Critical examination of the question "who killed Tecumseh?"--colonel
R. M. Johnson's claim considered.
Tecumseh was a determined and subtle enemy of the United States, and
during the palmy days of his bold career, wielded an influence over the
north-western Indians which belonged to no other chief. His death was
consequently an important circumstance in relation to the peace and
safety of the frontiers. But whether he fell by a pistol shot from a
field officer, or a rifle ball from a private soldier, however
interesting as a matter of personal history, is certainly not one of
national importance. Nevertheless, the question by whose hands he fell,
has engaged public attention to some considerable extent ever since the
memorable battle of the Thames. Its discussion has not been confined to
the immediate friends of the several aspirants for the honor of having
slain this distinguished warrior; it has enlivened the political
canvass, and the halls of legislation; occupied the columns of journals
and magazines, and filled no inconsiderable space on the pages of
American and British histories. Under such circumstances, and as
directly connected with the present biography, a fair presentation of
all the testimony bearing on the case will now be attempted. It may at
least gratify the public curiosity, if it do not definitively settle
the long pending question in relation to the actual _slayer of
Tecumseh_.
M'Affee, in his History of the Late War, says, Tecumseh "was found
among the dead, at the point where colonel Johnson had charged upon the
enemy, in person, and it is generally believed, that this celebrated
chief fell by the hand of the colonel. It is certain that the latter
killed the Indian with his pistol, who shot him through his hand, at
the very spot where Tecumseh lay; but another dead body lay at the same
place, and Mr. King, a soldier in captain Davidson's company, had the
honor of killing one of them."
Brown, in his history of the same war, says, that "colonel Johnson,
after receiving four wounds, perceived the daring Tecumseh commanding
and attempting to rally his savage force; when he instantly put his
horse towards him, and was shot by Tecumseh in the hand, as he
approached him. Tecumseh advanced with a drawn weapon, a sword or
tomahawk, at which instant the colonel, having reserved his fire, shot
his ferocious antagonist dead at his feet; and that too, at the moment
he was almost fainting with the loss of blood and the anguish of five
wounds."
The statement of Shawbeneh, a Potawatamie chief, lately published in
the "Chicago Democrat," goes to prove that Tecumseh was wounded in the
neck; and telling his warriors that he must die, rushed forward to kill
colonel Johnson. Shawbeneh saw him fall, having been shot by the
colonel, just as his arm had reached the necessary height to strike the
fatal blow. Shawbeneh says that colonel Johnson was riding a large
white horse, with occasionally a jet black spot. He further states that
Tecumseh's body was not mutilated by the American troops.
The testimony of another Potawatamie chief, Chamblee, as furnished us
by captain Robert Anderson, of the U.S. army, is to this effect:
He saw Tecumseh engaged in a personal rencontre with a soldier armed
with a musket; that the latter made a thrust at the chief, who caught
the bayonet under his arm, where he held it, and was in the act of
striking his opponent with his tomahawk, when a horseman rode up, and
shot Tecumseh dead with a pistol. The horseman had a red feather,
(plume) in his hat, and was mounted on a spotted or red-roan horse; he
further says, that he saw the body of Tecumseh a day or two after the
battle, and that it was not mutilated.
In a work entitled "History of the Indian Tribes of North America,"
there is the following note:
"A Potawatamie chief was thus questioned: Were you at the battle of the
Thames? Yes. Did you know Tecumseh? Yes. Were you near him in the
fight? Yes. Did you see him fall? Yes. Who shot him? Don't know. Did
you see the man that shot him? Yes. What sort of looking man was he?
Short, thick man. What color was the horse he rode? Most white. How do
you know this man shot Tecumseh? I saw the man ride up--saw his horse
get tangled in some bushes--when the horse was most still, I saw
Tecumseh level his rifle at the man and shoot--the man shook on his
horse--soon the horse got out of the bushes, and the man spurred him
up--horse came slow--Tecumseh right before him--man's left hand hung
down--just as he got near, Tecumseh lifted his tomahawk and was going
to throw it, when the man shot him with a short gun (pistol)--Tecumseh
fell dead and we all ran."
Mr. Garrett Wall, of Kentucky, who participated in the battle of the
Thames, says:
" ---- The men by this time had collected in groups; and it was remarked
that colonel R. M. Johnson was dead, but I contradicted the report;
also, that the great Indian commander, Tecumseh, was slain; I asked by
what authority? I was told that Anthony Shane, who had known him from a
small boy, said so, and had seen him among the slain. In a short time I
saw Shane with a small group of men, walking towards a dead Indian; as
he approached the body, I asked him if he knew that Indian. He said it
was, in his opinion, Tecumseh; but he could tell better if the blood
was taken from his face. I examined the Indian. He was shot in the left
side of the breast with several balls or buck shot, all entering near
and above the left nipple. There was also a wound in his head, too
small for a rifle ball to make."
