as a log fort, is thus described by Pouchot: "This fort is a square of
about ninety toises on the outside, and is built of earth, revetted
within and without by great timbers, in the same fashion as those at
Oswego" (vol. ii. p. 138). We find no mention of Ontario.
[1370] See _ante_, ch. iv.—ED.
[1371] De Peyster seems to have misinterpreted the language of St.
Leger's letter, where St. Leger states that Lieut. Bird was led to
suppose that Sir John Johnson needed succor, and in consequence of
this false information Bird went to the rescue, thus leaving the camp
without defenders. On page cxi, De Peyster says: "The white troops,
misled by the false reports of a cowardly Indian, were recalled to the
defence of the camp." There is no phrase in any accounts that I have
met with in which action on the part of the troops is predicated on
the information of a "cowardly Indian", except that contained in St.
Leger's account, which De Peyster himself quotes, p. cxxx, as follows:
"Lieut. Bird, misled by the information of a cowardly Indian that Sir
John was prest had quitted his post; to march to his assistance." In
spite of his mistake as to which marched to the other's assistance, on
page cxxxiv he says "When the Indians began to slip out of the fight,
the Royal Greens must have been hurried to the scene of action, leaving
the lines south of the fort entirely destitute of defenders."
[1372] The troops which were intended for St. Leger are named in the
_Parl. Reg._, viii. p. 211. He was to have 675 regulars and Tories,
"together with a sufficient number of Canadians and Indians." St. Leger
was to report to Sir William Howe at Albany. The numbers of the force
which he took with him, although different in detail, corresponded
as a whole with the estimate. He was so confident of success that at
Lachine he detached a sergeant, a corporal, and thirty-two privates
to accompany the baggage of the king's royal regiment by way of Lake
Champlain to Albany. Ten "old men" were also ordered to be left at
Point Clair (_Johnson's Orderly-Book_, p. 63). Carleton on the 26th of
June reported as follows: "St. Leger has begun his movement, taking the
detachment of the 34th regiment [100 men], the royal regiment of New
York increased to about 300 men, and a company of Canadians [say 75
men]. He will be joined by the detachment of the 8th regiment [100 men]
and the Indians of the Six Nations with the Misasages, as he proceeds.
About 100 Hanau chasseurs have since arrived, and are on their way to
join him" (_Parl. Reg._, viii. p. 215). The king's (8th) regiment,
which was to join as the expedition proceeded, and the Hanau chasseurs,
were at Buck Island July 10th (_Johnson's Orderly-Book_, p. 67). The
increase of Johnson's regiment is to be accounted for by the presence
of "Jessup's corps" (_Ibid._ p. 36, note 17). This force, apparently
numbering 675 men, was increased at Oswego by Butler's rangers, a
company of 70 to 75 men, making the total force of whites nominally
about 750 men. From that number 44 men had been detached, as above.
Forty days' provisions for 500 men were on the 17th of July ordered
to be made ready to be embarked. From this order De Peyster and Stone
argue that St. Leger's total effective force of whites was 500 men. In
the same order Lieut. Collerton was directed "to prepare ammunition for
two 6-pounders and 2 cohorns, and 50 rounds ball cartridges per man for
500 men", showing by the same reasoning that there were 500 men who
bore muskets. No entry is made in the order-book concerning provisions
for the Indians and rangers after leaving Buck Island. Col. Claus
reported "150 Mississaugas and Six Nation Indians" at that point (Claus
to Secretary Knox, _N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. p. 719), and said that
St. Leger had 250 with him when he arrived at Oswego (_Ibid._). Brant
joined the expedition at this point with 300 more (_Ibid._). A company
of rangers raised by Col. Butler participated in the campaign (Carleton
to Germain, July 9 and Sept. 20, 1777, _Parl. Reg._, viii. pp. 220,
224). They apparently joined the expedition at "Ontario", as Butler
calls "Oswego." The Western Indians and the Senecas had been summoned
by Col. Butler. He reported that "the number of Indians at Ontario and
the Senecas at 'three rivers' cannot fall much short of 1,000" (_Ibid._
226). The Indians were stopped at "three rivers" by Col. Claus; but
from those assembled at Oswego and "three rivers", there were "upwards
of 800" who went forward with the expedition to Fort Stanwix (Claus
to Secretary Knox, _N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. p. 719). Among these were
some Senecas, who participated in the ambuscade under the leadership
of chiefs of their own tribe, in concurrence with Sir John Johnson
and Col. Butler (_Parl. Reg._, viii. p. 226). It is evident that the
rations for 500 men did not make provision for the Indians nor for
the company of rangers. Making every allowance for the reduction of
the force by illness, it would seem as if the allowance of 650 whites
to St. Leger's effective force must be within limits. The presence of
each separate command alluded to by Carleton in his report of what had
gone forward, is recognized at some point in the _Orderly-Book_. The
"upwards of 800 Indians" mentioned by Claus makes a total of about
1,450. St. Leger throws a doubt over the number of Indians present by
saying that all of them participated in the ambuscade. Both Butler and
Claus say there were 400 of them in the fight. The probability is that
some of them were engaged in transporting supplies across the portage,
and that all in camp were sent forward. Col. Stone gives Brant credit
for devising the ambuscade and leading the Indians. Butler says not a
ward of Brant, but praises the Senecas. Here again we must resort to
conjecture for explanation. It may be that Brant was on one side of
the road with his "poor Mohawks", of whose sufferings in the battle
he afterwards spoke, while Butler with his Senecas was on the other
side. St. Leger's statement that all the Indians went to the front
shows one thing at least,—that the force with which he undertook to
cut off Willett's 250 men must have been whites. He had men enough
with him while engaged in clearing the creek and in transporting
provisions—with 80 men at the front, and with Lieut. Bird's command,
decoyed from camp by false intelligence—to return to intercept
Willett. Cf. _Precis of the Wars in Canada_ (London, 1826), which
states that St. Leger's corps "consisted of 700 regulars, with eight
pieces of ordnance and about 1,000 Indians."
In all this discussion I have assumed that Sir John Johnson's
orderly-book contained all the orders with reference to rations. As
such orders were not a necessary part of the record, it may he doubted
whether other orders not affecting that corps would not be found in St.
Leger's order-book.
[1373] Mary Jemison puts the loss of the Senecas alone above what Claus
and Butler reported the total Indian loss. Claus states the British
loss at three officers, two or three privates, and thirty-two Indians
killed (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. p. 720). Col. Butler puts the English
loss in the action at four officers killed and two privates wounded;
the Indian loss at thirty-three killed and twenty-nine wounded (_Parl.
Reg._, viii. p. 226). Mary Jemison (p. 116) says: "Previous to the
battle of Fort Stanwix the British sent for the Indians to come and
see them whip the rebels; and at the same time stated that they did
not wish to have them fight, but wanted to have them just sit down,
smoke their pipes, and look on. Our Indians went, to a man, but,
contrary to their expectation, instead of smoking and looking on, they
were obliged to fight for their lives; and in the end were completely
beaten, with a great loss of killed and wounded. Our Indians alone had
thirty-six killed and a great number wounded. Our town exhibited a
scene of real sorrow and distress when our warriors returned, recounted
their misfortunes, and stated the real loss they had sustained in the
engagement. The mourning was excessive, and was expressed by the most
doleful yells, shrieks, and howlings, and by inimitable gesticulations."
[1374] The exaggerated rumors of the losses at Minisink which first
reached Sullivan's camp were immediately displaced by more accurate
accounts. "The accts we rec'd from the Delaware at Minisings on the
29th are more favorable than at first represented. The Tories and
savages made a descent upon that settlement, and, having burned several
houses, barns, etc., were attacked by a Regt. of Militia, who repulsed
and pursued them a considerable distance. Forty men were killed on
our side, the Colo. and Major included" (Major Norris's journal in
_Publications of the Buffalo Hist. Soc._, i. p. 225).
The account which appears in the _Boston Gazette and Country Journal_,
Sept. 6, 1779, is singularly free from exaggeration. Indeed, it
underrates the whole affair. It speaks of the destruction of the town
as "an excursion on old Minisink", and says the militia marched to the
assistance of their neighbors and followed the savages thirty miles
into the wilderness. An action ensued in which upwards of twenty of
the enemy were killed, and our losses, killed, wounded, and missing,
were upwards of thirty. The later accounts are in E. M. Ruttenber's
_Orange County_ (Newburgh, 1875); Charles E. Stickney's _Minisink
Region_ (Middletown, 1867); in the _N. Y. Columbian_, copied in Niles's
_Principles and Acts_, and in Dr. Arnell's _Address to the Med. Soc.
of Orange Co._; and the addresses at the dedication of the monument at
Goshen (showing forty-five names of the slain), in Samuel W. Eager's
_Outline Hist. of Orange County_.
[1375] Almon's _Remembrancer_, viii. 51. The _Boston Gazette and
Country Journal_ (July 27, 1778) contains a letter from Samuel Avery,
July 15, 1778, giving the "disagreeable intelligence, brought by Mr.
Solomon Avery, this moment returned from Wyoming, on the Susquehanna
River", which says: "The informant conceives, that of about five
thousand inhabitants one half are killed and taken by the enemy
prisoners, and the other half fleeing away naked and distressed." The
same paper (August 3) contains the Poughkeepsie account.
[1376] Botta's account is reprinted in the _Penna. Register_ (i. 129;
cf. vi. 58, 73, 310; vii. 273).
[1377] Miner, in 1806, called Judge Marshall's attention to some of the
errors in his account. In 1831 the judge revived the correspondence
on the subject, and expressed his intention to avail himself of the
information furnished by Mr. Miner.
[1378] William L. Stone, in the _Life and Times of Red Jacket_,
referring to his father's _Life of Brant_, says (p. 75): "Indeed,
until this work appeared, it was universally believed that Brant and
his Mohawk warriors were engaged in the massacre of Wyoming. Gordon,
Ramsay, Thacher, and Marshall assert the same thing." Thacher in his
account of Wyoming, under date of August 3, does not mention Brant's
name, but charges the responsibility for the atrocities upon Col. John
Butler.
Ramsay (ii. 323, etc.) mentions Brant's name, but does not charge
upon the invaders an indiscriminate slaughter. He says the women and
children were permitted to cross the Susquehanna and retreat through
the woods to Northampton County. Stone claimed an _alibi_ for Brant in
his _Border Wars_, while Caleb Cushing (_Democratic Rev._) thought the
case not proved; but Stone, again, in his _Wyoming_, reasserted it,
and Peck, in his _Wyoming_ (3d ed., N. Y., 1868), sustains Stone. The
question is also discussed by Thomas Maxwell in Schoolcraft's _Indian
Tribes_, v. 672.
On this subject see "Letter to the Mohawk chief, Ahyonwaegho, commonly
called John Brant, Esq., of the Grand River, Upper Canada, from Thomas
Campbell, Jan. 20, 1822", published in the _New Monthly Magazine_,
London, 1822 (vol. iv. p. 97).
It has been already stated that the correspondence of Guy Johnson shows
that in the plan of campaign Brant's field of operations in 1778 did
not include Wyoming. Gen. John S. Clark in a private note quotes from
a MS. in the handwriting of Col. Daniel Claus, entitled _Anecdotes of
Captain Joseph Brant, 1778_, a copy of which is in the possession of
Hon. J. B. Plumb, of Niagara, Canada, a statement that Sakayenwaraghton
led the Senecas at Oriskany (1777), and that after the battle a council
was held at Canadesege, at which it was agreed that this chieftain
should attack Wyoming in the early spring, and that Brant should attack
the New York settlements. This MS. further says that the Indians "bore
the whole brunt of the action, for there were but two of Butler's
rangers killed." What is known of the life of this Seneca chieftain is
given by Geo. S. Conover in his pamphlet, _Sayengueraghta, King of the
Senecas_ (Waterloo, 1885).
[1379] Ryerson in his _Loyalists of America_ (ii. ch. 34) compares the
accounts of Wyoming given by Ramsay, Bancroft, Tucker, and Hildreth,
and credits Hildreth with the most accurate story. He copies Stone's
account from the _Life of Brant_, and expresses himself in approbation
of it. There is an account of the Wyoming affair in _The History of
Connecticut from the first Settlement to the present time_, by Theodore
Dwight, Jr. (New York, 1841), which is unusually full of errors. I
should be strongly inclined to quote here from the pages of Murray's
_Impartial History of the present War_, etc., to show that British
opinions were as strongly pronounced in their expressions against
the reported acts of Butler, and that they held the authorities who
permitted him to bear a commission responsible, were it not that I
find so many pages in this book identical with _An Impartial History
of the War in America_, which was published about the same time in
Boston, that I am at a loss to determine which was the original book.
The two books are not in all respects the same. The one purports to be
an English composition, the other an American recital. Phrases in which
the enemy are alluded to in the one are reversed in the other, while
topics which are elaborated in one are barely mentioned in the other;
still, there are enough pages identical in the two, except for the
toning down of the adjectives, to make me doubtful of the authorship
of the Rev. James Murray. The bibliography of these books is examined
elsewhere in this _History_.
[1380] In order to show what has been accepted as history on this
point, I quote a portion of the account in this history, which is
typical: "After the savages had completed their work of slaughter in
the field, they proceeded immediately to invest Fort Kingston, in which
Col. Dennison had been left with the small remnant of Butler's troops
and the defenceless women and children. In such a state of weakness
the defence of the fort was out of the question; and all that remained
to Dennison was to attempt to gain some advantageous terms by the
offer of a surrender. For this purpose he went himself to the savage
chief; but that inhuman monster, that Christian cannibal, replied to
the question of terms that he should grant them _the hatchet_. He
was more than true to his word, for when, after resisting until all
his garrison were killed or disabled, Col. Dennison was compelled to
surrender at discretion, his merciless conqueror, tired of scalping,
and finding the slow process of individual murder insufficient to glut
his appetite, shut up all that remained in the houses and barracks,
and by the summary aid of fire reduced all at once to one promiscuous
heap of ashes. Nothing now remained that wore the face of resistance to
these savage invaders but the little fort of Wilksborough, into which
about seventy of Col. Butler's men had effected their retreat, as has
been said. These, with about the same number of Continental soldiers,
constituted its whole force, and when their enemy appeared before
them they surrendered without even asking conditions, under the hope
that their voluntary obedience might find some mercy. But mercy dwelt
not in the bosoms of these American Tories; submission could not stay
their insatiable thirst of blood. The cruelties and barbarities which
were practised upon these unresisting soldiers were even more wanton,
if possible, than those which had been exhibited at Fort Kingston.
The seventy Continental soldiers, _because_ they were _Continental_
soldiers, were deliberately butchered in cruel succession; and then a
repetition of the same scene of general and promiscuous conflagration
took place, which had closed the tragedy at the other fort. Men, women,
and children were locked up in the houses, and left to mingle their
cries and screams with the flames that mocked the power of an avenging
God."
[1381] Chapman's sketch, although it repeats many of the errors in
the popular accounts, says that the women and children fled from the
valley. It also gives a copy of the articles of capitulation at the
final surrender (note ii.). This account is a long step towards the
story as at present accepted.
[1382] It is also given, with other official documents, in Dawson's
_Battles_, i. ch. 38.
[1383] This report is also given in a sketch of the life of Zebulon
Butler, which forms a part of the article headed Edmund Griffin Butler,
in Geo. B. Kulp's _Families of the Wyoming Valley_ (Wilkesbarre, Pa.,
1885, vol. i.).
[1384] Bancroft has necessarily treated such events briefly, but the
peculiar facilities which he has enjoyed for gaining access to the
papers in foreign archives give especial value to his statistics in
connection with such incidents in the war as the battle of Oriskany and
the destruction of Wyoming.
[1385] In the _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Register_ (xiv. p. 265) an article,
"Mrs. Skinner and the Massacre at Wyoming", by D. Williams Patterson,
opens with a quotation from Col. Stone's book, and then proceeds as
follows: "The above account, which was probably taken by Col. Stone
from a newspaper article, published soon after the death of Mrs.
Skinner, contains so many errors that it seems proper to place on
record a version of the story more nearly in accordance with facts."
The facts stated are of a biographical and genealogical character.
[1386] In a previous note I have reproduced one of the typical
accounts of the Wyoming massacre, as the story was told by the earlier
historians. The details given in accounts of that class were accepted
for a long time without question. Fortunately for the good name of the
human race, Butler, with all his responsibility for the wrongs done
during the continuance of this border warfare, was not the inhuman
wretch which he was represented to be, and the wholesale slaughter
of the women and children turned out to be a pure invention. Horrors
enough remain unchallenged to raise a doubt if even now all errors have
been removed. I have not introduced any of these shocking stories in my
narrative, but they can be found in Chapman, Miner, and Stone.
The story of the horrors of the night is told in Hubbard's _Life of Van
Campen_ in such a way as to make it seem more probable than the same
story appears when read in some of the other accounts.
Among the more general accounts are those in Egle's _Pennsylvania_;
Hollister's _Connecticut_, with a good account of the Connecticut
colony in Pennsylvania; H. Hollister's _Lackawana Valley_ (N. Y.,
1857), following Miner closely; Stuart Pearce's _Luzerne County_
(Philadelphia, 1860); Campbell's _Tryon County_, App.; Mrs. E. F.
Ellet's _Domestic Hist. of the Amer. Rev._ (N. Y., 1850), ch. 13, and
her _Women of the Amer. Rev._ (N. Y., 1856), ii. 165; Henry Fergus's
_United States_ in Lardner's _Cab. Cyclopædia_, reproducing the old
erroneous accounts; and even so late a history as _Cassell's United
States_, by Edmund Ollier, is little better. A marked instance of
the heedless method of popular historians is J. A. Spencer's _United
States_ (N. Y., 1858), who seems to have followed at that late day
Thacher as he found his account in Lossing, _Seventeen Seventy-Six_
(_Hist. Mag._, ii. 126-128), which author reasonably complained that if
he were to be trusted at all, he should have been taken in the later
research of his _Field-Book_, or even of his school history, since Dr.
Spencer was fond of quoting such authorities.
Poole's _Index_ gives references to several periodical articles. Chief
among such contributions are those in the _Worcester Mag._, i. 37;
the reviews of Peck in the _Methodist Quarterly_ (3d ser., xviii. p.
577, and the 4th ser., vol. xl.), and the paper in _Household Words_,
xviii. p. 282; A. H. Guernsey in _Harper's Mag._, xvii. 306 (also see
vii. 613); L. W. Peck in _National Mag._, v. 147; Erastus Brooks in the
_Southern Lit. Messenger_, vii. 553.
