the banks of the Little Wabash. Before them lay a stretch of water

three miles wide and from three to four feet deep. They made a canoe,

and on the 15th ferried the ammunition across and took the men over the

channel, marching them the remaining distance through the water. On the

16th their provisions ran short. Major Bowman's journal says: "17th,

marched early; crossed several runs very deep; came to the Embarrass

River; tried to cross; found it impossible; travelled till 8 o'clock

in mud and water, but could find no place to encamp on. 18th, came in

sight of the swollen banks of the Wabash; made rafts for four men to

cross and go up to the town and steal boats; but they spend day and

night in the water to no purpose, for there is not one foot of dry land

to be found. 19th, Colonel Clark sent two men in the canoe down the

river to meet the bateau 'The Willing,' with orders to come on day and

night, that being our last hope, and we starving; no provisions of any

sort now two days." On the 20th they found some canoes and killed a

deer. On the 21st the little army plunged into the water and waded for

more than a league,—Clark says "breast high", Bowman says "sometimes

to the neck", the boats picking up such as were likely to drown. On

the 22d, says Bowman, "Clark encourages his men, which gave them great

spirits; marched on in the waters; those that were weak and famished

went in the canoes; no provisions yet; Lord help us." On the 23d they

crossed the Wabash, wading four miles through water breast-high. "We

plunged into it with courage, Colonel Clark being first, taking care

to have the boats take those that were weak and numbed with the cold."

Having crossed, they captured an Indian canoe with some buffalo meat,

tallow and corn, which were made into a broth and fed to the famishing

men, who soon recovered their strength.[1509] No tidings had come from

"The Willing", for she had not yet arrived.[1510]

The town was but a few miles distant, and was unaware of his approach.

Clark resolved not to delay the attack until the boat had arrived with

his artillery and ammunition, but to capture the fort immediately

with the men and means he had. Before moving on the town he wrote a

proclamation, addressed to the inhabitants, worded in his peculiar

style, and advising all "friends of the king to instantly repair to

the fort, join their _hair-buying_[1511] general, and fight like men.

True friends of liberty may depend on being well treated; but they must

keep out of the streets, for every one I find in arms on my arrival I

shall treat as an enemy." The same evening he marched, took possession

of the town, and threw up earthworks in front of the fort. The firing

began immediately, and was kept up all night. His men lay in rifle-pits

within thirty yards of the walls, the cannon of the fort being so

mounted that they could not be trained upon them. Whenever port-holes

of the fort were opened to fire, the besiegers poured in a volley of

musket-balls, and severely wounded seven of the garrison. Two pieces of

cannon were silenced in fifteen minutes. In the morning, Clark summoned

Hamilton to surrender, stating that if he were obliged to storm the

fort, Hamilton would receive the treatment due to a murderer. "Beware",

he added, "of destroying stores of any kind, or any papers or letters

that are in your possession; for, by heavens, if you do, there will

be no mercy shown you."[1512] While these negotiations were pending,

Clark's men took the first full meal they had had for eight days. The

summons to surrender was refused, and the firing went on.

[Illustration: CLARK'S SUMMONS.

From a manuscript kindly furnished by Lyman C. Draper, Esq., of

Madison, Wis., who owns a large number of Clark's papers. Cf. R. G.

Thwaites on Draper, in the _Mag. Western Hist._, Jan., 1887. The above

letter was addressed thus:—

[Illustration]]

Later in the day, Governor Hamilton asked for a truce of three days,

and for a conference as to terms. Clark replied that he would consider

no other terms than surrender at discretion; but that he, with Captain

Helm, would meet "Mr. Hamilton at the church." At this time a party of

Indians came in whom Hamilton had sent to the Ohio for scalps. Clark's

men tomahawked them in front of the fort, and threw their bodies

into the river.[1513] Clark's terms of capitulation were accepted;

and at ten o'clock the next day (the 25th) the fort and its stores

were delivered up, and the garrison of seventy-nine officers and men

surrendered as prisoners of war.[1514] The only casualty to Clark's

soldiers was one man slightly wounded.

Hearing that a convoy with provisions, clothing, and ammunition was on

its way to Vincennes from Detroit, Clark sent fifty-three men in boats

up the Wabash to intercept it.[1515] They met the convoy one hundred

and twenty miles up the river, and captured it, with forty prisoners

and despatches for Hamilton.[1516] The value of the goods captured

was £10,000, and Clark's men, who had been suffering for clothing and

supplies, were bountifully provided for. Clothing to the value of

£800 was laid aside for the troops which Clark expected would soon

join him in an expedition, which he was planning, for the capture of

Detroit.[1517] This project had been on his mind ever since he came

into the Illinois country, and all his energies were now directed to

its execution. Not being able with his few troops to guard so many

prisoners, he sent Governor Hamilton, his principal officers, and a few

other persons who had made themselves especially obnoxious by being out

with Indian parties, as prisoners of war to Virginia, and paroled the

remainder.[1518]

Having met and established friendly relations with the chiefs of the

neighboring tribes, he placed Captain Helm in charge of the civil

affairs of Vincennes, Lieutenant Brashear in command of the fort with a

garrison of forty men, and embarked, on March 20, 1779, for Kaskaskia,

on board "The Willing" and seven other boats. They made the trip of

three hundred and fifty miles without casualty, and on arriving at

Kaskaskia, after an absence of seven weeks, were welcomed by Captain

Robert George, who, with his company of forty-one men, had come up from

New Orleans, and was in command of the post.

The military conquest of the Illinois country now being complete, a

civil government was forthwith established. The Assembly of Virginia

was prompt to act as soon as the capture of Kaskaskia was known. In

October, 1778, the territory northwest of the Ohio was constituted a

county of Virginia, and was named the county of Illinois.[1519] On

December 12th, Colonel John Todd was appointed county lieutenant.

The governor in his letter of instructions directed Colonel Todd to

coöperate with Colonel Clark in his military operations, to have care

for the happiness, increase, and prosperity of the county, and to see

that justice was duly administered. Colonel Todd's appointment was

especially pleasing to Colonel Clark, who said, in writing to George

Mason: "The civil department in the Illinois had heretofore robbed me

of too much of my time that ought to be spent in military reflection.

I was now likely to be relieved by Colonel John Todd. I was anxious

for his arrival and happy in his appointment, as the greatest intimacy

and friendship had subsisted between us. I now saw myself rid of a

piece of trouble that I had no delight in."[1520] Colonel Todd arrived

in Kaskaskia in May, 1779. Courts of justice and militia companies

were immediately organized in Kaskaskia, Cahokia, and Vincennes,[1521]

and, from the lack of American citizens who were qualified, nearly

all the official positions were filled by French residents.[1522] A

complete civil government was organized and regularly administered

in the Northwest territory until the treaty of peace with Great

Britain in 1783. This local government became an important factor in

the negotiations for that treaty, with reference to the question of

boundaries.

Colonel Clark had promises of troops from Virginia and Kentucky for

his Detroit expedition, and he was to meet them at Vincennes. Arriving

there in July, 1779, he found only thirty from Kentucky of the three

hundred promised him. There were no tidings of recruits from Virginia;

and Major Bowman, his trusty companion in former campaigns, was

fighting the Shawanese on the Ohio at a disadvantage.[1523] Clark,

being very impatient, sent out officers to recruit in the settlements,

and for this purpose went himself to the Falls of the Ohio. Here he

received a letter from Jefferson, now the governor of Virginia, giving

him new assurances of Virginia troops for the Detroit expedition, and

stating that it was his intention to build a fort on the Mississippi,

below the mouth of the Ohio, in order to strengthen the claim of the

United States to the Mississippi as its western boundary. The duty of

building this fort was later committed to and performed by Colonel

Clark. The fort was completed in June, 1780, and was called Fort

Jefferson.[1524]

At this time twelve hundred Indians and Canadians from Detroit,

with artillery, under Captain Byrd, were coming silently down the

Big Miami river to invade Kentucky and help carry out a scheme of

conquest soon to be explained. They went up the Licking river,

captured two stockades, which were defenceless against cannon,

committed the customary British and Indian barbarities, and, although

meeting with no opposition, retreated as rapidly as they came. In

explanation of the sudden retreat it has been said that the British

commander was shocked at the brutal conduct of his Indians, and

would proceed no further.[1525] In view of the habitual practice of

the British commanders at Detroit of paying the Indians for American

scalps,[1526]—a practice Clark alludes to in the term "hair-buying

general", which he applied to Governor Hamilton,—this explanation

is charitable, but it seems hardly probable. It is more likely that

Captain Byrd and his Indians heard the report that Colonel Clark had

suddenly returned from his defence of St. Louis and the Illinois

country against Sinclair's Indians, and was likely to make it a

busy summer for the invaders in Kentucky. Clark with two companions

proceeded to Harrodsburg to enlist troops. He there closed the land

office, and soon had a thousand men with artillery at the mouth of the

Licking, ready for an expedition across the Ohio. He moved rapidly

upon Chilicothe and other Indian towns, which he destroyed, with their

crops, and also a British trading-post where the Indians had been

supplied with arms and ammunition.