Atwater, in his History of Ohio, remarks, that two Winnebago chiefs,
Four-Legs and Carymaunee, told him, that Tecumseh, at the commencement
of the battle of the Thames, lay with his warriors in a thicket of
underbrush on the left of the American army, and that they were, at no
period of the battle, out of their covert--that no officer was seen
between them and the American troops--that Tecumseh fell the very first
fire of the Kentucky dragoons, pierced by thirty bullets, and was
carried four or five miles into the thick woods and there buried by the
warriors, who told the story of his fate.
In 1838, a writer in the Baltimore American published Black Hawk's
account of the fall of Tecumseh. It is as follows:
" ---- Shortly after this, the Indian spies came in and gave word of the
near approach of the Americans. Tecumseh immediately posted his men in
the edge of a swamp, which flanked the British line, placing himself at
their head. I was a little to his right with a small party of Sauks. It
was not long before the Americans made their appearance; they did not
perceive us at first, hid as we were by the undergrowth, but we soon
let them know where we were, by pouring in one or two vollies as they
were forming into line to oppose the British. They faltered a little;
but very soon we perceived a large body of horse (colonel Johnson's
regiment of mounted Kentuckians) preparing to charge upon us in the
swamp. They came bravely on; yet we never stirred until they were so
close that we could see the flints in their guns, when Tecumseh,
springing to his feet, gave the Shawanoe war-cry, and discharged his
rifle. This was the signal for us to commence the battle, but it did
not last long; the Americans answered the shout, returning our fire,
and at the first discharge of their guns, I saw Tecumseh stagger
forwards over a fallen tree, near which he was standing, letting his
rifle drop at his feet. As soon as the Indians discovered that he was
killed, a sudden fear came over them, and thinking the Great Spirit was
angry, they fought no longer, and were quickly put to flight. That
night we returned to bury our dead; and search for the body of
Tecumseh. He was found lying where he had first fallen; a bullet had
struck him above the hip, and his skull had been broken by the butt end
of the gun of some soldier, who had found him, perhaps, when life was
not yet quite gone. With the exception of these wounds, his body was
untouched: lying near him was a large fine looking Potawatamie, who had
been killed, decked off in his plumes and war-paint, whom the Americans
no doubt had taken for Tecumseh for he was scalped and every particle
of skin flayed from his body. Tecumseh himself had no ornaments about,
his person, save a British medal. During the night, we buried our dead,
and brought off the body of Tecumseh, although we were in sight of the
fires of the American camp."
James, a British historian,[A] after describing the battle of the
Thames, remarks:
"It seems extraordinary that general Harrison should have omitted to
mention in his letter, the death of a chief, whose fall contributed so
largely to break down the Indian spirit, and to give peace and security
to the whole north-western frontier of the United States. Tecumseh,
although he had received a musket ball in the left arm, was still
seeking the hottest of the fire, when he encountered colonel Richard M.
Johnson, member of congress from Kentucky. Just as the chief, having
discharged his rifle, was rushing forward with his tomahawk, he
received a ball in the head from the colonel's pistol. Thus fell the
Indian warrior, Tecumseh, in the forty-fourth year of his age. * * * *
The body of Tecumseh was recognized, not only by the British officers,
who were prisoners, but by commodore Perry, and several American
officers."
[Footnote A; "Military Occurrences of the Late War between Great
Britain and the United States, by William James, 2 vols. London,
1818."]
This writer adds, that Tecumseh was scalped and his body flayed by the
Kentuckians.
In Butler's History of Kentucky, there is a letter from the reverend
Obediah B. Brown, of Washington city, then a clerk in the general
post-office, under date of 18th September, 1834, in which the writer
says, in substance:
That colonel Johnson, while leading the advance upon the left wing of
the Indians, saw an Indian commander, who appeared to be a rallying
point for his savage companions, and whose costume indicated the
superiority of his rank; that colonel Johnson, sitting upon his horse,
covered with wounds and very feint with the loss of blood, and having a
pistol in his right hand loaded with a ball and three buck-shot,
thought that the fate of the battle depended upon killing this
formidable chief, and he accordingly rode round a fallen tree for this
purpose; that the chief, perceiving his approach, levelled his rifle
and shot the colonel in the left hand; that the colonel continued to
advance upon him, and at the moment when the Indian was raising his
tomahawk, shot him dead with his pistol; that this deed spread
consternation among the savages, and with hideous yells, they began
from that point their retreat; that as soon as the battle ended, the
Indian killed by colonel Johnson was recognized as Tecumseh; and before
the colonel had so far recovered from the effects of his wounds as to
be able to speak, word ran through the army that he had killed
Tecumseh; and finally, that a medal was taken from the body which was
known to have been presented to this chief by the British government.