The whole subject of the invasion of the valley was reviewed by Steuben
Jenkins in an historical address, which is embodied in "_A record of
the one hundredth year commemorative observances of the battle and
massacre_", etc., etc., edited by Wesley Johnson (Wilkesbarre, Pa.,
1882).
The bibliography of Wyoming, by H. E. Hayden, is given in the _Proc. of
the Wyoming Valley Hist. and Geol. Soc._ (1885).
[1387] There are contemporary letters in the _Hist. Mag._, x. 172.
[1388] The story of Cherry Valley is one of the numerous incidents
connected with the border war included in the _Historical Collections
of the State of New York_, edited by John W. Barber and Henry Howe
(New York, 1845). Such accounts in this work are generally transferred
bodily from Campbell or Stone, but occasionally some old newspaper
cutting is reproduced. At the celebration in 1840, addresses were made
by William W. Campbell and by William H. Seward. They were published in
pamphlet form, and Mr. Campbell printed his own address as a note to
the 2d edition of the _Annals of Tryon County_.
The speeches made at centennial anniversary in 1878 were published in
the _Centennial Celebration of the State of New York_ (Albany, 1879).
The main address was delivered by Major Douglass Campbell (p. 359). Cf.
H. C. Goodwin's _Cortland County_ (N. Y., 1859); Dawson's _Battles_, i.
ch. 45; Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 268, 297.
[1389] _Ibid._, Jan. 4, 1779, has a letter from Cherry Valley, dated
Nov. 24, 1778.
[1390] See _Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc._, 1886. One hundred copies of
McKendry's journal were privately printed from these proceedings in
1886, with the title,—_1779_. _Sullivan's Expedition against the
Indians of New York_, edited by the writer of this chapter.
[1391] See note E, at the end of this chapter.—ED.
[1392] In a note, vol. iii. p. 312, he says: "Sullivan in his account
says forty: but if a few old houses which had been deserted for years
were met with and burnt, they were put down for a town. Stables and
wood hovels and lodges in the field, when the Indians were called to
work, these were all reckoned as houses." He charges that Sullivan was
importunate in absurd demands for supplies, and amongst other things
called for eggs to take upon his Indian campaign. This statement of
Gordon undoubtedly rests upon something which he had seen in print. Is
it not probable that his prejudice prevented him from seeing the humor
in a newspaper squib inserted by some wag, in which Sullivan's slow
movements and pertinacious demands for supplies are thus ridiculed?
Cf. Eben Hazard in _Belknap Papers_, i. 23. The writers of "Allen's
History" follow the same lead. "He lived during the march in every
species of extravagance, was constantly complaining to Congress that
he was not half supplied, and daily amused himself in unwarrantable
remarks to his young officers respecting the imbecility of Congress and
the board of war" (_Allen's Amer. Rev._, ii. 277). Bancroft (x. 231)
speaks of Sullivan as "wasting his time writing strange theological
essays", and gives him credit for destroying only "eighteen towns."
[1393] The attendant controversies touching Sullivan's career as
a soldier and a legislator are examined in another place in this
_History_, but reference may be here made to T. C. Amory's paper on
this expedition in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._, iv. 420, and to another on
the same subject in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xx. 88.
[1394] Quotations from Haldimand's correspondence and speeches are
given elsewhere. The openness of Clinton's movements seemed to
Washington such a complete betrayal of the whole scheme that on the
1st of July he wrote to Sullivan that Clinton "had transported, and by
last accounts was transporting, provisions and stores for his whole
brigade three months, and two hundred and twenty or thirty batteaux
to receive them; by which means, in the place of having his design
concealed till the moment of execution, and forming his junction with
you, in a manner by surprise, it is announced" (Sparks's _Washington_,
vi. p. 281). During the whole of this hazardous proceeding Clinton was
not molested, nor did Haldimand seem to derive any conception of what
it meant. Yet Washington was so far right in saying that the intention
of the movement was "announced" that on the 5th of July the following
appeared in the _Boston Gazette and Country Journal_: "The stores are
all arrived, and the greatest exertions are made by Gen. Clinton to
transport them unto Lake Otsego, over a carrying-place of about thirty
miles. Everything will be then ready to go down the Susquehanna and
join Gen. Sullivan."
[1395] The latest official figures given by Sullivan are those of
July 21st,—2,312 rank and file; the entire number given in the
report footing up, according to Craft, 2,539. In the same estimate,
Craft puts Clinton's force at 1,400, and the total marching column at
3,100 to 3,200 men. It was promised by Washington that Lieut.-Col.
Pawling should join Clinton at Anaguaga with 200 men (Sparks's
_Washington_, vi. p. 275). Stone says Clinton was joined at "Oghkwaga"
by a detachment of Col. Pawling's levies from Wawarsing (_Brant_, ii.
p. 18). Peabody in his _Life of Sullivan_ makes the same statement.
Bleeker in his order-book makes no mention of Pawling's regiment.
Erkuries Beatty, August 16th, says: "Major Church marched to meet
the militia here. Returned in the evening and saw nothing of them"
(_Cayuga Co. Hist. Soc. Coll._ no. i. p. 64). McKendry in his journal
corroborates this statement (_Sullivan's Expedition against the
Indians_, p. 30). In a letter (Aug. 24, 1779) from Gen. Clinton to his
brother, contained in the Sparks collection, the general states that
the expected reinforcement by Pawling was not effected. _Geo. Clinton
papers—Sparks MSS._, no. xii. (Harvard Col. library).
[1396] Washington in his instructions to Sullivan had insisted that
Sullivan should dispense with everything possible, on the ground that
the delays incident to the transportation of a great bulk of stores
might balk the expedition (Sparks, vi. 264; _Hist. Mag._, xii., Sept.,
1867, p. 139). He was indignant when he heard that Clinton had taken to
great a quantity of stores with him. Referring to this, Sullivan wrote
to Clinton, July 11, 1779 saying "Gen. Washington has wrote to me as
he has to you, but I have undeceived him by showing him that in case
you depended on our magazines for stores we must all starve together,
as the commissaries have deceived us in every article" (Bleeker's
_Order-book_, p. 15). Lt.-Col. Adam Hubley wrote to the President of
Pennsylvania: "Our expedition is carrying on rather slow, owing to the
delay in provisions, etc. I sincerely pity Gen. Sullivan's situation.
People who are not acquainted with the reasons of the delay, I'm
informed, censure him, which is absolutely cruel and unjust" (_Penna.
Archives_, vii. p. 554). "The long stay at Wyoming was owing to the
infamous conduct of the commissaries and quartermasters employed in
furnishing the necessary provisions and stores. And finally, when the
army did move, it was so scantily supplied that the success of the
expedition is by that means rendered exceedingly precarious" (Diary of
Jabez Campfield, surgeon, etc., _N. J. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 2d Series,
iii. p. 118). "Various opinions prevailed about our proceeding any
further on account of our provisions" (Hubley, in Miner's _History_,
App., p. 97).
[1397] Sullivan to Col. John Cook, July 30, 1779: "Nothing could afford
me more pleasure than to relieve the distressed, or to have it in my
power to add to the safety of your settlement; but should I comply with
your requisition, it would most effectually answer the intentions of
the enemy, and destroy the grand objects of this expedition" (_Penna.
Arch._, vii. p. 593).
[1398] "We converted some old tin kettles, found in the Indian
settlements, into large graters, and obliged every fourth man not
on guard to sit up all night and grate corn, which would make meal,
something like hominy. The meal was mixed with boiled squash or
pumpkin, when hot, and kneaded into cakes and baked at the fire"
(Nathan Davis, in _Hist. Mag._, April, 1868, p. 203).
[1399] Adam Hubley says 500 savages, 200 Tories (Miner's _History_,
Appendix, p. 93); Daniel Livermore says 600 chosen savages (_N. H
Hist. Soc. Coll._, vi. p. 308); Lieut. Barton, 200 whites, 500 Indians
(_N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc._, ii. p. 31); Daniel Gookin, 600 Indians,
14 regulars, 200 Tories (_N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, xvi. p. 27);
Jabez Campfield, 1,000 strong, 300 or 400 of whom were Tories (_N.
J. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iii. 2d Series, p. 124); George Grant, 1,500
(_Hazard's Reg._, xiv. p. 74); Major Norris, 1,500 Indians (Jones's
_New York_, vol. ii. p. 613); Gen. Sullivan, 1,500 (_Remembrancer_, ix.
p. 158); Rev. David Craft, after a study of the subject, estimates the
force at 200 to 250 whites, and probably not less than 1,000 Indians
(_Centennial Celebration_, etc., p. 127, note). Cf. _Mag. Amer. Hist._,
iv. 420, and F. Barber's letter in _Sparks MSS._, xlix. vol. iii.
[1400] Dr. Campfield says: "The Indian houses might have been
comfortable had they made any convenience for the smoke to be conveyed
out; only a hole in the middle of the top of the roof of the house. The
Indians are exceedingly dirty; the rubage of one of their houses is
enough to stink the whole country" (_N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iii., 2d
Series, p. 132). Erkuries Beatty, speaking of the houses at Onoguaga,
says that they were good log houses, with stone chimneys and glass
windows (_Cayuga Hist. Soc. Coll._, no. i. p. 64). Van Campen says that
the houses were generally built by fixing large posts in the ground, at
a convenient distance from each other, between which poles were woven.
This formed the covering of the sides. The roof was made by laying bark
upon poles, which were properly placed as a support. To afford greater
warmth the sides were plastered with mud. The houses that were found
on the route were all of this description (John N. Hubbard's _Border
Adventures of Major. Moses Van Campen_, Bath, N. Y. 1842). "They were
built chiefly with split and hewn timbers, covered with bark and some
other rough materials, without chimneys or floors" (Norris in Jones's
_New York_, ii. p. 613). Col. Dearborn (_MS. Journal_) uses almost
identical language with Norris. "Newtown—here are some good buildings
of the English construction" (Capt. Daniel Livermore, in _N. H. Hist.
Coll._, vi. pp. 308-335). The huts or wigwams were constructed of
bark, and very narrow in proportion to their length, some being thirty
or forty feet long, and not more than ten feet wide, generally with
a bark floor, except in the centre, where there was a place for the
fire (Nathan Davis, in _Hist. Mag._, April, 1868, p. 202). According
to Hubley, Chemung contained fifty or sixty houses built of logs and
frames; Catharine's town, fifty houses, in general very good; Canadea,
about forty well-finished houses, and everything about it seemed neat
and well improved; Kanadalauga, between twenty and thirty well-finished
houses, chiefly of hewn plank; Anayea, twelve houses, chiefly of hewn
logs (_Penna. Archives_, 2d Series, vol. xi.). Nukerck describes the
houses at "Kandaia" as "large and elegant; some beautifully painted"
(Campbell, _Annals Tryon County_, p. 155); speaking of "Kanandagua", he
says: "This town, from the appearance of the buildings, seems to have
been inhabited by white people. Some houses have neat chimneys, which
the Indians have not, but build a fire in the centre, around which they
gather" (_Ibid._ p. 157). McKendry speaks of the "cellars and walls"
of the houses at "Onnaguago", and says it was a "fine settlement,
considering they were Indians." This place had been destroyed fifteen
years before by Capt. Montour, and Sir William Johnson then described
it as having houses "built of square logs, with good chimneys" (_N.
Y. Col. Docs._, vii. p. 628). McKendry says some of the houses at
"Appletown" were of "hew'd timber." At "Canondesago", some of them
built with hewed timber and part with round timber and part with bark.
[1401] Hildreth and others speak of Niagara as if it were Sullivan's
objective point. John C. Hamilton (_History of the Republic_, i.
p. 543) says: "Instructions from Hamilton's pen were addressed to
Sullivan", etc. (p. 544). "A surprise of the garrison at Niagara and
of the shipping on the lakes was to be attempted." By whom was Niagara
to be surprised? Hamilton leaves it to be inferred that Sullivan was
instructed to attempt it, whereas it was only mentioned as one of the
possible advantages to be gained from the Indians in case they should
sue for peace.
[1402] Washington's letters in Sparks, and in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Feb.,
1879, p. 142.
[1403] Ryerson in his _Loyalists of America_, etc., devotes a chapter
to the Sullivan campaign, which he terms "Revenge for Wyoming." He
confounds Zebulon Butler with William Butler, which is not perhaps to
be wondered at, for Campbell and Stone did the same thing, although the
fact that there were two English officers of the name of Butler engaged
in the border wars on the English side, and two American officers of
the same name opposed to them in the same campaigns, and the further
fact that at Wyoming the forces on each side were commanded by a
Butler, were warnings enough that especial scrutiny should be observed
in distinguishing these persons.
[1404] General Stryker (p. 7) gives Clinton's force at 1,700, and
Sullivan's at 3,500. He states that his account was compiled from
twenty published (by typographical error, the compositor has put
thirty) and five unpublished diaries. He suggests that Sullivan's delay
may possibly have been a part of Washington's strategy. T. C. Amory
shares this opinion.
Sullivan's fight at Newtown is thus described by H. C. Goodwin in
_Pioneer History of Cortland Co._, etc.: "The contest was one which has
but few parallels. The enemy yielded inch by inch, and when finally
forced at the point of the bayonet to leave their intrenchments and
flee, terror-stricken, to the mountain gorges or almost impassable
_lagoons_, the ground they had occupied was found literally drenched
with the blood of the fallen victims." Accounts of varying length are
given in other local histories: _Delaware County and Border Wars of
New York_, etc., by Jay Gould (Roxbury, 1856); _Centennial History of
Erie County, New York_, by Crisfield Johnson (Buffalo, 1876); _Annals
of Binghamton and of the Country connected with it, from he earliest
settlement_, by J. B. Wilkinson (Binghamton, 1840); _History of the
Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham's Purchase, and Morris reserve,
etc._, by O. Turner (Rochester, 1851); J. M. Parker's _Rochester_
(1884, p. 236); Ketchum's _Buffalo_ (ii. 318); Campbell's _Tryon
County_; Simms's _Frontiersmen_, etc.
There is a monograph on the campaign by A. T. Norton,—_Hist. of
Sullivan's Campaign_ (1879),—and special chapters in Dawson (i. 537),
and accounts in the more general works, like Stone's _Brant_; Ryerson's
_Loyalists_ (ii. 108), examining Stone's account; O. W. B. Peabody's
_Life of Sullivan_; Hamilton's _Republic of the U. S._; some local
traditions in Timothy Dwight's _Travels_ (iv. 204). Gen. J. Watts De
Peyster has some essays on the campaign in the _N. Y. Mail_, Aug. 26,
29, and Sept. 15, 1879.
There are various letters respecting the campaign in the Gansevoort
Papers, as copied by Sparks (_Sparks MSS._, vol. lx.). Cf. the
autobiography of Philip van Cortlandt in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, ii.
289, and William M. Willett's _Narrative of the military actions of
Col. Marinus Willett_ (N. Y., 1831).
[1405] The New Jersey Historical Society has a MS. order-book kept
by Lieutenant-Colonel Barber, of the Third New Jersey Regiment, who
was also appointed deputy adjutant-general for the Western army.
The last entry made is dated Sept. 6, 1779. In Hammersly, and in
the roster compiled by General Stryker, Francis Barber is put down
as lieutenant-colonel of this regiment. This order-book has been
attributed by some to George C. Barber. The library of Cornell
University owns one kept by Thomas Gee, quartermaster's sergeant in
Col. John Lamb's regiment of artillery, which contains the orders of
the day issued at Fort Sullivan from Aug. 27, 1779, to Oct. 2, 1779
also the return march to Easton, the last entry being Oct. 26, 1779. My
knowledge of these MS. order-books was derived from Gen. John S. Clark,
of Auburn, N. Y. I am indebted to Hon. Steuben Jenkins for details
concerning the Barber order-book, and to Professor Moses Coit Tyler, of
Cornell University, for a description of the Gee order-book. Dr. F. B.
Hough edited the _Order-book of Capt. Leonard Bleeker, major of brigade
in the early part of the expedition under Gen. James Clinton against
the Indians in the Campaign of 1779_ (N. Y., 1865). On Clinton's share
in the expedition, see W. W. Campbell's _Services of James Clinton_
(N.Y. Hist. Soc., 1839); Chaplain Gano's _Biog. Memoirs_ (1806). For
a portrait of Clinton, see Irving's _Washington_, 4^o ed., v., and
Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 112.
[1406] Craft, May 9, 1879, had already furnished a list of journals of
the campaign, and had appealed to the public for further information
(_Penna. Mag. of Hist._, iii. pp. 348, 349).
[1407] See note E, at end of chapter.—ED.
[1408] The journals thus used are Erkuries Beatty's, covering Clinton's
movements; Thomas Grant's and George Grant's, covering the march up the
east side of Lake Cayuga; and Henry Dearborn's, for the march up the
west side of the same lake.
[1409] _Boston Gazette and Country Journal_, Nov. 1, 1779.
[1410] The expedition is referred to by Gordon, Ramsay, and Marshall,
each of these writers giving a brief account of the march and the work
accomplished. On the 27th of October, 1779, Congress resolved that "the
thanks of Congress be given to his excellency General Washington for
directing, and to Colonel Brodhead and the brave officers and soldiers
under his command for executing, the important expedition against the
Mingo and Munsey Indians, and that part of the Senecas on the Allegheny
River, by which the depredations of those savages, assisted by their
merciless instigators, subjects of the King of Great Britain, upon the
defenceless inhabitants of the Western frontiers have been restrained
and prevented."
[1411] A descriptive article entitled "Mohawk Valley in the
Revolution", by Harold Frederic, was published in _Harper's Magazine_
(lv. p. 171). Cf. _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Oct., 1879. The activity of
the Tories and Indians in the Mohawk Valley gave rise from time to time
to various rumors, some of which found their way into print. It was
stated in 1779 that Fort Stanwix had surrendered to the English. This
was repeated in a pamphlet of the day, a mere chronological register
of events, published in 1783, and entitled _The American and British
Chronicle of War and Politics; being an accurate and comprehensive
Register of the most memorable occurrences in the last ten years of his
Majesty's reign, etc. From May 10, 1773, to July 16, 1783_. The entry
of Nov. 2, 1779, was, "Col. Butler, with some Indians, surprise and
take Fort Stanwix, Mohawk River." In 1780 this rumor was repeated, and
found its way into the _Remembrancer_ (x. 347): "New York, Sept. 23....
We are informed that about a fortnight ago Fort Stanwix, after having
been five or six weeks closely invested, was taken by 600 British
troops commanded by a Lieutenant-Colonel, supposed to be the King's or
8th Regiment: Our faithful friend, Capt. Joseph Brant, with a party of
Indians, shared in the glory of the conquest."