Clark's favorite scheme of organizing an expedition for the capture of

Detroit was delayed, and his spirit chafed under the disappointment.

Jefferson was deeply interested in the project, and, Sept. 26, 1780,

wrote an earnest letter to General Washington, urging him to furnish

the means. "We have long meditated the attempt, under the direction of

Colonel Clark, but the expense has obliged us to decline it. We could

furnish the men, provisions, and every[thing] necessary, except powder,

had we the money. When I speak of furnishing the men, I mean they

should be militia, for such is the popularity of Colonel Clark, and

the confidence of the Western people in him, that he could raise the

requisite number at any time."[1527] On Dec. 15th he writes again, in

more urgent terms, and says: "The regular force Colonel Clark already

has, with a proper draft from the militia beyond the Alleghany, and

that of three or four of our northern counties, will be adequate for

the reduction of Fort Detroit, in the opinion of Colonel Clark.... I am

the more urgent for an immediate order, because Colonel Clark awaits

here your Excellency's answer by the express."[1528] Washington was

also impressed with the military importance of Clark's expedition,

and, Dec. 29th, instructed Colonel Brodhead, in command at Fort Pitt,

to furnish Clark with the artillery and stores he required, and

such a detachment of Brodhead's and Gibson's regiments as could be

spared.[1529]

Colonel Brodhead did not acknowledge General Washington's instructions,

which were placed in Colonel Clark's hands to deliver, until the 25th

of February, and they did not reach him until the 21st.[1530] During

this interval of nearly two months, Benedict Arnold, with fifteen

hundred British troops, sailed up the James River, and was ravaging

Virginia, which, from the absence of its Continental soldiers, was

almost defenceless.[1531] In this emergency, Colonel Clark tendered

his services to Baron Steuben in her defence, and with a small body of

militia received the enemy in Indian and Western fashion. Jefferson,

writing, Jan. 18, 1781, to the Virginia delegates in Congress, says:

"Baron Steuben had not reached Hood's by eight or ten miles, when they

[the enemy] arrived there. They landed their whole army in the night,

Arnold attending in person. Captain Clark (of Kaskaskias) had been sent

forward with two hundred and forty men by Baron Steuben; and, having

properly disposed of them in ambuscade, gave them a deliberate fire,

which killed seventeen on the spot and wounded thirteen."[1532]

Colonel Clark's outfit at Fort Pitt went on very slowly and with

many embarrassments. Writing, with the rank of brigadier-general,

to Washington, on the 26th of May, 1781, he says: "The invasion of

Virginia put it out of the power of the governor to furnish me with the

number of men proposed for the enterprise to the West."[1533] Colonel

Brodhead did not feel that he could spare the troops at the fort

which were promised. Clark's only hope was now in getting Continental

troops. "But I have not yet lost sight of Detroit", he says, and

wishes to set out on the expedition early in June. He was doomed to

disappointment. The summer and autumn wore away, and the obstacles in

his path increased. The troops he expected were employed elsewhere;

the Western Indians again became hostile, and there was a general

apprehension among the settlements of incursions upon them from Detroit

by the British and their Indian allies. The opportunity of capturing

Detroit had passed. General Irvine, in command at Fort Pitt, writing

to Washington, Dec. 2, 1781, says: "I presume your Excellency has

been informed by the governor of Virginia, or General Clark, of the

failure of his expedition." He reports General Clark at the Rapids of

the Ohio with only seven hundred and fifty men, and "the buffalo meat

all rotten." "The general is apprehensive of a visit from Detroit, and

is not without fears the settlement will be obliged to break up unless

reinforcements soon arrive from Virginia."[1534]

At this point, George Rogers Clark, at the age of twenty-nine years,

ceased to be a factor in Western history. His favorite scheme had

failed under circumstances which he could not control. No command

was offered him in the Continental army. With a feeling that he was

neglected, that his eminent services were not appreciated, and with a

sense of wrong that his private property had been sacrificed to pay

public debts,[1535] his mind became depressed, and he fell into social

habits which tended to increase his despondency. In November, 1782, he

conducted a force of ten hundred and fifty men against the Indians on

the Miami, took ten scalps and seven prisoners, burned their towns,

destroyed their crops and the outfit of a British trading-post;[1536]

but he displayed none of the brilliancy shown in his earlier

campaigns. He was discharged from the service of Virginia July 2,

1783, with a letter of thanks for his services from the governor. The

financial distress of the State was assigned as the motive for his

discharge.[1537]

In March, 1782, the frontier settlers, without provocation and in

cold blood, butchered nearly a hundred "Christian Indians" in the

Moravian mission settlements on the Muskingum. These Indians, under

the instruction of their teachers, had adopted the habits and pursuits

of civilized life, and were non-resistant in their principles. Their

villages, Schönbrun, Gnadenhütten, and Salem, were regularly laid out,

with houses and chapels built of squared logs and having shingled

roofs. They had farms yielding abundant crops, and schools where the

children were educated. Visitors from Western tribes far and near

came to look upon the strange sight, and verify the reports which

had reached them of the happiness and prosperity of the "Christian

Indians." The number of converts had increased so rapidly that good

Father David Zeisberger and his assistant, John Heckewelder, the

missionaries, believed that the whole Delaware tribe would soon come

under their influence.[1538]

With the outbreak of the American Revolution the troubles of these

gentle missionaries and their converts began. They were between two

raging fires. Their peace principles forbade their engaging in the

conflict or favoring either side, although their sympathies, which they

could not express, were with the Americans. As a natural consequence

of their neutrality, they fell under the suspicion and hatred of both

parties. The British at Detroit were eager to secure all the Ohio

tribes in their interest, and the missionaries made the Delawares

pledge themselves to remain neutral. It was also suspected, and it was

doubtless true, that the Moravians gave information to the Americans

as to the movements of hostile tribes. The British, therefore, were

of the opinion that the Moravian settlements were in secret alliance

with the enemy, and they resolved to break up the settlements and

remove the inhabitants to Sandusky.[1539] On the other hand, the

settlers on the frontiers of Pennsylvania and Virginia hated the

"Christian Indians", first, and chiefly, because they were Indians;

and secondly, because they allowed the Wyandots to come among them,

and had fed and hospitably treated other hostile tribes which had made

raids on the white settlements. In the autumn of 1781 Colonel David

Williamson raised a company of volunteers in western Pennsylvania to

visit the Moravian towns and remove the inhabitants to Fort Pitt; but

in the execution of the scheme he was anticipated by the British and

their Indian allies, the Shawanese,[1540] Wyandots, and Hurons, who

were there before him. On August 10, 1781, one Matthew Elliott, in

the service of the governor of Detroit, and Half-King, a chief of the

Hurons, appeared at Gnadenhütten with three hundred whites and Indians

flying the British flag. Without offering personal violence, they urged

the missionaries and converts to abandon the Muskingum country, and

place themselves under the protection of the British at Sandusky, on

the ground that they were in constant peril from the white settlers

on the border. Having declined the offer of British protection, their

fears were appealed to, their cattle were shot, and their houses

ravaged by the Indians. Worn out by fear and persecution, on September

11th they turned their unwilling steps from the valley of the Muskingum

towards Sandusky, under the charge of their uninvited escorts.[1541]

Having reached their destination, the missionaries were sent to Detroit

to answer before the governor to charges made against them, and were

acquitted.[1542]

During the winter the captives at Sandusky suffered from want of proper

shelter and food, and a party of a hundred went back to the deserted

villages to gather corn which had been left standing in the fields.