Mr. Brown further states, that a conversation which he had with Anthony
Shane, some years since, strengthened his belief that Tecumseh fell by
the hand of colonel Johnson; that Shane told him he went, after the
battle, to the spot where it was reported the colonel had killed an
Indian, and there he saw the dead body of Tecumseh, and that he must
have been killed by a horseman, as a ball and three buck-shot had
entered the breast and passed downwards; that he could not be mistaken
as to the body of Tecumseh, as he had a remarkable scar upon his thigh,
which, upon examination, was found as he had described it.
By recurring to the foregoing statements, it will be seen that eight
Indians have borne testimony in relation to the death of Tecumseh. Of
these, four assert that he was killed by the first fire from the
American line; and four that he fell by the hands of a horseman, some
time after the commencement of the action. One of these witnesses
states that Tecumseh was shot in the neck; another, that he was hit
above or in the eyes; two others that he was killed by a ball in the
hip; and again two others, that he was pierced by thirty bullets on the
first fire of our troops. Three of these witnesses testify that the
body of the fallen chief was mutilated by taking the skin from off the
thigh, and three that it was not. One of them saw the body the day
after the action, lying on the battle ground; a second bears witness
that it was buried on the spot the night of the battle; and a third,
that it was carried four or five miles into the woods, and there
interred. A further examination of the testimony will show that these
eight witnesses concur but in one single point,--that Tecumseh was
killed in the battle of the Thames. As to the nature of his wounds, the
mutilation of his body, the time when, the spot where, and by whose
hands, he fell, these various statements are wholly irreconcilable with
each other, and leave the main question involved in additional doubt
and obscurity.
As the claim of colonel Johnson to the honor of having killed Tecumseh,
has been recently and earnestly urged upon the public consideration, we
propose, even at the risk of some repetition, to examine in detail the
testimony which bears upon this point.
It will be recollected that the Potawatamie chief, whose narrative is
quoted from the "History of the Indian Tribes of North America,"
testifies that Tecumseh met his death by a wound above or in the eyes;
and, that upon his fall the Indians ran. If these statements be true,
Tecumseh could not have been killed by colonel Johnson, as will be
satisfactorily established in the course of this examination.
Shawbeneh, another Potawatamie chief, states that Tecumseh was mortally
wounded in the neck, before he rushed upon the individual who killed
him. All the other witnesses, except one, say that Tecumseh remained
stationary, and that the horseman who fired the fatal shot, advanced
upon him.
Chamblee, the third Potawatamie who testifies in the case, states that
Tecumseh was engaged in a personal conflict with a soldier armed with a
musket, when a horseman, on a spotted horse, rode up and shot him dead
with a pistol. This account is not sustained by any other witness.
Captain M'Affee, who belonged to the mounted regiment, and who has
written a history of the late war, says, it is _generally believed that
Tecumseh fell by the hand of colonel Johnson_; but the historian
candidly admits that there was another dead Indian at the spot where
Tecumseh lay, and that Mr. King, of captain Davidson's company, killed
one of them. It May be questioned whether there is or ever has been any
_general belief_,--whatever vague reports may have been
circulated,--that colonel Johnson killed this chief; but even if such
were the case, it does not by any means establish the allegation.
Brown, another historian of the late war, says, in general terms, that
Tecumseh advanced upon the colonel with a sword or tomahawk, and that
the colonel shot him dead. Tecumseh wore no sword in that action, nor
did he advance upon colonel Johnson. Mr. Brown cites no authorities for
his loose and general statements.
Garrett Wall testifies that he went to the spot where he was told
colonel Johnson had fought, and there questioned Anthony Shane about
the dead Indian before them. Shane remarked that he could tell better
whether it was Tecumseh, if the blood was washed from the face. It does
not appear that this was done, nor that Shane became satisfied as to
the identity of the dead Indian. Mr. Wall infers that Tecumseh fell by
a shot from colonel Johnson, because it was so reported, and because
they both led their warriors to the charge, and the desire of victory
brought them together. Mr. Wall cites no evidence to prove that the
body over which Shane was doubting, fell by the colonel--a link in the
chain of testimony, altogether important in making out his case.