Occasionally we meet, in the accounts of the fighting in the Mohawk
Valley and vicinity, with the statement that some Indian was present
who was commissioned by the Continental Congress. In the _Journals of
Congress_ (v. 133) we find that on the 3d of April, 1779, the board of
war submitted a report, whereupon it was resolved, "That twelve blank
commissions be transmitted to the commissioners of Indian affairs for
the Northern Department, and that they or any two of them be empowered
to fill them up with the names of faithful chiefs of the Oneidas and
Tuscaroras, giving them such rank as said commissioners shall judge
they merit." (Cf. _Remembrancer_, viii. p. 121)
[1412] Stone relied upon the statement of John T. Kirkland (_Mass.
Hist. Soc. Coll._, iv. p. 69): "In the year 1780, the hostile Indians,
British troops, and refugees drove them from their villages", etc.
[1413] _Sparks MSS._ (Harvard College library,—no. xiii. p. 281),
where are various letters of John Butler, Brant, Lt.-Col. Bolton,
etc., taken from the headquarters or Carleton Papers, and they include
Brant's report on the Minisink affair and Butler's report of the
Newtown fight. The letter of Guy Johnson is in Ketchum's _Buffalo_ (i.
337).
[1414] As early as 1774 the minds of the colonists were turned
inquiringly towards this question. Joseph Reed wrote on Sept. 25,
1774, to the Earl of Dartmouth, that "the idea of bringing down the
Canadians and savages upon the English colonies is so inconsistent,
not only with mercy, but justice and humanity of the mother country,
that I cannot allow myself to think that your lordship would promote
the Quebec Bill, or give it your suffrage, with such intention" (Reed's
_Reed_, i. p. 79). The "full power to levy, arm, muster, command, and
employ all persons whatsoever residing within our said province", and
to "transport such force to any of our plantations in America", with
which Carleton was commissioned, was but a renewal of the authority
conferred upon James Murray in 1763 (_Parl. Reg._, iv., App., "The
New Commission of the Governor of Quebec", etc., pp. 8, 26). The same
language was used in the commission of Sir Danvers Osborn, Bart., to be
captain-general of New York in 1754 (_Ibid._ p. 48). In the XV. section
of the charter granted by Charles II. to the Lords Proprietors of South
Carolina, the grantees were authorized to levy, muster, and train "all
sorts of men, of what condition, or wheresoever born", and to pursue
enemies, "yea, even without the limits of the said province" (_Ibid._
p. 64). The clause is repeated in the second charter of Charles II. to
the Lords Proprietors of Carolina (_Ibid._ p. 79). Lord Baltimore was
authorized by Charles I. with the same general powers to levy and arm,
and "to make war and pursue the enemies and robbers aforesaid, as well
by sea as by land, yea, even without the limits of the said province,
and (by God's assistance) to vanquish and take them." (Cf. _The Federal
and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters_, etc., Washington, 1877,
part ii. p. 1388, "Charter of Carolina, 1663, § 15.")
[1415] Samuel Kirkland was born at Norwich, Conn., Dec. 1, 1744;
graduated at Princeton, 1765; became a missionary among the Indians.
The hostility of Guy Johnson bore testimony to the influence of the
missionary among the natives. Kirkland was afterward a chaplain in the
army. In 1789 he received a grant of land two miles square, now the
town of Kirkland, N. Y. He died in 1808. His life, by S. K. Lothrop,
was published in Sparks's _American Biography_.
James Deane was born at Groton, Conn., Aug. 20, 1748; graduated at
Dartmouth in 1773; and then went as missionary among the Indians.
He was employed to pacificate the Northern Indians, and acted as
interpreter on many important occasions. He was afterward a judge in
Oneida County, N. Y., where he died in 1823. He was much esteemed. Gov.
Trumbull said: "The abilities and influence of Mr. Deane to attach the
Six Nations to the interest of these colonies is an instance of Divine
favor."
[1416] See incidents of this border warfare in James Banks's _Hist.
Address_ (Fayetteville, N. C., 1859).
[1417] The rank of this officer is sometimes given as colonel. The
expedition is stated by Haywood, in his _History of Tennessee_, to have
been led by Col. Leonard McBury. Capt. Leonard Marbury, who at that
time commanded a company under Major Jack, is probably the officer
referred to.
[1418] The experience of South Carolina in these border wars is
exemplified in Alexander Gregg's _History of the old Cheraws:
containing an account of the aborigines of the Pedee, the first white
settlements, their subsequent progress, civil changes, the struggle of
the revolution, and growth of the country afterward; extending from
about A. D. 1730 to 1810, with notices of families and sketches of
individuals_ (N. Y., 1867).—ED.
[1419] In a letter from Col. Charles Robertson, trustee of the Watauga
Association, to his excellency Richard Caswell, etc., April 27, 1777,
it is stated that on the 27th of March last Col. Nathaniel Guess
brought letters from the governor of Virginia soliciting the Indians to
come in to treat for peace. The Indians, in reply to pressure brought
to bear upon them, said "they could not fight against their Father King
George", etc. (Ramsey's _History of Tennessee_, p. 171).
[1420] _Calendar of Virginia State Papers_, i. 415.
[1421] See Vol. V. p. 280.
[1422] The definitive treaty is in Hansard, xv. (1753-65) p. 1291;
_Lond. Mag._, 1763, p. 149; and the preliminary articles signed at
Fontainebleau, Nov. 3, 1762, are in Hansard, xv. p. 1240; _Lond.
Mag._, 1762, p. 657. There are in the archives of the Dept. of Foreign
Affairs in Paris several vols. (nos. 444-449) of papers respecting the
negotiation between France and England which led to the treaty of 1763.
Cf. _Report_, 1874, on the Canadian archives. Cf. Vol. V. 614.—ED.
[1423] See Parkman's _Montcalm and Wolfe_, ii. 383-413; Green's _Hist.
of the English People_ (Lond., 1880), iv. 193; Macaulay's "Earl
Chatham", _Ed. Rev._, lxxx. 549, also in his _Essays; Olden Time_, i.
329. Cf. Vol. V. ch. viii.—ED.
[1424] "The treaty of cession to Spain was never published, and the
terms of it remain a secret to this day" (Stoddard's _Louisiana_, 1812,
p. 72).
[1425] Monette, _Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the
Mississippi_ (New York, 1848), vol. i., has a map showing the
territorial possessions before the treaty. For later maps showing the
treaty lines, see Vol. V. p. 615.—ED.
[1426] The Duc de Choiseul, in conducting the negotiations on the part
of France, suggested that the English colonies would not fail to shake
off their dependence the moment Canada should be ceded (Parkman's
_Montcalm_, ii. 403); and Kalm, the Swedish botanist, who visited
America in 1748-49, made a similar prediction in his _Travels_: "The
English government has, therefore, the sufficient reason to consider
the French in North America as the best means of keeping the colonies
in their due submission" (London, 1772, i. 207). As to the spurious
Montcalm letters, see Vol. V. p. 606.—ED.
[1427] A satirical article on restoring Canada to the French appeared
in _Gentleman's Mag._, 1759, p. 620, which has the flavor of Dr.
Franklin's style: "Canada ought to be restored in order that England
may have another war; that the French and Indians may keep on scalping
the colonists, and thereby stint their growth; for otherwise the
children will be as tall as their mother; that, though we ought to keep
faith with our allies, it is not necessary with our children. We must
teach them, according to Scripture, not to 'put trust in princes.'
Let 'em learn to trust in God. If we should not restore Canada, it
would look as if our statesmen had courage like our soldiers. What
have statesmen to do with courage? Their proper character is wisdom."
Franklin's serious and avowed tract is considered in Vol. V. p.
615.—ED.
[1428] This document is in the _London Mag._, 1763, p. 541; _Amer.
Archives_, 4th ser., i. 172, and in other places [given in Vol. V.
p. 615.—ED.] Its terms were the subject of constant reference and
discussion for the next twenty years.
[1429] "Many reasons may be assigned for this apparent omission. A
consideration for the Indians was, we presume, the principal, because
it might have given a sensible alarm to that people if they had seen us
formally cantoning out their whole country into regular establishments"
(_Annual Register_, 1763, p. 20). The writer of the very able and
interesting political articles in this volume was Edmund Burke
(Robertson's _Burke_, p. 18).
[1430] Sparks's _Franklin_, iv. 303-323. Dr. Franklin made an extended
and vigorous reply to this report (_Idem_, iv. 324-374); and when the
matter came up for action in the Privy Council, and his reply was read,
the prayer of the petitioners was granted. Lord Hillsborough was so
much offended by the decision that he resigned. The Doctor, writing to
his son, July 14, 1773, said: "Mr. Todd told me, as a secret, that Lord
Hillsborough was much chagrined at being out of place, and could never
forgive me for writing that pamphlet against his report about the Ohio"
(_Works_, viii. 75).
[1431] See _ante_, chap. i.
[1432] Sir William Johnson, the superintendent of Indian affairs,
writing to Secretary Conway, June 28, 1766, said: "Our people in
general are very ill calculated to maintain friendship with the
Indians, they despise in peace those whom they fear to meet in war.
This, with the little artifices used in trade, and the total want of
that address and seeming kindness practiced with such success by the
French, must always hurt the colonists. On the contrary, could they but
assume a friendship, and treat them with civility and candor, we should
soon possess their hearts, and much more of their country than we shall
do in a century by the conduct now practiced" (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii.
836). The outrageous conduct of the English traders towards the Indians
is a constant theme of complaint by Sir William Johnson in his letters
to the Lords of Trade (see _Idem_, vii. 929, 955, 960, 964, 987).
He speaks (vii. 965) of the contrast between the French and English
traders. The former are gentlemen in character, manners, and dress;
the latter, "for the most part, men of no zeal or capacity; men who
often sacrifice the credit of the nation to the basest purposes. Can it
otherwise happen but that the Indians' prejudices must daily increase,
when they are on the one side seduced by men of abilities, influence,
and address; and on the other, see such low specimens of British
abilities, honor, and honesty? What, then, can be expected but loss of
trade, robbery, murder of traders, and frequent general ruptures?" See
also _Diary of Siege of Detroit_, ed. by Hough, preface, xiii., and Dr.
Hall's tract on _The Dutch and the Iroquois_.
[1433] Sir William Johnson, writing Dec. 26, 1764, to the Lords of
Trade, said: "Indeed, it is not to be wondered that they should be
concerned at our occupying that country, when we consider that the
French (be their motive what it will) loaded them with favors, and
continue to do so, accompanied with all outward marks of esteem, and
an address peculiarly adapted to their manners, which infallibly
gains upon all Indians who judge by externals only; and in all their
acquaintance with us [the English] upon the frontiers, have never found
anything like it; but, on the contrary, harsh treatment, angry words,
and, in short, everything which can be thought of to inspire them with
a dislike for our manners and jealousy of our views. I have seen so
much of these matters, and am so well convinced of the utter aversion
our people have for them in general, and of the imprudence with which
they constantly express it, that I absolutely despair of ever seeing
tranquillity established until I may have proper persons to reside at
the posts, whose business it shall be to remove their prejudices, and
whose interests it becomes to obtain their esteem and friendship" (_N.
Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 689).
[1434] Cf. Major Robert Rogers's _Concise Account_, 1765, pp. 240-243.
It was the opinion of Rogers that if the English had used common
sagacity in their treatment of Pontiac, the colonies would have been
spared the horrors of the Pontiac War.
[1435] The fort at Detroit was a stockade on the west side of the
Detroit River, twenty-five feet high, with a bastion at each corner,
and a block-house over each gateway, the whole enclosing about a
hundred small houses. A few pieces of light artillery were mounted on
the bastions. The garrison consisted of eight officers, one hundred
and twenty soldiers, and forty-five fur traders, under the command of
Major Henry Gladwin, an experienced and gallant officer. Two small
armed schooners were anchored in the stream. The white cottages of the
Canadian farmers lined both banks of the river. About a mile below the
fort, on the western bank, was a village of the Pottawattamies, and
on the opposite shore a Wyandot village. Four miles above the fort
were the lodges of the Ottawas (Parkman's _Pontiac_, i. 212-222).
Parkman's, _Conspiracy of Pontiac_ is one of the most entertaining
monographs in American history; and no writer can treat the subject
without acknowledging his indebtedness to the accurate and scholarly
investigations of that distinguished historian. The reader of this
brief summary of events will find full details in the charming
narrative of Parkman. He says of the Bouquet and Haldimand Papers, in
the British Museum, that they contain "several hundred letters from
officers engaged in the Pontiac War, some official, others personal and
familiar." These he availed himself of in his last revision (1870),
but he had collected 3,400 MS. pages of unprinted documents for his
original edition (1851). All these MS. collections are now in the
library of the Mass. Hist. Society.—ED.
[1436] A biographical notice of Major Gladwin (who became major-general
in 1782) by Dr. O'Callaghan is in _N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 961. Parkman
spells the name "Gladwyn." Detroit was now the chief post of this new
Northwestern government. Amherst, in a letter to Egremont, Nov. 30,
1762, had recommended the place as the proper headquarters (Shelburne
Papers, vol. 48, _Hist. MSS. Com. Report_, v. 217).—ED.
[1437] See plan in Vol. V. p. 532.
[1438] Some years later, an Indian who was present described the scene
to Sir William Johnson. A party of Senecas gained admission to the fort
by treachery, and murdered all the garrison except the commander, and
him they later put to death by roasting over a slow fire (Parkman, ii.
20).
[1439] Capt. Simeon Ecuyer was in the English service during the
Revolutionary War, and is mentioned with high terms of praise, as
"Major" Ecuyer, in "Journal of the most remarkable Occurrences in
Quebec, from Nov. 14, 1775, to May 7, 1776" (_N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._,
1880, p. 232).
[1440] A biographical sketch (in French) of Col. Bouquet, by C. G.
F. Dumas, is prefixed to the Amsterdam edition, 1769, of Bouquet's
second expedition, 1764. The same (in English) is prefixed to Robert
Clarke's reprint in the _Ohio Valley Series_, 1868. A different and
fuller translation of Dumas's sketch is in _Olden Time_, i. 203, and
is preceded (p. 200) by a sketch by another writer. George H. Fisher,
in _Penna. Mag._, iii. 121-143, gives the life, with an excellent
portrait, of Col. Bouquet, and his letters to Anne Willing, a young
lady with whom he had tender relations, but whom he did not marry.
J. T. Headley, in _Harper's Mag._, xxiii. 577 (Oct., 1861), has an
illustrated article on Col. Bouquet. The Bouquet Papers, 1757-1765,
were given by the heirs of Gen. Haldimand, in 1857, to the British
Museum. There is a synopsis of them in Brymner's _Report on the
Canadian Archives_, 1873.—ED.
[1441] Brymner, the Canadian archivist, in examining the papers in the
Public Record Office in London, was denied access to the volume of the
"America and West Indies" series, which contains the correspondence of
Amherst, Jan.-Nov., 1763.—ED.
[1442] Sir Wm. Johnson (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 962) gives the number
of men in Bouquet's command as 600.
[1443] He soon found that even they had the bad habit of losing
themselves in the woods. He wrote to Amherst, July 26th: "I cannot send
a Highlander out of my sight without running the risk of losing the
man, which exposes me to surprise from the skulking villains I have to
deal with" (Parkman, ii. 56).
[1444] The reports of Colonel Bouquet to General Amherst, Aug. 5th,
6th, and 11th, give the losses in both actions as 50 killed, 60
wounded, and 5 missing (_Gent. Mag._, 1763, p. 486; _Lond. Mag._,
1763, p. 545; _Mag. of Western Hist._, ii. 650; _Annual Register_,
1763, p. 31). Parkman (ii. 68) makes the losses "8 officers _and_ 115
men." The officers were included in the above enumeration. Of the
losses by the Indians, General Amherst wrote (_Gent. Mag._, 1763,
p. 489): "The number of the savages slain was about 60, and a great
many wounded in the pursuit. The principal ringleaders who had the
greatest share in fomenting the present troubles were killed." As to
the number of Indians engaged, Sir William Johnson (_N. Y. Col. Doc._,
vii. 962) states on the best authorities of white men who were with
the Indians, and of several different Indians, who all agree, that the
true number of Indians who attacked Colonel Bouquet at Bushy Run was
only ninety-five. This statement seems hardly probable, in view of the
number killed and the accounts given by the officers engaged.
[1445] "His Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify to the
commander-in-chief his royal approbation of the conduct and bravery
of Col. Bouquet and the officers and troops under his command in the
actions of the 5th and 6th of August" (General Orders from headquarters
in New York, January 5, 1764).
An excellent description of Bouquet's expedition of 1763 and of the
battle of Bushy Run is in _Annual Register_, 1763, pp. 27-32. It was
doubtless written by Edmund Burke from authentic information furnished
by some of the officers engaged. Another account is in the introduction
to Bouquet's second expedition of 1764, in which the writer (Dr.
William Smith) uses freely the account in the _Annual Register_. Cf. T.
J. Chapman on the siege of Fort Pitt in _Mag. of Western Hist._, Feb.,
1886.
[1446] See Parkman's _Pontiac_, i. 305-317; _Annual Register_, 1763, p.
26; and General Amherst's report in _Gent. Mag._, 1763, p. 486; _Lond.
Mag._, 1763, p. 543; _Mag. of West. Hist._, ii. 648. He concludes his
detailed "Return of killed and wounded" with "Total, 19 killed and 42
wounded." The name of Captain Dalzell, whom he had previously reported
as killed, is not included in the return, and the wounded named number
only 39. The _Annual Register_ gives the loss as "only seventy men
killed, and about forty wounded"!
[1447] An orderly-book of Bradstreet's campaign, June-Nov., 1764, is in
the library of the American Antiquarian Society.
[1448] Bradstreet sent Capt. Thomas Morris on a mission to Pontiac,
and an account of Morris's experience and his capture by the Indians
is given in his _Miscellanies in prose and verse_ (London, 1791).
See Field, _Ind. Bibliog._, no. 1,095, and Thomson's _Bibliog. of
Ohio_, no. 854. Morris's original journal, sent to Bradstreet, is in
the Public Record Office, London. He extended the copy from which
he printed. A letter from Morris to Bradstreet is among the papers
of Sir William Johnson in the State Library at Albany (Parkman, ii.
195). The Parkman MSS. (Mass. Hist. Soc.) have minutes of the council
held by Bradstreet with the Indians at Detroit, Sept. 7, 1764, and
the Shelburne Papers (vol. 50) show similar records (_Hist. MSS. Com.
Rept._, v. 218).—ED.
