man of worth and honor. The fullest account of his career is _The Life
of John Kalb, Major-general in the Revolutionary Army, by Friedrich
Kapp_, "privately printed" in New York in 1870. In 1884 there seemed
to be a revival of interest in the hero of Camden, and the volume was
published. It is a translation of Kapp's _Leben des Amerikanischen
Generals Johann Kalb_, Stuttgart, 1862. An earlier notice was the
_Memoir of the Baron de Kalb read at the meeting of the Maryland
Historical Society 7 January, 1858, by J. Spear Smith_. Both Kapp and
Smith, from whom Kapp quotes, are unwarrantably severe on Gates, as,
too, is G. W. Greene in his _German Element in the War of American
Independence_, N. Y., 1876, pp. 89-167. See, also, Thomas Wilson, _The
Biography of the Principal American Military and Naval Heroes_, N. Y.,
1817; Headley, _Generals_, ii. 318; Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 378, etc. For an
account of the monument to De Kalb, see H. P. Johnston in _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, ix. 183.
[1119] The whole letter is interesting,—_Third Report of Hist. MSS.
Com._, Appendix, p. 430; a portion was reprinted in _Mag. Amer. Hist._,
vii. 496, and copied thence by Kapp in his _Life of John Kalb_, p. 322.
[1120] Printed under the title of _Gates's Southern Campaign_ in _Hist.
Mag._, x. 244-253.
[1121] There is an extract in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._, v. 258. The whole
is copied in the _Sparks MSS._, xx., from the Gates Papers.
[1122] The editors of Jefferson's _Works_ (q. v. i. 249) omitted
this on the ground that the "circumstances of the defeat of General
Gates's army near Camden" are of "historical notoriety." Cf. Giradin's
_Continuation_, iv. 398, where an account probably identical with this
is given. It is one of the best descriptions.
[1123] The best of this class, perhaps, is that of Colonel Senff, an
engineer officer who was with Sumter at the time. The original is among
the _Steuben Papers_, a portion being printed in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, v.
275. See also two letters written by Governor Nash of North Carolina
(Tarleton, 149, and _Corres. Rev._, iii. 107). The latter is especially
valuable as showing the effects of the disaster on the public mind.
Marion also announced the defeat to P. Horry (Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._,
1776-1782, p. 11).
In a letter dated Kennemark, Sept. 5, 1780, Greene describes the defeat
from Gates's despatches, which had not then been made public (_R. I.
Col. Rec._, ix. 243; _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._, vi. 265; and _Mag.
Amer. Hist._, v. 279). A more valuable letter on the same subject is
one to Reed, written after his arrival in the South (Reed's _Reed_,
ii. 344). But the most important of these Greene letters is one dated
High Hills of Santee, Aug. 8, 1781 (quoted by Gordon, iv. 98), in
which Greene declares that Gates did not deserve the blame with which
his career in the South was so unhappily closed. Moore (_Diary_, ii.
310) gives several extracts from accounts of the affair which appeared
in Rivington's _Royal Gazette_. Another contemporary account from a
British source is in Lamb's so-called _Journal_, pp. 302-307. Lamb was
a standard-bearer in a British regiment at the time, and his narrative
seems to have been written while details were still fresh in his mind.
[1124] _Remembrancer_, x. 276; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 456, etc.
Important letters of Gates as to his dispositions after the action are
in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, v. 308; _Remembrancer_, x. 338; _Corres. Rev._,
iii. 66; _Maryland Papers_, 128, etc., etc.
The charges of undue haste and refusal to take the advice of others, so
recklessly heaped on Gates by Bancroft and the writers who have copied
him, appear to be without foundation. After a careful examination of
the field, in company with Otho H. Williams, Greene advised against
making an inquiry into Gates's conduct, while "Light-Horse Harry" Lee
wrote to Wayne (R. E. Lee's edition of Lee's _Memoirs_, p. 32) that
Gates "has been most insidiously, most cruelly traduced.... An action
took place on very advantageous terms; we were completely routed." In
his _Memoirs_, Lee censured Gates for not using cavalry. But this, too,
seems undeserved, as a note to page 394 of Giradin's _Continuation_
contains evidence to the effect that Gates could not get—though he
made every effort—the cavalry he was blamed for not employing. The
most exhaustive article in his defence is _The Southern Campaign,
1780: Gates at Camden_, by John Austin Stevens, in _Mag. Amer. Hist._,
v. 24-274. It is wholly in favor of Gates, and is so one-sided that
it should be read with the greatest caution. Singularly enough, when
he wrote this article, Mr. Stevens, as he acknowledges (p. 424), did
not know of the existence of the Pinckney letter noted above. For
the other side, perhaps, nothing is better than a short, carefully
written article by Henry P. Johnston, entitled _De Kalb, Gates, and
the Camden Campaign_, in _Mag. Amer, Hist._, viii. 496, and reprinted
without map in Kapp's _Kalb_, Appendix, p. 322. Of the more popular
accounts, that in Marshall's _Washington_ (iv. 169) is still one of
the best. Mention should also be made of the description in McRee's
_Life and Correspondence of James Iredell_, N. Y., 1857, i. 456-461.
Accounts of more or less value will also be found in Greene's _Greene_,
iii. 17; Johnson, _Greene_, i. 296; _Harper's Monthly_, lxvii. 550;
Botta (Otis's trans.), iii. 206; Soulés, _Troubles_, iii. 285; Allen,
_Hist. Amer. Rev._, ii. 318; Andrews, iv. 27; J. C. Hamilton, _Hist.
of the Republic_, ii. 120; Sparks, _Washington_, vi. 214; Irving,
_Washington_, iv. 91; Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 459; Carrington,
_Battles_, 513; Dawson, _Battles_, iii. 613, etc., etc.
[1125] There is some detail in Mrs. Ellet's _Women of the Amer. Rev._,
iii. App. The best known portrait of Sumter is by C. W. Peale. It is
engraved in the quarto edition of Irving's _Washington_. Cf. Lossing's
_Field-Book_, ii. 651.—ED.
[1126] The first, dated Camden, July 7, 1780, is in _Remembrancer_,
xi. 156, and _Pol. Mag._, ii. 339. The more famous letter, without
date, but containing the offer of a reward for the head of every
Irish deserter, is in Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 132; Moultrie,
_Memoirs_, ii. 215; and _Washington's Writings_, vi. 554. See also
Sparks, _Corres. Rev._, iii. 77 (note). The extract of the letter
to Balfour or Cruger, which aroused the ire of Washington, is in
_Washington's Writings_, vii., Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 157, and
Moultrie, _Memoirs_, ii. 240. Cornwallis's own version is in his
_Correspondence_, i. 56, and Draper's _King's Mountain_, p. 140. A
proclamation embodying the British commander's ideas as to confiscation
was issued on either the 6th or 16th. of September, 1780 (Tarleton,
186; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 460; and _Remembrancer_, xi. 25).
Clinton's reply to Washington is in _Cornwallis Correspondence_, i. 60,
with Cornwallis's and Rawdon's explanations (pp. 72, 501).
[1127] Ramsay was a prisoner at the time, and what he says (_Rev. in S.
C._, ii. 158-173, 288-303) has a considerable value. A large portion
of Moultrie's second volume (pp. 117-201) is taken up with the same
subject. Both of them relied on a letter written to Ramsay by Dr.
P. Fassoux, surgeon-general in the hospital at Charleston. Moultrie
declares that the letter "is an exact statement of their conduct in
our hospital at that time." The letter is in Moultrie, _Memoirs_, ii.
397,—the indorsement is on p. 277; Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._ (1781-82),
p. 116; and Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 527. If a tithe of this
statement is true, the conduct of the British officers in charge at
Charleston was simply brutal; but the British surgeon denied most of
the statements. It will do no harm to contrast this with the treatment
of those taken at Yorktown, as told by one of their own number, Gen.
Graham. Cf. his _Memoirs_, 66 _et seq._, and App. p. 306. English
writers have asserted that papers implicating the Charleston prisoners
in a conspiracy to overthrow the government were found in the pockets
of those taken at Camden; but no proof of this has ever been produced.
In fact, in his letter of Dec. 4th Cornwallis alleged as a reason for
their removal to St. Augustine that they were so insolent in their
behavior they could not be allowed to go at large in Charleston.
Indeed, the prisoners seem to have been treated with increased
harshness after Camden. Before that time everything had been done to
induce them to enlist in the British army. A regiment had been raised,
and the command offered to Moultrie, and refused by that sturdy patriot
in a letter which has been printed over and over again. Cf. Moultrie,
_Memoirs_, ii. 166; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 289; _Charleston
Year-Book_ for 1884; and reprinted as _The Correspondence of Lord
Montague with General Moultrie, 1781_ (Charleston, 1885).
[1128] Hayne's letters to the British authorities are in Gibbes, i. p.
108; _Remembrancer_, xiii. 121; Ramsay, 508-520.
[1129] Greene waited till Gadsden and his fellow-prisoners were safe
within the American lines; and his officers, in ignorance of his
purpose, remonstrated, Aug. 20, 1781, against this delay (Ramsay,
ii. 521; Moultrie, ii. 414; Greene's _Greene_, iii. 558; Gibbes, i.
128). Greene's formal proclamation, Aug. 26th, declared that the first
regular British colonel captured should suffer (Ramsay, _Rev. in S.
C._, ii. 524; Moultrie, ii. 417, _Remembrancer_, xiii. 125, etc.). Cf.
also Greene to Washington, Aug. 26, 1781, in _Corres. of Rev._, iii.
393; Balfour to Greene, Sept. 3, 1781. The letter to which this is an
answer I have not found in Ramsay, _U. S._, 520, extract; and Gibbes
(1781-82), 168. And see also Greene to Balfour, Sept. 19, 1781, in
Gibbes, 168. Before this threat could be carried out a new commander
arrived at Charleston, and the war took on humaner methods.
[1130] Cf. Hansard, xxii. 963; _Parl. Reg._ (Debrett), xxv. 81; _Polit.
Mag._, iii. 45, 73, 237, 383; Lee's _Memoirs_ (2d edition), 326; _Hist.
Mag._, x. 269.
[1131] Lee's _Campaign of 1781_, App.; R. E. Lee's ed. of Lee's
_Memoir_, p. 613.
[1132] Cf. Lieut. Hatton in Mackenzie's _Strictures_.
[1133] Pickens to Greene in Johnson's _Greene_, ii. 135, and Gibbes,
_Doc. Hist._ (1781-82), 91. On the other hand, Browne, the British
commander at Augusta, in a letter to Ramsay, dated Dec. 25, 1786
(White's _Hist. Coll._), asserts that James Alexander, a captain in
Pickens's militia, was the murderer whom Pickens shielded. It would
seem that such was the case. See further Johnson's _Traditions_;
McCall's _Georgia_; Jones's _Georgia_, ii. 455; Stevens's _Georgia_,
ii. 247; White's _Hist. Coll. of Georgia_, 210; Lee's _Memoirs_, ii.
204; and Stedman, _American War_, ii. 219.
[1134] There is an account of this author's life in _Mag. Western
History_, Jan., 1887.
[1135] He gives portraits of John Sevier, Shelby, Samuel Hammond,
Joseph McDowell, and De Peyster; and a view of Ferguson's headquarters.
W. E. Foster, in his review of Draper, gives references (_N. E. Hist.
and Geneal. Reg._, Jan., 1882, p. 92).
[1136] See the "report" in Draper, 522; Foote's _Western North
Carolina_, 126; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 338; and the newspapers of the
time. As to the opposing numbers, Ferguson had when attacked from
nine to eleven hundred men; the Americans numbered a little over nine
hundred. But as to the losses, it is within the truth to say that the
British loss was not under seven hundred and fifty in killed, wounded,
and prisoners; and it has been given as high as eleven hundred and
three in the official report. There is every reason to suppose that
this was an overestimate. The killed and wounded on the American side
did not exceed one hundred, and may be stated at ninety. This is
supposed to have resulted from the fact that the fire of the Tories,
being down-hill, was not so effective as the fire of the patriots in
the opposite direction. Draper (_King's Mountain_, 297) has said all
that can be said on this subject. There is an account of Campbell in
the _Mag. of Western Hist._, Jan., 1887.
[1137] Draper, 546; Foote's _Sketches of Western North Carolina_, 264;
and _Southern Literary Messenger_, xi. 552. It forms the basis of the
account in Ramsay's _Annals of Tennessee_, 225. On the whole, this
account is very favorable to Shelby.
[1138] Many years before this, a dispute had broken out between the
descendants of Campbell and Shelby himself. The portions of the papers
which this brought forth, so far as they relate to King's Mountain, are
reprinted in Draper, 540. What was in some sort a last word was said by
John C. Preston, Campbell's descendant, in his _Address delivered at
the Celebration of the battle of King's Mountain_ (printed separately
at Yorkville, S. C., 1855).
Charges of cowardice were also made on the British side. In February,
1781, a writer in the _Political Magazine_ accused De Peyster of
surrendering too soon; but in the same magazine (iii. 609) are
documents vindicating his character. Ferguson's death deprived
Cornwallis of a most valuable officer. For Ferguson, see _Biographical
Sketch or Memoir of Lieutenant-Colonel Patrick Ferguson, by Adam
Ferguson_ (Edinburgh, 1817). Cf. also _Political Magazine_, ii. 60;
Mackenzie, _Strictures_, 63; Foote, _Sketches of Virginia_, 2d series,
129.
[1139] This was given to Draper by Allaire's grandson, J. De Lancey
Robinson, of New Brunswick. The part relating to this campaign is
in Draper, 505-515. The British Museum has recently acquired a MS.
narrative of one Alexander Chesney, who describes the partisan
warfare in Carolina during the Revolution. He was wounded at King's
Mountain.—ED.
[1140] There are good accounts in the contemporary books, especially
in Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 178; Gordon, iii. 462; Moultrie, ii.
242; Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 207; Stedman, ii. 220; and Tarleton, 164.
Tarleton's account of Ferguson's campaign was displeasing to Mackenzie;
cf. _Strictures_, 58. It was also very distasteful to Cornwallis,
whom his former subordinate censured. Much can be gleaned from the
local histories: W. B. Zeigler and B. S. Crosscup, _The Heart of the
Alleghenies or Western North Carolina_ (Raleigh, N. C., and Cleveland,
Ohio, 1883, p. 219); Hunter, _Sketches of Western North Carolina_,
300; J. H. Logan, _History of the Upper Country of South Carolina_
(Columbia, 1859), vol. i., all ever published, p. 68. Cf. also J.
W. De Peyster in _Historical Magazine_, xvi. 189-197, and _Magazine
of American History_, v. 401-424; Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 624,
and _American Historical Record_, i. 529; Marshall, _Washington_,
iv. 397; J. C. Hamilton, _Hist. of the Republic_, ii. 161; _Am. Whig
Rev._, 2d series, ii. 580. Bancroft was present at the celebration in
1855, and made a speech. Cf. _Celebration of King's Mountain_, p. 75;
Moore's _Life of Lacey_, etc. For poetry we have a rude ballad by an
unknown author,—cf. Draper, 591; a poem by Paul H. Hayne in _Harper's
Monthly_, lxi. 942; by W. G. Simms in _Ibid._ xxi. 670; and a stirring
ballad, written shortly after the action, by an anonymous author in
Moore, _Songs and Ballads of the American Revolution_, p. 335, and
Draper, 592.
There is no good plan of this action. Foote (_Sketches of Western North
Carolina_) says that Graham made "several plots of the ground showing
the position of the different bands at different times." One of these,
depicting the situation at the time of the surrender, has been printed.
It should have accompanied the original publication of Graham's account
in the _Southern Literary Messenger_ (xi. 552), but was omitted. What
I take to be the same is given by Major-General John Watts De Peyster
in the _Historical Magazine_ (xvi. 192), who says that it was first
printed in the _Southern Lit. Messenger_, but when he does not say. He
adds that it was copied in the _University of North Carolina Magazine_.
A plan closely resembling it in general features is in Ramsay's _Annals
of Tennessee_, p. 238. A fac-simile of this last is in _Mag. of Am.
Hist._, v. 414. Draper (page 236) gives a _Diagram of the Battle of
King's Mountain_, in which the corps are arranged to suit his ideas,
together with a map of the neighboring region. There seems to be little
doubt but that Graham's arrangement is faulty, and too favorable to
Shelby. As to this officer, cf. _Mag. of Western Hist._ (Jan., 1887).
Lossing gives views of the field (_Field-Book_, ii. 629, 634).
[1141] Cf. _Ninth Report of Hist. MSS. Commission_, App. iii. p. 109.
The second of these is also in _Cornwallis Cor._, p. 495, and Clinton,
_Observations on Cornwallis_, etc., App., 32.
[1142] Cf. _Parl. Reg._, xxv. 124; _Fifth Report of Hist. MSS. Comm._,
236; _Political Mag._, ii. 339; and _Germain Cor._, 10.
[1143] _London Gazette_, Feb. 13-17, 1781; _Annual Register_, 1780
(Principal Occurrences, p. 17); Clinton, _Observations on Cornwallis_,
etc., App. p. 45; and _Cornwallis Corres._, i. 497. A short extract is
in Tarleton, p. 203.
[1144] _Cornwallis Corres._, i. 57-74, and Clinton, _Observations on
Cornwallis_, etc., pp. 29, 35.
[1145] Cf. also Marshall, _Washington_, iv. 336; G. W. Greene,
_Historical View of the American Revolution_ (Boston, 1865), pp.
265-281,—very laudatory. McRee, _Life of Iredell_ (i. 481-565),
contains, besides many interesting letters from and to the subject of
the book, an explanatory text, in which the author endeavors to defend
North Carolina from various charges that have been brought against her
people and militia. _Reminiscences of Dr. William Read_ in Gibbes,
_Doc. Hist._ (1776-82), 270 _et seq._; Randall, _Life of Jefferson_,
i.; Kapp's _Steuben_, Am. edition, pp. 344-369; Le Boucher, i. 280,
and ii. 17; Allen, _Hist. Am. Rev._, ii. 369-392; Caldwell's _Greene_,
pp. 150-388; Reed's _Reed_, ii. 339-381; J. C. Hamilton, _Life of
A. Hamilton_, i. 308, and _History of the Republic_, ii. 41, 133;
Irving's _Washington_, iv. There is an interesting article in _Harper's
Monthly_, xv. 159, on the first part of the campaign, and a good
account of the later portion from the British side in the _Political
Mag._, iv. 25-36.