The Rev. Obediah B. Brown, however, at Washington, is by far the most
precise in his statements, of all the witnesses. But it is proper,
before entering upon the examination of his testimony, to state that he
was not at the battle of the Thames; and that his letter, in regard to
Tecumseh's death, was written in 1834, more than twenty years after the
action was fought, and upon the eve of a political campaign, in which
his friend, colonel Johnson, was an aspirant for a high and honorable
office. Mr. Brown, it is further proper to add, derived his information
from "several persons," but he has inadvertently omitted the names of
all but one.
He commences by saying, that colonel Johnson saw an Indian known to be
a chief by his costume. Now it has been already shown that Tecumseh
entered the action dressed in the plain deer-skin garb of his tribe,
having nothing about him which would indicate his rank. The colonel
thought, continues Mr. B., that the fate of the day depended upon the
fall of this chief. The question might be asked whether the thoughts of
colonel Johnson, at this particular juncture, became known to the
witness by a logical process of ratiocination, or by a direct personal
communication from his distinguished friend? He states further, that
the colonel rode up within a few feet of the chief, received his fire,
and then shot him dead with his pistol. This act, says the witness,
caused the savages to retreat in consternation: now, the fact is well
established, that the Indians, at this very point, fought bravely for
twenty or twenty-five minutes after colonel Johnson was compelled, by
his wounds, to leave the scene of action: it is further stated by Mr.
B. that before the colonel was so far recovered from his wounds, as to
be able to speak, it ran through the army that he had killed Tecumseh.
Mr. Wall, who was in the action, says, that after colonel Johnson had
retired from the contest, and was lifted from his horse, he said to
those around him, "my brave men, the battle continues, leave me, and do
not return until you bring me an account of the victory." Thus it would
seem that the colonel, within a few minutes after receiving his last
wound, was giving orders to his men, and in the mean time, according to
Mr. B., "word ran through the army that he had killed Tecumseh." This
is more remarkable, when it is recollected, that the only person,
except the commanding general, who could identify the fallen chief, was
Anthony Shane, and he was in a different part of the field, (on the
bank of the Thames) and did not visit this part of the line until the
action was entirely over! The witness further states, that no other
chief of high rank was killed in this part of the line, but Tecumseh.
Anthony Shane says that Tecumseh's brother-in-law, and principal chief,
Wasegoboah, was killed ten or fifteen steps from where Tecumseh fell.
Black Hawk also testifies, that near Tecumseh, there was lying a large,
fine looking Potawatamie, decked off in his plumes and war-paint, whom
the Americans mistook for Tecumseh. Mr. B. says that a medal was taken
from the body of the Indian killed by colonel Johnson, which was known
to have been presented by the British government to Tecumseh. Where is
the authority for this? When Shane was examining the body, and so much
in doubt whether it was Tecumseh as to require the blood to be washed
from the face, before he could decide with certainty, where was this
medal, which of itself would have settled the question of identity? It
is singular, that neither Shane nor Wall speaks of a medal. Mr. B. says
that Tecumseh was killed by a ball and three buckshot, fired by a
horseman, and as colonel Johnson was the only person in that part of
the battle who fought on horseback, his pistols being loaded with a
ball and three buckshot, settles the question, that the colonel killed
Tecumseh. Again, the question may be asked, how Mr. B. knows the fact
as to the manner in which these pistols were loaded? And if they were
so loaded, who can say whether the chief was killed by this shot, the
wound in the eyes, that in the neck, or the one in the hip? But again;
colonel Johnson was not the only person who fought on horseback in this
part of the battle. He led a "forlorn hope" of twenty men, all mounted;
while on his left was Davidson's company of one hundred and forty men,
also on horseback. Mr. Wall, who was one of the "forlorn hope," says,
"the fighting became very severe, each party mingling with the other."
Finally, Mr. B. closes his testimony with the remark, that it was well
known and acknowledged, by the British and Indians, at the time, that
Tecumseh received his death from the hand of colonel Johnson, as
appears by James' History of the Late War. It is stated by the
historian here cited, that colonel Johnson shot Tecumseh in the
head--that the body was recognized not only by the British officers who
were prisoners, but by commodore Perry and several other American
officers: Mr. James also expresses his surprise that general Harrison
should have omitted, in his official letter to the War Department, to
mention the death of this chief. Now, we have the authority of several
American officers, of high rank, for stating, that these British
officers were not, on the evening of the day on which the action was
fought, in that part of the line where Tecumseh fell; and that early on
the ensuing morning, they were taken to a house two miles below the
battle ground, and from thence to Detroit, without returning to the
scene of their defeat, Mr. James is, therefore, incorrect on this
point, as he certainly is, in saying that commodore Perry and other
American officers recognized the body of Tecumseh. The commodore had
never seen this chief prior to the afternoon of the battle in which he
fell. General Harrison, it is believed, was the only American officer
in the engagement, who had a personal knowledge of Tecumseh. The day
after the battle, the general, attended by several of his officers,
visited the battle ground. The body of the Indian, supposed to be that
of Tecumseh, was pointed out to him, but owing to its swollen
condition, he was unable to say whether it was Tecumseh, or a
Potawatamie chief, who usually visited Vincennes in company with him:
he felt confident it was one of the two, but further than this could
not pronounce with certainty. Mr. James and Anthony Shane are Mr.