[1449] Sir William Johnson (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 686), writing to
the Lords of Trade, Dec. 26, 1764, and having spoken with much severity
of Bradstreet's bad management of his expedition, says: "On the other
hand, Col. Bouquet, under all the disadvantages of a tedious and
hazardous land march with an army little more than half that of the
other, has penetrated into the heart of the country of the Delawares
and Shawanese, obtained above two hundred English captives from amongst
them, with fourteen hostages for their coming here [Johnson Hall] and
entering into a peace before me in due form; and I daily expect their
chiefs for that purpose." A touching account of the English captives,
the reluctance of some of them to part from their captors and savage
life, and the joy of others again to meet their relatives, is in Dr.
Smith's _Historical Account_, pp. 75-80 (ed. 1868), and in Parkman, ii.
231-240. An engraving, after Benj. West, representing the delivery of
the English captives at the forks of the Muskingum, is in some of the
editions (p. 72) of the _Historical Account_, described in a following
note.
[1450] Cf. a paper on the forks of the Muskingum in the _Mag. of West.
Hist._, Feb., 1885, p. 283.
[1451] _Pennsyl. Mag._, iii. 134. An obituary notice of him appeared in
the _Pennsyl. Journal_, Oct. 24, 1765. In the Haldimand Coll. (Canadian
Archives), p. 21, appears: "June 5, 1765. Bouquet waiting for a vessel
to Florida. Nov. 17. Gen. Gage appoints Lieut.-Col. Taylor to act as
Brig.-Gen. in room of Brig. Bouquet, deceased." Among army promotions,
in _Gent. Mag._, Jan., 1766, is "Aug. Provost, Esq., Lieut.-Col. of the
60th Reg., in room of H. Bouquet, deceased."
[1452] _An Historical Account of the Expedition against the Ohio
Indians in the Year 1764, under the command of Henry Bouquet, Esq.,
Colonel of Foot, and now Brigadier-General_, appeared from the press of
William Bradford, Philadelphia, in 1765 (Wallace's _William Bradford_,
p. 85). The authorship has been ascribed by Rich, Allibone, and others
to Thomas Hutchins, later geographer of the United States; but it
is now known that the writer was Dr. William Smith, Provost of the
College of Philadelphia. It is a quarto, pp. xiii+71, with three maps
by Thomas Hutchins, Asst. Engineer, viz.: (1) "Map [of the route of
Col. Bouquet's expedition of 1763, and] of the country on the Ohio
and Muskingham Rivers; also, on the same sheet, separated by a line,
a map of the country traversed in his expedition of 1764;" (2) plan
of the Battle of Bushy Run; and (3) the order of march. The work has
been several times reprinted: (I.) In London, 1766, 4^o, pp. xiii+71,
with the plates named reëngraved, and two additional plates inserted,
after designs by Benj. West, viz.: (4) conference of Indians with
Col. Bouquet, engraved by Gregnion; and (5) Indians delivering up the
English captives to Col. Bouquet, engraved by Canot (II.) At Amsterdam,
1769, 8^o, pp. xvi+147+ix, a French translation, with the same plates
very neatly reëngraved, the two maps on the first plate being engraved
separately, making in all six plates. (III.) At Dublin, 1769, by John
Millikin, pp. xx+99, no plates. (IV.) In _Olden Time_, i. 203-221,
241-261, no plates. (V.) In the _Ohio Valley Series_, Cincinnati, 1868,
with preface by Francis Parkman, and photo-lithographic copies of the
plates in the London edition. The last two editions have translations
(not the same, however) of C. G. F. Dumas's biographical sketch of Col.
Bouquet, which is prefixed to the Amsterdam edition. The first two maps
are prefixed to Hildreth's _Western Pioneer_, and extracts from the
work are given (pp. 46-64). The map of the expedition of 1763 is in
Parkman's _Pontiac_ (ii. 199). (Cf. Thomson's _Bibliog. of Ohio_, nos.
1,065, etc.)
The _Historical Account_ has an introduction giving a summary of
Col. Bouquet's expedition of 1763, and supplementary matter, viz.,
Reflections on the War with the Savages in North America; and five
appendixes: (I.) Construction of Forts in America; (II.) Account of the
French Forts ceded to Great Britain in Louisiana; (III.) Route from
Philadelphia to Fort Pitt; (IV.) Indian Towns on and near the Ohio
River; (V.) Names of Indian tribes in North America. The supplementary
matter, and doubtless some of the narrative, were furnished by Col.
Bouquet himself, as Dr. Smith, in writing to Sir William Johnson, said:
"I drew up [the work] from some papers he favored me with." Cf. on the
expedition of 1764, Col. Whittlesey's _Cleveland_, p. 105; Darlington's
ed. of Col. James Smith's _Remarkable Occurrences_, pp. 107, 177;
Hildreth's _Pioneer Hist. of Ohio Valley_, p. 46; _Western Reserve
Hist. Soc. tracts_, nos. 13, 14, 25.
[1453] M. D'Abbadie died in February, 1765. Pittman, p. 16.
[1454] The Pontiac War is treated in Doddridge's _Notes_ (ed. 1876), p.
220; Kercheval (taken largely from Doddridge), p. 258; Monette, i. 326;
Stone's _Sir William Johnson_, ii. 191; Perkins's _Western Annals_ (ed.
1851), p. 66; Davidson and Struve's _Illinois_, p. 137; Silas Farmer's
_Detroit and Michigan_ (1884); Sheldon's _Michigan_; Blanchard's _North
West_, 119, with a map; Schweinitz's _Zeisberger_, p. 274; and in an
illustrated article by J. T. Headley, _Harper's Mag._, xxii. 437.
Munsell published at Albany in 1860, as edited by F. B. Hough, and no.
4 of Munsell's "Historical Series", a _Diary of the siege of Detroit
in the war with Pontiac_. _Also a narrative of the principal events of
the siege, by Major R. Rogers; a plan for conducting Indian affairs, by
Col. Bradstreet; and other authentick documents, never before printed._
Rogers MS. diary is noted in the _Menzies Catal._, no. 1,715. There
was a _Life of Pontiac_ published in N. Y. in 1860. See also _Poole's
Index_ for reviews of Parkman's admirable work.—ED.
[1455] Gage's despatch, May 27, 1764 (_Haldimand Coll._, p. 18). Major
Loftus arrived at New Orleans from Mobile with the 22d regiment, Feb.
12, 1764. The French governor "gave him a very bad account of the
disposition of the Indians towards us [the English], and assured him,
unless he carried some presents to distribute amongst them, that he
would not be able to get up the river" (Gage to Earl Halifax, _N. Y.
Col. Doc._, vii. 619). The attack on the command of Major Loftus was
made on the 20th of March, 1764, by the Tunicas Indians, a few miles
above the mouth of the Red River: first from the west bank, and later
from the east bank, of the Mississippi. The spot is indicated on Lieut.
Ross's _Map of the Mississippi_, 1765 (pub. 1775), by the legend
"Where the 22d regiment was drove back by the Tunicas, 1764;" and on
Andrew Ellicott's _Map of the Mississippi_, 1814 (_Journal_, p. 25),
by "Loftus's Heights", on the east bank. Pittman (p. 35) gives some
particulars of the attack, and says, "They killed five men and wounded
four."
[1456] Capt. Pittman was the author of _The Present State of the
European Settlements on the Mississippi, with a Geographical
Description of that River; illustrated by [eight] plans and draughts_
(London, 1770, 4to). It is the earliest English account of those
settlements, and, as an authority in early Western history, is of the
highest importance. He was a military engineer, and for five years was
employed in surveying the Mississippi River and exploring the Western
country. The excellent plans which accompany the work, artistically
engraved on copper, add greatly to its value. They are: (1) Plan of
New Orleans; (2) Plan of Mobile; (3) Draught of River Ibbeville to
Lake Ponchartrain; (4) Plan of Fort Rosalia; (5) Plan of Cascaskies
[Kaskaskia]; (6, 7, 8) Draught of the Mississippi River from the
Balisle to Fort Chartres (in three sheets). Cf. Vol. V. pp. 47, 71.—ED.
[1457] Sir William Johnson, hearing of the failure of the English
troops to reach the Illinois country by way of the Mississippi,
attributed the result to a conspiracy existing between eighteen tribes
of Indians to prevent it, which he charged to the intrigue of the
French residing in New Orleans and the Illinois (_N. Y. Col. Doc._,
vii. 776).
[1458] Fraser, "being too zealous", as Sir William Johnson wrote in
July, 1765, "set out before Mr. Croghan had effected the necessary
points with the Indians;" and "with two or three attendants" (Stone's
_Life of Johnson_, ii. 247) floated down the Ohio, and arrived at Fort
Chartres without casualty. Here he was courteously received by the
French commander; but he and his attendants were ill treated by drunken
Indians, and their lives were saved by the interposition of Pontiac in
their behalf. The story of Fraser's troubles came to Sir William in
another form, and he wrote: "From late accounts from Detroit there is
reason to think that Fraser has been put to death, together with those
that accompanied him, by Pontiac's party" (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii.
746). Fraser, finding the Illinois country at that time an unsafe place
of residence, took a passage in disguise down the Mississippi to New
Orleans, and thence to Mobile.
[1459] _N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 746, 765. The Shawanese, in their treaty
of July 7, stipulated to send ten deputies (_Ibid._ 752); and the
Delawares, in their treaty of May 8, agreed "to send with Mr. Croghan
proper persons to accompany and assist him" (_Ibid._ 739).
[1460] Then called Post Vincent, and later simply "The Post" and
"O'post." It was often erroneously written "_St._ Vincent."
[1461] The savages apologized, saying they supposed the Indians of the
party were Cherokees.
[1462] Now Lafayette, Indiana.
[1463] George Croghan's journals (for there are several) of his journey
to the Illinois country in 1765 are important documents in the history
of the West. "This journal", says Parkman (ii. 296), "has been twice
published,—in the appendix to Butler's _History of Kentucky_, and in
the _Pioneer History_ of Dr. S. P. Hildreth",—implying that they were
publications of the same journal. Dr. Hildreth, in a note appended
to his version (p. 85), makes a statement from which it is evident
that he supposed they were the same journal: "The above journal was
copied from an original MS. among Col. [George] Morgan's papers, and
not copied from Butler's _History of Kentucky_, which had not been
seen by the writer at that time." It is an important fact that these
journals are not the same, no paragraph in one being the same as a
paragraph in the other. Their subject matter is different, and yet they
are in no instance contradictory. The one printed by Dr. Hildreth may
be regarded as an official report, and the one printed by Butler as
a descriptive account. The former gives the details of the official
business which he was sent to transact; the latter is such a journal
as any traveller would keep, giving from day to day the incidents of
the journey, describing the scenery and topography of the country,
the fertility of the soil, the game, and omitting wholly to speak of
public business, or what was done at councils with the Indians. He
describes his being wounded and captured by the Indians, near the
Wabash, as a personal misfortune, but makes no mention of conferences
with the Indians at Ouatanon, or of his meeting Pontiac and making
peace with him. Butler (p. 365, ed. 1834; p. 459, ed. 1836) states
that "the following journal, so curious and little known, is extracted
from the _Monthly American Journal of Geology and Natural Science_,
December, 1831, by G. W. Featherstonhaugh, Esq., Philadelphia, and
purports to be from the original, in possession of the editor." This
text was reprinted at Burlington, New Jersey, 1875, in a tract of 38
pages (Thomson's _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 285). A third version of
Croghan's journal is in the letters of Sir William Johnson to the Lords
of Trade (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 779-788). With some variations it is
the same as that printed by Dr. Hildreth. Each contains passages and
paragraphs which are not in the other. In the Johnson text, words and
passages are omitted, as illegible, which are given in the _Pioneer
History_. Sir William, writing Nov. 16, 1765, says: "A few days ago
[Oct. 21] Mr. Croghan arrived here, and delivered me his journal and
transactions with the Indians, from which I have selected the principal
parts, which I now inclose to your lordships. The whole of his journal
is long and not yet collected; because after he was made prisoner and
lost his baggage, etc., he was necessitated to write it on scraps of
paper procured with difficulty at Post Vincent [Vincennes], and that in
a disguised character, to prevent its being understood by the French,
in case through any disaster he might again be plundered" (_Ibid._
775). Sir William, from May 8 to Sept. 28, 1765, frequently reports
that he has heard from Croghan, and mentions incidents and details
which are not contained in either of the three versions named (_Ibid._
746, 749, 765). Being at Post Ouatanon on the 12th of July, Croghan
said: "I wrote to Gen. Gage and Sir William Johnson, to Col. Campbell
at Detroit, Major Murray at Fort Pitt, and Major Farmar at Mobile, or
on his way up the Mississippi, and acquainted them with everything that
had happened since my departure from Fort Pitt" (Hildreth's _Pioneer
History_, p. 71; _N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 781). In the Butler journal,
writing from the same place, July 15, he said: "From this post the
Indians permitted me to write to the commander at Fort Chartres [St.
Ange]; but would not suffer me to write to anybody else (this, I
apprehend, was a precaution of the French, lest their villainy should
be perceived too soon), although the Indians had given me permission to
write to Sir William Johnson and to Fort Pitt on our march, before we
arrived at this place." In the summary of his report to Sir William,
he said: "In the situation I was in at Ouatanon, with great numbers
of Indians about me, and no necessaries, such as paper and ink, I had
it not in my power to take down all the speeches made by the Indian
nations, nor what I said to them, in so particular a manner as I could
wish." It is evident that Croghan wrote many accounts of his journey,
and only three of them, as now appears, are accessible. A biographical
sketch of George Croghan, by Dr. O'Callaghan, is in _N. Y. Col. Doc._,
vii. 982, 983. For earlier traces of Croghan see Vol. V. 10, 596,
610.—ED.
[1464] _N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 783; Hildreth's _Pioneer History_,
p. 75. Pontiac kept his promise, visited Sir William Johnson in the
spring, concluded a peace, and departed laden with presents. He
returned to his village on the Maumee, and little is known of him for
the next three years. He then reappeared in the Illinois country, and
visited his old friend M. St. Ange, who was in command of the post
of St. Louis, then under Spanish rule. Like other Indians, Pontiac
indulged at times in the excessive use of intoxicating liquors. Against
the advice of his friend, St. Ange, he attended an Indian drinking
carousal, at which he was waylaid and brained with a hatchet by a
Kaskaskia Indian, who had been paid a barrel of rum by an English
trader, named Williamson, to commit the deed. St. Ange claimed the
body, and buried it with the honors of war, in an unknown grave near
the fort of St. Louis. J. N. Nicollet, in his sketch of St. Louis
(p. 82), says: "This murder, which roused the vengeance of all the
Indian tribes friendly to Pontiac, brought about the successive wars
and almost total extermination of the Illinois nation. Pontiac was a
remarkably well-looking man, nice in his person, and full of taste
in his dress and in the arrangement of his exterior ornaments. His
complexion is said to have approached that of the whites. His origin is
still uncertain, for some have supposed him to belong to the Ottawas,
others to the Miamis, etc.; but Col. P. Chouteau, senior, who knew him
well, is of the opinion that he was a Nipissing." (Reprinted in _Olden
Time_, i. 322.)
[1465] _N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 808.
[1466] The account of St. Ange's "Surrender of Fort Chartres to M.
Stirling on the 10th of Oct., 1765", with a detailed description
of the fort, from the French archives, is in _N. Y. Col. Doc._, x.
1161-1165. See also Stone's _Life of Sir Wm. Johnson_, ii. 252. [There
are documents about Fort Chartres referred to in the _Hist. MSS. Com.
Report_, v. 216. Cf. _Hist. Mag._, viii. 257, and H. R. Stiles's
_Affairs at Fort Chartres, 1768-1781_ (Albany, 1864), being letters of
an English officer at the close of the war.—ED.]
[1467] Nicollet (p. 81) states that "Capt. Stirling, at the head of
a company of Scots, arrived unexpectedly in the summer of 1765;" and
Parkman (ii. 298), that "Capt. Stirling arrived at Fort Chartres just
as the snows of early winter began to whiten the naked forests." The
articles of surrender are conclusive as to the fact that the English
troops arrived and took possession of the Illinois country, October
10. Capt. Stirling was relieved by Major Robert Farmar, of the 34th
regiment, about the time of which Parkman speaks. Sir William, writing
March 22, 1766, says: "Just now I have heard that Major Farmar, who
proceeded by the Mississippi, arrived there [the Illinois] the 4th
of December, and relieved Capt. Stirling" (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii.
816; Stone's _Johnson_, ii. 251). Monette (i. 411) states that "Capt.
Stirling died in December; that St. Ange returned to Fort Chartres,
and not long afterward Major Frazer, from Fort Pitt, arrived as
commandant." These errors have been repeated scores of times, and the
last repetition I have seen is in F. L. Billon's _Annals of St. Louis
in early Days_, 1886, p. 26. Capt. Stirling lived until 1808: served
in the Revolutionary War, became colonel in 1779, and later brigadier,
major-general, lieut.-general, general, and was created a baronet.
For a biographical sketch of him, by Dr. O'Callaghan, see _N. Y. Col.
Doc._, vii. 786; and for one of Major Farmar, _Ibid._ 775. F. S. Drake
(_Biog. Dict._) records Capt. Stirling's extraordinary feat of marching
his company of Highlanders overland 3,000 miles, from Fort Chartres to
Philadelphia, without losing a man. The facts were that Capt. Stirling
floated his company in boats down the Mississippi to New Orleans;
thence they sailed to Pensacola, and later to New York, where they
arrived June 15, 1766. Gen. Gage, in a letter of that date, wrote to
Gov. Penn announcing their arrival, stating that they would march on
the 17th for Philadelphia, and asking that quarters be assigned them
(_Penna. Col. Rec._, ix. 318). No officer of the name of Frazer was
ever in command at Fort Chartres. Fort Chartres, built by the French
in 1720, was in its time the strongest fortress in America. Its ruins
are on the left bank of the Mississippi, now a mile from the river,
in Randolph County, Ill., 50 miles south of St. Louis, and 16 miles
northeast of Kaskaskia. It was abandoned in 1772, in consequence of
a portion of it being undermined by a Mississippi flood. See Edw. G.
Mason's _Old Fort Chartres_, in Fergus's Historical Series, no. 12;
Pittman, p. 45; Reynolds, _My own Time_, p. 26, ed. 1879; also his
_Pioneer History_, p. 46, ed. 1887, with plan, from Beck's _Gazetteer
of Illinois and Missouri_. For a plan of the fort, see Vol. V. p.54;
and Mr. Davis's collation of authorities regarding its position, p.
55.—ED.
[1468] _N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 775.
[1469] The Six Nations claimed by conquest the supremacy of all the
tribes west of the Alleghanies and as far south as the Cherokees, with
whom the Northern tribes were in perpetual warfare. See Monette, i.
323; and Huske's map in Vol. V. p. 84.—ED.