A report of their return reached the white settlements, and Colonel

Williamson, without any civil or military authority, again picked up

a company of volunteers and started for the Muskingum country. On his

former expedition he brought back several Indians whom the British

party had overlooked, and after the form of a trial at Fort Pitt they

were released. The colonel was blamed by the people that he had not

shot the Indians at sight. Arriving at the deserted towns, he found the

"Christian Indians" harvesting their corn and suspecting no danger. He

told them that he had come to remove them to Fort Pitt, and ordered

them to a building, where they were confined. A vote was then taken by

his men, whether the prisoners should be taken to Fort Pitt or put to

death. Only eighteen voted to spare their lives. The captives were

informed of their fate, and were told that, "inasmuch as they were

Christians, they would be given one night to prepare for death in a

Christian manner." In the morning they were tomahawked and butchered

in the most shocking manner. "Thus", said Loskei, the Moravian bishop,

"ninety-six persons magnified the name of the Lord by patiently meeting

a cruel death."[1543]

* * * * *

Another expedition, known as the "Crawford Campaign", was forthwith

organized, the purpose of which was to exterminate the Wyandots and

the Moravian Delawares on the Sandusky, and to give no quarter to

any Indian. Colonel Williamson was again the chief organizer, and

probably the same men were enlisted who had disgraced themselves on the

Muskingum. Colonel William Crawford,[1544] who had seen much service

in the Continental army, was put in command, much against his wishes,

and Williamson was second in rank. On May 25, 1782, four hundred well

equipped and mounted backwoodsmen, breathing vengeance against the

red men, started out from Mingo Bottom, on the Ohio, for the Sandusky

country, a journey of one hundred and fifty miles. Nineteen days later

a remnant of them returned to the same spot, a defeated and demoralized

rabble, with a loss of seventy killed, wounded, and missing. The

Indians knew their plans, and had time to summon the neighboring

tribes and to procure British soldiers and artillery from Detroit. Two

battles were fought, in which they were outnumbered and outgeneralled,

and it was fortunate that any of them escaped. Stragglers came in

daily, reporting the sufferings and cruel tortures they had undergone,

but none of them could report the fate of Colonel Crawford. He was

captured, and the barbarity of the Indian mind exhausted itself in the

ingenuity of the tortures with which he was put to death.[1545]

On May 26, 1780, a raid was made on the Spanish post of St. Louis by

a party of fifteen hundred Indians and a hundred and forty English

and Canadian traders, fitted out by Lieutenant-Governor Sinclair, of

Michilimacinac, and led by a Sioux chief named Wabasha. The affair

lasted only a few hours, and no assault was made on the fortified

enclosure; but a considerable number of persons found on their farms

or intercepted outside of the palisades were shot or captured. A

portion of the party crossed the Mississippi and made a similar raid

on Cahokia. They all then left for their northern homes as rapidly as

they came,—some by way of the Wisconsin and Fox rivers, and others by

way of the Illinois River to Chicago, where Sinclair had two vessels

awaiting them.

This affair has been the occasion of many conflicting statements[1546]

as to the time it occurred, the number of persons killed and captured,

and how it happened that so large a body of Indians in the British

service came so far and did so little which was warlike. It has been

often asserted, and as often denied, that George Rogers Clark, at the

request of the Spanish commandant, was at St. Louis at the time of

the incursion, or so near as to render efficient service. The purpose

and character of this expedition, and the causes of its failure, are

explained by contemporary documents[1547] recently published, which

were not accessible to earlier writers. It was a part of a much larger

scheme ordered, and perhaps devised, by the cabinet in London, to

capture New Orleans and all the Spanish posts west of the Mississippi

and the Illinois country.[1548]

On May 8, 1779, Spain declared war against Great Britain, and on

July 8 authorized her American subjects to make war upon Natchez and

other English posts on the east bank of the Mississippi.[1549] On

June 17, Lord George Germain, secretary for the colonies, wrote to

General Haldimand, informing him that Spain had declared war, and

that hostilities were to begin at once; and he was ordered to attack

New Orleans and reduce the Spanish posts on the Mississippi.[1550]

These orders were issued in a circular letter sent to all the Western

governors. Sinclair acknowledged the circular February 17, 1780, and

informed the general that he had taken steps to engage the Sioux and

other tribes west of the Mississippi for the expedition.[1551] De

Peyster at Detroit wrote to Haldimand, March 8, that he had taken

measures "to facilitate Sinclair's movements on the Mississippi, and

be of use to Brigadier Campbell, if he has not already taken New

Orleans. The Wabash Indians will amuse Clark at the Falls of the

Ohio."[1552] The general scheme here touched upon was, that General

Campbell, stationed at Pensacola, should, with a British fleet and

army, come up the Mississippi to Natchez, and there meet the Indian

expedition sent by Sinclair down the western bank of the river, which

was under instructions to capture and destroy the Spanish posts on its

way. The united forces were then to expel the Spaniards from all their

settlements on the lower Mississippi. The scheme miscarried. Governor

Galvez, of New Orleans, a person of great ability and energy, no sooner

heard of the declaration of war against Great Britain than he raised

a fleet and army to capture the British posts on the Mississippi; and

in September, 1779, the forts at Manchac, Baton Rouge, and Natchez,

with their garrisons, surrendered to him. He took also eight English

vessels employed in transport service, and in carrying the supply of

provisions to Pensacola.[1553] Galvez next turned his attention to

Mobile, which he captured March 14, 1780; and then to Pensacola, which

surrendered May 9, 1781. Brigadier Campbell, therefore, in May, 1780,

was otherwise engaged than in executing the splendid scheme which had

been assigned to him by the British cabinet and his superior officer,

General Haldimand.[1554]

It does not appear that, at the time of the attack on St. Louis,

Sinclair, or the party of Indians and traders engaged in the

expedition, had heard of the successes of the Spaniards on the lower

Mississippi, and of the collapse of the main scheme.[1555] Haldimand

furnished Sinclair with the latter information in a letter written at

Quebec, June 19th, twenty-four days after the fiasco at St. Louis, and

supposing, apparently, that the expedition had not moved from Prairie

du Chien. "I have received", he said, "your letters of the 15th and

17th of February, and much approve of the measures they advise me you

have taken in the arrangement of the war parties intended to favor

the operation of Brig. General Campbell, agreeably to the circular

letter forwarded to you.... It is very unfortunate that the [Campbell]

expedition should have been either abandoned or not undertaken so early

as was intended, owing probably to the fleet having been dispersed,

which, from what has happened upon the Mississippi, would appear has

been the case. The intermediate attacks you have proposed the Indians

should make will, however, answer a good end."[1556]

That Colonel George Rogers Clark was present on the opposite bank

of the river at the time of the St. Louis attack, and was there by

request of the Spanish commandant, Leyba, and for the defence of the

Illinois country, can no longer be doubted.[1557] The proof is in a

report of Col. John Montgomery, printed in the _Calendar of Virginia

State Papers_ (iii. 443). Montgomery was one of Clark's four captains

in his Kaskaskia campaign, and at the period of which he speaks was

in command, under Clark, of the post of Kaskaskia. In his report he

states: "In the spring of 1780 we [at Kaskaskia] were threatened with

an invasion. Colonel Clark, being informed of it, hurried with a small

body of troops from the Falls to the mouth of the Ohio, where he

received other expresses from the Spanish commandant and myself, and

luckily joined me at Cohos [Cahokia] in time enough to save the country

from impending ruin, as the enemy appeared in great force within

twenty-four hours after his arrival. Finding they were likely to be

disappointed in their design, they retired after doing some mischief on

the Spanish shore, which would have been prevented if unfortunately

the high wind had not prevented the signals being heard." It is

evident from this statement that the defence of his own territory was

Clark's chief motive for being present on this occasion, and that the

invitation of and friendship for the Spanish commandant at St. Louis

were mere incidents in the transaction. "Prisoners and deserters from

the enemy confirmed the report", says Montgomery, "that a body of a

thousand English and Indian troops were on their march to the Kentucky

country with a train of artillery;[1558] and the colonel, knowing the

situation of that country, appeared to be alarmed, and resolved to

get there previous to their arrival.... After giving me instructions,

he left Cohos on the 4th of June, with a small escort, for the mouth

of the Ohio, on his route to Kentucky." The orders he left with Col.