Various letters of Greene after assuming command are in the _Steuben
Papers_ (copies in _Sparks MSS._, xv.). Washington's instructions are
in Sparks, vii. 271. He reached Charlotte in December (_Corresp. of
Rev._, iii. 165); _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Dec., 1881; by Lewis Morris in
_N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1875, p. 473; by C. W. Coleman in _Mag. of
Am. Hist._, vii. 36, 201.
[1146] For a brief and appreciative notice of Williams, see Lee,
_Memoirs_, i. 410. Cf. also _A Sketch of the Life and Services of
Gen. Otho Holland Williams, read before the Md. Hist. Soc. by Osmond
Tiffany_ (Baltimore, 1851).
[1147] There is a short notice of William Washington in Lee, _Memoirs_,
i. 399. See also Wyatt, 79-83.
[1148] Carrington was less known, but Hartley in his _Heroes_, p. 318,
has devoted a short space to him.
[1149] Cf. _Memoirs of Generals ... who were presented with medals by
Congress_, by Thomas Wyatt (Phila., 1848), pp. 70-78; _Mag. of Am.
Hist._, vii. 276-282,—with portrait; Hartley, _Heroes_, 317; Rogers,
_Biog. Dict._, 228, etc.
[1150] Davie, however, rose into prominence. Cf. Frances M. Hubbard,
_Life of William Richardson Davie_, in Sparks, _Am. Biog._, xxv. pp.
1-135. Pages 13-177 relate to his military career. Cf. also Lee,
_Memoirs_, i. 381; _Lives of the Heroes_, 134; and Rogers, _Biog.
Dict._, 114.
[1151] Cf. Greene's _Greene_, iii. ch. 1. The earliest general map of
the Southern campaigns from American sources appeared in David Ramsay's
_Hist. of the Rev. in So. Carolina_ (vol. i., Trenton, 1785). Gordon,
in 1785, sent this Ramsay map to Greene, asking him to correct it, and
lest it should not answer he sent other maps of the Southern States
for Greene to amend (_Hist. Mag._, xiii. 24, 25). Gordon's own map is
in his third volume, and is reduced in Greene's _Greene_. Other early
American maps are those in Marshall's _Atlas_ to his Washington, and in
Johnson's _Greene_, vol. ii.
The English maps are _A new and accurate map of North Carolina and part
of South Carolina, with the field of battle between Earl Cornwallis
and General Gates_ (London, 1780), and Faden's map of Feb. 3, 1787,
showing the _Marches of Lord Cornwallis in the Southern provinces,
comprehending the two Carolinas, with Virginia and Maryland and the
Delaware Counties_ (20 × 26 inches), which is the one also used in
Tarleton's _Campaigns_. Cf. those in the _Political Mag._, Nov., 1780,
and Kitchen's _Map of the Seat of War_, in _London Mag._, 1781, p. 291.
There are later eclectic maps in Carrington, 556; _Harper's Mag._,
lxiii. 324; and in such lesser works as Ridpath's _United States_,
342, and Lowell's _Hessians_, 265. There are French maps in Hilliard
d'Auberteuil's _Essais_, ii.; Balch's _Les Français en Amérique_, etc.
There was a map of South Carolina published in nine sheets (London,
1771,—_King's maps, Brit. Mus._, i. 209). That by James Cook was
engraved by Bowen in 1773 (_Brit. Mus. Catal. Maps_, 1885, col. 699).
Other maps antedating the active hostilities in the South were those
in the _Amer. Military Pocket Atlas_ (1776); the large sheet (56 ×
40 inches), with considerable detail, called _Map of North and South
Carolina_, the work of H. Mouzon and others (London, Sayer & Bennett,
1775); and upon this and Cook's the map in B. R. Carroll's _Hist. Coll.
of So. Carolina_ is based. Sayer & Bennett (London, 1776) published
a smaller map, 19 × 25 inches, called _A general map of the southern
British colonies in America, comprehending North and South Carolina
[etc.] with the Indian countries. From the modern surveys of de Brahm &
others & from hydrographic survey, by B. Romans, 1776._ It has marginal
plans of Charleston and St. Augustine.
In 1777 there was published both in London and Paris a large map of
South Carolina and Georgia, after surveys by Bull, Gascoigne, Bryan,
and De Brahm. The Paris publisher was Le Rouge, and it was included in
the _Atlas Amériquain_, which also reproduces the Mouzon map and the
English map of the Carolina coasts, by N. Pocock (1770).
The Bull, etc., map of 1777 was reissued by Faden in 1780 as a _Map of
South Carolina and a part of Georgia_. Cf. the map of _Parts of South
Carolina and Georgia_ in the _Political Mag._, i. 454. The _Brit. Mus.
Catal. Additional MSS._, no. 31,537, shows four plans, giving positions
of the British in South Carolina from May to September, 1779.
North Carolina alone was not so well mapped as South Carolina at the
outbreak of the war. There was a map published in London in 1770, after
surveys by Collet, governor of Fort Johnson (_King's maps, Brit. Mus._,
i. 208), and in the same library is a drawn map, also by Collet, of
the back country, made in 1768, in twelve sheets. E. W. Caruthers'
_Interesting Revolutionary incidents chiefly in the old North State_,
second series (Philadelphia, 1856), has a folding map, with the marches
of Greene and Cornwallis, from the Cowpens till the separation at
Ramsey's Mill.
The standard map of Virginia at the outbreak of the war was that by
Fry and Jefferson (see Vol. V. p. 273), originally issued in 1751, but
reproduced by Jefferys in 1775, and included in his _American Atlas_
(1775, no. 31). In 1777 Le Rouge reproduced it in Paris, and included
it in the _Atlas Amériquain_. Cf. the map of Virginia and Maryland in
Hilliard d'Auberteuil's _Essais_; and the maps in _Political Mag._,
i. 787, and _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, vi. 25; and for details those
in Simcoe's _Journal_ (giving various skirmishes, etc.), Sparks's
_Washington_, viii. 158; and Carrington's _Battles_, p. 616. There is
among the Rochambeau maps (no. 51) a _Plan du terrain à la rive gauche
de la rivière de James, vis-à-vis Jamestown, en Virginie, où etait le
Combat du 6 Juillet, 1781_, giving the first and second positions of
the troops in the engagement between Lafayette and Cornwallis. It is a
colored map, 18 × 18 inches, with a good key. Cf. map on the operations
in Virginia in _Mémoires_ of Lafayette (Paris, 1837), vol. i.—ED.
[1152] Pp. 258-329; 290-312 dealing more especially with this
engagement. See also Johnson's _Greene_, vol. ii. pp. 346, 370, 372,
and 410, and _Charleston News and Courier_ for May 10, 1881. Some part
at least of the correspondence of General Morgan is in the collection
of Theodorus Bailey Myers (_Johnson's Orderly-book_, p. 211). There are
a few letters in the _Correspondence of the Revolution_, iii. 217, with
Greene's official announcement of the victory to Washington (pp. 207,
214). Greene's letter to Marion is in Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._, 1781-82, p.
16.
[1153] _The London Gazette, March 27-31, 1781_, reprinted either in
whole or in part in _Remembrancer_, xi. 272; _Pol. Mag._, ii. 221;
Tarleton, 249; Cornwallis, _Answer to Clinton's Narrative_, App. 1;
Cornwallis, _Corr._, i. 81. Balfour, then the commander at Charleston,
also reported the particulars to Germain. Cf. _London Gazette_, as
above, etc. Cornwallis's order to Tarleton to "push Morgan to the
utmost" is in Graham's _Morgan_ 227, and in Tarleton, _Campaigns_, 244.
[1154] Mention should also be made of Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 252-266, and
R. E. Lee's ed., 229; Moultrie, _Memoirs_, ii. 252; Gordon, Ramsay,
_Rev. in S. C._, ii.,—all at second hand. See also Johnson's _Greene_,
i. 368; Greene's _Greene_, iii. 139; _Travels in North America in the
years 1780, 1781, and 1782. By the Marquis de Chastellux—translated
from the French by an English Gentleman_ (London, 1787), ii. 60.
The marquis claimed to have derived his account from Morgan, but he
probably did not understand him, as his description is at variance
with the best authorities. There are accounts of more or less value
in McSherry, _Maryland_, 276; _Memoir of General Graham_, p. 38;
Marshall, _Washington_, iv. 342; Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 636;
Carrington, _Battles_, 546; _Historical Magazine_, xii. 356 (Dec.,
1865), a "traditionary account;" _Harper's Monthly_, xxii. 163, etc.
Probably as good an estimate as can be formed of Morgan's force is that
contained in a letter from Greene to Marion of January 23, 1781. He
there gives it at 290 infantry and 80 cavalry of the line, and about
600 militia; total, 970. The estimate of the militia is too high, and
might be reduced by 100. Then, too, there were a few small detachments.
So that Morgan's assertion in his official report, that he fought with
only 800 men, is not incompatible with this statement of Greene's. The
British brought, or should have brought, into action at least 1,000
men, including 50 militia and a baggage-guard, which made off, without
striking a blow, as soon as the news of the defeat reached it. Greene
rates Tarleton's force at 200 more. But 1,000 was probably not far from
his number of "effectives" on the morning of Jan. 17, 1781, as opposed
to Morgan's 800.
In his official report Morgan gave his loss as 12 killed and about
60 wounded. He states, however, that he was not able at the time of
writing to ascertain the loss of the militia in the skirmish and front
lines. It must have been very small, however. The British loss he
gives as more than 110 killed, more than 200 wounded, and between 500
and 600 prisoners. Morgan states, however, that, as he was obliged to
move off the field so quickly, the estimate of killed and wounded was
very imperfect. The loss of the British in officers was very large,
and it is safe to follow Graham (_Life of Morgan_, p. 308) and place
the killed at 80, the wounded at 150, and the prisoners at 600. The
important fact is the deprivation to Cornwallis of his light infantry
at a time when he was sorely in need of such.
A good plan will be found in Johnson's _Greene_, i. 378, of which a
reduced fac-simile is given by Graham (p. 297). A more valuable plan as
coming from an actual observer, Colonel Samuel Hammond, is in Johnson's
_Traditions_, pp. 529, 530. The best plan is in Carrington's _Battles_,
p. 547. The medals given to Morgan, Colonels Washington and Howard are
figured in Loubat's _Medallic Hist. of the U. S._, and in Lossing's
_Cyclop. U. S. Hist._, p. 341. Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 637, gives a
view of the field.—ED.
[1155] Those from Morgan are in Graham's _Morgan_, 328 _et seq._ The
most interesting letter from Greene is one that he wrote to Reed (March
18), in Reed's _Reed_, ii. 348. A letter to Washington (Irwin's Ferry
on Dan, Feb. 15, 1781) may be regarded as his official report. Cf.
_Corres. Rev._, iii. 233. It should be read in connection with one
of six days earlier, in the same volume, p. 225. Cf. also a letter
to Lieutenant Lock as to militia in _Hist. Mag._, v. 86; Caruthers'
_Incidents_, p. 195; originally printed in Tarleton, 252. Lee's
description of the retreat after the union of the two wings at Guilford
is admirable (_Memoirs_, i. 267-298).
[1156] _London Gazette for June 2-5, 1781_; _Annual Register_ for 1781
(_Principal Occurrences_, p. 62); Cornwallis, _Answer to Clinton_,
Appendix, p. 23; Cornwallis, _Corres._, i. 502; Tarleton, 259, etc. For
a less official account, see Cornwallis to Rawdon, Feb. 4 and Feb. 21,
in Cornwallis, _Corres._, 83, 84.
[1157] Cf. also _British Invasion of North Carolina in 1780 and 1781. A
Lecture, by Hon. Wm. A. Graham, delivered before the N. Y. Hist. Soc.
in 1853._ This short and interesting account of the campaign is printed
as part iii. of _Revolutionary History of North Carolina_ (Raleigh
and N. Y., 1853), pp. 180-187. General Joseph Graham also presented
the local idea of this campaign in the _University of North Carolina
Magazine_, vol. iii.
[1158] See also Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 203; Greene's _Greene_,
iii. 148-175; Johnson's _Greene_, i. 387. Johnson thinks that too much
credit has been given to Cornwallis. Lamb's _Journal_, 343; Marshall's
_Washington_, iv., etc.
[1159] The map is on p. 245. Stedman also gives a plan in _Amer. War_,
ii. 328. The whole march can be traced on the general maps, especially
the map in Caruthers' _Incidents_, second series. Cf. Lossing, ii. 598.
[1160] See also Seymour's "Journal" (_Penna. Hist. Mag._, vii.) for
another contemporary account.
[1161] _North Carolina University Magazine_, vol. vii. 193. This was
written in 1824 and cannot be regarded as authority of the first
importance. The passage relating to this affair is quoted by Caruthers,
_Incidents_, 76. That author's own account is derived to a great extent
from tradition (_Incidents_, 71 _et seq._). In the above letter Graham
asserted that he saw Eggleston—the leader of Lee's rear troop—strike
a Tory with the butt of his pistol, and that the blow brought about the
conflict. The different narratives cannot be reconciled. Very likely
Lee had forgotten the exact details. It is certain that Stedman (_Amer.
War_, ii. 333), in his estimate of the Tory loss in killed alone at
between two and three hundred, more than doubled the actual number; but
it was a murderous business at best.
[1162] There are three letters from Greene to Washington in Sparks,
_Corr. Rev._, iii. 224, 259, 266. The second of these (March 10) was
also printed in _Remembrancer_, xii. 37; _Pol. Mag._, ii. 380; and
Tarleton, 258. Greene's official report to the President of Congress
may be found in Caldwell's _Greene_, p. 432; _Ann. Reg._ for 1781,
Principal Occurrences, p. 148; _Remembrancer_, xii. 37; Tarleton, 313;
Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 414, etc. Cf. also a letter to Morgan in Graham's
_Morgan_, 372, and to Reed, in Reed's _Reed_, ii. 348. As to the
proper dispositions to make in engagements where much reliance must
be placed on militia, see Morgan to Greene, Feb. 20, in a note to
Johnson's _Greene_, ii. 6. As to events subsequent to the battle, see
Nash, governor of N. C., to Washington in Sparks, _Corres. Rev._, iii.
282; Greene to same in _Ibid._ 277; Johnson, _Greene_, ii. 37; and
_Remembrancer_, xii. 116. Greene also wrote to Greene, governor of R.
I., on the same subject. Cf. _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._, vi. 284, and _R.
I. Col. Rec._, ix. 380.
[1163] Cornwallis's report to Germain (_London Gazette_, June 2-5,
1781) was widely reprinted (_Corn. Corr._, i. 506; Cornwallis, _Answer
to Clinton's Narrative_, App. p. 35; _Remembrancer_, xii. 21, etc.,
etc.). He also wrote a friendly note to Rawdon, in which he says that
after a very sharp action he had routed Greene (_Corn. Corr._, i.
85; _Remembrancer_, xi. 332; _Polit. Mag._, ii. 329, etc.). Balfour
communicated the news of the "victory at Guilford" to Germain in two
letters, dated respectively March 24 and 27. These last three letters
arrived in London in season to be published in the _Gazette Extra_ for
May 11, 1781,—nearly a month before the official report was given to
the world. Cf. also _Remembrancer_, xi. 329. Cornwallis's _Order-book_
is very valuable for this period, although it is often hard to
reconcile the dates as there given with the accepted accounts,—in
Caruthers, _Incidents_, 2d ser. pp. 391-442. See also St. George
Tucker to Fanny (his wife) under date of March 18, 1781, in _Mag.
Amer. Hist._, vii. 40; viii. 201; and Seymour's "Journal" in _Penna.
Mag. Hist._, vii. 377. Major Weemys gives the supposed strength of
Cornwallis's army before the action at Guilford, March 15, 1781, as,
in the field with him, 2,700; in his department, 6,000 in all (_Sparks
MSS._ xx.).—ED.
[1164] Good descriptions are in the _Memoirs_ of the British Graham
(pp. 41-46), in Gordon (iv. 53), and in Stedman (ii. 337). Lamb in his
so-called _Journal_ (pp. 348-362) follows Stedman, but he added several
interesting anecdotes, which it must be remembered are related by an
actual actor in the battle.
[1165] Another apologetic description is that in McSherry's _Maryland_
(p. 286). The plain fact is that the 2d Maryland broke and contributed
materially to the defeat of the Americans. The Grenadier Guards
(Hamilton, ii. 247) did excellent work on the British side, and the
account in the history of that corps is good. The Hessians, too, once
more appeared on the Southern fields (Eelking, _Hülfstruppen_, ii. 101,
and Lowell, _Hessians_, 268). Other accounts may be found in Marshall's
_Washington_, iv. 336; Greene's _Greene_, iii. 176; Johnson's _Greene_,
ii. 4; Allen, _Hist. Amer. Rev._, ii. 393; Andrews, iv. 100; Botta
(Otis's trans.), iii. 263; Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 599 and 608;
_Mag. Amer. Hist._, vii. 38; _Harper's Magazine_, xv. 158; Dawson,
Carrington, etc.
A narrative of subsequent events in North Carolina, with a loyalist's
sympathies, is in _The Narrative of Colonel David Fanning ... as
written by himself_, Richmond, 1861. "Printed for private distribution
only." A small edition (50 copies) was brought out by Sabin in 1865.
[1166] Greene to Huntingdon (President of Congress) in Caldwell's
_Greene_, p. 435; _Remembrancer_, xii. 126; _Pol. Mag._, ii. 547;
Tarleton, 467, etc. See also letters to Lee and Marion in Gibbes, _Doc.
Hist._, 1781-82, 60. Cf. also Sparks, _Corres. Rev._, iii. 299, and
Reed's _Reed_, ii. 351, 361.
[1167] Rawdon's order which brought on the battle is in _Pol. Mag._,
ii. 340. The British commander reported to Cornwallis (_Corn. Corr._,
i. 97, and _Remembrancer_, xv. 1); Balfour to Germain (_London
Gazette_, June 2-5, 1781; reprinted in _Annual Register_ for the
same year under Principal Occurrences, p. 71; _Pol. Mag._, ii. 380;
_Remembrancer_, xii. 27; Tarleton, p. 465; etc.). On the 6th Balfour
wrote to Clinton, giving a very gloomy account of affairs (Clinton,
_Observations on Cornwallis_, etc., App. p. 97). Clinton enclosed
several letters of about this time to Germain (_Remembrancer_, xii.