[1470] A fac-simile of this map is in _N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. 31; and
of the map as the treaty was finally made, _Ibid._ 136. See _ante_, p.
610.—ED.
[1471] _Ibid._ ii. 2.
[1472] _Haldimand Col._, p. 103.
[1473] Stone's _Life of Johnson_, ii. 306. "I was much concerned", Sir
William wrote, "by reason of the great consumption of provisions and
the heavy expenses attending the maintenance of those Indians, each of
whom consume daily more than two ordinary men amongst us, and would be
extremely dissatisfied if stinted when convened for business" (_N. Y.
Col. Doc._, viii. 105).
[1474] Sir William's full report of the council at Fort Stanwix, with
the treaty, which he transmitted to Lord Hillsborough, is in _N. Y.
Col. Doc._, viii. 111-137. In the appendix to Mann Butler's _History
of Kentucky_, 1834, p. 378-394, is an abstract of the proceedings
of the council, with the treaty, for which the author expresses his
obligations to Hon. Richard M. Johnson. The treaty and map are also in
_N. Y. Doc. History_, i. 587.
[1475] In this interval between 1765 and 1774 there was a revival of
the purpose of settlements in the country watered by the Ohio and its
tributaries. The breaking up by the war of the earlier enterprise of
the Ohio Company (see Vol. V., _ante_; Sparks in his _Washington_,
ii. 483, says its papers were entrusted to him fifty years ago by
Charles Fenton Mercer, of Virginia) had led to a plan to buy out the
French settlers in Illinois (Sparks's _Franklin_, vii. 356; Bigelow's
_Franklin_, i. 537, 547; ii. 112); and this being abandoned, the
earlier project had been merged in the scheme known at first as
Walpole's Grant, and subsequently as the Colony of Vandalia, which
had derived some impetus immediately after the conclusion of peace in
1763 by the publication in London of _The Advantages of a Settlement
upon the Ohio_ (now rare; copies in Harvard College library; in
_Carter-Brown Catal._, iii. 1363; Thomson's _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 7),
and in Edinburgh of _The Expediency of securing our American Colonies
by settling the Country adjoining the Mississippi River and the
Country upon the Ohio Considered_ (Harvard College library, 6373. 33).
The scheme had the countenance of Lord Shelburne, and the Shelburne
MSS., as calendared in the _Hist. MSS. Com. Report_, v. p. 218 (vol.
50), show various papers appertaining. Professor H. B. Adams, in the
_Maryland Fund Publications_, no. xi. p. 27, has marked the growth of
the perception of the importance of these lands.
The grant was not secured till 1770, nor ratified till 1772 (account
in Sparks's _Franklin_, iv. 233, and _Washington_, ii. 483). Franklin
had interested himself in securing the grant against the opposition of
Hillsborough. See Franklin's letters in _Works_, iv. 233; the adverse
report of the Lords of Trade (p. 303), and Franklin's reply to it (p.
324). These last papers are also included in _Biog. lit. and polit.
Anecdotes of several of the most Eminent persons of the present Age_
(London, 1797), vol. ii. Provision was made for securing out of this
grant the lands promised to the Virginia soldiers, in which Washington
was so much interested. The coming on of the Revolution jeopardized the
interests of the grantees, and in 1774 they petitioned the king that
the establishment of a government for Vandalia be no longer delayed.
Walpole, in May, 1775, was anxious at the turn of affairs (_Hist.
Mag._, i. 86), and in 1776 the plan was abandoned. A memorial of
Franklin and Samuel Wharton, dated at Passy, Feb. 26, 1780, tracing the
history of these lands, is in the _Sparks MSS._, no. xvii.
On the early settlers of Ohio at this time, see S. P. Hildreth's _Biog.
and Hist. Memoirs of the Early Pioneer Settlers of Ohio_ (Cinn., 1852);
James W. Taylor's _Hist. of Ohio_, 1650-1787 (Sandusky, 1854); and a
paper by Isaac Smucker on the first pioneers, in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
Aug., 1885, p. 326. The position of the Delawares in this region during
the war is discussed by S. D. Peet in the _American Antiquarian_, ii.
132.
The Filson Club of Louisville has published (1886) Thomas Speed's
_Wilderness road, a description of the route of travel by which the
pioneers and early settlers first came to Kentucky_, their previous
publication having been Reuben T. Durrett's _Life and Writings of
John Filson, the first historian of Kentucky_ (1884), which gives
in fac-simile the earliest special map of Kentucky, after a copy
in Harvard College library,—most copies of the book being without
it,—for while the _Discovery, Settlement, and Present State of
Kentucke_ was printed in 1784, at Wilmington, Del., the map was
printed in Philadelphia, and was an improvement upon the general maps
of Charlevoix, Evans, Hutchins, Pownall, and others. Filson's book
was issued in French, at Paris, in 1785, and reprinted in English
in Imlay's _Topog. Description of North America_ (London, 1793 and
1797), in conjunction with Imlay; again by Campbell in New York, in
1793. Filson first presented to the world the story of the adventures
of Daniel Boone in the appendix of his book, and from that it has
been copied and assigned to Boone himself, in the _Amer. Museum_,
Philadelphia, Oct. 1787, and in Samuel L. Metcalfe's _Collection of
some of the most interesting narratives of Indian Warfare in the West_
(Lexington, Ky., 1821,—Thomson's _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 818). The
life of Boone embodies much of the history of the pioneer days of
Kentucky. His subsequent biographers, J. M. Peck (in Sparks's _Amer.
Biog._), E. S. Ellis, G. C. Hill, H. T. Tuckerman (in his _Biog.
Essays_), C. W. Webber (in _Hist. and Rev. Incidents_, Phil., 1861),
Lossing (in _Harper's Mag._, xix.), and others, have depended upon
Filson. E. C. Coleman has told the story as it is centred about Simon
Kenton (_Ibid._ xxviii.), and J. H. Perkins has given it more general
bearings in his "Pioneers of Kentucky", in _No. Amer. Rev._, Jan.,
1846, included in his _Memoir and Writings_, ii. 243. Cf. Marshall
Smith's _Legends of the War of Independence and of the Earlier
settlements in the West_ (Louisville, 1855), and the old fort at
Lexington, Ky., in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Aug., 1887, p. 123.
What is now Tennessee was known after 1769 as the Settlements of the
Watauga Association, and so continued till 1777, when, during the rest
of the Revolutionary War, it was a part of North Carolina (J. E. M.
Ramsey's _Annals of Tennessee_, Charleston, 1853; Philad., 1853, 1860;
Sabin, xvi. no. 67, 729).
There are documents on the Illinois country during this quiet interval
among the Shelburne Papers, as noted in the _Hist. MSS. Com. Report_,
v. pp. 216, 218 (vols. 48 and 50). Cf. John Reynolds, _Pioneer Hist.
of Illinois_ (1852); Breese's _Early Hist. of Illinois_, and the
other later histories (see Vol. V., ante, p. 198). Cf. Arthur Young's
_Observations on the present State of the waste lands of Great Britain,
published on occasion of the establishment of a new Colony on the Ohio_
(London, 1773).
Several journals of voyages and explorations along the Ohio and its
tributary streams, which were made during this period, are preserved to
us, such as that of Capt. Harry Gordon, from Fort Pitt to the Illinois
in 1766, which is printed in Pownall's _Topog. Description_ (London,
1776), and of which the original or early copy seems to be noted in the
English _Hist. MSS. Com. Report_, v. p. 216; that of Washington, who
visited the Ohio region in 1770 to select lands for the soldiers of the
late wars, and which is printed in Sparks's _Washington_ (vol. ii. 516,
beside letters in Ibid. 387, etc. Cf. Irving's _Washington_, i. 330,
and some letters in Read's _George Read_, p. 124); and those of Matthew
Phelps, who was twice in this Western country between 1773 and 1780,
and whose account is given in the _Memoirs and adventures, particularly
in two voyages from Connecticut to the river Mississippi, 1773-80_.
_Compiled from the original journal and minutes kept by Mr. Phelps. By
Anthony Haswell_ (Bennington, Vt., 1802).
The diary of Rufus Putnam, who explored the lower regions of the
Mississippi Valley between Dec. 10, 1772, and Aug. 13, 1773, is
preserved in the library of Marietta College. (Cf. _Mag. Amer. Hist._,
vii. 230.)—ED.
[1476] Connolly was arrested as a Tory in November, 1775, and held as
a prisoner until exchanged in the winter of 1780-81. He then planned a
scheme with Tories and Indians to capture Fort Pitt. See _Olden Time_,
i. 520; ii. 93, 105, 348; Craig's _Pittsburg_, 112, 124; Perkins's
_West. Annals_, 140, 148; Jacob's _Cresap_, 75-91; _Am. Archives_, 4th
ser., i. 774.
[1477] Botta's _Am. War_, i. 250; Doddridge's _Notes_, (ed. 1876), 238;
_Olden Time_, ii. 43.
[1478] Concerning this controversy, see Craig's _Pittsburg_, 111-128.
The right of Pennsylvania to land beyond the Alleghanies is examined in
a paper (1772) entitled "Thoughts on the situation of the inhabitants
on the frontier", by James Tilghman, printed in the _Penna. Mag. of
Hist._, x. 316. Cf. also Daniel Agnew's _History of the Region of
Pennsylvania north of the Ohio and west of the Allegheny River, of
the Indian purchases, and of the running of the southern, northern,
and western State boundaries; also, an account of the division of
the territory for public purposes, and of the lands, laws, titles,
settlements, controversies, and litigation within this region_
(Philadelphia, 1887).—ED.
[1479] No Indian tribes had their homes in Kentucky. The territory was
the common hunting and fighting ground of the Ohio Indians on the north
and the Cherokees and Chickasaws on the south. See Butler's _Kentucky_,
p. 8.
[1480] Brantz Meyer's _Logan and Cresap_, 1867, p. 149. Clark's letter
is also printed in _The Hesperian_ (Columbus, Ohio), 1839, ii. 309;
Jacob's _Life of Cresap_, pp. 154-158, and portions of it in Perkins's
_Western Annals_, 143-146.
[1481] Capt. Cresap was then thirty-two years of age, was a trader,
and had had no experience in a former war. His father, however,—Col.
Thomas Cresap,—was a noted Indian fighter. Clark and his party
evidently supposed it was the father, and not the son, they were
sending for. The Cresaps were a Maryland family, and the party who
wanted a leader were Virginians.
[1482] A few days before, a canoe from Pittsburg, coming down the
river, was fired on by Indians, near Baker's Bottom, two white men
killed and one wounded. Baker's family had been warned, and were
preparing to leave for one of the forts. Baker kept tavern, sold rum,
and the Indians across the river were his habitual customers. Fearing
an attack, he called in his neighbors. Twenty-one of them responded,
but kept out of sight. A party of Indians appeared, and all with the
exception of Logan's brother became very drunk. Logan's brother was
drunk enough to be insolent, and he attempted to strike one of the
white men. As he was leaving the house with a coat and hat which he had
stolen, the white man whom he had abused shot him. The neighbors rushed
from their concealment and killed the whole Indian party, except a
half-breed child whose father was Gen. John Gibson. The Indians on the
opposite shore, hearing the firing, came over in canoes. They were also
fired on, and twelve of them were killed. (See the statements of John
Sappington and others in Jefferson's _Notes on Virginia_, App. iv.,
1800, and later editions; and Withers's _Border Warfare_, p. 113.)
[1483] This comment Jefferson cancelled in his edition of 1800.
[1484] "I appeal to any white man to say if ever he entered Logan's
cabin hungry and he gave him not meat; if ever he came cold and naked
and he clothed him not.... Col. Cresap, the last spring, in cold blood
and unprovoked, murdered all the relations of Logan, not sparing even
my women and children. There runs not a drop of my blood in the veins
of any living creature", etc.
Col. Thomas Cresap, well known in the West as an Indian fighter, was
the father of Capt. Michael Cresap, and it is not strange that the
rank of the father should have been given to the son. Public attention
was not directed to Logan's speech, or the comments of Jefferson
on the character of Capt. Cresap, until 1797, when Luther Martin,
an ardent Federalist and the Attorney-General of Maryland (who had
married a daughter of Capt. Cresap), addressed a public letter to an
elocutionist, objecting to his reciting "Logan's Speech", on the ground
that it was a slander on a noble man and patriot. The speech itself, he
stated, was probably never made by Logan; and the letter had sneering
allusions to the claim that Jefferson was a philosopher. Martin's
letter is in _Olden Time_, ii. 51. Jefferson's letter to Gov. Henry
of Maryland, of Dec. 31, 1797 (_Writings_, viii. 309), shows that he
attributed Martin's attack to political motives, and that his feelings
were greatly disturbed. He immediately set about collecting testimony
(1) to prove the genuineness of Logan's speech, and (2) to justify the
charges he had made against Cresap. On the first point, it was easy for
him to show that he had not invented the speech; that it was common
talk in Dunmore's camp; that he took it, as he printed it, from the
lips of some person in Williamsburg in 1774, and that it was printed
at the time in the _Virginia Gazette_. It appears that the speech
was printed in the _Gazette_ at Williamsburg, Feb. 4, 1775, and that
twelve days later the speech, with important variations, was sent by
Madison to his friend William Bradford, and was printed in a New York
newspaper. Both versions are in _Amer. Archives_, 4th series, i. 1020.
(See also Rives's _Madison_, i. 63, and Mayer's _Logan and Cresap_,
p. 177.) The fact that the speech as printed was actually delivered
was more difficult to prove, as it depended wholly on the statement
of Gen. John Gibson, the interpreter. It will never be known what
part of it was Logan's and how much of it was Gibson's. Jefferson was
not successful in justifying the charges he had made against Cresap.
Such of the collected evidence as answered his purpose he printed in
Appendix iv. in the edition of his _Notes_ of 1800 (Philadelphia).
Some copies of the appendix were printed separately, and it was first
mentioned on the title-page in the edition printed at Trenton, 1803.
(See _Writings_, viii. 457-476.) Such of the testimony as did not
answer his purpose he suppressed. One of these suppressed statements
is the letter of George Rogers Clark to Dr. Samuel Brown, already
quoted. It was found among his papers purchased by the United States
in 1848, and is now in the State Department at Washington. Brantz
Mayer vindicated Cresap in a paper read before the Maryland Historical
Society in 1851, on _Logan the Indian and Cresap the Pioneer_, and
more fully in _Tah-Gah-Jute, or Logan and Cresap_ (Albany, 1867);
Thomson, _Bibliog. of Ohio_, nos. 805, 806. Dr. Joseph Doddridge, in
his _Notes_, 1824 (reprinted 1876, and used by Kercheval, Winchester,
Va., 1833), made severe strictures on Cresap, but did not charge him
with killing Logan's family. An extract from Doddridge, with other
matter, called _Logan, Chief of the Cayuga Nation_, was published in
Cincinnati by Wm. Dodge in 1868. Doddridge's attack on Capt. Cresap
caused the Rev. John J. Jacob, who in youth had been Cresap's clerk,
and had accompanied him in his Western expeditions, to write his
_Life_ (Cumberland, Md., 1826; reprinted, with notes and appendix, for
Wm. Dodge, Cincinnati, 1866; Field's _Ind. Bibliog._, nos. 769, 770;
Thomson, _Bibliog. of Ohio_, nos. 640-1). With slight claim to literary
merit, and much inaccuracy as to dates, it contains some important
documents, and is an earnest vindication of Cresap's character. Charges
of baseness and cruelty against Cresap were older than any publication
of Logan's speech. The early accounts which came to Sir William
Johnson charged the origin of the war upon him. Writing June 20, 1774,
Sir William says: "I received the very disagreeable and unexpected
intelligence that a certain Mr. Cressop [_sic_] had trepanned and
murdered forty Indians on the Ohio, ... and that the unworthy author of
this wanton act is fled.... Since the news of the murders committed by
Cressop and his banditti, the Six Nations have sent me two messages",
etc., and much more of the same character (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii.
459, 460, 461, 463, 471, 477; a biographical sketch of Cresap by Dr.
O'Callaghan is on p. 459). The subject is treated in _Olden Time_,
ii. 44, 49-67; Potter's _Amer. Monthly_, xi. 187; _Old and New_, x.
436; _New Eclectic_, 169; _Annual Report, 1879, of the Sec. of State_,
Ohio, Columbus, 1880; Stone's _Sir William Johnson_, ii. 370; Dillon's
_Indiana_ (1859), p. 97; Atwater's _Ohio_, p. 116; Monette, i. 384;
Jacob's _Cresap_ (1866), 92-125; _Amer. Jour. Science_, xxxi. 11;
Withers's _Border Warfare_, p. 118; _Amer. Pioneer_, i. 7-24, 64,
188, 331. The _Amer. Pioneer_, 1842-43, was the organ of the "Logan
Historical Society", the object of the society being to erect a
monument to Logan, on which "his speech as given by Thomas Jefferson
shall be fully engraved in gilt letters." The title is a full-page
woodcut, representing Logan and Gen. Gibson sitting on a log, the
former making his "speech" and the latter taking it down.
Capt. Cresap, in June, 1775, enlisted a company of one hundred
and thirty riflemen in Maryland, twenty-two of whom were his old
companions-in-arms from the country west of the Alleghanies, and
marched them to Boston in twenty-two days. Here his health gave way,
and he was compelled to return. He reached New York, and there died,
Oct. 18, 1775, at the age of thirty-three. His gravestone is in Trinity
churchyard, New York city, opposite the door of the north transept. An
accurate woodcut of his gravestone is in Mayer's _Logan and Cresap_, p.
144, and in _Harper's Mag._, Nov., 1876, p. 808. A view of his house is
in _Harper's Mag._, xiv. 599.
[1485] See Withers's _Border Warfare_; Monette, i. 374; Dillon's
_Indiana_, 93; _Amer. Archives_, 4th series, i. 722.
[1486] Accounts of Cornstalk by W. H. Foote are in the _Southern
Literary Messenger_, xvi. 533, and by M. M. Jones in Potter's _Amer.
Monthly_, v. 583. See Withers, pp. 129, 136, 156. Cornstalk's tragical
death is described in Doddridge, p. 239, and Kercheval, p. 267; also in
J. P. Hale's _Trans-Allegheny Pioneers_, p. 328.
[1487] See _Amer. Archives_, 4th series, i. 1016; _Olden Time_, ii.
33; Monette, i. 376-380; Perkins's _Annals_, p. 149; _Amer. Pioneers_,
i. 381, by L. C. Draper; _Virginia Hist. Reg._, i. 30; v. 181;
narrative of Capt. John Stuart in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, i. 668, in
Virginia Hist. Coll., vol. i., and separately as _Memoirs of Indian
Wars_ (Richmond, 1833); John P. Hale's _Trans-Allegheny Pioneers_
(Cincinnati, 1886), p. 174, and a paper by S. E. Lane in _Mass. Mag._,
Nov., 1885, p. 277. What purports to be a contemporary account in J. L.