Brown's chief witnesses. The first states that Tecumseh was shot with a
musket ball in the arm, and finally killed by a ball in the head from
colonel Johnson's pistol: the second testifies that he fell by a ball
and three buckshot which entered his left breast, and that he was
wounded in no other part: the former says that Tecumseh's body was
literally flayed--the latter, that only a small piece of skin was cut
from one of his thighs.[A] It remains for Mr. Brown to reconcile these
glaring discrepancies in the testimony of his own witnesses. If this
dissection of Mr. Brown's elaborated letter, presents him more in the
light of the partizan advocate than that of the faithful historian, we
are not responsible for it; and if he has failed to establish the fact
that colonel Johnson killed Tecumseh, he must probably look for the
reason of that failure in the weakness of his claims, rather than in
any lack of zeal in advocating the colonel's cause.
[Footnote A: See James Military Occurrences, and Anthony Shane's
Narrative.]
Our analysis of the testimony which has at different times been brought
before the public, tending to establish the supposition that Tecumseh
fell by the hands of colonel Johnson, is now closed; and we think it
will be admitted, in reviewing the case, that the claims of the colonel
have not been satisfactorily established, either by direct or
circumstantial evidence. But we have further testimony to offer on this
point.
It is proved by a number of witnesses, and among them several who are
relied upon to establish the fact, that colonel Johnson killed
Tecumseh, that upon the fall of this chief, the action ceased and the
Indians fled.
Even the reverend Mr. Brown admits such to have been the case. Now, we
propose to show that colonel Johnson was wounded and retired from the
scene of action at its commencement; and that the contest lasted for
twenty or thirty minutes afterwards. As to the first point, captain
Davidson, who was by the side of colonel Johnson, says, "We struck the
Indian line obliquely, and when we approached within ten or fifteen
yards of their line, the Indians poured in a heavy fire upon us,
killing ten or fifteen of our men and several horses, and wounding
colonel Johnson very severely. He immediately retired."[A] Colonel
Ambrose Dudley says, "As I passed to the left, near the crochet, after
the firing had ceased on the right, I met colonel R.M. Johnson passing
diagonally from the swamp towards the line of infantry, and spoke with
him. He said he was badly wounded, his gray mare bleeding profusely in
several places. The battle continued with the Indians on the left. The
infantry, with some of colonel R. M. Johnson's troops mixed up
promiscuously with them, continued the battle for half an hour after
colonel Johnson was disabled and had ceased to command his men."[B]
Doctor S. Theobald, of Lexington, Kentucky, one of the surgeons to the
mounted regiment, says, "colonel Johnson was wounded in the onset of
the battle. I had the honor to compose one of his 'forlorn hope,' and
followed him in the charge. It is impossible, under such circumstances,
to estimate time with precision; but I know the period was a very brief
one from the firing of the first guns, which indeed was tremendously
heavy, till colonel Johnson approached me covered with wounds, but
still mounted. I think he said to me, I am severely wounded, which way
shall I go? That I replied, follow me, which he did: and I conducted
him directly across the swamp, on the margin of which we had charged,
and to the point where doctor Mitchell, surgeon-general of Shelby's
corps, was stationed. Some one hundred and fifty or two hundred yards
in the rear, colonel Johnson was taken from his horse. He appeared
faint and much exhausted. I asked him if he would have water, to which
he answered, yes. I cast about immediately for some, but there was none
at hand, nor any thing that I could see to bring it in, better than a
common funnel, which I saw lying on the ground, and which I seized and
ran to the river, (Thames) a distance probably of one hundred yards or
more; and closing the extremity of the funnel with my finger, made use
of it as a cup, from which I gave him drink. In a few minutes after
this, Garret Wall, who also composed one of the 'forlorn hope,' and was
thrown from his horse in the charge, came and solicited me to return
with him to the ground on which we had charged, to aid him in
recovering his lost saddle-bags. I assented. We crossed the narrow
swamp, to which I have before alluded, and had not progressed far,
before we came to the body of one of our men who had been killed, and
who I recognized as Mansfield, of captain Stucker's company: a little
further, that of Scott, of Coleman's company; and progressing some
forty or fifty steps (it may have been more,) in advance of that, we
found our venerable and brave old comrade, colonel Whitley, who was
also of the 'forlorn hope.' Near him, in a moment, I well remember to
have noticed, with a feeling and exclamation of exultation, the body of
an Indian; and some twenty or thirty steps in advance of this, another
Indian, which last was afterwards designated as the body of Tecumseh. I
distinctly recollect, that as we returned to make this search, the
firing was still kept up some distance off on our left"[C]
[Footnote A: Cincinnati Republican, 30th September, 1840]
[Footnote B: See Cincinnati Republican, 30th September, 1840. ]
[Footnote C: Dr. Theobald's letter, dated 27th November, 1840, in
possession of the author of this work.]