151). In a letter to Cornwallis, dated Monk's Corner, May 24, Rawdon
describes his movements after the fight. It is a valuable letter
(_London Gazette_, July 31-Aug. 4, 1781; _Remembrancer_, xv. 4, while
extracts are in _Ibid._ xii. 151; _Pol. Mag._, ii. 482; Tarleton, 475;
Clinton, _Observations on Cornwallis_, etc., App. p. 91; Gibbes, _Doc.
Hist._ (1781-82), p. 77, etc.).
[1168] Cf. also Gordon, iv. 81; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._; Stedman,
ii. 324; Lee, _Memoirs_, ii. 57 (he always spells the name of the
battle-ground Hobkick's Hill); Lee, _Campaign of 1781_, 264; Balch's
_Maryland Line_, 143. As to numbers, Greene thought that the two armies
were about equal,—one thousand on each side. This is probably nearly
correct; for Rawdon gave his own number at 960, and Gordon, on the
authority of returns not now accessible, rated Greene's force at 1,194
men of all arms. This included 254 North Carolina militia who had just
arrived. They were not included in the battle line. Williams reported
the American loss at 268; but 133 of these are given as missing, with
the remark that they probably had mistaken the order as to a place of
rendezvous. Rawdon reported his own loss at 220 men. But Tarleton, on
the authority of a return in the _Annual Register_, gives it at 258.
The discrepancy is not material.
[1169] His letter to the President of Congress is in _Remembrancer_,
xii. 197; Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._ (1781-82), p. 70; etc. Cf. also a letter
to Washington in Sparks, _Cor. Rev._, iii. 310.
[1170] Cf. _Remembrancer_, xv. 6, for a _copy_. Cf. also
_Remembrancer_, xii. 153; _Pol. Mag._, ii. 483; and Gibbes, p. 89, for
_extracts_. A report to Clinton of June 6 is printed, with this, except
in Gibbes.
[1171] Substantially the same account is in White's _Hist. Coll. of
Georgia_, p. 607; Stevens's _Georgia_, ii. 247; and Jones's _Georgia_,
ii. 455.
[1172] See, in addition to the above, _Remembrancer_, xii. 289. There
are no plans of any of these sieges, and the statements as to numbers
are too vague and contradictory to be made the basis of any accurate
estimates.
[1173] There is an account of Cruger in Jones, _New York during the
Rev. War_, ii. 376.
[1174] See also Greene, to Marion in Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._ (1781-82), p.
100; to Washington in Sparks, _Cor. Rev._, iii. 341; and to Jefferson
in Greene's _Greene_, iii. 555. O. H. Williams sent an interesting
description of the siege to his brother (Tiffany's _Williams_, p. 21).
Greene's letters to Sumter and Marion and Sumter's letters to Marion
are in Greene's _Greene_ (fragmentary) and Gibbes, 93 _et seq._
[1175] Several letters from Balfour to Germain of this period are
in _Remembrancer_, xii. 172 and 173; _Polit. Mag._ ii.; and _London
Gazette_, Aug. 7-11, 1781. Rawdon gives the loss of the garrison as
less than forty, but this is very possibly too low. Cruger had 550 men
when the siege began. The British account in Mackenzie rates Greene at
5,000, which estimate is absurd. It was not under 1,000 nor over 1,500,
including militia. Williams reported the loss at 57 killed, 70 wounded,
and 20 missing. Rawdon had "near 2,000" men. Of these 7 were placed
_hors de combat_ on the way up, "50" died of the heat, and Lee captured
250 of the cavalry on the homeward march,—a total loss of 307.
[1176] Something can also be found in Gordon, _American War_, iv. 92;
Ramsay,_ Rev. in S. C._; Stedman, _Amer. War_, ii. 364; Johnson's
_Greene_, ii. 127 (he apologizes for Sumter's behavior; but see
Greene's _Greene_, iii. 319); Greene's _Greene_, iii. 219; Jones, _New
York during the Revolutionary War_, ii. 376; Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii.
690; Marshall's _Washington_, iv. 524; etc. Simms has written several
romances relating to this time.
Johnson has given a plan of the works in his Greene, ii. 140; a reduced
fac-simile is in Greene's _Greene_, iii. 299. The works were planned by
Lieutenant Haldane, of Cornwallis's family (cf. Stedman, ii. 364), but
Lieutenant Barrette was engineer in charge at the time of the siege.
Cf. Hatton in Mackenzie, 163. Also map in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii.
691.
[1177] Dated near Ferguson's Swamp, Sept. 11, 1781, in Caldwell's
_Greene_, p. 441; _Remembrancer_, xiii. 175; _Pol. Mag._, ii. 677;
Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._ (1781-82), p. 141; Tarleton, p. 513, etc. Cf. also
Marion to P. Horry, in Gibbes, 160.
[1178] It was dated Eutaw, Sept. 9, 1781 (_London Gazette_, Jan.
29-Feb. 2, 1782;) reprinted in whole or in part in _Ann. Reg._, 1782,
Principal Occurrences, p. 7; _Remembrancer_, xiii. 152; _Pol. Mag._,
iii. 108; Tarleton, 508; Gibbes, p. 136; etc., etc.
[1179] Cf. J. W. De Peyster in _United Service_ (Sept. 1881; _Harper's
Mag._, lxvii. 557); Lossing, ii. 699; Dawson, Carrington, etc. On the
Eutaw flag, see R. Wilson in _Lippincott's Mag._, xvii. 311. Johnson
(_Greene_, ii. 224) gives a plan of two stages of the battle, and it
is reproduced by G. W. Greene (iii. 384). Carrington (p. 582) gives
a minuter plan. Johnson (ii. 238) gives a map of the country between
Eutaw and Charleston.
The journal of Captain Kirkwood, of the Delaware regiment, beginning
at Germantown, Sept. 14, 1777, and giving the marches of that regiment
in 1777, its course during the Southern campaign of 1780, with a table
of the losses at Eutaw, Sept. 8, is in _Sparks MSS._, xxv. (also xlix.
vol. 3). Greene's medal is given in Loubat.—ED.
[1180] A notice of Laurens's career, by G. W. P. Custis, is in
Littell's Graydon's _Memoirs_ (Appendix, p. 472). See also Hartley's
_Heroes_, 310.
[1181] _Remembrancer_, xv. 29; the latter is also in _Corres. of the
Rev._, iii. 529. The Delaware troops took part in this action. Cf.
C. P. Bennett in _Penna. Mag._, ix. 452 _et seq._ Major Bennett was
a lieutenant in the regiment at the time. His account, however, was
written fifty years after the war, and cannot be reconciled with
contemporary narratives.
[1182] Cf. _Life of Count Rumford_, by George E. Ellis, pp. 123-131,
and 666-668. There is absolutely nothing about Rumford's military
career in Renwick's so-called _Life of Benjamin Thomson_, in Sparks's
_American Biography_, xv. pp. 1-216. A most curious and insufficient
reason for this omission is given on p. 59 of the same work.
[1183] See also "Journal of Captain John Davis" in _Penna. Hist. Mag._,
v. 300, and Seymour's Journal in _Ibid._ vii. 390.
[1184] The _Maryland Papers_, too, contain several interesting letters,
especially one from Roxburgh to Smallwood (p. 186), on the evacuation
of Savannah. See also, with regard to the same event, Greene to the
President of Congress, in _Remembrancer_, xv. 21.
[1185] Moultrie, _Memoirs_, ii. 343, has devoted considerable space to
it. Cf. also _Mag. Am. Hist._, viii. 826.
[1186] Cf. especially on this last campaign Johnson's _Greene_, ii.
238-394, and Lee, _Memoirs_ (2d edition), p. 378 _et seq._
[1187] This table as given in _Charleston Year Book_ (1883), p. 416, is
not entirely correct.
[1188] See letter from Clinton, enclosing reports from Mathews of May
16th and 24th, and from Collier of May 16, 1779 (_London Gazette_, June
19-22, and July 6-10, 1779; also in _Remembrancer_, viii. 270, 296,
etc.). Collier also wrote three letters to Stephens, secretary of the
admiralty (_London Gazette_, as above, and July 10-13, 1779).
[1189] See also Girardin, _Continuation of Burk_, iv. 332-338;
Hamilton, _Grenadier Guards_, ii. 236; Stedman, ii. 136; J. E. Cooke in
_Harper's Mag._, liii. 1 etc.
[1190] A journal of Baron Steuben in Virginia, Dec. 21, 1780, to Jan.
11, 1781, is among the copies of the Steuben MSS. in the _Sparks
MSS._, xv. 182. Cf. Kapp's _Steuben_, and the lives of Jefferson,
then governor. Cf. Henry A. Muhlenberg's _Life of Maj.-Gen. Peter
Muhlenberg_ (Philad., 1849), who was under Steuben. Cf. also
_Deutsch-Amerikanisches Magazin_, 1887; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii.
383; _Harper's Mag._, lxiii. 333, for portraits and accounts.—ED.
[1191] Clinton, _Observations on Cornwallis_, App. p. 61;
_Parliamentary Register_, xxv. 143; and _Germain Corresp._, 75, 79.
Arnold's report to Clinton of May 12th—Phillips, who died on the 13th,
being too ill to write—is really a diary of events since the 18th of
the preceding April, the day on which Phillips began the ascent of the
James. It is in _Remembrancer_, xii. 60; _Political Mag._, ii. 390;
and _Hist. Mag._, iii. 294. Extracts are given by Ramsay, Tarleton (p.
334), and others. The report (May 16) is given in full in Arnold's
_Arnold_, p. 344. Jones in his _New York during the Revolutionary
War_ (ii. 463) says that Clinton, distrusting Arnold, gave dormant
commissions to Dundas and Simcoe. The commissions were never used; but
Simcoe in his _Military Journal_ (ed. of 1787, pp. 108-146; ed. of
1844, pp. 158-208) gave a narrative of the whole movement, in which he
figured himself as the principal personage. See also _Memoir of General
Graham_, pp. 33-37; Beatson's _Memoirs_, v. 211-225; and Eelking,
_Hülfstruppen_, ii. 105.
[1192] Giradin's account is full (_Continuation of Burk_, iv. 418). See
also Muhlenberg's _Muhlenberg_, pp. 205-213; Sparks's _Washington_,
vii. 269; Lee's _Memoirs_, R. E. Lee's ed., 297, 314; Howison's
_Virginia_, ii. 248; Randall's _Jefferson_, i. 283-294, etc. See also,
on these movements in Virginia, Wirt's _Henry_; Rives's _Madison_, i.
289; Madison's _Writings_, i. 45; Jefferson's _Writings_, ix. 212;
Jones's _New York during the Revolutionary War_, ii. 177; Campbell's
_Virginia_, 168; I. N. Arnold's _Life of B. Arnold_, 342-348; Gordon's
_Am. War_, iv. 59; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 384; _Va. Hist. Reg._, iv. 195;
Marshall's _Washington_, iv. 387; Sparks's _Washington_, vii. 347, 410;
Carrington's _Battles_; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 434, 546; and J. A.
Stevens's "Expedition of Lafayette against Arnold" in _Maryland Hist.
Soc. Proc._ (1878).
[1193] See also Gordon, iv. 107; Lee, _Memoirs_ (2d edition), 285;
Stedman, _Am. War_; and Beatson, _Memoirs_, v. 239. On Lafayette's
preparations, see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, v. 150
[1194] Something may be found in Regnault's _Lafayette_, 190; Kapp's
_Steuben_, 420; Eelking, _Hülfstruppen_, ii. 109; Chotteau, _Les
Français_, etc. See also _Harper's Monthly_, vii. 145.
[1195] _Mémoires ... du Générale Lafayette publiés par sa Famille_
(Paris, 1837), vol. i. This edition was in six volumes. An English
translation in three volumes was published at London in the same
year. The first volume of this was reprinted at New York in 1838,
with an appendix containing many valuable documents not elsewhere in
print. Among these is a report to Greene relating to the affair at
the crossing of the James near Jamestown. Wayne, who commanded at the
front, also made a report, which is in Sparks's _Corres. of Rev._
Lafayette's letters and narrative of his campaign in Virginia are in
the _Sparks MSS._, nos. lxxxiv., lxxxvi.
[1196] See also _The Part of Virginia which was the seat of action_, in
Gordon, iv. 116.
[1197] There is an interesting letter from Christian Febiger to T.
Bland, dated July 3, 1781, in _Bland Papers_, p. 71. See also _Ibid._,
p. 68.
[1198] Cf. also Denny's journal in _Penna. Hist. Soc. Mem._, vii.;
Judge Brooks's account in _Va. Hist. Reg._, vi. 197; _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, ii. 572. Lafayette always thought that he forced Cornwallis
back to take post at Yorktown; but it was really Clinton's message
that he could not reinforce Cornwallis that led the latter to fortify
himself, according to E. E. Hale (_Franklin in France_, 463).—ED.
[1199] The _Tenth Report of the Royal Commission on Hist. MSS._
(App. i. p. 29) contains two letters still further lessening the
responsibility of Clinton for the disaster. In the first, from Lord
George Germain to Clinton, the latter is given "positive orders to push
the war in the South." The projected withdrawal of Arnold and Phillips
is not approved. This is dated May 2, 1781. In the second letter, also
from Germain, Clinton is advised that the French fleet will sail to
America, and that Rodney will follow it. This letter is dated July 7,
1781. It is not stated whether Clinton ever received these notes. If he
did receive them, he certainly must have felt obliged to continue the
war in the South.
In the _Fifth Report of the Commission on Hist. MSS._ (p. 235) there
are three letters written by "Sir H. Crosby" and "Sir H. C.", which
the editor takes to stand for Sir H. Crosby. At least one was written
by Clinton, and the probability is that all were written by him. The
first (N. Y., July 18, 1781) relates to the proceedings of Cornwallis,
and gives a statement of the troops under some of the British generals
in America, and an estimate of the number of French troops which
Washington has within call. The third (to G. G., dated Dec., 1781) is
plainly the work of Clinton, as the author says that, from the tone
of Cornwallis's letter of Oct. 20 (his official report), it might be
supposed that the author was to blame for the selection of the post
at Yorktown. In the last, also written in December, 1781, the writer
attributes the disaster to the want of promised naval supremacy under
Sir G. Rodney. He also gives Cornwallis's explanation of the passages
complained of in his report. Cf. also Jones's _New York during the Rev.
War_, ii., notes to pp. 464-470, where the editor gives extracts from
Clinton's annotations of a copy of Stedman's _American War_. S. H. Gay
(_N. Am. Rev._, Oct., 1881) follows Cornwallis's movements previous to
his fortifying at Yorktown.
[1200] On this subject see also Clinton's _Observations on Stedman_, p.
16.
[1201] _London Gazette_, Dec. 15. Among the more accessible books
containing it are _Remembrancer_, xiii. 37; Johnston's _Yorktown_, 181;
Tarleton, p. 427; Lee, _Memoirs_ (2d ed.), App. p. 457; R. E. Lee's
ed., 610, etc.
[1202] Clinton to Cornwallis, Sept. 6, 1781, in _Parl. Reg._, xxv.
189. Clinton also described his endeavors in a letter to Germain in
_Remembrancer_, xiii. 57.
[1203] Cf. _Two Letters respecting the conduct of Rear Admiral Graves
on the coast of the United States, July-November, 1781, by William
Graves, Esq._ Edited by H. B. Dawson, 1865. The original was privately
printed. Dawson says "the present edition is as perfect a fac-simile of
the original as can now be made."
[1204] _Remembrancer_, xiii. 515, while a letter from Cornwallis
to Washington respecting the form of parole is in _Cornwallis
Correspondence_, i. 126.
[1205] _Fifth Report of Royal Commission on Hist. MSS._, p. 235
(Lansdown MSS.).
[1206] _Memoirs_, ii. 434, copied in Niles's _Principles_, etc. (ed.
1876). For effect of the news in England, see _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
Nov., 1881, p. 363; and John Fiske on the political consequences, in
_Atlantic Monthly_, Jan., 1886. The papers laid before Parliament are
in the _Polit. Mag._, iii. 339. Cf. also Walpole's _Last Journals_,
ii. 474; Donne's _Corresp. of George III._, etc., ii. 390; Macknight's
_Burke_, ii. 457, etc. For the effect in Europe generally, see Parton's
_Franklin_, ii. 452; Hale's _Franklin in France_, p. 464.—ED.
[1207] Cf. also two valuable letters written during the siege from
Washington to Heath, who commanded on the Hudson, in _5 Mass. Hist.
Soc. Coll._, iv. 224 _et seq._ We note two early tables of the
prisoners taken, one in the Meshech Weare papers in the Mass. Hist.
Soc. library, and the other in the _Sparks MSS._, xlix. vol. iii. The
vote of thanks given by Congress to Washington, with his reply, is in
_Journals of Congress_, iii. 694. Washington's epaulettes worn at the
time are in the Mass. Hist. Soc. (_Proc._, iii. 133). For "Cornwallis
Burgoyned", see Moore's _Songs and Ballads_, 367.—ED.
[1208] _Orderly-book of the Siege of Yorktown, from September 26th,
1781, to November 2d, 1781_ (Philad., 1865), being Revolutionary
series, no. 1, published by Horace W. Smith.
[1209] Lincoln's MS. orderly-book is in possession of Mr. Crosby, of
Hingham, Mass. Johnston (_Yorktown_, p. 91, note) gives an order of
Lincoln's as copied from the Lamb MSS. An orderly-book of General Gist
belongs to the Maryland Hist. Soc. An _Orderly-Book of the Second
Battalion of the Penna. Troops before Yorktown_ is in Egle's _Notes
and Queries_, 145-156. It runs, however, only to Sept. 14th. See also
Feltman to Lieutenant Johnston, dated Yorktown, Oct. 10, 1781, in Egle
(p. 132). There is a _Journal of the Campaign by Lieutenant William
Feltman_, May, 1781-April, 1782 (_Penn. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1853, and
_Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vol. xi.); and a _Journal of the Siege of
York in Virginia, by a chaplain of the American Army_ (_Mass. Hist.
Soc. Coll._, iv. 102-108). From a reference in Thacher's _Journal_,
Johnston (_Yorktown_, App., p. 196) infers that the latter appears
to have been the work of Chaplain Evans, of Scammell's corps. A
portion of the _Military Journal of Major Ebenezer Denny_ relates to
this siege (_Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem._, vii. 237-249). Another valuable
journal is the one kept by Capt. John Davis, of the Pennsylvania line
(_Westchester Village Record_, 1821, and _Principles and Acts of the
Revolution_, 1st ed., p. 465, and 2d ed., p. 293, and entire from May
26, 1781, to June 10, 1782, in _Penna. Hist. Mag._, v. 290-311; vii.