Peyton's _Adventures of my Grandfather_ (London, 1867), p. 142, is not
without suspicion.—ED.
[1488] For particulars concerning the Dunmore War, see _Amer.
Archives_, 4th ser., i. 345, 435, 468, 506, 774, 1013-1020; ii. 170,
301; _N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. 459, 461; _St. Clair Papers_, i. 296,
etc.; C. W. Butterfield's _Washington-Crawford letters_ (Cinn., 1877),
pp. 47, 86; Morgan's autobiographic letter in _Hist. Mag._, xix. 379;
De Haas's _West. Virginia_, 142; Doddridge, pp. 229-239; Kercheval,
p. 148; Withers, 104-138; Perkins's _Annals_, pp. 140-151; Hildreth's
_Pioneer History_, pp. 86-94; Monette, i. pp. 368-385; Atwater's
_Ohio_, pp. 110-119; Walker's _Athens Co., Ohio_, p. 8; Dillon's
_Indiana_, p. 91; and Schweinitz's _Zeisberger_, p. 399. Col. Charles
Whittlesey has treated the subject in his _Discourse relating to the
expedition of Dunmore_ (Cleveland, 1842); in the _Olden Time_, ii. 8,
37; and in his _Fugitive Essays_ (Hudson, Ohio, 1852).—ED.
[1489] For references to the proceedings in Parliament, see _ante_,
chapter i., notes.
[1490] Declaration of Rights, Oct. 14, 1774 (_Jour. of Old Cong._,
i. 22). In similar terms it was complained of in the Articles of
Association, Oct. 20, 1774 (_Ibid._ 23), and again, without naming the
act, in the Declaration of Independence, as follows: "For abolishing
the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing
therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to
render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the
same absolute rule into these colonies" (_Ibid._ 395).
[1491] "The Quebec act was one of the multiplied causes of our
opposition, and finally of the Revolution." (Madison's report, January
17, 1782; Thomson Papers, _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1878, p. 134:
_Secret Journals of Cong._, iii. 155, 192.)
[1492] Butler's _Kentucky_, pp. 26, 27. Just before this, in May,
1775, the few settlers of the Kentucky towns had met and organized for
defence, and had called their country Transylvania. For Boone's defence
of his fort in Aug., 1778, with references, see Dawson's _Battles of
the U. S._, i. 445.—ED.
[1493] Butler, p. 35; Perkins's _Annals_, p. 171.
[1494] Butler, p. 40; Dillon's _Indiana_, 115-118.
[1495] [Dawson gives (_Battles of the U. S._, i. 221) an account, with
references, of the attack on Fort Logan in May, 1777, and (_Ibid._ i.
269) of the assault on Fort Henry (the modern Wheeling, named after
Patrick Henry), Sept. 1, 1777. Cf. the account of Elizabeth Zane in
Mrs. Eliot's _Women of the Rev._, ii. 275. There is a view of Fort
Henry in Newton's _History of the Pan-Handle, West Virginia_ (1879), p.
102.—ED.]
[1496] In Clark's account of Nov., 1779 (_Campaign in Illinois_,
Cincin., 1869, p. 21), he says: "I set out for Williamsburg in Aug.
1777 in order to settle my accounts." In his later and fuller account
(Dillon's _Indiana_, 1843, p. 132; 1859, p. 119) he says: "When I left
Kentucky October 1, 1777."
[1497] See Clark's _Campaign_, 95, 96; Butler's _Kentucky_, 394;
Monette, i. 415; Brown's _Illinois_, 239; _Hist. Mag._, iii. 362.
[1498] Washington had trouble from the same cause in raising troops at
Pittsburg for the Eastern service (_Writings_, v. 244).
[1499] Governor Henry, in a letter to Virginia delegates in Congress,
gives the number as "170 or 180" (Butler's _Kentucky_, 2d ed., p. 533);
Capt. Bowman, in letter of July 30, 1778, to Col. John Hite, gives the
number as "170 or 180" (Almon's _Remembrancer_, 1779, p. 82).
[1500] _Amer. Pioneer_, ii. 345.
[1501] George Rogers Clark's own narratives furnish the most authentic
information concerning his Illinois campaigns, three of which are
accessible in print, as follow in the order of their dates: (1)
Letter to the governor of Virginia, dated Kaskaskia, April 29, 1779,
concerning his capture of Vincennes (in Jefferson's _Writings_, i.
222-226). (2) Letter to George Mason, dated Louisville, Falls of
Ohio, November 19, 1779, which covers the period from setting out on
his second visit to Virginia, in the autumn of 1777, to the end of
his Vincennes campaign. It is printed from the original MS. in the
_Collections_ of the Hist. Soc. of Kentucky, with an introduction
by Henry Pirtle; a biographical sketch of Clark; and the journal of
Capt. (later Major) Joseph Bowman in the expedition against Vincennes.
It is one of the _Ohio Valley Series_, Cincinnati, 1869, and is
here quoted as _Clark's Campaign_. (3) "Memoirs composed by himself
at the united desire of Presidents Jefferson and Madison", printed
(with omissions and interpolations) in Dillon's _Indiana_ (1843, pp.
127-184; and 2d ed., 1859, pp. 114-170). The second edition is here
quoted. H. W. Beckwith used extracts from the same in his _Historic
Notes on the Northwest_, pp. 245-259. It is the most extended of the
three narratives. The original, with a large mass of other MSS. of,
and relating to, Geo. Rogers Clark, is in the possession of Dr. Lyman
C. Draper, of Madison, Wis. The date when it was written is not given;
but it must have been written more than twelve years after the events
occurred which it describes. Jefferson, writing March 7, 1791, to
Col. James Innes, concerning Col. Clark, said: "We are made to hope
he is engaged in writing the accounts of his expeditions north of the
Ohio. They will be valuable morsels of history, and will justify to
the world those who have told them how great he was" (_Writings_, iii.
218). Mann Butler's account of Clark's exploits (_Hist. of Kentucky_,
pp. 35-88) is highly seasoned with popular traditions, and with
incidents which are not consistent with Clark's own statements; and yet
Butler has been more frequently quoted than the narratives of Clark.
(4) The Canadian Archives, at Ottawa, has a journal of Clark, dated
Vincennes, Feb. 24, 1779, the day of the surrender, which has never
been printed nor quoted. (See report of Douglas Brymner, archivist,
for 1882, p. 27, where an abstract of the report is given.) This is
Clark's original report on his Vincennes campaign to the governor
of Virginia. Three days after the surrender, a messenger arrived at
Vincennes with despatches from the governor. On the 14th of March this
messenger (whom Clark calls William _Myres_; Bowman, _Mires_; the
Canadian Calendar, _Moires_; and Jefferson, _Morris_) was sent back
to Williamsburg with letters to the governor. Near the Falls of the
Ohio he was killed by the Indians, and the report of Clark, with nine
other letters captured upon him, appear in the _Haldimand Collection_
in the Canadian Archives. Clark, writing to Jefferson April 29th,
mentions that he had heard of the killing of his messenger, "news very
disagreeable to me, as I fear many of my letters will fall into the
hands of the enemy at Detroit, although some of them, as I learn, were
found in the woods, torn to pieces" (Jefferson's _Writings_, i. 222;
see also Dillon, p. 159). Copies of these captured documents I have
received from Ottawa. Clark's report is very interesting, and gives
details of his interviews with Gov. Hamilton, while negotiating the
surrender, which are omitted in his later narratives, and show that he
treated Hamilton as if he believed he was responsible for the Indian
barbarities inflicted upon the frontier settlers. (5) The _report of
Gov. Hamilton_ to Gen. Haldimand, July 6, 1781, which is an extended
and detailed narrative of his expedition from Detroit to Vincennes in
the autumn and early winter of 1778, of his capture by Clark, and of
his long imprisonment in Virginia. He gives many facts and incidents
which have not before appeared. He earnestly defends himself against
the charges of cruelty made by Clark and the Virginia Assembly; and
while admitting that, under instructions of his government, he sent out
parties of Indians against the white settlements, he claims that he
always gave the savages special instructions to be merciful, and that
they obeyed him! This document, which has not been used by any writer,
or been accessible until recently, is important, and is about the only
statement we have giving the British view of the Vincennes campaign.
With sixty other early manuscripts relating to the Northwest, it was
kindly furnished to me by Mr. B. F. Stevens, of London, who copied it
from the family papers of Lord George Germain. It now appears that it
is also in the _Haldimand Collection_ in the British Museum and in the
Canadian Archives. It has lately been printed in the _Michigan Pioneer
Collections_, ix. 489-516.
[1502] Butler (p. 52) says "two divisions crossed the river, while
Clark with the third division took possession of the fort on this [the
east] side of the river, in point-blank shot of the town." It is now
the popular belief of the residents in the vicinity, and it has been
the positive statement of all writers on the subject, that the fort in
which Col. Clark captured Rocheblave was on the high bluff opposite the
town, where there is still abundant evidence that a fort once existed,
and now is known by the name of "Fort Gage." The spot is daily pointed
out to visitors as perhaps the most noted locality in the Western
country. During the past year a historical painting (40×20 feet),
illustrating Col. Clark's capture of Kaskaskia, has been placed on the
walls of the State House at Springfield, Ill. In the centre of the
picture is the site of the old fort on the bluff, and near it stands
the Jesuit church. In the foreground is Col. Clark addressing a council
of Indians. There are three historical infelicities in this picture.
The council of Indians which is here represented, was not held at
Kaskaskia, but at Cahokia, sixty miles distant. The Jesuit church, and
the actual fort which Clark captured, were on the other, the western,
side of the river. Only a few points in justification of this statement
can be mentioned:—
(1.) The fort on the bluff opposite the town "was burnt down in
October, 1766", says Pittman (p. 43), who visited Kaskaskia about that
time, or soon after, and whose book was published in London in 1770.
He gives a description and detailed drawing of the town, the river,
and site of the old fort. "It [the old fort] _was_", he says, "an
oblongular quadrangle, 290 by 251 feet; it _was_ built of very thick
squared timber", etc.,—using in every instance the past tense. "An
officer and 20 soldiers are quartered in the village." The evidence
that the old fort was ever rebuilt is wanting.
(2.) No incident appears in the contemporary narratives that Clark
occupied, or even visited, the site of the old fort; and there are
many allusions to his occupying quarters in the town. On one occasion,
expecting an attack from the enemy, he resolved to burn the houses
around the fort. "I was necessitated", he says, "to set fire to some of
the houses _in town_, to clear them out of the way." The people came
to him in distress, fearing he would burn up their town. He took an
occasion for doing this when there was snow on the roofs, and only such
houses were burned as were set on fire (_Campaign_, p. 59). The site of
the old fort was 500 yards from the river, and the river was 150 yards
wide. A fire there would not have endangered the town; and Pittman's
plan shows no houses on the eastern bank, around the old fort.
(3.) Setting out for Vincennes on the 5th of February, 1779, Clark says:
"We crossed the Kaskaskia River with 170 men" (Dillon, p. 139).
Major Bowman, in his journal of the same date, wrote: "About three
o'clock we crossed the Kaskaskia with our baggage, and marched about
a league from town" (p. 100). Crossing the Kaskaskia would have been
unnecessary if they had been quartered on the site of the old fort.
(4.) Clark had heard from the hunters who joined him on the way, and
had been in the town eight days before, that the fort was kept in
good order, and that the garrison was on the alert. He was too good a
soldier, on such information, to divide his scanty force of less than
two hundred men into three divisions, and with one of them attack an
isolated fort on the opposite side of the river, where he could have
no support from his other divisions. Bowman, in a letter to Col. Hite,
said: "This town was sufficiently fortified to have resisted a thousand
men." That Clark passed the site of the old fort without approaching or
even mentioning it, and threw his men across the river a mile north of
the town, is evidence that the site of the old fort was then unoccupied.
(5.) M. Rocheblave, writing from Kaskaskia, "Fort Gage, Feb. 8, 1778",
to Gen. Carleton at Montreal, shows conclusively where the fort was
situated in which he was taken prisoner by Clark five months later.
The MS. is in the Canadian Archives (Brymner's _Report of 1882_, p.
12). Rocheblave reports that "the roof of the mansion of the fort
is of shingles and very leaky, notwithstanding my efforts to patch
it; and unless a new roof be provided very soon, the building, which
was constructed twenty-five years ago and cost the _Jesuits_ 40,000
piastres, will be ruined." By a decree of the king, the Jesuits were
suppressed in France and its colonies in 1763, and their property
was confiscated to the crown. The Jesuits had a valuable estate at
Kaskaskia which was taken possession of by the French commandant, and
the priests were expelled. Father Watrin, Jesuit, in his _Memoir of the
Missions of Louisiana_, 1764 or 1765 (_Mag. of West. Hist._ i. 265),
says "When the Jesuits of the Illinois, recalled by the decree against
them, passed this post [Point Coupée, on the Mississippi], Father
Irenæus [a Capuchin] received and treated them as though they had
been brothers." Such of the property as was needed for public use was
retained, and the remainder was sold. "The Jesuits' plantation", says
Pittman (p. 43), "consisted of 240 _arpens_ [200 acres] of cultivated
land, a very good stock of cattle, and a brewery, which was sold by
the French commandant, after the country was ceded to the English, for
the [French] crown, in consequence of the suppression of the order."
This sale must have taken place before the English occupation, in 1765.
Pittman mentions the church and the "Jesuits' house" as "the principal
buildings, which are built of stone, and, considering this part of the
world, make a very good appearance." The Jesuits' house was doubtless
the one mentioned by Rocheblave, the fort being adjacent to it. On his
plan of Kaskaskia Pittman locates the church in the centre of the town,
and the Jesuits' property at the southeast corner, near the river.
Pittman returned to Pensacola from Illinois in the spring of 1767,
"with the plan of a fort", which, Haldimand reports to Gage, will "cost
a good deal of money" (_Haldimand Coll._, p. 25). In 1772 Fort Chartres
was abandoned in consequence of being undermined during an inundation
of the Mississippi. Gen. Gage gave the order March 16, 1772, and
directed that the troops be stationed at Kaskaskia. After the capture
of the fort in 1778, the name was changed to "Fort Clark" (Bowman, p.
110; _Canad. Arch._, 1882, p. 36). I have found no instance where the
old fort on the bluff, burned in 1766, and now known as "Fort Gage",
had that name during the period when it existed as a fort.
(6.) Lieut. Ross's _Map of the Mississippi from the Balise to Fort
Chartres, made late in 1765, improved from the French surveys_, and
published in London in 1775, places "Ft. Caskaskias" at the southeast
corner of the town, on the west bank of the river,—the spot indicated
in Rocheblave's letter. It shows no fort on the eastern bank.
(7.) Major De Peyster, writing June 27, 1779, from Michilimacinac to
Gen. Haldimand, reports concerning affairs at Kaskaskia, and fixes
without question the location of the fort. He says: "The Kaskaskias no
ways fortified; the fort being still a sorry pinchetted [picketted?]
enclosure round the Jesuits' college." (_Mich. Pion. Coll._ ix. 388.)
It is remarkable that Gov. Reynolds, who resided at Kaskaskia in 1800,
should not have known the location of "Fort Gage"; or, rather, that the
local remembrances of the real spot should have faded out in twenty-one
years. He says (in _My Own Times_, p. 31, ed. 1879): "The English
government [in 1772] abandoned Fort Chartres and established its
authority at Fort Gage, on the bluff east of Kaskaskia." Again, he says
(_Pioneer History_, p. 81, ed. 1887): "The British garrison occupied
Fort Gage, which stood on the Kaskaskia river bluffs opposite the
village." This, in his mind, was the location of the fort which Clark
captured. He says (_Ibid._ p. 94): "Two parties crossed the river; the
other party remained with Col. Clark to attack the fort."
Capt. Bowman, in letter to Col. Hite of July 30, 1778 (Almon's
_Remembrancer_, 1779, p. 82), describes the march and capture as
follows: "Marched for Kaskaskia with four days' provisions, and in
six days arrived at the place in the night of the 4th instant, having
marched two days without any sustenance, in which hungry condition we
unanimously determined to take the town, or die in the attempt. About
midnight we marched into the town without being discovered. Our object
was the fort, which we soon got possession of; the commanding officer
(Philip Rocheblave) we made prisoner, and he is now on his way to
Williamsburg under a strong guard, _with all his instructions_ from
time to time, from the several governors at Detroit, Quebec, etc., to
set the Indians upon us, with great rewards for our scalps, for which
he has a salary of £200 per year." This statement shows that the fort
was in the town, and controverts the assertion of Butler (p. 53) that
the public papers in the fort were not captured, out of delicacy to
the wife of the commander, she "presuming a good deal on the gallantry
of our countrymen by imposing upon their delicacy towards herself."
... "Better, ten thousand times better", Butler adds, "were it so,
than that the ancient fame of the sons of Virginia should have been
tarnished by insult to a female!"
[1503] _Campaign_, p. 31.
[1504] For the details of the conquest of Kaskaskia, see Clark's
narrative of 1779 in _Campaign_ (1869), pp. 24-36; and of his narrative
of 1791 (?) in J. B. Dillon's _Indiana_ (1843), pp. 127-150; (2d
edition, 1859), pp. 114-136. See also Butler's _Kentucky_, p. 49,
Withers's _Border Warfare_, p. 185; Perkins's _Annals_, p. 192;
Beckwith's _Historic Notes_, p. 245; Davidson's _Illinois_, p. 173;
Brown's _Illinois_, p. 230; Monette, i. 414.
[1505] The letter which Gov. Henry addressed to the Virginia delegates
in Congress, Nov. 14, 1778, on receiving intelligence of Clark's
capture of Kaskaskia, is in Butler's _Kentucky_, 2d. ed., p. 532; and
is reprinted from the MS. in the new and excellent life of _Patrick
Henry_ (Boston, 1887), by Professor Moses Coit Tyler (p. 230).—ED.
[1506] Of M. Rocheblave very little is known. His full name, Philippe
François de Rastel, Chevalier de Rocheblave, with his nativity, appears
in the parish records of Kaskaskia for April 11, 1763, in the third
publication of the banns of his marriage to Michel Marie Dufresne (E.
G. Mason's _Kaskaskia_, p. 17). He is mentioned in 1756 (_N. Y. Col.
Doc._, x. 435) as a cadet at Fort Duquesne; in July, 1757, on the
Potomac (_Ibid._ 581); and in July, 1759, at Niagara (_Ibid._ 992).