Testimony on these points might be multiplied, but could add nothing to
the force of that which is here cited. The letter of Dr. Theobald is
conclusive as to the time when colonel Johnson was wounded, and the
period during which the action continued after he retired from the
battle ground. It seems the colonel was disabled at the beginning of
the action with the Indians, and immediately rode from the field; that
the action lasted for near half an hour; that Tecumseh fell at or near
the close of it; and that he could not, therefore, have fallen by the
hand of colonel Johnson. Whether the leader of the "forlorn hope" can
claim the credit of having actually killed an Indian chief on this
memorable day, is not the immediate question before us: that he acted
with dauntless bravery, in promptly charging the Indian line, during
the brief period which he remained unwounded, is universally admitted;
but that he is entitled to the honor, (if such it may be called,) of
having personally slain the gifted "king of the woods," will not be so
readily conceded.
James, the British historian, from whose "Military Occurrences" we have
already quoted, having charged general Harrison with designedly
omitting, in his official report, all reference to the death of
Tecumseh, leaves the inference to be drawn by the reader, that the
omission was prompted by a feeling of envy towards colonel Johnson, who
had done the deed. It is due to the cause of truth, not less than to
the reputation of the American commander, that this charge should be
impartially examined. It is true, that the official account of the
battle of the Thames does not mention the death of Tecumseh, and the
propriety of this omission will be sufficiently obvious from the
following narrative.
General Harrison and Anthony Shane, so far as it is known, were the
only persons in the American army who were personally acquainted with
Tecumseh. It is possible that some of the friendly Indians, commanded
by Shane, may have known him; but it does not appear that any of them
undertook to identify the body after the battle was over. Shane was
under the impression, on the evening of the action, that he had found
the body of Tecumseh among the slain; but, as Mr. Wall testifies,
expressed himself with caution. General Harrison himself was not, on
the following day, enabled to identify with certainty the body of this
chief, as appears from the testimony of a member of the general's
military family, which we here quote, as having a direct bearing on the
question under consideration:
"I am authorised," says colonel Charles S. Todd,[A] "by several
officers of general Harrison's staff, who were in the battle of the
Thames, to state most unequivocally their belief, that the general
neither knew nor could have known the fact of the death of Tecumseh, at
the date of his letter to the war department. It was the uncertainty
which prevailed, as to the fact of Tecumseh's being killed, that
prevented any notice of it in his report. On the next day after the
battle, general Harrison, in company with commodore Perry and other
officers, examined the body of an Indian supposed to be Tecumseh; but
from its swollen and mutilated condition, he was unable to decide
whether it was that chief or a Potawatamie who usually visited him at
Vincennes, in company with Tecumseh; and I repeat most unhesitatingly,
that neither commodore Perry nor any officer in the American army,
excepting general Harrison, had ever seen Tecumseh previously to the
battle; and even though he had recognized the body which he examined to
be that of the celebrated chief, it was manifestly impossible that he
could have known whether he was killed by Johnson's corps, or by that
part of the infantry which participated in the action. No official or
other satisfactory report of his death, was made to him by those
engaged on that part of the battle ground where he fell. It was not
until after the return of the army to Detroit, and after the date of
general Harrison's despatches,[B] that it was ascertained from the
enemy, that Tecumseh was _certainly_ killed; and even then the opinion
of the army was divided as to the person by whose hands he fell. Some
claimed the credit of it for colonel Whitley, some for colonel Johnson;
but others, constituting a majority, including governor Shelby,
entertained the opinion that he fell by a shot from David King, a
private in captain Davidson's company, from Lincoln county, Kentucky.
In this state of the case, even had the fact of Tecumseh's death been
fully ascertained, at the date of general Harrison's letter, it would
have been manifestly unjust, not to say impracticable, for the
commander-in-chief to have expressed an opinion as to the particular
individual to whose personal prowess his death was to be
attributed."[C]
[Footnote A: One of the aids of general Harrison, and inspector-general
of the United States army, during the late war.]