339). Other journals are _Notes of the Siege of Yorktown_, by Dayton,
in _New Jersey Hist. Soc. Proc._, ix.-x. 187; Colonel Tilghman's _Diary
of the Siege of Yorktown_ in Appendix to _Memoir of Tench Tilghman_;
_Journal of the Siege of Yorktown_, by Col. Richard Butler, in _Hist.
Mag._, viii. 102; _Extract from the Journal of a Chaplain in the
American Army_—Sept. 12-Oct. 22, 1781—in _Potter's American Monthly_,
v. 744; _Journal of Colonel Jonathan Trumbull_ in _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._ (April, 1876), vol. xiv. 331; Thacher's _Military Journal_, pp.
334-351; "Siege of York and Gloucester" in _American Museum_, June,
1787,—reprinted in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, vii. 222-224; an anonymous
journal in Martin's _Gazetteer of Virginia_, pp. 293-295; and a _Diary
of the March from the Hudson to Yorktown and return, by Lieutenant
Saunderson_, of the Connecticut line, in Johnston's _Yorktown_, p.
170,—the original being in that author's possession. The diary of
David Cobb, Oct.-Nov., 1781, is in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Oct.,
1881, p. 67. A journal of Henry Dearborn, ending Nov. 24, 1781, is
owned by Dr. T. A. Emmet, of N. Y., having been bought in the J. W.
Thornton sale, no. 284. See also letters from Governor Nelson to
various persons in the "Nelson Papers" (no. 1 of the New Series of
the Publications of the Virginia Historical Society). There are other
letters in the _Va. Hist. Reg._, ii. 34; v. 157; Drake's _Knox_, 69,
etc.
[1210] It is entitled _Journal of the Operations of the French Corps
under the command of Count Rochambeau_ (_Remembrancer_, xiii. 35, and
_Pol. Mag._, ii. 707). Portions are also in Tarleton's _Campaigns_,
443, taken, probably, from a diary which was afterwards printed in the
_Paris Gazette_, Nov. 20, 1781, as _Journal des Opérations du Corps
Français sous le commandement du Comte de Rochambeau_; also found
in _Two Letters respecting the conduct of Rear Admiral Graves_, pp.
31, 32, and translated by Dawson, pp. 38, 39. Another translation,
_Substance of a French Journal from the Supplement to the Gazette de
France of Nov. 20, 1781_, is reprinted in the _Mag. Am. Hist._, vii.
224, from _Pennsylvania Packet_ of Feb. 21, 1782. See also the account
in Rochambeau's _Mémoires_, i. 289-302; Wright's translation of above,
65-80; Soulés, _Troubles_, iii. 369-378, and 386-398,—attributed to
Rochambeau; and Lauzun, _Mémoires_, 194-205.
[1211] No. 1,886 in his sale catalogue.
[1212] The _Magazine of American History_ contains two other journals
which really formed a part of this diary, and were written by M. de
Ménonville (vii. p 283-288), and by "the engineers" (vii. 449-452).
[1213] The original _Journal de Campagne de Claude Blanchard_, ed. by
Maurice La Chesnais, was published in Paris, 1869.
[1214] _My Campaigns in America. A Journal kept by Count William de
Deux-Ponts, 1780-81. Translated from the French Manuscript, with
an Introduction by S. A. Green_, Boston, 1868. The original and
translation are here printed successively. Dr. S. A. Green came upon
this valuable manuscript by chance while in Paris.
[1215] At a later day it was charged that Lafayette had ordered the
garrison of the small redoubt to be put to the sword in revenge for
the murder of Alexander Scammell. Of course the charge was false. It
led to a correspondence between Lafayette and Hamilton. Cf. _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, vii. 363 _et seq._, and Hamilton's _Works_, vi. 555.
Lafayette's narrative, as he gave it to Sparks, is in the _Sparks
MSS._, no. xxxii.
[1216] Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 317; Gordon, iv. 175; Stedman, ii.;
Lee, _Memoirs_ (2d ed., p. 307). Lee was present during the siege as
the bearer of despatches from Greene, or for some other reason.
[1217] _The Yorktown Campaign and the Surrender of Cornwallis_, 1781
(N. Y., 1881). Johnston also printed an article in _Harper's Monthly_,
lxiii. 323.
[1218] _Yorktown, an Account of the Campaign_ (N. Y., 1882). See also,
by the same author, _The Campaign of the Allies_ in _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, vii. 241.
[1219] Drake's _Knox_, 62; Hamilton's _Hamilton_, ii. 256-275; Leake's
_Lamb_, 276; Williams's _Olney_, 266; Custis's _Recollections_, 229;
Kapp's _Steuben_, 453, etc., with the diary of an Anspach sergeant. Cf.
Balch, p. 14, for references to another diary of a German.
[1220] See J. A. Stevens, _The Allies at Yorktown_ in _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, vi. 1; Page, _Old Yorktown_ in _Scribner's Mag._, xxii. 801;
Goldwin Smith, _Naseby and Yorktown_ in _Contem. Rev._, Nov., 1881;
_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Dec., 1881,—a collection of newspaper scraps,
some of value; E. M. Stone's _French Allies_, 416; E. E. Hale in
_Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1881; _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, v.
290; W. S. Stryker's _New Jersey Continental Line in the Virginia
Campaign of 1781_ (Trenton, 1882); Longchamps, _Histoire Impartiale_,
iii. 129; Robin, _Nouveau Voyage_, 29; Le Boucher, ii. 26; Chotteau,
267; Regnault's _Lafayette_, 199,—not good for much; Tarleton's
_Campaigns_, 351; Clinton, _Observations on Stedman_, 22; Beatson's
_Memoirs_, v. 271; _Memoir of General Samuel Graham_, 55; Grant's
_British Battles_, 173; Botta, Otis's trans., iii. 374. Lamb's
_Journal_, p. 370 _et seq._, is of considerable interest, especially
the portion narrating his escape and subsequent recapture. See also
Capt. William Mure to Andrew Stuart, dated Yorktown, Oct. 21, 1781,
in Mahon's _Hist. of England_, vol. vii. App. xxxviii. There is in
the Boston Public Library a MS. orderly-book of the troops under
Lord Cornwallis, dated Williamsburgh, 28 June, 1781, to Yorktown, 19
October, 1781, and made up by several officers. The generally received
account of the reception of the news in England is probably not
correct. Cf. Stockbridge in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, vii. 321.
[1221] The official account of the recent celebration at Yorktown
is called a _Report of the Commission for a monument commemorative
of the Surrender of Lord Cornwallis_ (Wash., 1883). This contains
Robert C. Winthrop's oration, which has also been separately printed.
Another notable address was by the Hon. J. L. M. Curry, delivered
at Richmond and published. A French account of this anniversary,
_Yorktown Centénaire de l'indépendance des Etats-Unis d'Amérique,
1781-1881_ (Paris, 1886), is the work of Rochambeau's descendant. Cf.
Stone's _French Allies_, 535; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, vii. 302; _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, xix. 101. Another volume called forth by the same
celebration is _An Account of General Lafayette's Visit to Virginia in
1824-25_, by Robert D. Ward, Richmond, 1881.
[1222] Liverpool.
[1223] Yet in 1668-9 the colony of Massachusetts had sent a ship-load
of masts to Charles II.; and at the end of the century, Bellomont, in
one of his despatches home, says that from the port of Boston there
sailed more vessels built in New England than belonged to all Scotland
and Ireland. Bellomont urged on the home government the importance of
making in America their own tar and pitch. New Hampshire was already
sending masts, yards, and bowsprits to England, and Bellomont shows the
government how they could save by carrying them for themselves. This
was in 1700 and 1701.
[1224] Cf. "Ships of the Eighteenth Century", by Admiral Preble, in
_United Service_, x. 95, 117.—ED.
[1225] On the capture of the "Margaretta" at Machias, see Kidder's
_Military Operations in Eastern Maine_, p. 39; _Maine Hist. Soc.
Coll._, ii. 142; _Hist. Mag._, xiii. 251; Com. F. H. Parker in the
_Mag. of Amer. Hist._ i. 209; Drisko's _Life of Hannah Weston_
(Machias, 1857), ch. vii. Cf. also _Journal of Mass. Prov. Cong._
(Boston, 1838), pp. 395-96. The account in Dawson's _Battles_ (i.
47) is based on Goldsborough's _Naval Chronicle_ and Cooper's _Naval
History_.—ED.
[1226] The steps leading to this action of Washington, who felt
authorized to take it by giving a liberal interpretation to his
commission, were these: As early as June 7, 1775, the Massachusetts
legislature had considered the question of creating a naval force,
but moved cautiously (Frothingham's _Siege of Boston_, p. 111). Rhode
Island moved first, June 12th, and put two vessels in commission under
Abraham and Christopher Whipple, and in July they were cruising. (On
this and other early movements in Rhode Island, see Arnold's _Rhode
Island_, ii. 351, 363, 369, 386; Staples's _Annals of Providence_,
pp. 265-70; _R. I. Hist. Coll._, vol. vi.; Gammell's _Life of Samuel
Ward_; and Ward's journal in _Sparks MSS._, lxviii. no. 7.) By July
1st Connecticut had begun to move. Washington's first commission was
given to Capt. Nicholas Broughton, of Marblehead, accompanied by
instructions, which are given in Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 517, when
he took command of the "Hannah" (Frothingham's _Siege of Boston_,
260). John Adams says (_Works_, x. 27; _Letters of Washington to John
Langdon_, 1880, p. 19) it was John Manly's application to Washington
for authority to fit out a cruiser that led directly to this step,
and that Manly was the first to fly a Continental flag, and to have a
British flag struck to him.
For the early navy of Pennsylvania, see Wallace's _William Bradford_,
p. 130, and in the Appendix of the same work we have an account of the
first naval combat on the Delaware, and the first hostile guns heard by
Congress, when the "Roebuck" and "Liverpool" were driven down the river
by the American flotilla.
On the early movements in Virginia, see _Va. Hist. Reg._, i. 185;
_Southern Lit. Messenger_, xxiv. 1-273.—ED.
[1227] Hancock's letter of instructions, October 5, 1775, is in
Sparks's _Correspondence of the American Revolution_, i. 56. Cf. _John
Adams's Works_, i. 187; x. 31.—ED.
[1228] Selman's own account of this exploit has been printed in the
_Salem Gazette_, July 22, 1856. Cf. Sparks's _Writings of Washington_,
iii. 193.—ED.
[1229] "Lord Amherst laments the capture of the ordnance vessel,—says
her cargo amounted to £10,500. The Board is censured for not putting
her stores into a vessel of greater force." Hutchinson's _Diary_ (July
10). Manly continued to gain and deserve the commendation of Washington
(Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 266, 271). For an account of Manly's
being driven into Plymouth, see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ 2d ser., ii.
158.—ED.
[1230] Rhode Island, as she had put the first armed vessel afloat,
was also the inciter of the movements in Congress which resulted in
this fleet, her members, in Oct., 1775, having urged action (4 Force,
iv. 1838). John Adams gives on the successive stages of the movement
(_Works_, ii. 463, iii. 7. Cf. Gammell's _Ward_, 316, and the _Journal
of Congress_, 1775). A naval committee was instituted Oct. 13th, and
in December it was enlarged, to have a member for each colony. John
Adams tells on his labors on this committee were the most agreeable he
had in Congress; and he always took great credit to himself for being
mainly instrumental in committing Congress to naval policy (_Works_,
ix. 363, _Familiar Letters_, 166), and it was he who drew up the Rules
of the naval service (_Works_, iii. p. 11; _Journal of Congress_,
1775, p. 282). In tracing the official action of Congress towards the
navy, beside the _Journals_, use the index of Ben: Perley Poore's
_Descriptive Catal. of Government Publications_; the indexes to the
_Amer. Archives_, under such heads as "armed vessels", "fleet", "Mass.
armed vessels", "marine committee", "navy", "privateers", "prizes",
"row galleys", "seamen", "vessels", and the names of naval characters.
The incongruous character of Force's indexes increases the labor
considerably in using the _Archives_.
The beginnings of the navy, beside being followed in Cooper, Clark,
etc., can be traced in W. E. Foster's _Stephen Hopkins_, ii. App.
M; in Bancroft, ix. 134, or final revision, v. 50 in Silas Deane's
correspondence in _Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. Washington ceased to
exercise any supervision over the armed fleet after the evacuation of
Boston in March, 1776. General Ward, who was then left in command in
Boston, commissioned Captain Mugford to cruise, June, 1776, before he
received any blank commissions from Congress. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
i. 203.
In 1775 David Bushnell invented at Saybrook a machine for blowing up
the enemy's vessels, called the "American Turtle." It is described in
the _Conn. Soc. Coll._, ii. 315, 322, 333, with references.—ED.
[1231] Sparks's _Washington_, i. 36; iii. 77. There is a memoir of
Whipple, with a portrait (cf. also E. M. Stone's _Our French Allies_,
p. 26), in Hildreth's _Pioneer Settlers of Ohio_ (1852), pp. 120-164.
There are letters of Whipple among the _Com. Tucker Papers_ in Harvard
College library. Few of the earlier captains made more captures
than Samuel Tucker. Washington commissioned him in Jan., 1776. His
reputation as a naval officer was mostly made during his command of
the frigate "Boston", in one of whose voyages he took John Adams to
France in 1778. The log of this voyage is preserved in Harvard College
library, where are also a collection of Tucker's papers, embracing his
instructions, correspondence, and logs. They have been used in John H.
Sheppard's _Life of Samuel Tucker_ (Boston, 1868), which is abridged by
the author in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, April, 1872 (xxvi.
105). Cf. _New Eng. Mag._, ii. 138; Niles's _Register_, xliv. 140; and
Johnston's _History of Bristol and Bremen, Me._—ED.
[1232] See note at the end of this chapter.
[1233] On the fisheries as a school for the navy of the Revolution, see
Lorenzo Sabine's _Report on the Fisheries of the U. S._ (Washington,
1853), p. 198, and Babson's _Gloucester_. The histories of the maritime
towns of Massachusetts touch this point, like Rich's _Truro_, Roads's
_Marblehead_, E. V. Smith's _Newburyport_, etc.—ED.
[1234] Cf. _ante_, ch. ii.
[1235] Adams's _Familiar Letters_, 186. The continued naval exploits of
Seth Harding and Samuel Smedley, of the Connecticut armed vessels, are
recorded in sundry letters in the _Trumbull Papers_ (MSS.), vol. v.,
etc.—ED.
[1236] _Journals of Congress_, i. 213.
[1237] Cf. Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 353; _John Adams's Works_,
iii. 65. Bancroft, in his orig. ed., ix. 134, charges Hopkins with
incompetency, but omits the accusation in his final revision, v.
50.—ED.
[1238] Cf. _United Service_, xii. 411.
[1239] _American Archives_, ii. 1394.
[1240] There is a portrait of Biddle in the Pennsylvania Hist. Soc.
gallery. _Catal. of Paintings_, no. 138.
[1241] The government of South Carolina gave him four war-vessels of
their own, and early in 1778 he went out to meet the English blockading
squadron of four vessels, hoping to find himself of superior force
to them. He did not meet the squadron, but east of the Barbadoes,
on the 7th of March, he did meet the "Yarmouth", sixty-four guns,
and, apparently relying on the four small vessels he had with him,
he bravely engaged her. But after an action of twenty minutes the
"Randolph" blew up, nor was it until five days after that a part of
her crew were picked up by the "Yarmouth" on a piece of the wreck. The
other vessels of Biddle's squadron escaped.
[1242] The reader will be interested in his own simple account of
the voyage, as contained in his report to Franklin and the other
commissioners. We print it from his manuscript as a good illustration
of the straightforward loyalty of the man.
PORT LEWIS, _Feb'y 14th, 1777_.
GENTLEMEN,—This will inform you of my safe arrival after a tolerable
successful cruise, having captured 3 sail of Brigs, one snow, and one
ship. The Snow is a Falmouth Packet bound from thence to Lisbon. She
is mounted with 16 guns and had near 50 men on board. She engaged near
an hour before she struck. I had one man killed. My first Lieut. had
his left arm shot off above the elbow, and the Lieut. of Marines had
a musquet ball lodged in his wrist. They had several men wounded, but
none killed. I am in great hopes that both my wounded officers will do
well, as there are no unfavorable symptoms at present. Three of our
Prizes are arrived, and I expect the other two in to-morrow. As I am
informed that there has been two American Private ships of war lately
taken and carried into England, I think it would be a good opportunity
to negotiate and exchange prisoners, if it could be done; but I submit
to your better judgment to act as you think proper. I should be very
glad to hear from you as soon as possible, and should be much obliged
if you would point out some line or mode to proceed by in disposing
of prisoners and prizes, as nothing will be done before I receive
your answer to this. I hope you'll excuse my being more particular at
present.
From, Gentlemen, Your most obliged h'ble serv't, LAMB'T WICKES.
[1243] "This will inform you", he writes on the 12th of August, "of my
present unhappy situation. The Judges of the Admiralty have received
orders of the 6th inst. from the Minister at Paris, ordering them not
to suffer me to take any cannon, powder, or other military stores on
board, or to depart from this port on any consideration whatever,
without further orders from Paris. In consequence of these orders, they
came on board on Saturday to take all my cannon out and to unhang my
rudder. I have prevented this for the present by refusing to let them
take rudder or cannon without producing an order from the minister for
so doing. As I told them, my orders corresponded with theirs in regard
to continuing in port, but I had no order to deliver anything belonging
to the ship to them, which I would not do without orders, and if the
ministers insisted on it, made no doubt but you would give your orders
accordingly, which would be readily complied with on my part when
such orders were received. My powder is stopped, and they have been
contented with taking my written parole not to depart until I receive
their permission."
[1244] On the questions arising from the carrying of prisoners by the
American cruisers into European ports, see Hale's _Franklin in France_,
ch. xi. and xviii. On American prisoners in England, see _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, June, '82, p. 428; _Memoirs of Andrew Sherburne_, p. 81;
occupants of Old Mill prison, near Plymouth, _N. E. Hist. and Gen.
Reg._, 1865, pp. 74, 136, 209; occupants of Forton, and journal of
Timothy Connor in _Ibid._, xxx. 3, 175, 343; xxxi. 18, 212, 288; xxxii,
70, 165, 280; xxiii. 36; journal of Samuel Custer, etc., _Ibid._,
Jan., 1878; Charles Herbert's _Relics of the Rev., Amer. prisoners in
England_ (Boston, 1847), with lists of names and the edition of 1854,
called _The Prisoners of 1776, compiled from Herbert's Journal by R.