Montgomery were to pursue the Indians retreating up the Illinois

River and attack their towns about the time they were disbanding, and

to proceed as far as Rock River. "I immediately", says Montgomery,

"proceeded to the business I was ordered to do, and marched three

hundred and fifty men to the lakeopen [?] on the Illinois River;[1559]

and from thence to the Rock River, destroying the towns and crops, the

enemy not daring to fight me."[1560]

How much the presence of Clark near the scene of action contributed to

the demoralization of the Indian forces is not mentioned by any of the

contemporary writers. It is known, however, that his name was a terror

to the savage tribes; and Sinclair, in organizing his expedition,

found this dread of Clark among the Sioux and other nations west of

the Mississippi. He wrote to Captain Brehm, Haldimand's aide-de-camp,

February 15, 1780, that there was nothing in Hamilton's disaster which

ought to alarm the Sioux, and that "many of them never heard of it. The

short-sighted harpies, which necessity has thrown into the service,

dwell upon the stories they hear from fretful bands of Delawares,

Mascoutins, and Kickapoos near where the event happened. Admit that

the disaster has all the supposed consequent misfortunes, it is still

more necessary for us to engage the Indians to take a part, which

will at once declare their enmity to the party they are engaged to

act against."[1561] "The party" Sinclair had in mind was evidently

Clark himself; and with him the chief object of the expedition was to

recapture the Illinois country.

The general scheme devised by Lord George Germain for the complete

conquest of the West,—of bringing down a large party of northwestern

Indians upon St. Louis and Ste. Geneviève; of sending an expedition

from Detroit to invade Kentucky and keep Colonel Clark busy; of

bringing up the Mississippi to Natchez, under General Campbell, a

fleet and army, there to unite with the northern expeditions, and from

thence to capture the Illinois country and all the Spanish settlements

on the river—was an excellent one, and had every promise of success.

St. Louis was in no condition to resist an assault, and rank cowardice

marked the conduct of the governor and the few soldiers stationed at

the post when the Indian raiders appeared.[1562] The Illinois country

was very feebly garrisoned, and not a soldier or a shilling had ever

been contributed by the Continental Congress for its conquest or

defence. The scheme failed because of the promptness and exceptional

activity of the Spaniards under Governor Galvez, and the watchfulness

and energy of Colonel Clark. It was the last concerted effort of

Great Britain to regain possession of the West; as the campaign of

Clinton and Cornwallis, with its result one year later at Yorktown,

was her expiring effort on the Atlantic coast.[1563] If the Western

scheme had been successful, the country north of the Ohio River would

have been a part of the province of Quebec, and might have remained

Canadian territory to this day. In negotiating two and three years

later the treaty of peace with Great Britain under such conditions,

it is difficult to conceive what boundaries the United States could

have secured. Spain therefore rendered an invaluable service to the

United States by enabling George Rogers Clark to hold with his Virginia

troops the country he had conquered from the British, until the treaty

of peace confirmed to the nation the Mississippi River as its western

boundary.

Notwithstanding this important service, there was nothing friendly and

disinterested, at this time, in the relations of Spain to the United

States. She was looking solely to her own interests, and refused to

acknowledge the independence of the United States, or enter into

a treaty of alliance except on the most degrading conditions. She

must be allowed the exclusive right to navigate the Mississippi,

the undisturbed possession of the Floridas and of the east bank of

the Mississippi, which she had captured from the British. Spain

asserted that the United States had no territorial rights west of the

Alleghanies, and that their western boundaries were defined by the

royal proclamation of October 7, 1763.[1564] The captures of Manchac,

Baton Rouge, Natchez, and Mobile had awakened her military zeal, and

nothing less than the possession of the entire Mississippi Valley would

then satisfy her territorial ambition. French diplomacy favored some of

these extraordinary claims of Spain.[1565]

For the purpose of strengthening the Spanish claim to territory east of

the Mississippi, the governor of St. Louis, Don Francisco Cruvat, sent

out on the 2d of January, 1781, an expedition to capture St. Joseph,

an English fort situated near the present site of Niles, Michigan.

Although two hundred and twenty leagues distant, this was the nearest

post to St. Louis which raised the British flag. The expedition was in

command of Captain Eugenio Pourré, and comprised sixty-five militiamen

(of whom thirty were Spaniards) and sixty Indians. The journey, made

in the depth of winter across a trackless country, each man on foot

carrying his provisions and equipments, was a daring exploit, and it

was successful in accomplishing its immediate purpose. They took the

fort in the name of his most Catholic Majesty, made prisoners of the

few English soldiers found in it, divided the provisions and stores

among their own Indians and those living near, and returned to St.

Louis early in March, with the English flag, which Captain Pourré

delivered with due ceremony to Governor Cruvat.[1566] The treaty of

peace, which it is not the purpose of this chapter to discuss, brought

this and other shallow pretensions on the part of the Spaniards to

territorial rights east of the Mississippi River to an end.[1567]

[Illustration]

THE CLOSING SCENES OF THE WAR.

BY THE EDITOR.

THE campaign of Yorktown over, Rochambeau made his headquarters at

Williamsburg (Parton's _Jefferson_, ch. 29), while Washington, having

dispatched two thousand men south under St. Clair (instructions in

Sparks's _Washington_, viii. 198) to reinforce Greene, moved with the

rest of the army, by land and water, to the neighborhood of the Hudson

(Sparks's _Washington_, viii. 199, 200; Irving's _Washington_, iv.

ch. 29, 30; Kapp's _Steuben_, ch. 23; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. ch.

5). Washington at once acted in conjunction with Congress to prevent

the country lapsing into a neglect of the war establishment through

over-confidence in the effects of the capture of Cornwallis. In April,

1782, Washington left Philadelphia and joined the army, establishing

his headquarters at Newburgh, in a house which is still standing.

(Views of it are in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, 1883, p. 357 (taken in

1834); Irving's _Washington_, quarto ed., iv. 434; W. H. Bartlett's

_Hist. of U. S._; with a paper by C. D. Deshler on "A Glimpse of

Seventy-Six", in _Harper's Mag._, xlix. 231; with Lossing's "Romance

of the Hudson", in _Ibid._, liii. p. 32; also in his _Field-Book_, ii.

99, his _Hudson_, 199, and his _Mary and Martha Washington_, 215; Gay's

_Pop. Hist. of U. S._, iv. 84.)

There are several special accounts of this latest camp of the army.

(Cf. Asa Bird Gardiner on "The Last Cantonment of the Main Continental

Army" _Mag. Amer. Hist._, 1883, vol. x. 355), which is accompanied

by a plan of the camp near New Windsor. Simeon De Witt's maps of the

locality and the camp are in the N. Y. Hist. Soc. library. De Witt

was the geographer of the American army, succeeding Erskine, who had

died in 1780. Various orderly-books of this time are in the American

Antiquarian Society library. Other papers on the camp are in _Mag.

Amer. Hist._, Jan., 1884, p. 81; by J. T. Headley in _Harper's Mag._,

lxiv. 651, and _Galaxy_, xxii. 7. Cf. also Ruttenber's _Newburgh_

(1859) and the account of the first annual meeting of the Hist. Soc. of

Newburgh Bay and the Highlands, Feb. 22, 1884,—Newburgh, 1884.

Washington and Congress were soon perplexed with the case of Capt.

Joshua Huddy, and with a project of retaliation for that officer's

execution. Huddy, an officer of the New Jersey line, commanded a

block-house at Tom's River, New Jersey, and was there captured with

his men by a band of refugee loyalists (W. S. Stryker's _Capture of

the Block-House at Tom's River_). Huddy was taken by Capt. Richard

Lippincott, a New Jersey loyalist, to Sandy Hook, where he was hanged

on the pretence that he had been engaged in causing the death of Philip

White, a Tory, who had been killed while endeavoring to escape from

his guard. Congress ordered retaliation, and a young British officer,

then a prisoner, Capt. Charles Asgill, was drawn by lot to suffer

death unless Clinton should surrender Lippincott. Clinton condemned

the action of Lippincott, who was, however, acquitted on trial, on

the ground that his action was in accordance with instructions from

the board of Associated Loyalists (Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._,

vol. ii. note xxix. p. 481). The execution of Asgill was postponed

by Washington in the hope of some compensating arrangement, and at

the instance of Lady Asgill, the young man's mother, the French

monarch interceded with such effect that Congress, in November, 1782,

ordered Washington to set Asgill at liberty. (References: Sparks's

_Washington_, i. 378; viii. 262, 265, 301-310, 336, 361; ix. 197;

_Sparks MSS._, vols. lxxii., xlviii., lviii.; Niles's _Principles and

Acts_ 1876 ed.), p. 509; _Remembrancer_, xiv. 144, 155; xv. 127, 191;

_Political Mag._, iii. 468, 472; Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, ii.