Many of his letters [in French] are in the Canadian Archives. Several
of them which I have, show him to have been a man of sensibility and
refinement. He said he was a British subject because he had been
abandoned by France at the peace. One of them is a long and interesting
letter dated at "Fort Gage, July 4, 1778", which was probably sent off
by boat a few hours before he was captured by Col. Clark. He was a
prisoner in Virginia until the autumn of 1780, when he broke his parole
and went to New York (Jefferson's _Writings_, i. 258). His family were
left at Kaskaskia; and Gov. Henry of Virginia, in his instructions to
Col. John Todd, Dec. 12, 1778, says: "Mr. Rocheblave's wife and family
must not suffer for want of that property of which they were bereft by
our troops. It is to be restored to them, if possible. If this cannot
be done, the public must support them." (_Calendar of Va. Papers_, i.
314). His wife, signing her name "Marie Michel de Rocheblave", wrote
from Kaskaskia, March 27, 1780, to Gen. Haldimand, appealing to his
humanity for pecuniary help, as the rebels had taken everything from
her but her debts. (MS. letter furnished to me by Mr. B. F. Stevens.)
[1507] The only garrison left in the fort when Gov. Hamilton and his
troops appeared was Capt. Helm and his one soldier, whose name was
Moses Henry. The latter placed a loaded cannon at the open gate, and
Capt. Helm, standing by with a lighted match, commanded the British
troops to halt. Hamilton demanded the surrender of the garrison. Helm
refused, and asked for terms. Hamilton replied that they should have
the honors of war, and the terms were accepted. The comical aspect
of the garrison, consisting of one officer and one soldier, marching
out of the fort between lines of disgusted Indians on one side and
British soldiers on the other, is happily illustrated in Gay's _Hist.
of U. S._, iii. 612. See note in Clark's _Campaign_, p. 52; Butler's
_Hist. of Kentucky_, p. 80; Monette, i. 425; Perkins's _Annals_, p.
207. Gov. Hamilton describes the surrender without mentioning this
humorous incident, thus: "The officer who commanded in the fort, Capt.
Helm, being deserted by the [resident French] officers and men, who to
the number of seventy had formed his garrison, and were in pay of the
Congress, surrendered his wretched fort on the very day of our arrival,
being the 17th day of December, 1778." (Report of July 6, 1781.)
[1508] Gov. Reynolds (_Pioneer History_, p. 101, ed. 1887) says Col.
Vigo was sent to Vincennes by Clark as a spy; that he was captured by
the Indians and taken to Hamilton, who suspected the character of his
mission; and that he was released on the ground of his being a Spanish
subject, and having influential friends among the French residents.
Hamilton in his report makes no mention of Vigo by name, but says that
men were stationed at the mouth of the Wabash to intercept boats on
the Ohio; and that they at different times brought in prisoners and
prevented intelligence being carried from Vincennes to the Illinois,
"till the desertion of a corporal and six men from La Mothe's company,
in the latter end of January, who gave the first intelligence to
Col. Clark of our arrival." In Reynolds's _Pion. Hist._ p. 423, is a
biographical sketch of Col. Vigo, by H. W. Beckwith, and a portrait.
See also Law's _History of Vincennes_, pp. 28-30. Vigo helped Clark by
cashing his drafts, and the story of a consequent suit for recovery
of the money, which did not end till 1876 in the U. S. Supreme Court,
is told by C. C. Baldwin in the _Mag. of West. Hist._, Jan., 1885, p.
230.—ED.
[1509] Clark, in his letter to George Mason, scarcely alludes to the
sufferings endured on this march. He says: "If I was sensible that you
would let no person see this relation, I would give you a detail of our
sufferings for four days in crossing these waters, and the manner it
was done, as I am sure you would credit it; but it is too incredible
for any person to believe except those that are as well acquainted
with me as you are, or had experienced something similar to it. I hope
you will excuse me until I have the pleasure of seeing you personally"
(_Campaign_, p. 66). In his later narrative he spoke on the subject
more freely (Dillon, 139-146), and his account is confirmed by Bowman's
journal.
[1510] She arrived on the 27th, three days after the surrender, "to
the great mortification of all on board that they had not the honor to
assist us", says Bowman. Clark, in his captured report, writing on the
same day, says: "The Willing arrived at 3 o'clock. She was detained by
the strong current on the Wabash and Ohio; two Lieutenants and 48 men,
with two iron four-pounders and five swivels on board."
[1511] An allusion to Gov. Hamilton's practice of paying the Indians
for scalps, and not for prisoners. The proclamation is in Dillon, p.
146; Bowman's _Journal_, p. 104. [See _ante_, p. 683.—ED.]
[1512] Bowman gives (p. 105-108) the correspondence with Hamilton, the
articles of capitulation, etc., some of which are omitted in Clark's
narratives. Hamilton in his _Report_ describes Clark's demand on him to
surrender thus: "About eight o'clock a flag of truce from the rebels
appeared, carried by Nicolas Cardinal, a captain of the militia of St.
Vincennes, who delivered me a letter from Col. Clark requiring me to
surrender at discretion; adding, with an oath, that if I destroyed any
stores or papers, I should be treated as a murtherer." Hamilton asserts
that Clark was supplied with gunpowder by the inhabitants of Vincennes,
"his own, to the last ounce, being damaged [by water] on the march;"
and that "Clark has since told me he knew to a man those of my little
garrison who would do their duty, and those who would shrink from it.
There is no doubt he was well informed."
[1513] Hamilton in his _Report_ enlarges on the barbarity of this
transaction. The indignation and resentment felt by Clark and his men
towards Hamilton, and the occasion for it, appear in a conversation
concerning the terms of surrender, which Clark gives in his captured
despatch: "_Hamilton._ 'Col. Clark, why will you force me to dishonor
myself when you cannot acquire more honor by it?' _Clark._ 'Could I
look on you as a gentleman, I would do the utmost in my power; but
on you, who have imbrued your hands in the blood of our women and
children—honor, my country, everything, calls aloud for vengeance.'
_Hamilton._ 'I know, sir, my character has been stained, but not
deservedly; for I have always endeavored to instill humanity, as
much as in my power, in the Indians, whom the orders of my superiors
obliged me to employ.' _Clark._ 'Sir, speak no more on this subject;
my blood glows within my veins to think on the cruelties your Indian
parties have committed; therefore, repair to your fort, and prepare for
battle'—on which I turned off."
The following incidents illustrate the sort of humanity which Hamilton,
and other British commandants at Detroit, instilled in the Indian
mind: At a council, on July 3, 1778, Gov. Hamilton presented an axe
to the chief, saying: "It is the king's command that I put this axe
into your hands to act against his majesty's enemies. I pray the Lord
of life to give you success, as also your warriors, wherever you go
with your father's axe." The item "60 gross scalping-knives" are among
the official "estimates of merchandise wanted for Indian presents at
Detroit from Aug. 21, 1782, to Aug. 20, 1783", signed by A. S. De
Peyster, Lieut.-Gov. (Farmer's _Hist. of Detroit_, p. 247). The same
writer (p. 246) states that he has seen the original entry of sale, on
June 6, 1783, of "16 gross red-handled scalping-knives, £80;" and on
July 22d, of 24 dozen more to the same parties.
[1514] Among Hamilton's reasons, in the articles of capitulation,
for surrender were: "The honorable terms allowed, and lastly, the
confidence in a generous enemy." For this compliment to Clark he
apologized in his _Report_ as follows: "If it be considered that we
were to leave our wounded men at the mercy of a man who had shown such
instances of ferocity, as Col. Clark had lately done, a compliment
bespeaking his generosity and humanity may possibly find excuse with
some, as I know it has censure from others."
[1515] Hamilton states that Capt. Helm was the officer in command of
the expedition,—a fact which Clark omitted to mention.
[1516] Hamilton says: "The day before Capt. Helm, who commanded the
party sent to take the convoy, arrived at Ouattanon, Mr. Dejean
heard that we had fallen into the hands of the rebels; but he had
not sufficient presence of mind to destroy the papers which, with
everything else, was seized by the rebels. Besides the provision,
clothing, and stores belonging to the king, all the private baggage of
the officers fell into the possession of Col. Clark."
[1517] Dillon, p. 158.
[1518] On March 7th, "Capt. Williams and Lieut. Rogers, with
twenty-five men, set off for the Falls of Ohio to conduct the following
prisoners, viz.: Lieut.-Gov. Hamilton, Major Hays [Hay], Capt. La
Mothe [La Mothe], Mons. Dejean, grand judge of Detroit, Lieut. Shiflin
[Scheifflin], Doct. M'Beth [McBeath], Francis M'Ville [Maisonville],
Mr. Bell Fenilb [Bellefeuille], with eighteen privates" (Bowman, p.
109). Hamilton does not give a list of his fellow-prisoners, but the
above names, as he gives them elsewhere in his _Report_, are inserted
in brackets. He says: "On the 8th of March we were put into a heavy
oak boat, being 27 in number, with our provision of flour and pork at
common ration, and 14 gallons of spirits for us and our guard, which
consisted of 23 persons, including two officers. We had before us 360
miles of water carriage and 840 to march to our place of destination,
Williamsburg, Va." (_Mich. Pion. Col._, p. 506). "On the 16th, most
of the prisoners took the oath of neutrality, and got permission to
set out for Detroit" (_Ibid._ 110). Gov. Hamilton and his associates
were sent to Williamsburg, and by sentence of the executive council
were placed in close imprisonment in irons, for their treatment of
captives and for permitting and instigating the Indians to practise
every species of cruelty and barbarism upon American citizens, without
distinction of age, sex, or condition (see _Journals of Congress_,
ii. 340; Jefferson's _Writings_, i. 226-237, 258, 267; Sparks's
_Washington_, vi. 315, 407; _Corresp. of the Rev._, ii. 323; Hamilton's
narrative from the _Royal Gazette_, July 15, 1780, in _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, i. 186; Monette, i. 431; Farmer's _Hist. of Detroit_, p. 252).
In October, 1780, Hamilton was sent to New York on parole, in order
to procure the release of some American officers (_Sparks MSS._, no.
lxvi.).
For details of the Vincennes expedition, see Clark's _Campaign_
(1869), p. 62-87; Dillon's _Indiana_ (1843), pp. 151-184; 2d edition,
pp. 137-167; Butler's _Kentucky_, p. 79; Beckwith's _Hist. Notes_,
pp. 250-259; Davidson's _Illinois_, p. 193; Brown's _Illinois_, p.
241; Perkins's _Annals_, p. 208; Withers's _Border Warfare_, p. 188;
Monette, i. 427; Hall's _Sketches of the West_, ii., 117; Marshall's
_Washington_, iii. 562; _Mag. of West. Hist._, by Mary Cone, ii. 133;
_Hist. Mag._, i. 168, by John Reynolds; Judge Law's address (1839),
in _Va. Hist. Reg._, vi. 61; Ninian W. Edwards's _Hist. of Illinois_
(1778-1833). There is a map of the campaign in Blanchard's _North-West_.
[1519] The enactment is in _Hening's Virginia Statutes_, ix. 552,
and in _Legal Adviser_ (Chicago, 1886), vii. 284. Cf. "Virginia's
Conquest—the Northwest Territory", by J. C. Wells, in the _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, Nov., 1886.
[1520] Clark's _Campaign_, p. 84. "I am glad to hear of Col. Todd's
appointment", he wrote to Jefferson (i. 225).
[1521] His proclamation of June 15, 1779, is in Dillon, p. 168;
Davidson's _Illinois_, p. 202.
[1522] See lists of the officials in Edward G. Mason's _Col. John
Todd's Record-Book_ (no. 12 _Fergus's Historical Series_, 1882),
p. 54. Mr. Mason's paper is an interesting account of Col. Todd's
administration, and of the state of the Illinois county at that time.
Col. Todd was killed in battle with the Indians at Blue Licks, Ky.,
Aug. 18, 1782. See Col. Logan's account of the battle, _Col. Va. State
Papers_, iii. 280, 300; Perkins's _Annals_, p. 270.
[1523] Butler's _Kentucky_, p. 108; Withers's _Border Warfare_, p. 197.
[1524] An autograph letter of Jefferson to Washington, Feb. 10, 1780,
urging reinforcements for Clark, is in the _Sparks MSS._, xlix. vol.
iii. Various intercepted letters of Clark, including one of Sept. 23,
1779, to Jefferson, about fortifying the mouth of the Ohio, are among
the Carleton Papers, in the London Institution, and are copied in the
_Sparks MSS._, xiii. On May 26, 1780, St. Louis had been attacked by
the English with Indian allies (_Mag. Western Hist._, Feb., 1785, p.
271, by Oscar W. Collet). It was through Vigo that Clark established
intimate relations with the Spanish lieutenant-governor De Leyba, and
Clark is said to have offered assistance in the defence of that Spanish
post.—ED.
[1525] Withers's _Border Warfare_, p. 213; Perkins's _Annals_, p. 235;
Butler's _Kentucky_, p. 110.
[1526] [See _ante_, p. 681.—ED.]
[1527] _Writings_, i. 259. The letter abridged is in Sparks's _Corresp.
of the Am. Rev._, iii. 98.
[1528] _Writings_, i. 280; Sparks's _Corresp._, etc., iii. 175.
[1529] Gen. Washington instructed Col. Brodhead to see that no
Continental officer outranked Col. Clark. "I do not think", he wrote,
"that the charge of the enterprise could have been committed to better
hands. I have not the pleasure of knowing the gentleman personally;
but independently of the proofs he has given of his activity and
address, the unbounded confidence which, I am told, the Western people
repose in him is a matter of vast importance.... In general, give
every countenance and assistance to this enterprise. I shall expect a
punctual compliance with this order. Col. Clark will probably be the
bearer of this himself" (_Writings_, vii. 343-345).
[1530] Sparks's _Corresp._, etc., iii. 244.
[1531] [See _ante_, pp. 495, 546.—ED.]
[1532] _Writings_, i. 288. See Steuben's report to Washington,
Sparks's _Corresp._, etc., iii. 204. At the time of Arnold's descent
on Virginia, a scheme was devised by Jefferson and Baron Steuben to
capture the arch-traitor alive, and hang him. The scheme is set forth
in a letter of Jefferson, with no address (_Writings_, i. 289), dated
Richmond, Jan. 21, 1781; and it immediately follows the one describing
Col. Clark's ambuscade. The purpose of the letter is to enlist the
services of the person addressed in this hazardous enterprise. The
writer says he has "peculiar confidence in the men from the western
side of the mountains, whose courage and fidelity would be above
all doubt. Your perfect knowledge of those men personally, and my
confidence in your discretion, induces me to ask you to pick from among
them proper characters, in such numbers as you think best, and engage
them to undertake to seize and bring off this greatest of all traitors.
Whether this may be best effected by their going in as friends and
awaiting their opportunity, or otherwise, is left to themselves. The
smaller the number the better, so that they be sufficient to manage
him." He offers them a reward of five thousand guineas for bringing him
off alive, and says "their names will be recorded with glory in history
with those of Vanwert, Paulding, and Williams." The editor states in a
note that the person addressed "was probably Gen. [John Peter Gabriel]
Mühlenberg." Gen. Mühlenberg was a Pennsylvanian, and never resided
west of the mountains. The person was doubtless George Rogers Clark,
who was then in Virginia, and was too deeply interested in his Detroit
expedition to engage in the scheme.
[1533] Sparks's _Corresp._, etc., iii. 323.
[1534] _Ibid._ iii. 455. "I think", Gen. Irvine adds, "there is too
much reason to fear that Gen. Clark's and Col. Gibson's expeditions
falling through will greatly encourage the savages to fall on the
country with double fury, or perhaps the British from Detroit to
visit this post [Fort Pitt], which, instead of being in a tolerable
state of defence, is, in fact, nothing but a heap of ruins." The
relations of Detroit to the war in the Northwest, as the centre of
British intrigues among the Indians, and of British instigation of the
savages to make forays on the region of the Ohio, is well set forth
in Charles I. Walker's _Northwest during the Revolution_, the annual
address before the Wisconsin Hist. Soc. in 1871 (Madison, 1871; also
in _Pioneer Soc. of Michigan Coll._, iii., Lansing, 1881). A plan
of the Detroit River at this time is given in Parkman's _Pontiac_,
vol. i. Col. Arent Schuyler De Peyster, who commanded at Detroit,
1776-1785, gives something of his experiences in his _Miscellanies by
an Officer_ (Dumfries, 1813). The latest history of Detroit is Silas
Farmer's _Detroit and Michigan_ (Detroit, 1884), where, in ch. 39, the
revolutionary story is told. He has retold it in the _Mag. of Western
Hist._, Jan., 1886.
Brymner's _Report on the Canadian Archives_, 1882, p. 11, calendars
the correspondence and papers relating to Detroit, 1772-1784, being in
large part the correspondence of Gov. Hamilton and Carleton, including
letters from Vincennes and intercepted letters of G. R. Clark. Much of
the military correspondence with the commandants at Detroit and Quebec,
during this period, are in the series "America and West Indies" of
the Public Record Office, vols. cxxi., etc., which are calendared in
Brymner's _Report_, 1883, p. 50, etc., as well as in the series "Canada
and Quebec", vols. lv., etc. (_Ibid._ p. 73, etc.). There is also among
the Haldimand Papers (_Calendar_, p. 204) a description of the route
from Detroit to the Illinois and Mississippi country, 1774.—ED.
[1535] Virginia, later, made amends for this wrong. See Butler's
_Kentucky_, 2d edition, p. 537.
[1536] See his report to Gov. Harrison, in Butler's _Kentucky_, 2d
edition, p. 536; Almon's _Remembrancer_ (1783), part 2, p. 93.
[1537] See Dillon, p. 179; Perkins's _Annals_, p. 278. In Jefferson's
_Writings_, iii. 217, 218, and _Cal. Va. State Papers_, iv. 189, 202,
will be found some sad incidents which throw light on the habits and
subsequent record of Col. Clark. In 1793 he imprudently accepted from
Genet, the French minister, a position in the service of France,
with the rank of major-general and commander-in-chief of the French
revolutionary legions on the Mississippi River. The purpose of this
revolutionary scheme, which had many supporters in Kentucky and the
West, was "to open the trade of the said river and give freedom to the
inhabitants", by capturing and holding the Spanish settlements on the
Mississippi. The troops were to receive pay as French soldiers, and
donations of land in the conquered districts. Before the scheme could
be put into execution, a counter-revolution occurred in France, Genet
was recalled, and Clark's commission was cancelled. See Collins's
_Kentucky_, i. 277; ii. 140; McMaster, _Hist. of U. S._, ii. 142;
Washington's Message against Genet and his scheme is in _Writings_,
xii. 96. For Clark's reputation and the achievements up to 1781, see
Marshall's _Washington_, iii. 562; Rives's _Madison_, i. 193; Withers's
_Border Warfare_, p. 190; _Harper's Mag._ (by R. F. Colman), xxii. 784;
xxxiii. 52; xxviii. 302; _Potter's Am. Monthly_ (by W. W. Henry), v.