Livesey_; narratives in Moore's _Diary_, ii. 344, 437. In 1780 there
was reprinted in London, to be sold for the benefit of the American
prisoners then in England, a _Poetical Epistle to George Washington_,
by the Rev. Charles Perry Wharton of Maryland, which had been
originally printed in Annapolis in 1779. There was prefixed to it an
unusual portrait of Washington, "engraved by W. Sharp from an original
picture."
[Illustration]
Perhaps the most distinguished of the Americans confined in the English
prisons was Joshua Barney, and the story of his several confinements
and escapes is told in _A Biographical Memoir of the late Commodore
Joshua Barney, from autobiographical notes and journals in the
possession of his family_, by Mary Barney (Boston, 1832). Cf. Lossing
in _Field-Book_, ii. 850; _Harper's Monthly_, xxiv. 161; _Cyclop. U. S.
Hist._, i. 105—ED.
[1245] _Almon's Remembrancer._
[1246] Landais survived until the year 1818, when he died at the age of
eighty-seven years, in the city of New York.
[1247] See Hutchinson's _Diary_, at the date of D'Estaing's sailing.
[1248] See Notes, following this chapter.
[1249] It is printed in _Franklin in France_.
[1250] For accounts of Barry, see Dennie's _Portfolio_, x.; _United
Service Mag._ (xii. 578), May, 1885, by Admiral Preble; Lossing's
_Field-Book_, ii. 847; Scharf and Westcott's _Philadelphia_, i. 304.
The narrative of Luke Matthewman, one of Barry's lieutenants, is in
the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, ii. 175, copied from the _N. Y. Packet_,
1783.—ED.
[1251] A MS. journal of a cruise on board the brigantine of war
"Tyrannicide", in the service of the State of Massachusetts Bay, John
Allen Hallet commander, in 1778, is in the Boston Public Library.—ED.
[1252] The log of the "Protector" is in the library of the N. E. Hist.
Geneal. Society. Cf. Ebenezer Fox's _Revolutionary Adventures_ (Boston,
1838); _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 187.—ED.
[1253] The following is an official list, sent to Franklin in March,
1780, of the navy of the United States at that time:—
"America" (74 guns), Captain John Barry, on the stocks at Portsmouth,
N. H.
"Confederacy" (36 guns), Seth Harding, refitting at Martinico.
"Alliance" (36 guns), Paul Jones, in France.
"Bourbon" (36 guns), Thomas Read, on the stocks in Connecticut.
"Trumbull" (28 guns), James Nicholson, ready for sea in Connecticut.
"Deane" (28 guns), Sam'l Nicholson, on a cruise.
"Providence" (28 guns), Ab'm Whipple; "Boston" (28 guns), Sam'l Tucker;
"Queen of France" (20 guns), I. Rathbourne; "Ranger" (18 guns), S.
Sampson,—within the Bar at Charleston, S. C., to defend that harbor.
"Saratoga" (18 guns), J. Young, on the stocks at Philadelphia.
Cf. _Sparks MSS._, xlix. vol. iii.
[1254] See chap. vi.
[1255] The table on a later page shows that there were nearly 90,000
Continentals and militia on the rolls at different times during 1776;
but it is not probable that 70,000 were in service at any single time,
and the terms of service were short.—ED.
[1256] There is a curious difficulty as to the name of this little
vessel. In printed histories she is sometimes called the "Penet" and
sometimes the "Perch." There is no question that the State owned a
vessel called the "Penet", which was named from one of the mercantile
agents in Nantes. But, after a careful examination of the manuscript of
the journals of Mr. Austin, who carried the news, we are satisfied that
the vessel was the "Perch", and that she is called the "Penet" in some
of the manuscripts only from an error of the early copyists.
[1257] A third edition was printed at Cooperstown in 1848. Editions
with revisions and additions were issued at New York in 1853 and
1856, use being made in part of matter collected by Cooper himself.
An abridged edition was published in New York in 1856. There were
other editions in London, Paris, and Brussels. Cooper's _Lives of
distinguished Naval Officers_ (Philad., 1846) includes only Paul Jones
of the Revolutionary period.
[1258] Second ed., London, 1866. The first ed. was in 1863.
[1259] There are a few accessory books: J. Rolfe's _Naval Biography
during the Reign of George III._ (London, 1828, in two volumes,—Sabin,
xvi. 67,601). _The Detail of some particular services performed in
America during the years 1776-1779_ (printed for Ithiel Town, N.
Y., 1835,—Sabin, v. 19,775) had previously appeared in _The Naval
Chronicle_, and consists, in the main, of a journal supposed to be
kept on board his Majesty's ship "Rainbow", while under the command of
Sir George Collier, on the American coast. Town says that the book was
privately printed from a manuscript obtained by him in London in 1830,
and it is said that all but seventy copies were destroyed by fire.
There is a copy in Harvard College library, and others are noted in the
Brinley (no. 4,002) and Cooke (no. 708) sales.
John Adams sent to Congress in 1780 an account of the naval losses of
Great Britain from the beginning of the war (_Diplom. Corresp._, iv.
483, v. 234). A similar statement (1776-1781) on the British side is in
the _Political Magazine_, ii. 452.
[1260] In January, 1763, peremptory orders were sent from England
to the governor and company of Connecticut to put a stop to the
Susquehanna settlement. In September of the same year, Governor Fitch
wrote to the board of trade that he had strictly obeyed the orders;
that a delegation from the Six Nations had been received, and in the
presence of the assembly he had announced the commands of his majesty;
that this had apparently satisfied the natives. (_Trumbull MSS._, Mass.
Hist. Soc.)
[1261] In Proud's _History of Pennsylvania_, ii. p. 326, there is a
note containing an extract from an "authentic publication", entitled
_A narrative of the late massacres in Lancaster County, of a member
of Indians, friends of this Province_ (Philadelphia, 1764). In this
narrative (which was written by Franklin,—cf. Sparks's _Franklin_,
i. 273; iv. 56), religious enthusiasm, "chiefly Presbyterian", is the
alleged motive for the outbreak. See, also, a reprint of a curious
pamphlet on the massacre of the Conestogoe Indians by the Paxton
Boys, in the _Hist. Mag._, July, 1865, p. 203. For other tracts see
_Carter-Brown Catal._, iii. 1,407-1,415; Field's _Indian Bibliog._,
nos. 854, 1,187, 1,193, 1,331; _Brinley Catal._, nos. 3,062-3,070;
Hildeburn's _Penna. Press_, ii. nos. 2,029-2,034; cf. _Penna. Hist.
Soc. Coll._, i. 73; _Zeisberger_, by Schweinitz, 274; Graydon's
_Memoirs_, 49; and letter of Richard Peters in _Aspinwall Papers_, ii.
508.—ED.
[1262] In Reed's _Reed_, i. p. 35, there is a letter from Dr. John
Ewing, coolly discussing this transaction, as if it were a laudable
attempt on the part of the frontier inhabitants to relieve themselves
in a perfectly justifiable way from a source of danger. He says, "there
was not a single act of violence, unless you call the Lancaster affair
such, although it was no more than going to war with that tribe."
[1263] The Conestogoes belonged to the Five Nations, but had no
connection with the Tuscaroras. The Five Nations put in a claim for
the land of the Conestogoes, as "their relations and next heirs." (Sir
William Johnson to Governor Penn, Feb. 9, 1764, _Penna. Archives_, iv.
p. 162.)
[1264] His correspondence with Gage is in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, ii.
833 _et seq._
[1265] The question of the rights of Indian women in lands of the
tribes forms part of the discussion in the paper by Lucien Carr,
entitled "The social and political condition of women among the
Huron-Iroquois tribes." (_Report xvi. of the Peabody Museum_, pp.
216-218.) Instances are on record where transfers were compelled by
the women in opposition to the wishes of the chiefs, and where they
prevented sales, the terms of which had been arranged by the men.
At the conference at Canajoharie Castle in 1763, where the Mohawks
submitted one of their numerous complaints against settlers for
stealing their lands, all the women present interrupted the speaker,
and declared that they "did not choose to part with their lands and be
reduced to make brooms for a living." The fraudulent transfers alluded
to in the text had already attracted the attention of the authorities.
By proclamation, dated October 7, 1763, the king had forbidden private
individuals to purchase land from Indians.
[1266] "After the peace, numbers of the frontier inhabitants of
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, etc., animated with a spirit of
frenzy, under pretext of revenge for past injuries, though in manifest
violation of British faith and the strength of the late treaties,
robbed and murdered sundry Indians of good character, and still
continue to do so, vowing vengeance against all that come in their way;
whilst others forcibly established themselves beyond even the limits of
their own governments in the Indian country."
[1267] At this date the Mohawk Valley, as far west as the boundary
line, was jointly occupied by the whites and the Mohawk tribe.
Immediately to the west of that line, in the neighborhood of Oneida
Lake, lived the Oneidas. Both Mohawks and Oneidas had extensive
hunting-grounds to the north. The Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas
severally lived upon the lakes which to-day bear the names of those
tribes. The Tuscaroras occupied land which had been allotted them
immediately to the south of the Oneida country, and had also a section
on the Susquehanna. [See Colden's map in Vol. IV. 491, and the maps in
Vol. III. 281, 293.—ED.] The whole number of the confederacy did not
exceed 10,000 souls, of whom 2,000 were warriors, more than one half
being Senecas. The most conspicuous tribe among the Ohio Indians was
the Shawanese. They were a source of terror to the Virginia settlers,
and had a hand in most of the invasions of Kentucky, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania. They numbered about 300 warriors, and lived in Ohio on
the Scioto and its branches. The Delawares, counting 600 warriors,
were scattered from the Susquehanna Valley to Lake Erie; 200 Wyandots
lived near Sandusky. These and other tribes living on the border
or in Canada, who were classified as allies of the Six Nations,
numbered in all about 2,000 warriors. The other tribes living east
of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio, with whom the British had
dealings, or of whom they had knowledge, were classified as the "Ottawa
Confederacy, comprehending the Twightwees or Miamis", and numbered
about 8,000 warriors, of whom 3,000 lived near Detroit. In all, there
were, according to this estimate, which is from Sir William Johnson's
papers, about 12,000 warriors. [See Sketch map in Vol. IV. 298.—ED.]
A similar computation of the "gun-men or effectives" in the South,
made by Sir James Wright in 1773, shows that over 9,500 men could
be furnished by the Choctaws, Creeks, Cherokees, and Catawbas. From
other sources we have estimates which include tribes omitted by the
above authorities, from which it would appear probable that there were
about 35,000 warriors east of the Mississippi, in the United States
and across the straits at Detroit. There is a difference of opinion as
to the proportion of warriors to the total population. Apparently the
proportion varied in different tribes. Some observers have placed the
number as high as six to one; others, as low as three to one. Between
four and five to one appears to be about the number furnished by the
averages of the best observers. This will give for a total Indian
population east of the Mississippi, in the United States and along the
lakes near Detroit, at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, 150,000
persons.
[1268] "My intelligence informs me", wrote Governor Penn to Lord
Dunmore, March 1, 1775, "that your lordship has set up an office for
granting lands far within the limits of this province, and that lands
already patented by me have been granted by your lordship."
[1269] Guy Johnson refers to the success of his interference on this
occasion in his letter to the magistrates and others of Palatine,
Canajoharie, and the upper districts, dated May 20, 1775, quoted in
Stone's _Brant_, i. p. 65.
[1270] Accustomed as the inhabitants of the Northern colonies had been
to coöperating with Indians in the several wars with the French, the
proposition to make use of their services did not excite the universal
feeling of horror which would be aroused by the same proposition
to-day. On the contrary, it was regarded as a natural and inevitable
condition attached to the war that the natives should be engaged upon
the one side or the other; and rumors of the friendly disposition
of this tribe, and of the number of warriors which that tribe would
furnish to the cause, found their way into the journals of that day.
It was evident that Indian auxiliaries would be of greater military
value to the English than to the Americans. The English army would be
practically an army of invasion. There were no English homes exposed
to destruction. The use of savages by the Americans would not keep
out of the field a single Englishman for the protection of the scalps
of his family. Nevertheless, it was felt by the colonists that all
the tribes that could be secured would be an advantage gained. Such
evidently was the opinion of the men composing the Provincial Congress
of Massachusetts Bay, who first met the question, and, even before the
battle of Lexington, solved it by employing some of the Stockbridge
Indians as minute-men. The records of that body go far towards
justifying the statement made by Gen. Gage at Boston (June 12, 1775),
that the "rebels" were "bringing as many Indians down here as they
could collect."
[1271] In this letter to Kirkland the assertion is made that the
step was taken because of information received that "those who are
inimical to us in Canada have been tampering with the natives." In
the _American Archives_, 4th series, ii. p. 244, is a letter dated
Montreal, March 29th, from J. Brown to Samuel Adams and Joseph Warren,
Committee of Correspondence of Boston, in which Brown's mission is
betrayed even without his credentials. He was prospecting the ground
with a view to future operations. He reports that "the Indians say
they have been repeatedly applied to and requested to join with the
king's troops to fight Boston, but have peremptorily refused, and
still intend to refuse. They are a simple politick people, and say
that if they are obliged, for their own safety, to take up arms on
either side, they shall take part on the side of their brethren the
English in New-England." In the same letter Brown states as a secret
that Ticonderoga must be seized on the beginning of hostilities. Samuel
Adams, one of the committee to whom Brown's letter was addressed, was
also a member of the committee which drafted the letter to Kirkland. If
Brown's letter did not reach Adams in time to inspire the suggestion
of "tampering", it indicates at least the character of the rumors.
The English writers (like Mahon, vi. 35) look upon the plea of
"tampering" as a pretence; and Dartmouth, in July and August, 1775,
called his orders retaliatory ones. We know that there was little for
the colonists to apprehend from Carleton on this score. His opposition
to the enlistment of Indians for service outside Canada drew forth
complaints afterward from Guy Johnson (_N. Y. Col. Docs._, viii. p.
636). Still less was there cause for apprehension if the Caughnawagas
were going to take sides with the colonists. It was probably understood
that the statements of these Canadian Indians could not be implicitly
relied upon.
[1272] The enlisted Indians are occasionally heard from during the
war, although their services were not conspicuous. Their fondness for
liquor soon brought them into trouble, and we find that a petition
signed by seventeen of them was presented to the Provincial Congress,
asking that liquor might be kept out of their way. This petition was
duly granted. (_Am. Arch._, 4th ser., ii. pp. 1049 and 1083.) During
the siege of Boston they occasionally killed a sentry (_The Boston
Gazette and Country Journal_, Aug. 7, 1775; Frothingham's _Siege of
Boston_, pp. 212, 213). In _Mass. Archives_, vol. lvi. (special title,
"Coat Rolls, 8 Months' Service, 1775—vol. i. Rolls"), no. 173, is a
copy of what purports to be an order for bounty money, etc., signed by
thirty-two persons. Appended is the following: "Camp at Charlestown,
March 12, 1776. This may certify that the within named persons were
soldiers in my Regiment, and served as such in the service of this
province last summer, until they were discharged by his Excellency
Gen. Washington. Attest, John Paterson, Col. These Indians belonged
to Capt. William Goodrich's Company. Attest, John Sargent." Some of
them, under the command of Captain Ezra Whittlesey, were "posted at the
saw-mills", Sept. 13, 1776 (_Amer. Arch._, 5th series, ii. p. 476).
If Guy Johnson is to be believed, there were enlisted Indians in the
battle of Long island, and some of them were taken prisoners (_N. Y.
Coll. Doc._, viii. p. 740). Washington applied for them for scouting
service, Oct. 18, 1776 (_Amer. Arch._, 5th series, ii. p. 1120); Jones
(_Annals of Oneida County_, p. 854) says that a considerable party of
Oneidas participated in the battle of White Plains, and that a full
company of Stockbridge Indians, under Captain Daniel Ninham, went to
White Plains (_Ibid._ p. 888). A capture by Indians of six prisoners is
reported in Moore's _Diary_, etc., i. p. 476. The Stockbridge Indians
were ambuscaded at King's Bridge with severe loss, Aug. 31, 1778.
(_Mag. Am. Hist._, v. p. 187.) In 1819, the survivors of this tribe,
petitioning the President of the United States for the protection of
their rights in certain lands in Indiana, said: "When your parent
disowned you as her children, and sent over to this great island many
strong warriors to burn your towns, destroy your families, and bring
you into captivity, we, of the Muhheakunuks, defended your fathers on
the west against the warriors which your parent had sent against you
on that side; and we also sent our warriors to join your great chief,
Washington, to aid him in driving back into the sea the unnatural
monsters who had come up from thence to devour you, and ravage the land
which we a long time before granted to your fathers to live upon."
(_American State Papers—Public Lands_, vol. iii., Washington, 1834).
[1273] Kidder's _Mil. Operations in Eastern Maine_, p. 51.—ED.
[1274] In Kidder's _Expeditions of Captain John Lovewell_, it is stated
that the petition for guns, blankets, etc., of thirteen Pequakets,
who were willing to enlist, was granted by the Provincial Congress
of Massachusetts Bay. The date of the petition is not given. For the
treaty of July 10, 1776, see _Amer. Arch._, 5th, i. 835; and the reply
of the Micmacs to Washington, _Ibid._ iii. 800.—ED.
[1275] On the 24th of May, Ethan Allen addressed a letter to several
tribes of the Canadian Indians, asking their warriors to join with his
warriors "like brothers, and ambush the regulars." This proceeding he
reported to the General Assembly of Connecticut two days afterward.
On the 2nd of June, Allen proposed to the Provincial Congress of New
York an invasion of Canada, urging as one of the reasons therefor that
there would be "this unspeakable advantage: that instead of turning
the Canadians and Indians against us, as is wrongly suggested by many,
it would unavoidably attach and connect them to our interest." From
Newbury, Colonel Bayley, on the 23d of June, addressed the Northern
Indians as follows: "If you have a mind to join us, I will go with any
number you shall bring to our army, and you shall each have a good coat
and blanket, etc., and forty shillings per month, be the time longer or
shorter."
In the autumn of 1775, Arnold on his Kennebec march was joined at
Sartigan by a number of Indians, to whom he offered "one Portuguese per
month, two dollars bounty, their provisions, and the liberty to choose
their own officers." Under this inducement they took their canoes and
proceeded with the invading column.