232, 483, and Johnston's _Observations on Jones, 77_; Thomas Paine's

_American Crisis, and a Letter to Sir Guy Carleton on the Murder of

Captain Huddy, and the Intended Retaliation on Captain Asgill, of the

Guards_ (London, 1788); _Memoir of Gen. Samuel Graham, edited by his

son, Col. J. J Graham_ (Edinburgh, privately printed, 1862,—extract in

_Hist. Mag._, ix. 329). Washington caused all the papers on the subject

to be printed in the _Columbian Mag._, Jan. and Feb., 1787. This young

officer of twenty died as Gen. Sir Charles Asgill in July, 1823. Cf.

_Diplomatic Corresp._, xi. 105, 128, 140; Irving's _Washington_, iv.

ch. 29; Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._, iii.; Heath's _Memoirs_, 335;

Sparks's _Franklin_, ix. 376; Hamilton's _Republic_, ii. 282. The

English view is given in Adolphus's _England_, iii. ch. 46.

Early in May the news from England made it evident that the war was

approaching an end, and the promised release from further campaigning

left the public mind in a better condition to comprehend how weak

a stay Congress had proved itself, and how insufficient was the

power lodged in that body to compel the States to do any and all

acts necessary for the common good. The natural distrust which was

created of the form of government, whose success in carrying on the

war had been largely fortuitous, was still more increased by the

difficulties yet to be encountered in disbanding an army, in satisfying

its well-earned demands, and in organizing a stable control for the

future (Bancroft, final revision, vi. 59, etc.) It was not, then,

surprising that notions of counteraction should in any minds take

the form of a monarchical solution of the problem, and this sentiment

found expression in a letter, written by Col. Nicola, of the army, to

Washington, in which it was somewhat adroitly suggested that Washington

should consent to be the head of a royal government. Washington met the

suggestion with an indignant and stern reply, and we hear nothing more

of the subject (Sparks, viii. 300, etc.; Irving, iv. 370).

Sir Guy Carleton was sent to relieve Sir Henry Clinton in New York,

and he arrived early in May. His instructions (April 4, 1782,—_Sparks

MSS._, lviii.; cf. Sparks's _Washington_, viii. 294-298) were to avoid

hostilities except for defence. He failed to open communication with

Congress to treat for peace (Madison's _Debates_, vol. i.; Rives's

_Madison_, i. 331, 333). An account of the cantonments of the British

about New York just before this (Feb., 1782) is in the _Sparks MSS._

(xlix. vol. iii.). Clinton's account of his being relieved is in

Mahon, vii. App., p. xvii. It was not till August that Carleton's

communications to Washington rendered it certain that the concession

of independence was a preliminary of the negotiations then going

on for peace. Active hostilities accordingly ceased on both sides,

though a posture of caution and vigilance was still maintained by

each commander. The French, who had remained in Virginia, now joined

(September) the Americans on the Hudson. There is among the Rochambeau

maps an excellent colored plan (no. 33), measuring twenty inches wide

by thirty high, showing the country from White Plains north, and called

_Position des Armées Amer. et Française à King's Ferry, Peak's Hill, et

Hunt's Taverne, 17 Sept. et 20 Oct., 1782_. In October the French under

the Baron de Viomenil marched to Boston and embarked, while Rochambeau

and Chastellux sailed from Baltimore. On the final departure of the

French see a paper by J. A. Stevens in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._, vii. p.

1. The report on their departure, made to Congress, is dated Jan. 1,

1783,—_Secret Journals_, iii. 267.

[Illustration: CAPTAIN ASGILL.

(From Andrews's _Hist. of the War_, London, 1785, vol. iv. Cf. Harper's

_Cyclo. of U. S. Hist._, ii. 653.)]

In Dec., 1782, the army had set forth in representations to Congress

the sufferings which it had experienced from the want of pay (_Journals

of Congress_, iv. 206; Madison's _Debates_, etc., i. 256; Rives's

_Madison_, i. 383; Morse's _Hamilton_, i. 114). Nothing satisfactory

came of this appeal, and a movement of uncertain extent, but

seemingly having the countenance of officers of high rank, was aimed

at producing action on the part of the army, which might easily,

if allowed to proceed, have passed beyond prudent control, till a

claim for redress of grievances might instigate an act of mutiny.

Its chief manifestations were in two successive anonymous addresses,

circulated through the camp at Newburgh, which were written, as was

later acknowledged, by Major John Armstrong, a member of Gen. Gates's

staff. Washington interposed at a meeting of the officers (March

15, 1783), and by a timely address turned the current. The original

autograph of his address belongs to the Mass. Hist. Society, and that

body issued a fac-simile edition of it (Boston, 1876), with letters of

Col. Pickering, Gov. John Brooks, Judge Dudley A. Tyng, and William

A. Hayes, authenticating the document, and describing the scene when

Washington read it. Copies of the addresses made by Armstrong himself

are in the _Sparks MSS._, xlix. 1, 8, and they are given in Sparks's

_Washington_, viii. 551; and in a _Collection of papers, relative to

half-pay and commutation of half-pay, granted by Congress to officers

of the army. Compiled by the permission of General Washington from the

original papers in his possession_ (Fishkill, 1783). Cf. Sabin, iv.

14, 379. Washington at a later day, Feb. 23, 1797, wrote to Armstrong,

exonerating him from having intended any evil to the country (_Sparks

MSS._, no. xxiv.). The genuineness of this letter having been assailed,

Armstrong (Nov. 27, 1830) wrote a letter asserting its truth, and this

autograph letter is in Harvard College library. More or less extended

accounts of the incidents accompanying this attempt to organize a

coercion of the civil by the military power will be found in the lives

of Washington by Marshall (iv. 587); Sparks (viii. 369, 393); and

Irving (iv. ch. 31); in Pickering's _Pickering_ (i. ch. 29, 30, 31;

including Montgar's, _i. e._ Armstrong's, letter in 1820); Drake's

_Knox_, 77; Rives's _Madison_ (i. 392); J. C. Hamilton's _Republic_

(ii. 365, 385), and _Alexander Hamilton_ (ii. 68); Morse's _Hamilton_,

i. 119; Quincy's _Shaw_ (p. 101); Hildreth's _United States_ (iii. ch.

45); Dunlap's _New York_ (ii. 230); Lossing's _Field-Book_ (ii. 106,

315); _Journals of Congress_ (iv. 213); Bancroft, final rev., vi. 71.

A letter from Lafayette, who had gone to France, shortly afterwards

arrived, announcing the signing of the preliminary articles of peace;

and the news being confirmed by a letter from Carleton, Washington,

on April 19, the eighth anniversary of the day of Lexington, issued a

proclamation announcing cessation of hostilities. Sparks's _Washington_

(viii. 425; App. 13); Heath's _Memoirs_; Madison's _Debates_ (i. 437);

_Diplom. Correspondence_ (ii. 319-329; x. 121; xi. 320); _Secret

Journals of Cong._ (iii. 323, under date of April 11, 1783).

Knox had suggested (Drake's _Knox_), and in April, 1783, the Society

of the Cincinnati had been formed from the officers of the army, with

a plan of transmitting membership to descendants. It was intended as

an organization to perpetuate a brotherhood formed in arms, and to

offer an organization which might conveniently deliberate as occasion

required upon the condition of the country. As a rule the principal

civil leaders of the Revolution looked upon the combination with

disapproval (Wells's _Sam. Adams_, iii. 202; Austin's _Gerry_, ch. 25;

Sparks's _Franklin_, x. 58; Bigelow's _Franklin_, iii. 247; John Adams,

_Works_, ix. 524, called it "the first step taken to deface our temple

of liberty"), and even with dread, lest it might lend itself to the

creation of castes and the furtherance of schemes against the liberties

of the country. There was a widespread dissatisfaction among the people

generally, not always temperately expressed, and years were required

to remove the apprehension so incontinently formed. The society was

organized in the Verplanck house (view in _Appleton's Journal_, xiv.