[Footnote B: Early on the 7th, general Harrison left the army under the
command of governor Shelby, and returned to Detroit. His report of the
battle, was dated on the 9th. The army did not reach Sandwich, opposite
Detroit, until the 10th.]
[Footnote C: See Louisville Journal.]
In taking leave of this branch of our subject, it may be remarked, that
the strong terms of approbation in which general Harrison, in his
official account of the battle of the Thames, speaks of the bravery and
bearing of colonel Johnson in the conflict, should have shielded him
from the suspicion that any unkind feeling towards that officer was
allowed to sway his judgment in the preparation of his report.
We now proceed to give some testimony in favor of other individuals,
whose friends have claimed for them the credit of having slain
Tecumseh. It has been already stated, that before our army left the
field of battle, it was reported and believed by many of the troops,
that colonel Whitley, of Johnson's corps of mounted men, had killed the
Indian commander in the action of the Thames. The only testimony, in
confirmation of this report, which has fallen under our observation, is
contained in the two following communications. The first is a letter
from Mr. Abraham Scribner, now of Greenville, Ohio, under date of
September 8th, 1840. The writer says--"I had never seen Tecumseh, until
the body was shown to me on the battle ground on the river Thames: by
whose hand he fell must always be a matter of uncertainty. My own
opinion was, the day after the battle, and is yet, that Tecumseh fell
by a ball from the rifle of colonel Whitley, an old Indian fighter: two
balls passed through colonel Whitley's head, at the moment that
Tecumseh fell; he (colonel Whitley,) was seen to take aim at the Indian
said to be Tecumseh, and his rifle was found empty."
The second is from colonel Ambrose Dudley, of Cincinnati, under date of
24th February, 1841, and is in the following words:
"The morning after the battle of the Thames, in company with several
other persons, I walked over the ground, to see the bodies of those who
had been slain in the engagement. After passing from the river a
considerable distance, and the latter part of the way along what was
termed a swamp, viewing the slain of the British army, we came to a
place where some half a dozen persons were standing, and three dead
Indians were lying close together. One of the spectators remarked, that
he had witnessed that part of the engagement which led to the death of
these three Indians and two of our troops, whose bodies had been
removed the evening before for burial. He proceeded to point out the
position of the slain as they lay upon the ground, with that of our
men. He said old colonel Whitley rode up to the body of a tree, which
lay before him, and behind which lay an Indian: he (the Indian,)
attempted to fire, but from some cause did not succeed, and then
Whitley instantly shot him. This Indian was recognized by one of the
persons present as Tecumseh: the next Indian was pointed out as having
killed Whitley; then the position of another of our troops who killed
that Indian, and the Indian who killed him, with the position of the
man who shot the third Indian--making three Indians and two Americans
who had fallen on a very small space of ground. From the manner of the
narrator, and the facts related at the time, I did not doubt the truth
of his statement, nor have I ever had any reason to doubt it since. The
Indian pointed out as Tecumseh, was wearing a bandage over a wound in
the arm, and as it was known that Tecumseh had been slightly wounded in
the arm the day before, while defending the passage of a creek, my
conviction was strengthened by this circumstance, that the body before
us was that of Tecumseh."
The reader will decide for himself how far this testimony sustains the
plea that has been raised for colonel Whitley. It is certainly clear
and to the point, and presents a plausible case in support of his
claim.
Mr. David King is the other individual to whom reference has been made
as entitled to the credit of having killed the great Shawanoe chief. He
was a private in captain James Davidson's company of mounted men,
belonging to Johnson's corps. The statement given below in support of
King's claim, was written by the editor of the Frankfort (Ky.)
Commentator, and published in that journal in 1831. It is given on the
authority of captain Davidson and his brother, two highly respectable
citizens of Kentucky, both of whom belonged to colonel Johnson's
mounted regiment, and were in the battle of the Thames. We have omitted
the first part of this statement as irrelevant to the point in issue.
"While these things were acting in this part of the field, and towards
the close of the action, which did not last long--for though much was
done, it was done quickly--when the enemy was somewhat thinned and
considerably scattered, and our men were scattered amongst them, Clark,
one of the men mentioned above, suddenly called out to his comrade,
David King, to 'take care of the Indian that was near to him.' The
warrior turned upon Clark; at the same instant, King fired at him with
Whitley's gun, and lodged the two balls which he knew it was loaded
with, in the chieftain's breast--for when Whitley fell, King threw away
his own gun, and took the better one and the powder horn of the old
Indian fighter. The Indian droped upon King's fire:--'Whoop--by G----'
exclaimed King, 'he was every inch a soldier. I have killed one d----d
yellow bugger,' and passed on. Giles saw this occurrence as well as
Clark, and so did Von Treece--they were all together. From the
commencement of the fight, the voice of an Indian commander had been
distinctly heard and observed by our soldiers. About this time it
ceased, and was heard no more: _Tecumseh was dead._ Presently a cry of
'_how! how!_' was raised among the Indians; upon which they turned and
fled, pursued by our soldiers.