[1276] Governor Trumbull, of Connecticut, was in correspondence with
Major Brown. Fifteen days after the fall of Ticonderoga the governor
wrote to the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts Bay, and, without
mentioning his authority, spoke of the "iterated intelligence we
receive of the plans framed by our enemies to distress us, by inroads
of Canadians and savages from the Province of Quebec upon the adjacent
settlements." (Stuart's _Trumbull_, p. 185.) In a note (_Ibid._ p.
186) an extract from a letter of Arnold, of the 19th, is given, in
which Arnold says that there are "400 regulars at St. Johns, making
all possible preparation to cross the lake, and expecting to be joined
by a body of Indians, with a design of retaking Crown Point and
Ticonderoga." (Cf. also, Arnold, May 23d, from Crown Point, in _Jour.
Cong._, i. 111.) The New Hampshire Provincial Congress, on the 3d of
June, 1775, had "undoubted intelligence of the attempts of the British
ministry to engage the Canadians and savages in their interest, in the
present controversy with America, and by actual movements in Canada."
(_Sparks's MSS._) On the 6th of July, 1775, Governor Trumbull wrote
to General Schuyler, enclosing a statement of a person who had been
in Canada, containing the assertion that Governor Carleton "directly
solicited the Indians for their assistance, but on their refusal
declared he would dispossess them, and give their lands to those who
would." July 21, 1775, Schuyler gave Major John Brown a general letter
for use in Canada, in which he said: "Reports prevail that General
Carleton intends an excursion into these parts; that for that purpose
he is raising a body of Canadians and Indians." (Lossing's _Schuyler_,
i. 366.) On Aug. 15th, Brown reported that "Sir John Johnson was at
Montreal with a body of about 300 Tories and some Indians, trying to
persuade the Caughnawagas to take up the hatchet", etc. (_Ibid._ p.
380). From the foregoing we can see that Congress had some reason to
believe that the English authorities were at work among the Indians.
Washington was evidently not convinced of the fact until Schuyler
received information of a positive character concerning the Guy Johnson
conference at Montreal. On the 24th of December, 1775, he wrote to
Schuyler: "The proofs you have of the ministry's intention to engage
the savages are incontrovertible. We have other confirmation of it by
some despatches from John Stuart, the superintendent for the southern
district, which luckily fell into my hands" (Sparks's _Washington_,
iii. p. 209). Congress had not made public its previous sources of
information, but it authorized the publication of "the second paragraph
in General Schuyler's letter relative to the measures taken by the
ministerial agents to engage the Indians in a war with the colonies."
Montgomery, at St. John's, had, in September, already met with proofs
of the most convincing character, but the presence of the Mohawks
there, and their opposition to the American force, does not seem to
have made the impression to which it was entitled.
[1277] _Secret Journals of Congress_, p. 44. Sparks, in his review
of the subject, says "After the sanguinary affair at the Cedars ...
Congress openly changed their system" (_Washington_, iii. p. 497). The
resolution passed May 25th. Washington was then in Philadelphia. As
late as June 9th, he wrote from New York: "I have been much surprised
at not receiving a more explicit account of the defeat of Colonel
Bedell and his party at the Cedars. I should have thought some of the
officers in command would and ought to have transmitted it immediately,
but as they have not, it is probable that I should have long remained
in doubt as to the event, had not the commissioners called on me
to-day." The coincidence of Washington's presence in Philadelphia at
the time of the passage of the resolve is more significant than the
fact that a battle had been fought of which the general of the army had
only just heard two weeks after that date.
[1278] The address to the people of Ireland is dated May 10, 1775, the
date of the assembling of Congress. The address was agreed to July
28th. It would be hard to justify the language used, if we accept the
nominal date of the instrument as the actual date of its composition.
When it was issued, the atrocities committed at the Cedars were still
fresh in the minds of the members.
[1279] A note on the opinions of leading men, respecting the employment
of Indians, is on a later page. The index (under _Indians_) to B.
P. Poore's _Descriptive Catalogue_ will point to the government
publications.—ED.
[1280] _Speeches_; also in Niles's _Principles_ (1876), p. 459.
Cf. also Burke's _Speeches_, and the reference in Walpole's _Last
Journals_, ii. 193.—ED.
[1281] This letter of Dunmore is quoted by Dartmouth. (_Am. Arch._,
4th, iii. 6.) On the 23d of April, 1779, William Livingston forwarded
copy to Congress. It was ordered to be printed (Almon's _Remembrancer_,
viii. p. 278). According to Bancroft, Gage in 1774 asked Carleton his
opinion about raising "a body of Canadians and Indians, and for them to
form a junction with the king's forces in this province." Carleton, in
reply, apparently discouraged the project, saying, "You know what sort
of people they [the Indians] are" (Bancroft, vii. pp. 117, 119).
[1282] Guy Johnson was the son-in-law of Sir William Johnson, as well
as his successor in office, and the Mohawks said: "The love we have
for Sir William Johnson, and the obligations the whole Six Nations
are under to him, must make us regard and protect every branch of his
family."
[1283] From the best evidence that I can get, I conclude that Ontario
and Oswego are one. Stone and Lossing state that there were two
conferences. Guy Johnson, in "a brief sketch of his past transactions",
refers to but one (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. 636).
[1284] At a conference between Captain John, in behalf of the Six
Nations, and Colonel Butler, of the colony of Connecticut, in 1776,
Captain John said: "We come to make you a visit, and let you know we
were at the treaty at Oswego with Col. Guy Johnson." "We do now assure
you that so long as the waters run, so long you may depend on our
friendship. We are all of one mind and are all for peace." (Miner's
_Wyoming_, p. 183.) Under date of Nov. 21, 1774, the following is
entered in the records of Harvard College: "As the corporation with
pleasure have received information of Mr. Zebulon Butler to engage
in a mission to the Tuscarora Indians, they cheerfully signify their
readiness to give him all suitable encouragement, as far as may be
in their power, if he should proceed according to his intention in
so laudable an undertaking." This extract will perhaps explain Col.
Butler's influence among the Indians.
[1285] An unsuccessful attempt was made to detach Cameron, Stuart's
deputy, from the king's service. He was offered a salary and
compensation for losses if he would join the American cause. "He
refused to resign his commission or accept of any employment in the
colony service." Hearing later that he was to be seized, he fled to the
Cherokee country. This alarmed the colonists, but they were quieted
when they heard that he had written "that Captain Stewart had never
given him orders to induce the Indians to fall upon Carolina, but to
keep them firmly attached to his majesty" (Moultrie's _Memoirs_, i. p.
76). It appears from Stuart's correspondence that he received almost
simultaneously, in the first part of October, satisfactory replies from
the Indians and orders from General Gage to make use of the natives
(_Amer. Arch._, 4th ser., iv. p. 317). The Catawbas, a relatively
insignificant tribe, were said to be friendly to the rebels. The
Cherokees were ready for attack (Almon's _Remembrancer_, Part iii.,
1776, p. 180).
[1286] The reasons for believing that both these statements were true
have already been given.
[1287] Bancroft's _United States_, viii. p. 88.
[1288] _Parl. Reg._, x. p. 48. Flavored as follows in a communication
quoted in Almon's _Remembrancer_, viii. p. 328: "God and nature hath
put into our hands the scalping-knife and tomahawk, to torture them
into unconditional submission." Burgoyne's opinions at this time
became important; they are in his speeches (_Parl. Reg._), his letter
to the secretary of state (Ryerson's _Loyalists_), his address to the
Indians (Anburey's _Travels_), and elsewhere (_Hadden's Journal and
Orderly-Book_, etc.). Cf. also _Gent. Mag._, March, 1778; McKnight's
_Burke_, ii. 213; _Walpole and Mason Corresp._, i. 335; Fonblanque's
_Burgoyne_.—ED.
[1289] Vol. iii., App.
[1290] At the same time that some of them were engaged in hostilities
in Canada, others were at Philadelphia having peace-talks with Congress
(_Journals of Congress_, ii. pp. 192, 206, 207).
[1291] For the treaty at Albany in August, see _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Coll._, xxv. 75, and _N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. 605. A report of the
commissioner of Indian affairs in the Northern Department, addressed
to President Hancock from Albany, Dec. 14, 1775, is in _Letters and
Papers, 1761-1776_ (MSS. in Mass. Hist. Soc.).—ED.
[1292] Numerous other conferences and communications between different
persons and bodies and the several tribes attracted attention this
season. In May, 1775, the Mohawks declared to the committee of Albany
and Schenectady that it was their intention to remain neutral, but they
had heard that their superintendent was threatened, and they would
protect him (_Am. Arch._, 4th ser., ii. p. 842). They also addressed a
letter to the Oneidas, calling on them to prevent the Bostonians from
capturing him (_Ibid._ pp. 664, 665). For accounts of the conferences,
see _Am. Arch._, 4th ser., iii.; also Stone's _Brant_, i. ch. v. Cf.
letter from Albany in _Am. Arch._, 4th ser., iii. p. 625.
[1293] When Fort Stanwix was occupied without causing an Indian
outbreak, Washington congratulated Schuyler (Sparks's _Washington_, iv.
p. 24). We have but little information of the conference at Montreal
which Col. Guy Johnson held in July; but in Almon's _Remembrancer_, i.
p. 241, the statement is made that a considerable number of the chiefs
and warriors of the Six Nations were present, and that there were also
present 1,700 Caughnawagas. In the presence of Governor Carleton, "they
unanimously resolved to support their engagements with his majesty, and
remove all intruders on the several communications." This gives a hint
of the jealousy with which they regarded the occupation of the posts at
the carrying-places between the Mohawk Valley and the lakes. See also
Guy Carleton's letter to Dartmouth (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. 635), in
which he says that at Ontario they agreed to defend the communications.
[1294] An intended conference of the Six Nations with the Canadian
Indians was announced to Congress by Schuyler in January, 1776 (_Am.
Arch._, 4th ser., iv. p. 898). In March the Oneidas, by their friendly
interference, again prevented the taking up of the hatchet which had
been surrendered at Albany. (Dean to Schuyler, _Am. Arch._, 4th ser.,
v. p. 768.) The Caughnawagas went to Oneida, but would not go to the
Onondaga council in March (_Ibid._ p. 769). Dean went to the Onondaga
council. While on the way there his life was threatened, and the
Oneidas declined to go on until they received assurances of Dean's
safety (_Ibid._ pp. 1100-1103). The Caughnawagas, returning from
Onondaga[?], surrendered the sharp hatchet which Col. Guy Johnson had
given them. ("The Commissioners in Canada to the President of Congress,
Montreal, May 6, 1776", in _Ibid._ p. 1214.)
[1295] The loyalists termed this Schuyler's "Peacock Expedition",
because the men decorated themselves with feathers from the peacocks
at Johnson Hall. Cf. Jones's _New York_, i. 71, and note xxx.; De
Peyster's _Life and Misfortunes of Sir John Johnson_ (New York, 1882),
which was first issued as a part of the _Orderly-Book of Sir John
Johnson_ (Albany, 1882). This contains a portrait of Sir John, which
will also be found in Hubbard's _Red Jacket_.—ED.
[1296] Tuesday, March 5, 1776. Two Indian chiefs, who lately arrived in
town from Canada, were introduced to his majesty at St. James's by Col.
Johnson, and graciously received (_Gentleman's Magazine_, xlvi. p. 138).
[1297] See _ante_, chap. ii.
[1298] The site is at present covered by the town of Rome. Its name
was changed, when occupied by the Americans, to Fort Schuyler, and for
a time the new name conquered a place in the despatches, but the fort
is more generally known and spoken of by its original title. There had
been another Fort Schuyler at the spot where Utica now stands, and this
fact has caused some confusion. See a paper on Forts Stanwix and Bull
and other forts near Rome, by D. E. Wager, in the _Oneida. Hist. Soc.
Trans._, 1885-86, p. 65.—ED.
[1299] The "large force at Oswego" was probably suggested by a grand
Indian council held at Niagara in September, 1776, between Col. John
Butler and others representing the English and fifteen Indian tribes,
including representatives of the Six Nations. The Indians declared
their intention to embark in the war and abide the result of the
contest (MSS. of Gen. Gansevoort, quoted by Stone in his _Brant_, ii.
p. 4, note).
[1300] In March the Oneidas sent a delegation, accompanied by the Rev.
Mr. Kirkland, to the army, to see how matters were going. An offer made
by them to act as scouts, probably a result of this tour of inspection,
was on the 29th of April accepted by Congress.
[1301] Stone, in his _Brant_, i. p. 185, attributes to Herkimer an act
of intended treachery utterly inconsistent with Herkimer's character as
it is portrayed to us. Simms, in his _Frontiersmen_, etc. (ii. p. 19),
gives a more natural version of the story.
[1302] This tragical incident, which attained great currency at the
time, is followed in D. Wilson's _Life of Jane McCrea_ (New York,
1853); Mrs. Ellet's _Women of the Rev._ (ii. 221); Lossing's _Schuyler_
(ii. 250) and _Field-Book_ (vol. i.); the elder Stone's _Brant_ (i.
203), and the younger Stone's papers in _Hist. Mag._ (April, 1867) and
_Galaxy_ (Jan., 1867, also in Beach's _Indian Miscellany_), and App.
to his _Burgoyne's Campaign_; Asa Fitch in _N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
also in Stephen Dodd's _Revolutionary Memorials_; Epaphras Hoyt in _N.
Y. Hist. Soc. Proc._ (1847, p. 77); _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, viii. 202;
also Moore's _Diary_ (475), and Ruttenber's _Hudson River Indians_ (p.
273). The subsequent fate of Lieut. Jones, her lover, is told in the
_Catholic World_, Dec., 1882.—ED.
[1303] The hints as to Burgoyne's opinions of the Indians which are
derived from contemporaneous documents are of course more satisfactory
than any of his subsequent expressions of opinion. In his speech
in the House of Commons, May 26, 1778, his estimate of their value
as soldiers was very reasonable: "Sir, I ever esteemed the Indian
alliance, at best, a necessary evil. I ever believed their services
to be overvalued; sometimes insignificant, often barbarous, always
capricious; and that the employment of them in war was only justifiable
when, by being united to a regular army, they could be kept under
control, and rendered subservient to a general system." (_Parl. Reg._,
ix. p. 218).
[1304] The number of Herkimer's force can never be positively
ascertained. It has generally been stated at from 800 to 1,000. In
the letter of the Council of Safety to John Jay and Gouverneur Morris
(_Journals of the Provincial Congress, the Provincial Convention, the
Committee of Safety, and the Council of Safety of the State of New
York_, vol. i. p. 1039) it is estimated at 700.
[1305] _Narrative of the Mil. Actions of Col. Mariamus Willett_ (N. Y.,
1831).
[1306] In Simms's _Frontiersmen_, ii. p.152, and note, there is a
description of the Cobleskill affair. Simms says that Stone is in error
in making two engagements, one in 1778 and one in 1779, at this spot,
and he places the date at May 30, 1778. Campbell describes the event
as having occurred in 1779 (_Border Warfare_, etc., p. 175). Thacher,
in his _Military Journal_, mentions the event in 1778. The next date
preceding the entry is May 20th; the next succeeding, June 1st. Col.
Stone actually gives three accounts of this engagement,—two in the
summer of 1778 and one in 1779.
[1307] The population of the valley at that time has been estimated
by Miner at twenty-five hundred, who rejects the larger number given
by Chapman and others as not being based on any enumeration; but
John Jenkins, in 1783, represented, in behalf of the inhabitants, to
the legislature, that such an enumeration was taken, and yielded six
thousand persons.
[1308] From Major John Butler's report to Lieut.-Col. Bolton, dated
at Lackwanak, July 8, 1778. This report was apparently withheld from
Miner's agent, who wrote against its title "Disallowed at the foreign
office." Butler's humanity "in making those only his object who were
in arms" was the subject of congratulation of Lord George Germain,
in a letter to Sir Henry Clinton. See extract in Miner's _Wyoming_,
p. 234. Butler probably understates his losses; but, as is the case
with all successful ambuscades, it must have been light. Miner quotes
from an American prisoner, who thinks from forty to eighty fell. This
seems improbable, when the circumstances of the fight are taken into
consideration. The report of Colonel Denison to Governor Trumbull is
among the Trumbull MSS. in the Mass. Hist. Soc.
[1309] Eleven dead Indians were left on the field. The American loss
was reported by Sullivan as three killed and thirty-three wounded. The
number of the enemy engaged was reported by prisoners at eight hundred,
although Butler himself stated that his whole force numbered only six
hundred men.
[1310] Aug. 20, 1779, General Haldimand had a conference with deputies
of the Six Nations. Sullivan was then invading the Indian country.
Haldimand told the Indians that he did not "establish" Oswego, because
he then "had intelligence that the rebels were preparing boats at
Saratoga and Albany to go up the Mohawk River, with an intention to
take post at Oswego; but in the course of a few weeks he received a
different account, that that was not their intention, but a large
rebel army was come up the Connecticut River under the command of the
rebel General Haysen, with an intention to invade this province." "As
to your apprehensions of the rebels coming to attack your country, I
cannot have the least thought of it" (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. p. 776).
Sullivan's force was accounted for as "a feint to be made upon the
Susquehanna to draw the attention of Colonel Butler and the Six Nations
of Indians from going to Detroit."
[1311] Respecting the original maps made by Lieut. Lodge, of Sullivan's
army, showing by actual survey the routes of the several divisions of
the army, General Clark informs me that they have been discovered, and
will be included in a proposed volume on the campaign, to be issued by
the State of New York. What seems to be an original map is preserved
among the Force maps in the library of Congress. There is in Simms's
_Frontiersmen_ (ii. 272) a map of Sullivan's march along Seneca and
Cayuga lakes from the Tioga, following a sketch found among the papers
of Capt. Machin, who was in the expedition. See note following this
chapter.
For the route of Brodhead, see _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, iii. 655. Maps of
the Groveland ambuscade and the Newtown fight are in the _Cayuga County
Hist. Soc. Coll._, no. 1.—ED.
[1312] There is in the _Penna. Archives_, xii., a list of the forts in
Pennsylvania built and maintained during the war.
[1313] It did not need that with the adoption of Indian tactics the
barbarous custom of mangling the dead should be included, even for
purposes of economy. "On Monday, the 30th, sent out a party for some
dead Indians." "Toward morning found them, and skinned two of them from
their hips down, for boot-legs: one pair for the major, the other for
myself" (_Proc. N. J. Hist. Soc._, ii. p. 31,—Diary of Lieut. William
Barton).