353); the fac-similes of the signatures to the original subscription

are given in the _Penna. Archives_, vol. xi., and a representation of

a certificate signed by Washington is in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii.

128. The bibliography of the society and its branches, by States, is

given by Lloyd P. Smith in the _Bulletin of the Philadelphia Library_,

July, 1885. Particular reference may he made to the accounts and

expositions given in the _Penna. Hist. Soc. Memoirs_ (1858), vi. pp.

15-55, by Alexander Johnston; _North Amer. Review_, v. lxxvii. 267, by

W. Sargent; _St. Clair Papers_, i. 590; Kapp's _Steuben_, ch. 26; E.

M. Stone's _Our French Allies_, p. xix; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii.

127; J. B. McMaster's _People of the U. S._, i. 167; R. C. Winthrop's

_Speeches, etc._ (1852, etc.), P. 345; and the account of the

centennial of the order in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Sept., 1883, pp. 171,

235, 253.

On the 18th June, 1783, Washington from Newburgh, whither he had

removed his headquarters from Verplanck's after the departure of the

French, issued his last circular letter to the States (Sparks, viii.

439; Irving, iv. 394), full of counsel and warning.[1568]

The troops were in large part dismissed on furlough, and finally,

Congress (Oct. 18) by proclamation, directed the disbandment of the

army, to take effect Nov. 2 (_Secret Journals_, iii. 406). A small body

was, however, still kept together under Knox, to await the definitive

form of the treaty. Washington now occupied a brief space in making a

journey with Gov. Clinton over the battlefields of Burgoyne's campaign.

He then, at the request of Congress, proceeded to Princeton, and

was domiciled for a while at Rocky Hill, in order to be at hand for

conferences with that body. From this place, Nov. 2, 1783, he issued

a farewell address to the army. (Sparks, viii. 491; Irving, iv. 402;

Pickering's _Pickering_, i. 488.)

The last surviving pensioner of the Revolution is called one Lemuel

Cook in the _Amer. Hist. Record_, ii. 357. In 1864, what purported to

be the record of the latest survivors of the war appeared in Elias B.

Hillard's _Last Men of the Revolution_ (Hartford, 1864). An account

of John Gray as the last soldier of the Revolution, by J. M. Dalzell,

was printed at Washington in 1868. B. P. Poore's _Descriptive Catal.

of Gov't Publications_ will enable one to trace many of those soldiers

whose claims came before Congress.

Carleton giving notice of his readiness to evacuate New York,

Washington now returned to West Point, and prepared to enter the city

with Gov. Clinton on the appointed day. The general and the governor

entered the upper end of the town on Nov. 25, while the British

embarked at the lower end. Valentine's _N. Y. City Manual_ for 1861

gives various documentary records, some in fac-simile. On Dec. 1 there

were fireworks, a broadside programme of which is in the cabinet of

the Mass. Hist. Society. Trumbull painted a picture of the scene of

the evacuation, which is given in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._, 1883, p.

387. The histories of New York city commemorate the event, and there

are illustrated papers on it in _Harper's Mag._, Nov., 1883 (vol.

lxvii. 609), and _Manhattan Mag._, Dec., 1883. Cf. _Hist. Mag._, xi.

42; Lieut.-Col. Smith's letter in _N. Y. City during the Rev._ (N. Y.,

1861); Irving's _Washington_, iv. ch. 33; Jones's _N. Y. during the

Rev._ (ii. 504). Some days after the British had gone, Washington met

his principal officers (Dec. 4) in Fraunce's Tavern, and bade them

farewell.

[Illustration: FRAUNCE'S TAVERN IN NEW YORK.]

This building stood on the corner of Pearl and Broad streets, N. Y.,

and was occupied by Washington as headquarters when he entered the

city after the British evacuated in 1783. The cut follows a view given

in Valentine's _N. Y. City Manual_, 1854, p. 547, accompanied by a

paper by W. J. Davis. Cf. _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, iii. 144, 151, 152;

Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 839; Gay's _Pict. Hist. U. S._, iv. 90;

Dawson's _Westchester_. The opening chapter of McMaster's _History

of the People of the United States_, (N. Y., 1883) describes the

appearance of New York city at this time, and indeed of the other

principal American towns, and the habits of living through the country.

An account of New York at this time is also in the _Manhattan Mag._,

ii. 561.

Immediately leaving New York, Washington journeyed to Annapolis,

where Congress was then assembled. Here, on Dec. 23, he met Congress

in the State House (view in _Columbian Mag._, Jan., 1789; Lossing's

_Field-Book_, ii. 402), where he resigned his commission in an address.

(Sparks, viii. 504, and App., xiv.; Marshall, iv. 622. A fac-simile of

the manuscript is given in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._, 1881, vol. vii. 106.

Cf. _Journals of Congress_, iv. 318; Ridgeley's _Hist. of Annapolis_.)

On Christmas Eve, Washington reached Mount Vernon, once more a private

gentleman.

Congress on the 14th Jan., 1784, sitting at Philadelphia, finally

ratified the definitive treaty of peace.

INDEX.

[Reference is commonly made but once to a book, if repeatedly mentioned

in the text; but other references are made when additional information

about the book is conveyed.]

Abercrombie, Lt.-Col., at Yorktown, 504.

Acland, Lady, 357;

portrait, 358.

Acland, Major, 294, 308, 357, 358.

Acton, Mass., men at Concord, 184.

Acts of trade, 2, 6, 63;

evaded, 10;

enforced, 11.

Adams, Abigail, 205;

on Bunker Hill, 187.

Adams, Brooks, _Emancipation of Mass._, 255.

Adams, C. F., on John Hancock, 271.

Adams, H. B., _Maryland's influence upon land cessions_, 708.

Adams, John, on Acts of Trade, 7, 9;

on Otis's argument on Writs of Assistance, 11;

report of Otis's argument, 13;

demands reopening of courts, closed by want of stamps, 32;

his political philosophy, 35;

on _Canon and Feudal Law_, 35, 83;

likeness, 36;

Dutch edition of his acc. of the troubles with Great Britain, 36;

his personal appearance, 36;

painted by Copley, 36;

by Stuart, 36;

by Trumbull, 36;

by Winstanley, 36;

engravings of, 36;

of his wife, 36;

his homestead, 36;

his writing in fac-simile, 37;

his part against Great Britain, 37;

defends Capt. Preston, 49;

autog., 51;

leads in impeachment of Oliver, 57;

in Congress (1774), 59;

presides at Port Act meeting, 60;

and the navigation laws, 64;

in the Congress of 1765, 74;

brief at trial of Preston, 86;

helps Sam. Adams in the replies to Hutchinson (1773), 90;

on the tea-ship commotions, 91;

controversy with Brattle on the payment of judges, 95;

_Familiar letters_, 95;

in the Congress of 1774, 99;

notes of debates in Congress of 1774, 100;

drafts part of the Declaration of Rights, 100;

notes on debates in Congress of 1775, 107;

controversy with Daniel Leonard, 108;

as _Novanglus_, 110;

_Hist. of the dispute_, 110;

considered Jonathan Sewall his adversary, 110;

attracts attention (1774), 117;

uneasy over Washington's inaction at Cambridge, 152;

visits Lexington, 180;

on independence, 238;

on com. to draft Declaration of Independence, 239;

in debate, 239;

his intercepted letters, 249;

his belief in independence, 249;

outspoken for independence, 255;

on the growing spirit of independence, 257;

owned portrait of Jefferson, 258;

leading advocate of the Decl. of Indep., 261;

autog. 263;

life of Hancock, 265;

life by E. Ingersoll, 266;

on Hancock, 271;

on Paine's _Common Sense_, 272;

his _Thoughts on Government_, 272;

preceded by letter to R. H. Lee, 272;

letter to John Penn, 272;

on observing the anniversary of the Decl. of Indep., 274;

drafts the Mass. Constitution, 274;

_Defence of the Constitutions_, 274;

lives in New York, 276;

weary of Washington's Fabian policy, 392;

proposes to elect generals annually, 446;

his interest in naval matters, 567;

goes to France with Com. Tucker, 567;

on employing Indians, 673.