908; vi. 308; vii. 140; _Ibid._ (by S. Evans), vi. 191, 451; _Western
Jour._ (St. Louis, 1850), iii. 168, 216; John Reynolds in _Hist. Mag._,
June, 1857; Collins's _Kentucky_. He was styled by John Randolph "the
Hannibal of the West", and by Gov. John Reynolds "the Washington of the
West." He was never married. He died February 13, 1818, and was buried
at Locust Grove, near Louisville, Ky.
The only portrait of him extant was painted by John W. Jarvis, an
English artist, who began business in New York in 1801, and painted
the heads of many distinguished Americans. He made a trip West and
South, during which he made many portraits. The picture of Clark
represents him about sixty years of age. The best engraving of it is
in the _National Portrait Gallery_, iv., with a biography. It is the
frontispiece of Butler's _Kentucky_, 1834, of Dillon's _Indiana_, 1859,
and in the Cincinnati edition of _Clark's Campaign_; and woodcuts are
in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 287; _Mag. of Western Hist._, ii. 133;
_Harper's Mag._, xxviii. 302, etc. It has been many times reproduced,
with a modification of details. There have been many rumors as to the
existence of a portrait taken earlier in life. Every alleged portrait
of an earlier date which I could hear of, I have looked up, and find
that they are all copies or modifications of the Jarvis picture.
[1538] In 1772, the whole community of Moravian missionaries and their
Indian converts at Friedenshütten, in Pennsylvania, where they had
dwelt for seven years, removed to the valley of the Muskingum, on the
cordial invitation of the Delawares. For many years, when living in
the vicinity of the English settlements, they had suffered much from
persecution; but now that they had their home among savages, it seemed
to them that their trials were ended.
[1539] The Sandusky of that period was on the head-waters of the
Sandusky River, about seventy-five miles east of south from the modern
Sandusky City on Lake Erie. Its location was near what is now known
as Upper Sandusky, in Wyandot County, Ohio. The region was a fertile
plain, and the home of the Wyandots.
[1540] See "The Identity and History of the Shawanese Indians", by C.
C. Royce, in the _Mag. of Western Hist._, ii. 38.
[1541] The fact that the Moravians had accompanied the Wyandots to the
country of Sandusky was used as evidence against them.
[1542] It is to the credit of the British officers at Detroit that they
befriended the Moravians, and assigned them a tract of land in Michigan.
[1543] See C. F. Post's first visit to the Western Indians by T.
J. Chapman, in _Mag. of Western Hist._, iii. 123. For the general
subject of the Moravian missions in Ohio, see Loskiel, _Memoirs of the
United Brethren, Part II._; Heckewelder, _Narrative_, pp. 213-328;
Holmes, _Missions of the United Brethren_, p. 110; Schweinitz, _Life
of Zeisberger_, pp. 368-590; Rondthaler, _Life of Heckewelder_, p.
66; Gnadenhütten, by W. D. Howells, in _Atlantic Monthly_, xxiii.
95; Withers, p. 230; Doddridge, p. 248; Monette, ii. 129; _Amer.
Pioneer_, ii. 425; Perkins, _Annals_, p. 258. Cf. also the _Diary of
David Zeisberger, a Moravian missionary among the Indians of Ohio_
(1781-1798); _translated from the original German manuscript and edited
by E. F. Bliss_, 2 vols. (Cincinnati, 1885).
[1544] Col. Crawford was a friend of Washington, and had been one of
his surveyors. "It is with the greatest sorrow", wrote Washington,
"that I have learned the melancholy tidings of Col. Crawford's death.
He was known to me as an officer of much prudence, brave, experienced,
and active. The manner of his death was shocking to me, and I have
this day communicated to Congress such papers as I have regarding
it." Cf. C. W. Butterfield's _Washington-Crawford letters, 1767-1781_
(Cincinnati, 1877,—Thomson's _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 147).
[1545] See _Narratives of the perils and sufferings of Dr. Knight and
John Slover, among the Indians, during the Revolutionary war; with
short memoirs of Col. Crawford and John Slover, and a letter from H.
Brackinridge, on the rights of the Indians, etc._ (Cincinnati, 1867),
pp. 12-31; (for earlier editions see Thomson's _Bibliog. of Ohio_,
nos. 682-685;) Perkins's _Annals_, p. 262; Doddridge, p. 264; Withers,
p. 242; "Crawford's Campaign", by N. N. Hill, Jr., in the _Mag. of
West. Hist._, ii. 19; McClung's _Sketches_, p. 128. Schweinitz's
_Zeisberger_, p. 564; _Amer. Pioneer_, ii. 177; _Hist. Mag._, xxi.
207; Isaac Smucker's "Ohio Pioneer History" in Ohio Sec. of State's
_Annual Report_, 1879, pp. 7-28. Cf. also C. W. Butterfield's _Hist.
Acc. of the Exped. against Sandusky_ (Cincinnati, 1873,—Thomson's
_Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 146); and, on the general military transactions
of this period in the West, the same editor's _Washington-Irvine
correspondence. The official letters which passed between Washington
and William Irvine and between Irvine and others concerning military
affairs in the West from 1781 to 1783. Arranged and annotated. With an
introduction containing an outline of events occurring previously in
the trans-Alleghany country_ (Madison, Wis., 1882). Cf. _Penna. Mag. of
Hist._, vi. 371. Sparks made copies of many of these Irvine papers in
1847 (_Sparks MSS._, no. liv.).—ED.
[1546] For a summary of these discussions, see Perkins, _Annals_
(Peck's ed., 1850), pp. 242-250. Judge Hall, _Sketches of the West_, i.
171, gives the date "May 6, 1778"; Wilson Primm, _Historical Address_,
1847 (reprinted in _Western Journal_, 1849, ii. 71), gives "May, 1779",
as the date, and says 1779 is an era in the history of St. Louis, and
is designated as "L'Année du coup." Nicollet, _Early St. Louis_, gives
"May, 6, 1780", and Martin, _Louisiana_, "the fall of 1780." Stoddard,
_Sketches of Louisiana_, without naming the month and day, gives the
year and the main facts correctly; but errs in stating that "the
expedition was not sanctioned by the English court, and the private
property of the commandant was seized to pay the expenses of it." As to
the casualties, Stoddard (p. 80) says, "60 killed and 30 prisoners;"
Nicollet (p. 85), "60 killed and 13 prisoners;" Primm, "20 killed;"
and Billon, _Annals of St. Louis_, 1886 (p. 196), "seven persons were
killed", and he furnishes a list of their names. Sinclair, in report to
Haldimand, July 8, 1780, says: "At Pencour [St. Louis], 68 were killed,
and 18 blacks and white people taken prisoners; 43 scalps were brought
in. The rebels lost an officer and three men killed at the Cahokias,
and five prisoners" (_Mich. Pion. Col._, ix. 559). Martin (ii. 53) says
"Clark released about 50 prisoners that had been made."
[1547] Brymner's _Calendar of the Canadian Archives_, including (1) the
_Haldimand collection_; (2) the publication of some of the Haldimand
papers in _Michigan Pioneer Collec._, ix.; and (3) the _Calendar of
Virginia State Papers_, Richmond, v. i., vi.
[1548] In March, 1766, Ulloa, from Havana, landed at New Orleans, and
in the name of Spain took possession of Louisiana; but found himself
obliged to administer the government under the old French officers, and
in 1768 the French set up for a while a republic independent of Spain.
Cf. Gayarré's _Louisiana_, and Lieutenant John Thomas's account of
Louisiana in 1768 in _Hist. Mag._, v. 65.
Congress maintained an agent, Oliver Pollock, at New Orleans during
the war, who, with the aid of the Spanish authorities, sent powder and
supplies at intervals up the river, to be landed on the Ohio (George
Sumner's _Boston Oration_, 1859, p. 14). The correspondence of Pollock
and Congress is in the archives of the State Department at Washington,
and copies are in the _Sparks MSS._, no. xli. An account of an
expedition under Col. David Rogers in 1778, to bring up stores to Fort
Pitt, is in _Hist Mag._, iii. 267.
Various letters about and from New Orleans during the war are in the
_Sparks MSS._ (no. xxiii.), copied from the Grantham correspondence.
Intercepted letters between the Spanish governor at New Orleans and
Patrick Henry (1778-1779), found among the Carleton papers, are in the
_Sparks MSS._, no. xiii.—ED.
[1549] Gayarré, _History of Louisiana, Spanish Domination_, p. 121.
[1550] Brymner, 1885, p. 276.
[1551] "In compliance with my Lord George Germain's requisition in the
circular letter sent from Detroit on 22d January, I sent a war party
of Indians to the country of the Sioux to put that nation in motion
under their own chief, Wabasha, a man of uncommon abilities.... They
are directed to proceed with all despatch to the Natchez, and to act
afterwards as circumstances may require. I shall send other bands of
Indians from thence on the same service as soon as I can with safety
disclose the object of their mission. I am at a loss to judge in point
of time, and can only hazard an opinion that the Brigadier [Campbell]
and his army will be at the place of their destination some time in
May" (_Michigan Pioneer Coll._, ix. 544).
The same day, Sinclair wrote to Capt. Brehm, Haldimand's aide-de-camp:
"I will use my utmost endeavors to send away as many as I can of the
Indians to attack the Spanish settlements as low down [the Mississippi]
as they possibly can, in order to procure the assistance of the others
at home. I am so perfectly convinced of the general's [Haldimand's]
geographical knowledge that I do not know where to look for the
cause of a doubt about giving some aid to General Campbell from this
quarter.... I am at a loss to know whether this preparation may not be
too early, on account of want of secrecy in the people I have employed,
and from their getting too near [New] Orleans before the arrival of the
brigadier. I have confidence in and hopes of their leader, as Wabasha
is allowed to be a very extraordinary Indian, and well attached to his
majesty's interest" (_Ibid._ pp. 541-543).
February 17, he writes again to Haldimand, that the Minomines, Puants,
Sacs, and Rhenards were to assemble at the portage of the Wisconsin
and Fox rivers under a Mr. Hesse, a trader; and later to rendezvous
at the confluence of the Mississippi and Wisconsin rivers, Prairie
du Chien. "The reduction of Pencour [_pain court_ (short bread), the
common nickname of St. Louis] by surprise, from the easy admission
of the Indians of that place, will be less difficult than holding it
afterwards.... The Sioux shall go with all dispatch as low down as the
Natchez, and as many intermediate attacks as possible shall be made"
(_Ibid._ pp. 546, 547).
May 29, he again writes that seven hundred and fifty men, including
traders, servants, and Indians, proceeded down the Mississippi on the
second day of May, with the Indians engaged at the westward, for an
attack on the Spanish and Illinois country. He mentions Prairie du
Chien as the place of assembling. "Capt. Hesse will remain at Pencour;
Wabasha will attack Misère [wretchedness, the popular nickname for Ste.
Geneviève] and the rebels at Kacasia [Kaskaskia]. Two vessels leave
this place on the 2d of June to attend Machigwawish, who returns by
the Illinois River with prisoners. All the traders who will secure the
posts on the Spanish side of the Mississippi during the next winter
have my promise for the exclusive trade of the Missouri during that
time, and that their canoes will be forwarded" (_Ibid._ 548, 549).
[1552] Brymner, _Report_, 1882, p. 34. He writes to Sinclair, March
12: "Your movements down the [Mississippi] shall be seconded from this
place by my sending a part of the garrison with some small ordnance.
Their route shall be to the Ohio, which they shall cross, and attack
some of the forts which surround the Indian hunting-ground of Kentucky.
I have had the Wabash Indians here by invitation; they have promised
to keep Clark at the Falls" (_Michigan Pioneer Coll._, p. 580). His
allusions are to Capt. Byrd's expedition. May 18, he again writes to
Sinclair: "Capt. Byrd left this place (Detroit) with a detachment of
about 150 whites and 1000 Indians. He must be by this time nigh the
Ohio" (_Ibid._ P. 582).
[1553] Among his prisoners were Col. Dickson, in command of the British
settlements on the Mississippi; 556 regulars, and many sailors.
[1554] Gayarré, _Louisiana, Span. Dom._, pp. 121-147. Galvez
discovered, by intercepted letters from Natchez, the scheme of the
English to attack the Spanish settlements as early as it was known by
Sinclair (p. 122), and he was earnest to strike the first blow. Clark
also heard of it very early. Sinclair, writing to Haldimand, says:
"No doubt can remain, from the concurrent testimony of the prisoners,
that the enemy received intelligence of the meditated attack on the
Illinois about the time I received a copy of my Lord George Germain's
circular letter" (_Mich. Pion. Coll._, ix. 559). In the same letter
he gives some details of the raids on St. Louis and Cahokia, which do
not appear elsewhere: "Twenty of the volunteer Canadians from this
place and a very few of the traders and servants made their attack on
Pencour and the Cahokias. The Winnipigoes and Sioux would have stormed
the Spanish lines, if the Sacs and Outagamies, under their treacherous
leader Mons. Calvé, had not fallen back so early. A Mons. Ducharme and
others who traded in the country of the Sacs kept pace with Mons. Calvé
in his perfidy. The attack, unsuccessful as it was, from misconduct,
and unsupported, I believe, by any other against New Orleans, with the
advances made by the enemy on the Mississippi, will still have its
good consequences. The Winnepigoes had a chief and three men killed
and four wounded. The traders who would not assist in extending their
commerce cannot complain to its being confined to necessary bounds."
Writing later to De Peyster (_Ibid._ 586), he says: "The attack upon
the Illinois miscarried from the treachery of Calvé and Ducharme,
traders, and from the information received by the enemy so early as
March last." For statements that the expedition against St. Louis was
organized and led by Jean Marie Ducharme, see _Wis. Hist. Coll._, iii.
232; vii. 176. It is evident that the objective point of the attack,
in Sinclair's mind, was the Illinois country, rather than the Spanish
settlements. Haldimand, writing to De Peyster, Feb. 12, 1779, said:
"Sinclair should strike at the Illinois" (Brymner, 1882, p. 33).
Sinclair, writing to Brehm, Feb. 17, 1780, concerning the attack on St.
Louis, said: "Afterwards they can act against the rebels on this side
[of the Mississippi], which I have pointed out to them" (_Mich. Pion.
Coll._, ix. 543).
[1555] Sinclair seems not to have heard of the capture of Natchez by
the Spaniards, which occurred Sept. 21, 1779, until July 30, 1780,
when he wrote to De Peyster: "The report of the Natchez seems too well
founded" (_Ibid._ 587).
[1556] _Ibid._ 547, 548.
[1557] Stoddard and Martin state that Clark was present; Nicollet
denies the statement, on the ground that Clark was then at Kaskaskia,
and "that gallant officer could not have had time to aid in that
affair." Hall and Billon make no mention of Clark; and Primm and Peck
(in Perkins) say that Clark tendered aid to Leyba in 1779, but not in
1780. It was a part of Clark's policy to be always on friendly terms
with the Spanish commandant at St. Louis (_Campaign_, p. 35), and to
give aid whenever he needed it. In so doing, as they were fighting a
common enemy, he served his own interests. Mr. O. W. Collet, in _Mag.
of Western Hist._, i. 271, has discussed the friendly relations between
Clark and Leyba before the attack on St. Louis, but is unmindful of the
significance given to it in the text. See also Scharff's _Hist. of St.
Louis_, p. 217.
[1558] The expedition of Captain Byrd from Detroit.
[1559] Sinclair reported to Haldimand, July 8th, "Two hundred Illinois
cavalry arrived at Chicago five days after the vessels left" (_Mich.
Pion. Coll._, ix. 558).
[1560] Dr. Lyman C. Draper (_Wisconsin Hist. Coll._, ix. 291) says:
"There was a party of Spanish allies sent out with Montgomery's
expedition from Cahokia in the latter part of May, 1780, in the
direction of Rock River." See also his note (_Ibid._ vii. 176). He
thinks that the Spaniards and some of the Americans probably returned
by way of Prairie du Chien, and that they were the party mentioned by
Long in his _Voyages_, 1791.
[1561] _Michigan Pioneer Col._, ix. 541. Capt. Byrd, writing to De
Peyster, May 21, 1780, reports that a Delaware Indian has come in from
the Falls with this information: "Col. Clark says he will wait for us,
instead of going to the Mississippi; his numbers do not exceed 200; his
provisions and ammunition short" (_Ibid._ 584). Clark was on his way to
St. Louis before this date, and was back to Kentucky in season to block
Byrd's plans.
[1562] Perkins's _Annals_, p. 245.
[1563] It is noticeable that in these decisive campaigns efficient aid
was furnished in the West by Spain, and in the East by France; and that
both these powers, in the negotiations for a treaty of peace with Great
Britain, threw their influence against the interests of the United
States.
[1564] See Gayarré, _Louisiana, Span. Dom._, p. 134; Pitkin's _United
States_, ii. 88, App. 512; _Secret Jour. of Cong._, ii. 326.
[1565] Sparks's _Dipl. Corresp._, viii. 156. The Spanish claims and
the Western boundary question are very fully discussed in this eighth
volume.
[1566] Mr. Jay (Sparks's _Dipl. Corres._, viii. 76-78) gives the
main facts concerning the Spanish expedition to St. Joseph, which he
translated from the _Madrid Gazette_ of March 12, 1782. Mr. E. G. Mason
(_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, xv. 457) has treated the subject more fully in
a paper entitled "March of the Spaniards across Illinois in 1781." See
also Reynolds's _Illinois_, ed. 1887, p. 126; Dillon's _Indiana_, ed.
1843, p. 190; Perkins's _Annals_, ed. 1851, p. 251.
Dr. Franklin, writing from Passy, April 12, 1782, to Secretary
Livingston, said: "I see by the newspapers that the Spaniards, having
taken a little post called St. Joseph, pretend to have made a conquest
of the Illinois country. In what light does this proceeding appear
to Congress? While they decline our offered friendship, are they to
be suffered to encroach on our bounds, and shut us up within the
Appalachian Mountains? I begin to fear they have some such project"
(_Works_, Sparks, ix. 206).
[1567] The diplomacy of the war and the final negotiations for peace,
form the subjects of the opening chapters of the succeeding volume of
the present _History_.—ED.
[1568] Some of the copies bear other dates.
* * * * * *
Transcriber’s note:
—Obvious errors were corrected.