[1314] The destruction of grain in Schoharie Valley alarmed Washington.
On November 5th he wrote Governor Clinton, saying: "We had the most
pleasing prospects of forming considerable magazines of bread from the
country which has been laid waste, and which from your Excellency's
letter is so extensive that I am apprehensive we shall be obliged to
bring flour from the South to support the troops at and near West
Point" (Sparks's _Washington_, vii. p. 282).
[1315] The operations of the several columns are reported by Gen.
Haldimand in a letter to Lord George Germain, dated Quebec, Oct. 25,
1780. The return of "rebels killed and taken on the expedition to the
Mohawk River, in October, 1780", was as follows: On the Mohawk River
and at Stone Arabia, the 18th, 19th, and 20th of October, prisoners,
10 privates; killed, 1 colonel and 100 privates. At Canaghsioraga, the
23d of October, prisoners, 2 captains, 1 lieutenant, 4 sergeants, 4
corporals, 45 privates; killed, 1 lieutenant, 3 privates. The returns
of October 23d must refer to the capture of the party sent to destroy
the boats, an event which is generally said to have been accomplished
without firing a shot.
[1316] "It is thought, and perhaps not without foundation, that this
incursion was made upon a supposition that Arnold's treachery had
succeeded" (Sparks's _Washington_, vii. p. 269).
[1317] By a pocket-book found on Butler's person it appears that he
had with him 607 men, including 130 Indians. This list is appended to
Willett's report in Almon's _Remembrancer_, xiii. 341.
[1318] _Secret Journals_, p. 255.
[1319] Cf. Vol. V. p. 584.
[1320] William Leete Stone was born April 20, 1792. He died August 15,
1844. He was for many years one of the proprietors and editors of the
_New York Commercial Advertiser_. In addition to the works enumerated
in the text, and besides several miscellaneous works, he also published
_Border Wars of the American Revolution_ (two volumes, 1839), _Poetry
and History of Wyoming_, (1841), and _Life of Uncas and Miantonamoh_
(1842). He is generally spoken of as Col. Stone, a title which he
gained through a staff-office. (Cf. account of Col. S. in _Hist. Mag._,
Sept., 1865, and his portrait in Feb., 1866).
[1321] Cf. Vol. III. p. 510.
[1322] See Vol. IV. pp. 409-12.
[1323] _The Journals of the Provincial Congress, The Provincial
Convention, The Committee of Safety, and the Council of Safety of the
State of New York, 1775-1776-1777_, Albany, 1842, in two volumes, the
second volume being devoted to the correspondence of the Provincial
Congress. Here we are able to trace the doubts about Brant, the
suspicion of Guy Johnson, and we learn what steps were taken to check
their influence. Reports of conferences and meetings are given here,
including the meeting between Brant and Herkimer at Unadilla.
[1324] Two of these which have been found useful in connection with
this chapter are: _Indian Treaties and Laws and Regulations relating
to Indian affairs, to which is added an Appendix, containing the
proceedings of the Old Congress, and other important State Papers,
in relation to Indian Affairs_ (published by the War Department,
Washington, 1826); and _Laws, Treaties, and other documents having
operation and respect to the Public Lands. Collected and arranged
pursuant to an Act of Congress, passed April 27, 1810_ (Washington
City, 1811).
See also _Indian Treaties, 1778-1837. Compiled by the Committee on
Indian Affairs_ (Washington, 1837).
[1325] See notice in Vol. V. p. 581.
[1326] In this book there is a full account of the organization of a
company of rangers, and a description of their mock Indian costume.
There is also an account of the seizure and destruction by the settlers
of a lot of goods which the authorities had quietly permitted to be
forwarded by traders to the frontier for traffic with the Indians at
a time when the border inhabitants did not wish it done. The military
authorities, who interfered, were brushed away as lightly as the
traders had been who complained to them. The bibliography of the book
is given in Vol. V. p. 579.
[1327] See Vol. V. p. 580.
[1328] _Upper Mississippi, or historical sketches of the Mound
Builders, the Indian Tribes and the progress of civilization in the
Northwest, from_ A. D. _1600, to the Present time_, by George Gale
(Chicago, 1867).
[1329] _An authentic and comprehensive history of Buffalo, with some
account of its early inhabitants, both savage and civilised, comprising
historic notions of the Six Nations, or Iroquois Indians, including a
sketch of the life of Sir William Johnson, and of other prominent white
men long resident among the Senecas. Arranged in chronological order_,
by William Ketchum (Buffalo, 1864), 2 vols.
[1330] Mary Jemison, the white woman who lived among the Senecas so
many years, is carelessly spoken of several times as Mary Johnson;
elsewhere he gives the name correctly.
[1331] _The Book of the Indians and History of the Indians of North
America from its first discovery to the year 1841_, by Samuel G. Drake
(Boston, 1841). This is the title of the 8th edition.
[1332] _The Memoir and writings of James Handasyd Perkins_, edited
by William Henry Channing (Boston, 1851), 2 vols. His chief paper
originally appeared in the _N. A. Rev._, Oct., 1839.
[1333] _Annals of the West, embracing a concise account of principal
events which have occurred in the Western States and territories, from
the discovery of the Mississippi Valley to the year eighteen hundred
and fifty-six._ Compiled from the most authentic sources, and published
by James R. Albach (Pittsburgh, 1858, 3d edition).
[1334] Cf. Vol. V. p. 581.
[1335] Lack of space prevents the proper development of the influence
upon the Indians, of the constant absorption by the colonies of their
lands. Besides settlers with their families; besides squatters, and
in addition to English companies, like the Ohio Company and the
Walpole Company, the attention of individuals was directed towards
these lands for the double purposes of colonization and investment.
Bancroft (vi. 377) says that Franklin organized "a powerful company
to plant a province in that part of the country which lay back of
Virginia, between the Alleghanies and a line drawn from Cumberland
Gap to the mouth of the Scioto." The correspondence of Washington
discloses his eagerness to secure land for investment (see Vol. V. p.
271). He labored to get for the soldiers who had participated with
him in the French wars the land bounties offered by Dinwiddie, and in
addition he sought to secure land for himself by purchase. "Nothing
is more certain", he wrote to his agent, "than that the lands cannot
remain long ungranted, when once it is known that rights are to be
had" (Sparks's _Washington_, ii. 346). "My plan is to secure a good
deal of land" (_Ibid._ 348). He wished the matter kept secret, as he
apprehended that others would enter into the same movement if they knew
about it (_Ibid._ 349). In 1770 he personally visited the valley of the
Ohio, and marked corners for the soldiers' land. While on this trip
he was told by Indians that they viewed the settlements of the people
on this river with an uneasy and jealous eye, and that they must be
compensated for their right if the people settle there, notwithstanding
the cession of the Six Nations (_Ibid._ 531).
In Pennsylvania an act was passed Feb. 18, 1769, "to prevent persons
from settling on lands within the boundaries of this province not
purchased of Indians." The preamble recites that "Whereas, many
disorderly persons have presumed to settle upon lands not purchased of
the Indians, which has occasioned great uneasiness and dissatisfaction
on the part of the said Indians, and have [_sic_] been attended with
dangerous consequences to the peace and safety of the province", etc.
(_Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, etc., republished under
authority of the Legislature_, by Alexander James Dallas, Philadelphia,
1797).
[1336] See Vol. III. p. 161.
[1337] If land companies were disposed to avail themselves of the doubt
as to what tribe of Indians had a right to sell land, so the British
government itself had treated the question of their shadowy allegiance
to suit its convenience. Bradstreet, in his abortive attempts at making
a treaty with them, called them subjects. Sir William Johnson said the
very idea of being "subjects was abhorrent to them." Compare this with
the doctrine laid down in Huske's _Present State of North America_, pp.
16, 17.
[1338] Croghan's testimony does not materially alter the boundaries as
they were defined by Sir William Johnson in his report to the Lords
of Trade, Nov. 13, 1763 (_N. Y. Col. Docs._, vii. p. 573). "Along the
ridge of the Blue Mountains to the head of the Kentucky River, and down
the same to the Ohio above the rifts, thence northerly to the south
end of Lake Michigan", etc. Cf. letters (1767) to Franklin from George
Croghan, Joseph Galloway, and Samuel Wharton, in the Shelburne Papers
(_Hist. MSS. Com. Rep._, v. 218).
Charles W. E. Chapin contributed an article entitled "The Property Line
of 1768", to the _Magazine of American History_, January, 1887. He
shows how the boundary line defined in the Fort Stanwix treaty came to
be known as the "Property Line", and forcibly points out the powerful
influence this treaty had upon the Revolution.
[1339] _The Register of Pennsylvania, devoted to the preservation
of facts and documents, and every other kind of useful information
respecting the State of Pennsylvania_, 16 vols., 1828-1835, a weekly
journal, edited by Samuel Hazard. See Vol. III. p. 510.
[1340] Cf. Vol. III. p. 508.
[1341] _An historical Amount of the Expedition against the Ohio Indians
in the year 1764 under the command of Henry Bouquet_, etc., (London,
reprinted for T. Jefferies, etc., 1766), App., vol. v. p. 69.
[1342] See also Stone's _Sir William Johnson_, Appendix, ii. no. vii.
p. 486.
[1343] This original edition is called _History of the Discovery of
America, of the landing of our forefathers at Plymouth, and of their
most remarkable engagements with the Indians in New England from their
first landing in 1620, until the final subjugation of the natives in
1669_. _To which is annexed the defeat of Generals Braddock, Harmer,
and St. Clair by the Indians at the Westward, etc._ By the Rev. James
Steward, D. D. (Brooklyn, L. I., no date). Slight changes were made in
some of the titles to later editions, to indicate the material added,
and the date 1669 was altered to 1679. Pritts, under the impression
that it was a rare book, reprinted it in his _Border Life_, etc. Its
accuracy was impugned in the _Historical Magazine_ (1857, p. 376;
and 1858, p. 29). It was vigorously denounced in Field's _Indian
Bibliography_ (no. 1,570, p. 397). "This work under all its Protean
forms bears evidence that it was written for a comparatively unlettered
public." Col. Peter Force is quoted as having said that he found
twenty-two chronological errors on a single page. The notice concludes:
"Under all forms there is only a variation of worthlessness." Dr.
Trumbull gives a brief bibliographical notice in the _Brinley
Catalogue_ (which shows six editions), from which I have extracted some
of the information used in the text. The very poor woodcuts with which
the book was originally illustrated, the violent colors with which the
wretched illustrations of some of the later editions were disfigured,
and the errors of dates, have prevented recognition of what there was
of value about it.
[1344] It is not worth while to undertake to follow this book through
all its editions and changes. It is important, however, for our
purposes to note some of them. The estimate to which I have alluded is
given in the appendix of the edition referred to above (p. 176), and
the statement is made that it was obtained "from a gentleman employed
in one of the Indian treaties." There was a second issue of the first
edition with the imprint "Norwich", and the authorship attributed to
"A Citizen of Connecticut." An edition was published at "Norwich, for
the Author, at his Office", in 1810. In this edition "Henry Trumbull"
appears as the author. Another edition was issued at Norwich in 1811,
and another in 1812. One was also issued at Trenton in 1812. In these
various editions slight changes in the arrangement of materials took
place, some corrections were made, and from time to time additional
matter was inserted. The name of the gentleman who furnished the list
of Indians is given on page 115 of the Trenton edition, which I have
been able to consult, as Benjamin Hawkins. Editions were published at
Boston in 1819, 1828, 1841, and 1846. Dr. Trumbull is of opinion that
there must be twenty editions of the book, which is certainly poor
enough; but it happens that this list, which was evidently furnished
by some one familiar with the subject, is to our purpose. The same
list did service in _A Tour in the United States of America_, etc., by
J. F. D. Smyth (London, 1784), where it appears (i. p. 347) without
recognition of the original source. The arrangement of the order
of tribes is changed, and the spelling of many of the Indian names
is altered to correspond with the French methods of spelling, thus
suggesting the possibility that the list may have been transcribed by
Smyth from some French work. The author foots up the total number of
warriors, including certain tribes west of the Mississippi and others
in Canada, at 58,930. To these he adds one third to represent the old
men, and making an error in his calculation, calls the total number of
men 88,570. Allowing six souls for each male warrior he arrives at a
total of 531,420, which, he says, "I consider as the whole number of
souls, namely, men, women, and children of all the Indian nations."
[1345] _Views of Louisiana, together with a Journal of a Voyage up the
Missouri River in 1811._ By H. M. Brackenridge, Esq. (Pittsburgh, 1814).
[1346] _Voyage dans les deux Louisianes et chez les Nations Sauvages du
Missouri, par les Etats-Unis, l'Ohio et les Provinces qui le bordent,
en 1801, 1802, et 1803; Avec un apperçu des mœurs, des usages, du
caractère et des coutumes religieuses et civiles des peuples de ces
diverses Countrées_, par M. Perrin du Lac (A Lyon, 1805).
[1347] It is also given in Campbell's _Annals of Tryon County_, note L,
p. 319.
[1348] Three of the estimates referred to in the text are reprinted
by Schoolcraft under the following headings: "Enumeration of M.
Chauvignerie's Official Report to the Government of Canada, A. D.
1736;" "Estimate of Colonel Bouquet, 1764;" "Estimate of Captain Thomas
Hutchins, 1764." Schoolcraft also gives one more estimate of that
period, viz.: "Account of the Indian Nations given in the year 1778 by
a Trader who resided many years in the neighborhood of Detroit. (From
the MSS. of James Madison.)" (Schoolcraft's _Indian Tribes_, iii. p.
553.)
[1349] All of the authorities to which he refers have already been
cited, and it may fairly be said that there is nothing of special
value in his remarks on the subject. In the development of the topic
to which the work is devoted the author alludes to the custom of the
Indians to refrain from connection with women not only during the time
that they were on the war-path, but for some days before starting.
The unanimity of testimony as to this custom of the Indians renders
special citations unnecessary. Until the natives were debauched in this
respect by contact with civilization, no authentic instance can be
found of the violation of a woman by a warrior on the war-path. Brantz
Mayer, in his defence of Cresap (_Logan and Cresap_, p. 110), quotes
from the _Md. Gazette_ (Nov. 30, 1774) a charge of this sort. If there
was foundation for it in the minds of those who made it, investigation
would probably have traced the outrage to whites disguised as Indians.
The superstition which protected women from Indian assault was still in
force at that time.
[1350] The editor says he "has given the following memorandum of Indian
_fighting men_, inhabiting near the distant parts, in 1762; to indulge
the curious in future times, and show also the extent of Dr. Franklin's
travels. He believes it likely to have been taken by Dr. Franklin in an
expedition which he made as a commander in the Pennsylvania militia, in
order to determine measures and situation for the outposts; but is by
no means assured of the accuracy of this opinion. The paper, however,
is in Dr. Franklin's handwriting: but it must not be mistaken as
containing a list of the whole of the natives enumerated, but only as
such part of them as lived near the places described."
[1351] In addition to a vast number of reports, extracts from letters,
and proceedings of one sort and another, I would call especial
attention to the following papers: Carleton's Commission (ii. p.
120); Proceedings connected with Connolly's arrest (ii. pp. 218-221);
Schuyler's expedition to Tryon County (iii. p. 135); Stuart's letter
to Gage, Oct. 3, 1776 (Part iii., 1776, iv. p. 180); an account of
Wyoming massacre from fugitives (vii. p. 51); Col. Wm. Butler's report
to General Stark of the destruction of Unadilla, etc. (vii. pp.
253-255); Colonel Van Schaick's report of the destruction of Onondaga
(viii. p. 272); the Minisink affair (viii. pp. 275, 276); the letter
of the Earl of Dartmouth to Lord Dunmore (viii. p. 278); attack On
Indians at Ogeechee, April, 1779 (viii. p. 300); action of the Council
at Williamsburgh in Hamilton's case (viii. p. 337); letters from
Sullivan's headquarters concerning battle at Newtown (ix. p. 23);
Sullivan's proclamation to Oneidas (ix. p. 25); Brodhead's report of
his expedition (ix. p. 152); Sullivan's report, Teaoga, Sept. 30, 1779
(ix. p. 158); Joint movements in the valleys of Mohawk, Hudson, and
Connecticut (xi. pp. 81-83). The foregoing sufficiently illustrates the
wealth of historical material collected in the _Remembrancer_.
[1352] The _Register_ contains nearly all the papers submitted to
Parliament which bore upon American affairs, together with other
documents which the publishers from time to time added to the volumes.
The _Remembrancer_ and the _Register_ together furnish the means of
writing a history of the border warfare of the Revolution which would
be nearly complete. A large mass of documentary material respecting
the relation of General Haldimand in Quebec with the Indians and with
British officers operating with the Indians is in the _Haldimand
Papers_, in the British Museum, of which the Dominion archivist,
Douglas Brymner, is now printing a calendar in his _Annual Reports_
(Ottawa). The correspondence of Haldimand and Guy Johnson, 1778-1783,
makes three vols. Many papers on this border warfare are in the Quebec
series of MSS. in the Public Record Office, and are also noted by
Brymner (_Report_, 1883, p. 79).—ED.
[1353] In the _Secret Journals_, the Articles of Confederation,
proposed by Franklin on the 21st of July, 1775, are printed in
full. I have had occasion to refer to them because an offensive and
defensive alliance with the Six Nations is proposed in them. In the
"Advertisement" to the edition of the _Secret Journals_ which is
cited, the publishers say that these Articles "have never before been
published." In the _Gentleman's Magazine_ (xlv. p. 572) a "Plan of
the American Confederacy" is given. This plan is copy of Franklin's
proposed Articles of Confederation, with a preamble addressed to the
Provincial Congress of North Carolina, and was apparently received from
that colony. In connection with this, see Bancroft (viii. p. 97). In
the _Scot's Magazine_ (Edinburgh, 1775, xxxvii. p. 665) these Articles
were copied from the _Gentleman's Magazine_, with this comment: "The
copy from whence this was printed was addressed particularly to the
Province of North Carolina; but the same was without doubt submitted to
the consideration of every other Provincial Congress, as the preamble
clearly shows." The preamble thus referred to reads: "The Provincial
Congress of —— are to view the following Articles as a subject which
will be proposed to the Continental Congress at their next session."