"Upon the return of the volunteers from the pursuit, King proposed to
Sam Davidson, his friend and relative, and to other comrades, to go
round with him by the spot where he had killed the Indian, because he
wanted to get his fine leggins. They had noticed a particular tree and
a log, near to which the Indian fell. They found the tree without
difficulty, but the body was not discovered quite so readily; but King
insisted that it must be somewhere thereabouts. Sam Davidson first
discovered it. It was lying behind a tree, face downward. '_Here he
is_,' said Davidson, 'but I see no wound upon him.' '_Roll him over_,'
said King, 'and if it is my Indian, you will find two bullet holes in
his left breast.' It was done; and there were the two bullet holes, an
inch apart, just below the left pap--the same, no doubt, where King's
balls had entered. The Indian, from his dress, was evidently a chief.
His fanciful leggins, (King's main object in hunting out the body,) his
party-colored worsted sash, his pistols, his two dirks, all his dress
and equipments, were the _undisputed_ spoils of King. He kept one of
the dirks, the sash, and moccasins for himself; the rest he distributed
as presents among his messmates.
"Now, _it was this very Indian_, which was afterwards identified by
those who had known him, as TECUMSEH--_this and no other_."
This testimony, coming as it does from a highly respectable quarter,
would seem to be conclusive in favor of the claim of King. It contains,
however, statements which, if true, greatly weaken its force; and,
indeed, in our opinion, dissipate at once the idea that the Indian
killed by King was Tecumseh. The narrative states that "the Indian,
from his dress, was evidently a chief. His fanciful leggins, his
party-colored worsted sash, his pistols, his two dirks, all his dress
and equipments, were the undisputed spoils of King." Now, if there be
any one fact connected with the fall of Tecumseh which is fully and
fairly established upon unimpeachable authority, it is, that he entered
the battle of the Thames, dressed in the ordinary deerskin garb of his
tribe. There was nothing in his clothes, arms or ornaments, indicating
him to have been a chief. On this point the testimony of Anthony Shane
is explicit; and his statement is confirmed by colonel Baubee of the
British army, who was familiarly acquainted with Tecumseh. This
officer, the morning after the action, stated to one of the aids of
general Harrison, that he saw Tecumseh just before the battle
commenced, and that he was clothed in his usual plain deer-skin dress,
and in that garb took his position in the Indian line, where he
heroically met his fate. The testimony in favor of Mr. King's claim,
while it proves very satisfactorily that he killed an Indian, is
equally conclusive, we think, in establishing the fact that that Indian
was not the renowned Tecumseh.
With the statement of one other person, upon this vexed question, we
shall take our final leave of it. Major William Oliver, of Cincinnati,
in a communication to the author, under date of 23d December, 1840,
says:--
"In 1819, I lodged with Anthony Shane, at what was then called 'the
Second Crossing of the St. Mary's.' I had known Shane intimately for a
long time, indeed, from my first settlement at fort Wayne, in 1806. In
speaking of the battle of the Thames, and the fall of Tecumseh, he
said, the most authentic information he had obtained upon this point,
was from two brothers of his wife, who were in the battle, and near the
person of Tecumseh when he fell. They stated, in positive terms, that
Tecumseh was shot by a private of the Kentucky troops; and Shane seemed
so well satisfied with the truth of their statement, that he informed
me it was entitled to belief."
To John Johnston, of Piqua, late Indian agent, and others, Shane, at
this early period, expressed the opinion that Tecumseh did not fall by
the hands of the commander of the mounted regiment. The reader of this
volume will recollect, that long subsequent to the period when these
opinions were expressed, and upon the eve of a political campaign, in
which colonel R.M. Johnson was a candidate for a high and honorable
office, Anthony Shane is represented by the reverend O.B. Brown, as
having stated to him his belief, that Tecumseh did meet his death by a
shot from the colonel. Shane, who, we believe, is now deceased,
sustained, through life, a character for integrity. Whether, in his
latter years, his memory had failed him, by which he was led to express
these contradictory opinions, or whether Mr. Brown misunderstood the
import of his language, when talking upon this matter, we shall not
undertake to decide. The reader who feels an interest in the point at
issue will settle the question for himself, whether, under the peculiar
circumstances of the case, the early or late declarations of Shane were
the genuine expression of his belief on this subject.