Adams, Josiah, _Address_, 184.

Adams, Samuel, portraits, 40, 41;

autograph, 40;

painted by Copley, 40;

by John Johnson, 41;

statue, 41;

in the Mass. legislature, 42;

his political writings, 42, 83;

compared with Lord Mansfield's speeches, 43;

demands that the troops in Boston be removed to the Castle (1770),

49;

moves for a com. of correspondence, 54;

in Congress (1774), 59;

would prevent reconciliation, 60;

wrote the answers of the legislature to Gov. Hutchinson, 67, 90;

_Vindication of the Town of Boston_, 67;

first mover against taxation, 68;

wrote the replies to Bernard, 73;

_Appeal to the World_, 84;

_Letter to Hillsborough_, 84;

on "Vindex", 86;

writes Hancock's massacre oration, 88;

and com. of correspondence, 89;

_Rights of the Colonies_, 90;

proposes Congress, 99;

proposes Duché for chaplain of Congress (1774), 99;

in the Congress of 1774, 99;

had a hand in the Declaration of Rights (1774), 100;

the tribune of the Mass. yeomanry, 113;

returns from the Congress of 1774, 116;

repute in London, 117;

at Lexington (1775), 122, 179;

excepted from pardon, 132;

urges independence, 231, 257;

in the Cont. Congress, 236;

his character, 236;

alienated from Hancock, 238;

the earliest to avow independence, 248;

Galloway on, 254, 255;

autog., 263;

life by H. D. Gilpin, 266;

a spurious _Oration_, 274;

and the Conway cabal, 446.

Admiralty courts, 4, 6, 10;

first held in N. E., 65;

instituted, 567.

Adolphus, _England_, 112.

Agnew, Daniel, _Region of Penna. north of the Ohio_, 709.

Agnew, General, 427;

killed, 386.

Agnew, J. L., _Savannah_, 519.

Ainslee, Capt. Thomas, _Journal_, 222.

Aitkins, _Plan of Boston_, 207.

Aix-la-Chapelle, treaty, 14.

Alamance, battle of, 81.

Albach, James R., _Annals of the West_, 648.

Albany, 609;

Indian treaty at (Aug., 1775), 623;

plan of (1770), 298.

Alden, Col. Ichabod, at Cherry Valley, 636;

killed, 638.

Alden, Fort (Cherry Valley), 666.

Alexander, Capt. James, 534.

Allaire, Anthony, diary, 525, 535.

Allan, Col. John, 657;

correspondence with Haldimand, 657.

Alleghany River, 609.

Allen, _Battles of the British navy_, 589.

Allen, Ethan, 160;

autog., 128;

would lead an invasion of Canada, 160;

at Ticonderoga, 161, 213;

captured at Montreal, 162;

statue, 214;

_Narrative_, 214;

letters, 214;

lives of, 214;

a price on his head offered in N. Y., 214;

seeks to enlist Canadian Indians, 614;

Indians with, 660.

Allen, Ira, _Ship Olive Branch_, 214;

letters (1776), 227;

on the evacuation of Ticonderoga, 350.

Allen, James, poem on the Boston Massacre, 88.

Allen, James (Philad., 1777), diary, 260, 436.

Allen, Jolley, 205.

Allen, Paul, _Amer. Rev._, 664.

Allen, Wm., _Arnold's Expedition_, 1775, 217.

Allen, William, Jr., 395.

Allenstown, N. J., 410.

"Alliance", ship, 576, 577, 584, 586.

Allyn, Chas., 562.

Almon, _Seat of War in N. Y._, etc., 416.

Almon's _Remembrancer_, important documents in, 653.

Alsop, John, 108.

Amboy, 340, 404, 408;

map of, 342.

_American and British Chronicle of War_, 672.

American Revolution, causes of, 5, 62;

ecclesiasticism as a cause, 62;

authorities on the causes, 62, 255;

earliest outbreaks, 173.

_See_ names of heroes and battles of the war.

Ames, Nathaniel, _Astron. diary_, 82;

_Almanac_, 118.

Amherst, Gen., and the Pontiac conspiracy, 692.

Amory, T. C., _Old and New Cambridge_, 142;

defends Gen. Sullivan, 598;

_Gen. Sullivan_, 666;

papers on Sullivan, 667;

_James Sullivan_, 83.

_Analectic Magazine_, 187.

Anayea, 669.

Anburey, Thomas, _Travels_, 360.

Anderson, Col. Robt., 677.

Anderson, W. J., 216.

André, Maj. John, at Boston, 204;

in Philadelphia, 395;

in the Mischianza, 436;

his letters to Mrs. Arnold, 449;

as "John Anderson", 449;

profile likeness, 452;

autographs, 452, 453;

other portraits, 453, 454;

one by Reynolds, 454;

sketch by himself, 454, 461;

Adj.-General, 453;

his instructions from Clinton, 454;

on the "Vulture", 454;

lands at the Clove, 454;

meets Arnold, 454;

goes to Smith's house, 455;

receives papers from Arnold, 455;

disguises himself, 456;

goes by land towards New York, 456;

captured, 457;

papers found on him, 457;

their history, 457;

carried to Jameson, 458;

writes a letter to Washington, 458;

at West Point, 460;

confined at Tappan, 460;

before a military board, 460;

condemned, 460;

proceedings of the board printed, 460;

various editions, 460;

subject of tragedy, 460, 464;

Clinton endeavors to save him, 461;

requests to be shot, 461;

his conduct, 461;

his sketches, 461;

hanged, 461;

his remains taken to England, 461;

his statement, 461;

his monument, 463;

his mother pensioned, 463;

_Life_ by W. Sargent, 464;

_Papers_ on, ed. by Dawson, 464;

captured at St. John, 464;

a prisoner, 464;

served with Gen. Grey, 464;

his lineage, 464;

his will, 464;

bibliography, 464;

various papers on, 464;

his captors honored, 466;

their patriotism questioned, 466;

his confinement, 466;

justice of his execution, 322, 467;

his character, 467;

his last hours, 467;

_Case of Maj. André_, 467;

was he a spy at Charleston? (1780), 468;

his _Cow Chace_, 560;

tragedy of, 560.

André, _Mémoire de Paul Jones_, 590.

Andrews, John, letters from Boston, 90, 178, 205.

Annapolis, Md., Washington at, 747.

_Annual Register_, 516.

Antell, E., his plan of siege of Quebec, 226;

express from Quebec, 222.

Anthony, H. B., on Ternay's tomb, 499;

address on Greene, 510.

Anthony's Nose (Hudson River), 324.

Appleton, W. S., 110.

Appletown, N. Y., 669.

Appoquinimink Creek, 421.

Apthorpe, _Considerations on the conduct_, etc., 70;

_Review_, 70.

Arbuthnot, Admiral Mariot, attacks Charlestown, S. C., 472, 526, 527;

blockades Newport, 560;

controversy with Clinton, 517;

succeeded Graves, 517.

Armand, Col., 533;

with Gates, 477.

Armstrong, Gen., on Burgoyne's campaign, 358;

on Germantown, 421;

Newburgh addresses, 745.

Armstrong, J., _Richard Montgomery_, 216.

Armstrong, John, _Life of Wayne_, 514.

Armstrong, M., 209.

Armstrong commands the Penna. militia, 381.

Arnell, Dr., _Address_, 662.