These two magazines publish the Articles as a mere submission of a
plan. When the proposed Articles of Confederation reached the _Annual
Register_ they became "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union
entered into by the several colonies of New Hampshire, &c., &c., in
General Congress met at Philadelphia, May 20, 1775" (_Annual Register_,
1775, p. 253). These Articles were also published as if they had been
adopted in _The History of the British Empire, etc._ By a Society
of Gentlemen. (Printed for Robert Campbell & Co., Philadelphia,
1798, 2 vols.: i. p. 188, note.) They are also given as Articles of
Confederation, etc., entered into, etc., May 20, 1775, in _An Impartial
History of the War in America_, etc., Boston, 1781, Appendix to vol. i.
p. 410.
[1354] The rumors current in the colonies during the progress of events
express the hopes and the fears of the colonists, and to a certain
extent also indicate their opinions. We should naturally expect to find
in an American collection of this sort something to help us in getting
at the views of the colonists on the question of employing Indians. In
fact, there is but little to be found in the book on this subject, and
we are obliged to turn again to Almon's _Remembrancer_, where we find
numerous rumors recorded, some of them improbable in their very nature,
but serving to indicate the hopes of the people; as for instance, in a
letter from Pittsfield, May 18, 1775: "The Mohawks had given permission
to the Stockbridge Indians to join us, and also had 500 men of their
own in readiness to assist" (i. p. 66). Again, Worcester, May 10:
"We hear that the Senecas, one of the Six Nations, are determined to
support the colonies" (i. p. 84). [This extract will be found in the
_Spy_ of that date.] June 20, 1775: "The Indians from Canada, when
applied to by Governor Carleton to distress the settlement, say they
have received no offence from the people, so will not make war with
them" (i. p. 147). August 3: "The Canadians and Indians cannot be
persuaded by Governor Carleton to join his forces, but are determined
to remain neuter" (i. p. 169). August 12: "The Indian nations, for a
thousand miles westward, are very staunch friends to the colonies,
there being but one tribe inclined to join Governor Carleton, of which,
however, there is no danger, as the others are able to drive that tribe
and all the force Carleton can raise" (i. p. 251). The _Boston Gazette
and Country Journal_ for August 21, 1775, contains the statement that
"all apprehensions of danger from our fellow-subjects in Canada and the
Indians are entirely removed." The arrival of Swashan, with four other
Indians of the St. Francois tribe, at Cambridge, with the statement
that "they were kindly received and are now in the service", is printed
in the columns of the same journal. Cf. Drake's _Book of the Indians_,
iii. ch. xii. p. 156; Moore's _Diary of the Rev._, i. p. 127. The
_Boston Gazette_, etc. (Dec. 4, 1775) has the following: "Last week his
Excellency the Commander-in-Chief received some despatches from the
Honorable Continental Congress, by which we have authentic intelligence
that several nations of the Western Indians have offered to send 3,000
men to join the American forces whenever wanted." _The New England
Chronicle or the Essex Gazette_, from Thursday, July 27, to Thursday,
August 3, 1775, published at Stoughton Hall, Harvard College, under
date of Aug. 3, says: "We can't learn that a single tribe of savages
on this continent have been persuaded to take up the hatchet against
the colonies, notwithstanding the great pains made use of by the vile
emissaries of a savage ministry for that purpose."
[1355] Also in Campbell's _Border Warfare of New York during the Rev.
War_ (a second edition of his _Annals of Tryon County_), App.
[1356] This petition, if in the _Mass. Archives_, as one might infer,
cannot now be found there.
[1357] For instance, John Sullivan and John Langdon write from
Philadelphia, May 22, 1775, that the Indians tell them Guy Johnson "has
really endeavored to persuade the Indians to enter into a war with us"
(vii. p. 501); Lewa, a well-known Indian, reports the Canadian Indians
friendly to the Americans, and says he "can raise 500 Indians to assist
at any time" (vii. p. 525); Governor Trumbull has learned that "the
Cognawaga Indians have had a war-dance, being bro't to it by Gen.
Carleton" (vii. p. 532); Rev. Dr. Eleazer Wheelock gives Dean's report
as to the good-will of the Canadian Indians (vii. p. 547).
[1358] Sparks asserts that Natanis, a Penobscot chief, was in the
interest of Carleton (_Washington_, iii. p. 112, note). Judge Henry
says he was one of those who joined Arnold at Sartigan. In the
_American Archives_ (5th ser., i. pp. 836, 837), James Bowdoin, writing
to Washington, says that the Penobscots said "that when General
Washington sent his army to Canada, five of their people went with
them, and two of them were wounded and three taken prisoners." The
small number of Indians who accompanied Arnold cut no figure in the
campaign, but the advance of the column under Montgomery excited fears
in the minds of the English in Canada that the invaders might use the
natives as auxiliaries, precisely as the Americans feared a similar use
on the English side. In Almon's _Remembrancer_ (ii. p. 108), a letter
from Quebec states: "General Montgomery, who commands the provincial
troops, consisting of two regiments of New York militia, a body of
Continental troops, and some Indians", etc. On Sept. 16, 1775, General
Carleton, writing from Montreal to Gage, in an account of the landing
of the Americans near St. John's, says: "Many Indians have gone over
to them, and large numbers of Canadians are with them at Chamblée"
(Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 110, note). The Canadian Indians, instead
of contributing to Montgomery's force, asked for protection,—a plea
which apparently seemed, in the excitement of the hour in Canada,
to be a declaration of friendship. "The Caghnawagas have desired a
100 men from us. I have complied with their request, and am glad to
find they put so much confidence in us, and are so much afraid of Mr.
Carleton" (letter from Montgomery, camp before St. John's, Oct. 20,
1775, in Almon's _Remembrancer_, ii. p. 122). The Mohawks, on the
contrary, acted on the English side, and some of them were killed by
the Americans.
[1359] It was from these reports, as well as from personal interviews,
that Washington formed his opinion as to the temper of the Canadian
and Northern Indians. A few quotations will illustrate what he had a
right to think, _e. g._ (p. 35) report of committee, August 3, 1775,
appointed to confer with Lewis, a chief of the Caughnawaga tribe.
"_Question._ Has the governor of Canada prevailed on the St. Francois
Indians to take up arms against these colonies? _Answer._ The governor
sent out Messi'rs St. Luc and Bœpassion to invite the several tribes of
Indians to take up arms against you.... They answered nobody had taken
up arms against them, and they would not take arms against anybody to
trouble them, and they chose to rest in peace." Again (p. 80), the
committee appointed to confer with the St. Francois tribe reported,
Aug. 18, 1775: "_Q._ If Governor Carleton should know you offered us
your assistance, are you not afraid he would destroy you? _A._ We
are not afraid of it; he has threatened us, but if he attacks us we
have arms to defend ourselves." Once more (p. 81): "_Q._ Do you know
whether any tribes have taken up arms against us? _A._ All the tribes
have agreed to afford you assistance, if wanted." Also (p. 89), Aug.
21st, £10 was appropriated for the use of five Indians belonging to
the St. Francois tribe, "one being a chief of said tribe; the other
four, having entered into the Continental army, are to receive eight
pounds of said sum as one month's advance wages for each of them;"
and (p. 148) Oct. 9, speech of two head sachems of the St. John's
tribe. "Penobscot Falls, September 12, 1775. We have talked with the
Penobscot tribe, and by them we hear that you are engaged in a war
with Great Britain, and that they are engaged to join you in opposing
your and our enemies. We heartily join with our brethren in the colony
of Massachusetts, and are resolved to stand together, and oppose the
people of Old England, that are endeavoring to take your and our lands
and liberties from us."
[1360] "A company of minute-men, before the 19th of April, had been
embodied among the Stockbridge tribe of Indians, and this company
repaired to camp. On the 21st of June two of the Indians, probably of
this company, killed four of the regulars with their bows and arrows,
and plundered them" (Frothingham's _Siege of Boston_, p. 212). A letter
of July 9th says: "Yesterday afternoon some barges were sounding the
river of Cambridge (Charles) near its mouth, but were soon obliged
to row off, by our Indians (fifty in number), who are encamped near
that place" (_Ibid._ p. 212, note). On the 25th (June): "This day
the Indians killed more of the British guard." On the 26th: "Two
Indians went down near Bunker Hill, and killed a sentry" (_Ibid._
p. 213). Frothingham's authority is given as "John Kettel's diary.
This commences May 17, and continues to Sept. 31, 1775." Through the
kindness of Mr. Thomas G. Frothingham I have examined the original
diary, which, in addition to the extracts given, contains several
others showing that our riflemen picked off the British sentries. _The
Boston Gazette and Country Journal_ (August 7, 1775) contains the
following: "Watertown, August 7. Parties of Rifle Men, together with
some Indians, are constantly harassing the Enemy's advanced Guards, and
say they have killed several of the Regulars within a Day or two past."
(_Ibid._ 14th): "We hear that last Thursday Afternoon a number of Rifle
men killed 2 or 3 of the Regulars as they were relieving the Centries
at Charlestown lines." The fact that two Indians were wounded by our
own sentries in August is recorded in Craft's Journal, etc. (Essex
Institute Hist. Coll., iii. p. 55). As there were no Indians with the
English, this must have been an accidental collision.
[1361] The correspondence of Allan and Haldimand is in the _Quebec
Series_, vol. xvii. (Public Record Office), and is chronicled in
Brymner's _Report on the Dominion Archives_ (1883). Cf. further in _N.
E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1858, p. 254, _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, 1882,
p. 486; W. S. Bartlet's _Frontier Missionary_ (1853); G. W. Drisko's
_Life of Hannah Weston_ (Machias, 1857); Journal of sloop "Hunter" in
_Hist. Mag._, viii. 51; Ithiel Town's _Particular Services_, etc. There
is a portrait and memoir of Frederic Kidder in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal.
Reg._, April, 1887.—ED.
[1362] Cf. N. S. Benton's _Herkimer County_; Harold Frederic in
_Harper's Mag._, lv. 171; Dawson's _Battles_, ch. 36; Lossing's
_Field-Book_, i. ch. 12, etc.
[1363] This work was reviewed in the _Monthly Review_, iii. p. 349;
_The New York Review_, iii. p. 195; _Christian Examiner and General
Review_, xxvi. p. 137; _Christian Review_, iii. p. 537; _No. Amer.
Rev._, Oct., 1839, by J. H. Perkins. (Cf. _Poole's Index_.)
The two volumes originally published in 1838 were edited by the son
in 1865. An abridgment of it, known as the _Border Wars of the Rev._,
makes part of Harper's Family Library.
There is some account of the early life of Brant in J. N. Norton's
_Pioneer Missionaries_ (N. Y., 1859), and of his posterity by W. C.
Bryant, of Buffalo, in _Amer. Hist. Record_, July, 1873; reprinted in
W. W. Beach's _Indian Miscellany_. S. G. Drake told Brant's story in
the _Book of the Indians_, and in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._,
ii. 345; iii. 59. There are references to letters of Brant among the
Haldimand Papers, in the _Index of MSS._ (Brit. Mus.), 1880, p. 195.
Mr. Lyman C. Draper, of Madison, Wisconsin, has been an amasser of
material respecting Brant for forty years, but has not yet published
his studies.
[1364] Col. Stone speaks of two conferences held in 1775, one at
Ontario and one at Oswego. He says: "Tha-yen-dan-e-gea had accompanied
Guy Johnson from the Mohawk Valley first westward to Ontario, thence
back to Oswego" (_Brant_, i. p. 149). Lossing, upon the evidence at
his command, adopted the same opinion: "Johnson went from Ontario to
Oswego" (_Schuyler_, i. p. 355). I have made some effort to discover
the site of Ontario, which apparently was to the "westward" of Oswego,
but have been unable to find it, and have been forced to the conclusion
that the officers who dated their letters from Fort Ontario at Oswego,
and who spoke of the post in their correspondence, used the words
Ontario and Oswego indifferently to express the same place. Guy Johnson
dates several letters at Ontario. Col. Butler, in his correspondence
in connection with the St. Leger expedition, dates his letters first
at Niagara, then at Ontario. On Guy Johnson's map of the country [see
_ante_, p. 609] the site is designated as Fort Ontario, and no other
Ontario is put down. Guy Johnson reported that St. Leger had gone
"on the proposed expedition by way of Ontario" (_N. Y. Col. Doc._,
viii. p. 714). We know that he went by Oswego, and except that Col.
Butler writes from Ontario, we have no mention of Ontario in any of
the accounts of this expedition. Gen. Haldimand, in speaking of the
proposed reëstablishment of the post, calls it Oswego (_Ibid._ viii. p.
777). Guy Johnson, in the same connection, calls it Ontario (_Ibid._ p.
775) and Fort Ontario (_Ibid._ p. 780). Rev. Dr. Wheelock, describing
Johnson's movements, said he had withdrawn with his family by the way
of Oswego (_N. H. Provincial Papers_, vii. p. 548).
Shortly after Johnson's arrival in Montreal he wrote a brief account
of his transactions to the Earl of Dartmouth, in which he spoke of
the conference at Ontario, but said nothing of a second at Oswego
(_N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. p. 636). This journal, certified by Joseph
Chew, Secretary of Indian Affairs, appears to account for his motions
continuously during this period, and speaks only of the conference at
Ontario. He arrived at Ontario June 17th, embarked at that point July
11th for Montreal, and arrived at the latter place July 17th, with 220
Indians from Ontario (_Ibid._ viii. p. 658; Ketchum's _Buffalo_, i.
p. 243). Mr. Berthold Fernow informs me that in Guy Johnson's account
for expenses in the Indian Department in 1775 this item occurs: "July
8, 1775. For cash given privately to the chiefs and warriors of the
6 Nations during the treaty at Ontario, £260." No other conference
in that immediate neighborhood is mentioned in the _Johnson MSS_. An
instance of indifference in the application of the two names will be
found in Mrs. Grant's _Memoirs of an American Lady_. Mr. B. B. Burt,
of Oswego, writes to me that "there was not any Ontario west of Oswego
except the _lake_", and kindly calls my attention to several instances
in the records which tend to show the confusion in the use of these
names. Among others he refers to a letter of Sir William Johnson's,
in which he speaks of Ontario and Oswego, apparently meaning the
same place (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. p. 530). A similar instance, as
I believe, is to be found in the letter of Capt. Walter N. Butler to
Gen. Clinton, Feb. 18, 1779, quoted in Stone's _Brant_, i. p. 384.
In this latter case it is not surprising that the identity of the
two places was not suspected by Col. Stone. At first sight Butler
seems to be speaking of two distinct spots. In Orasmus H. Marshall's
_Niagara Frontier, embracing Sketches of its early history and French
and English local names_ (1865), Ontario as a town or site is not
mentioned. O'Reilly's _Rochester_ contains an Indian account of the
alliance, which makes no mention of Ontario (see pp. 388, 389). On the
other hand, the Duc de la Rochefoucault Liancourt's _Travels through
the United States of North America, the country of the Iroquois and
Upper Canada, in the years 1795, 1796, and 1797_, mentions a place
called Ontario on the Genessee River, but he gives no other description
of it than of the log-cabin where he spent the night.
Hough, in his _Northern Invasion of October, 1780_, gives his reason
for disputing Stone's statement that the Oneida settlements were
destroyed by the enemy in the winter of 1779-1780. The reasons for
believing that Hough was correct are stated elsewhere.
Stone places the invasion of the Schoharie Valley in October, 1780; but
Simms (_Frontiersmen_, ii. p. 392 _et seq._) makes it clear that there
were two invasions during that year, as indeed Stone himself (vol. ii.
p. 97) seems to allow in quoting from Almon's _Remembrancer_ (part ii.,
1780).
In his enthusiasm for his hero, Col. Stone is betrayed into calling
Brant the principal war-chief of the confederacy; but Morgan, in his
_League of the Iroquois_ (p. 103), speaking of the celebrated Joseph
Brant Ta-yen-dä-ná-ga, says his "abilities as a military leader
secured to him the command of the war parties of the Mohawks during
the Revolution. He was also but a chief, and held no other office or
title in the nation or in the confederacy." (Ketchum's _Buffalo_, i.
p. 331). Stone (ii. p. 448) further says "the Six Nations had adopted
from the whites the popular game of ball or cricket", but the _Jesuit
Relations_, as well as La Potherie and Charlevoix, would have put him
right in this respect.
[1365] Tryon County was formed in 1772 (Albany County then embracing
all the northern and western part of the colony), so as to cover all
that part of New York State lying west of a line running north and
south nearly through the centre of the present Schoharie County.
Campbell's work, by its title, therefore fairly included the scene of
all the border warfare of New York. Many of the notes in the appendix
are valuable, and they contain sketches of the lives of Sir William
Johnson, Brant, Gen. Clinton, and Gen. Schuyler; Moses Younglove's
account of his captivity and his charges against the English; and an
account of the Wyoming massacre. Franklin's successful imitation, the
Gerrish letter, is copied (as genuine in the first edition) from a
local newspaper of the Revolutionary period. A table of the number of
Indians employed by the English in the Revolutionary War is given,
and an article, by the author, on the direct agency of the English
government in the employment of Indians in the Revolutionary War is
reprinted. The sketch of Clinton's life was separately published as
_Lecture on the Life and Military Services of General James Clinton,
read before the New York Historical Society, Feb., 1839_.
[1366] _Life of Kirkland_, by S. K. Lothrop, in Sparks's _Amer. Biog._,
vol. xv. A sketch will also be found in the _History of the town of
Kirkland, New York_, by Rev. A. D. Gridley (New York, 1874).
[1367] In the _History of the United States for families and
libraries_, by Benson J. Lossing (New York, 1857), the author deals
briefly, but accurately, with the events covered by this chapter. Cf.
also his earlier _Seventeen Hundred and Seventy-Six_ (New York, 1849).
[1368] Historical writers have been greatly at variance on this point.
John M. Brown (pamphlet _History of Schoharie County_, quoted by Simms
and Stone) says the event took place in June or July, 1776; but Stone
(_Brant_, ii. p. 313), in giving Brown's account, corrects the date to
July, 1778. In the Gansevoort Papers Stone found the affair assigned
to the close of May, 1778, corresponding with the date in Thacher,
and with the account given in McKendry's journal of the disaster to
"Capt. Partrick" at "Coverskill;" this was adopted by Simms in his
_Frontiersmen_ (ii. p. 151), and Stone put his narrative under this
date in his _Brant_ (ii. p. 354). Campbell (_Border Warfare_) places it
in 1779, but Stone (_Brant_, ii. p. 412) says that Capt. Patrick could
not possibly have commanded the troops, as he was killed in the attack
of the previous year. It seems to me that Simms clearly establishes
that there was but one attack on Cobleskill.