Arnold, Benedict, in Cambridge (1775), 128;

shares command with Allen at Ticonderoga, 129;

surprised St. John's (1775), 130;

trouble with Ethan Allen, 130;

at Ticonderoga, 161;

commences Kennebec expedition, 162;

before Quebec, 163;

wounded, 165;

his post at Cedar Rapids attacked, 166;

interest in Gen. Warren's children, 194;

commissioned by Mass. to take Ticonderoga, 213;

Dawson's view of his connection with Ticonderoga, 214;

his regimental book, 214;

letters, 214;

part in the Canada expedition, 216;

instructions for the Kennebec route, 217 (_see_ Kennebec

expedition);

his journal, 218;

his letters, 218, 219, 220;

intercepted, 222;

portraits, 223;

autog., 223;

letters during the retreat, 226;

in command on Lake Champlain, 292, 346;

at Valcour's Island, 292;

escapes, 293;

joins Schuyler, 298;

advances toward Fort Stanwix, 300, 350, 632;

under Gates, 304;

at Freeman's Farm, 305;

quarrel with Gates, 306;

in fight of Oct. 7, 1777, 308;

was he at Freeman's Farm? 315, 357;

wounded (Oct. 7, 1777), 357;

at Trenton, 379;

marries, 402;

did he suggest the attack on Trenton? 407;

his treason, 447;

portraits, 447, 448, 449;

the beginning of his treasonable correspondence, 447, 448;

his birthplace, 448;

his house, 448;

his marriage, 449;

as "Gustavus", 449;

gives Clinton information, 449;

not trusted by Congress, 450;

at Danbury, 450;

made major-general, 450;

fac-simile of his commission, 450;

his wife at Robinson house, 458;

in command in Philad., 367, 400, 402, 450, 451;

charges against him by the Council of Penna., 450;

court-martial, 402, 450, 451;

his accounts of the Canada expedition questioned, 450;

reprimanded by Washington, 403, 451;

at the Robinson house, 452;

his treasonable letters preserved, 452;

efforts to meet André, 453;

his passes, 453;

his price, 454, 463;

meets André, 454;

receives Jameson's letter, 458;

his flight, 458;

his aides grow suspicious, 460;

attempts to intercept him, 460;

sends letter to Washington, 460;

his aides, 460;

has plans of West Point, 460;

threats if André is executed, 461;

his life in England, 463;

in New Brunswick, 463;

his descendants, 463;

his address of exculpation, 463;

his proclamation to induce desertion, 463;

his vindication in _Remarks on Travels of Chastellux_, 463;

authorities on his treason, 463;

_Life_ by Sparks, 464;

_Life_ by I. N. Arnold, 464;

his own telling of the story, 466;

attempt to seize him, 468;

in Virginia, 495, 546, 732;

distrusted by Clinton, 546;

invades Connecticut, 562;

had Indians with him on the Kennebec exped., 614;

his treason and the northern invasions, 672;

his capture attempted, 732.

Arnold, S. G., in the Rhode Island campaign, 595.

Arnold, Isaac N., on Benedict Arnold at Freeman's Farm, 357;

"Arnold at the court of George III", 463;

_Life of Benedict Arnold_, 464;

his family, 464;

controverted by J. A. Stevens, 464;

his death, 464.

Asgill, Capt. Chas., case of, 744;

portrait, 745.

Ashe, Gen., 470;

at Briar Creek, 520;

his career, 520.

Ashley, John, 63.

Assanpink Creek, 375.

Atkinson, _Newark,_ 560.

_Atlas Amériquaine_, 341.

Atlee, Col. S. J., 327.

Attenbocum, Capt., 411.

Attucks, Crispus, 85.

Atwill, Winthrop, _Treason of Arnold_, 466.

Aubry, Gov., at N. Orleans, 701.

Auchmuty, Judge, 119.

Auckland MSS., 467.

"Augusta", frigate, blown up, 387, 428;

picture of, 388.

Augusta, Georgia, its defences, 490;

siege of, 535, 544.

Austin, Jonathan Loring, carries news of Burgoyne's surrender to

Europe, 364, 571;

journals of his trip, 586.

Austin, Jona. W., 88.

Avery, Joseph, 521.

Avery, Rufus, 562.

Avery, Samuel, 662.

Babson, _Gloucester_, 568.

Bacon, Leonard W., on the invasion of Conn., 557;

address on Groton Heights, 562.

Badeaux, J. B., _Invasion du Canada_, 223.

Bailey, J. T., _Brooklyn_, 329.

Baker, W. S., _American Engravers_, 81, 185;

_William Sharp_, 492.

Balcarras, Earl, 366;

with Burgoyne, 294.

Balch, Thomas, 101;

_Maryland Line_, 202;

edits Blanchard's Journal, 554;

_Les français en Amérique_, 560.

Baldwin, C. C., on Vigo and G. R. Clark, 725.

Baldwin, Loammi, 187.

Baldwin, Samuel, _Diary_, 525.

Balfour, Capt., 118.

Balfour, Col., commands in Charleston, 517, 538, 541.

Ballston, N. Y., destroyed, 645.

Baltimore, Lord, 673.

Bancroft, Col. E., 189.

Bancroft, Geo., on the navigation acts, 64;

on the siege of Boston, 173;

his account of the Long Island battle criticised, 330;

on Arnold's treason, 464;

on Oriskany, 665;

on Wyoming, 665.

Bangs, Lieut., 326.

Banker, Gerard, 409.

Banks, James, _Hist. Address_, 676.

Barber, Col. Francis, 668;

order-book, 670.

Barber, Geo. C., 670.

Barber, J. W., _Hist Coll. N. Y._, 666.

Barber, _New Haven_, 185.

Barclay, S., _Personal Recollections_, 329.

Barlow, Aaron, 216.

Barlow, Joel, on Thomas Paine, 253;

life by Burr, 253.

Barlow, S. L. M., owns Arnold's journal, 218.

Barnard, _Hist. England_, 461.

Barney, Joshua, Com. Acc. of, 575;

autog., 575.

Barney, Mary, _Com. Joshua Barney_, 575.

Barras, autog., 500;

succeeds Ternay, 499.

Barré, Isaac, accounts of, 72;

his speeches on the Stamp Act, 29, 72;

originates the phrase "Sons of Liberty", 72;

his portrait ordered by Boston, 74;

predicts loss of colonies, 85.

Barren Hill, Lafayette at, 396, 442;

map, 443.

Barrett, Col., 124.

Barrette, Lieut., 545.

Barretts, Samuel, 109.

Barrow, Sir John, _Lord Howe_, 594.

Barry, Henry, _Strictures Examined_, 106.

Barry, Com. John, his autog., 581;

on the "Raleigh", 581;

accounts of, 581;

in the "America", 583.

Bartlet, W. S., _Frontier Missionary_, 657.

Bartlett, Josiah, 186; on Bunker Hill, 194;

autog., 263;

life of, 265;

on privateering, 591.

Bartlett, J. R., _Hist. of destruction of the Gaspee_, 90;

dies, 90;

account of, by Gammell, 90.

Bartlett, S. C., on Bennington, 356.

Barton, Col., place of capturing Gen. Prescott, 602;

the capture, 403;

accounts of, 404;

his diary, 643.

Baton Rouge, 739.

Battle, K. P., 519.

Baum, Colonel, at Bennington, 300, 354;

death of, 356;

his instructions, 366.

Bauman, Sebastian, map of Yorktown, 551.

Baurmeister, Major, 333.

Bayley, Col., and the Indians, 614.

Bayley, Col. J., at Lake George, 346.

Beach, Allen C., _Centennial Celebrations_, 308.

Beach, W. W., _Indian Miscellany_, 657.

Beaman on Ticonderoga, 214.

Bean, T. W., _Washington at Valley Forge_, 416, 439.

Beardsley, _Life of W. S. Johnson_, 85.

Bears, Isaac, 178.

Beatson, Robert, _Naval and Mil. Memoirs_, 518, 589.

Beatty, Erkuries, 667;

his journal, 671.

Beatty, Capt. William, 418.

Beaulieu, Georgia, 470.

Beaurain, _Carte de la Guerre_, 416;

map of Boston and harbor, 213.

Becket, publishes _Authentic Papers from America_, 100.

Beckford, Alderman, 83.

Beckwith, H. W., _Historic Notes_, 718;

on Vigo, 725.

Bedell, Col. Timothy, 216;

at the Cedars, 616.

Bedford, Col. Gunning, 327.

Bedford, Duke of, 21.

Bedford (Long Island), 328.

Bedford (Mass.) men at Lexington, 184;

their flag, 184.

Bedford, Pa., taken, 691.

Beers, Nathan, 464.

Belisle, _Independence Hall_, 259.

Belknap, Dr. Jeremy, note-books, 189;

diary, 202;

life, 202.

Belknap, Jeremy, uncle of historian, 85.

Belknap, Jos., 85.

Bell, Andrew, 445.

Bell, Charles H., on the privateer "Gen. Sullivan", 591.

Bell, Robt., publishes Paine's _Common Sense_, 269.

Bellefeuille, Mr., 729.