In the interval between the 8th and 14th, every intrigue was employed to

create discord among the members of the Opposition, and to bring about a

coalition under the presidency of Lord North, and a resolution was moved

to that effect, which was lost by a majority of only nine.

The Earl of Surrey gave notice that on the morning of the 20th inst. he

would move, in substance, Lord John Cavendish's resolution directly

condemnatory of the Ministry. On that morning Lord North and the Earl of

Surrey rose at the same moment, and neither would give way to the other.

The general cry was "Lord Surrey, and no adjournment." As soon as the

House could be reduced to order, it was moved "That the Earl of Surrey

be now heard," when Lord North, having obtained the right to speak,

said, "I rise to speak to the motion before the House." He observed that

had he been suffered to proceed before, he believed much unnecessary

heat and disorder would have been prevented. He meant no disrespect to

the noble earl; but as notice had been given that the object of the

intended motion was the removal of his Majesty's Ministers, he meant to

have acquainted the House that such a motion had become unnecessary. He

could assure the House with authority that _the present Administration

was no more_, and that his Majesty had come to a full determination of

changing his Ministers; and that it was for the purpose of giving

necessary time for new arrangements that he meant to have moved an

adjournment.

The noble lord then took leave of the House as a Minister of the Crown,

and with many kind and courteous words thanked them for the honourable

support they had given him during so long a course of years.[56]

By such blows following each other in the Commons, in rapid succession

and with accelerated force, was driven from power an Administration

which had inflicted greater evils upon the Crown, the constitution, the

people of England and of the colonies, than any Administration since the

Revolution of 1688.[57]

[Footnote 49: It appears, however, that in the first consultation, which

"took place at Weathersfield, between Generals Washington, Knox, and Du

Portail on the part of the Americans, and Count de Rochambeau and the

Chevalier Chastellux on the part of the French, it was agreed to lay

siege to New York in concert with the French fleet, which was to arrive

on the coast in the month of August. Washington addressed letters to the

executive officers of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New

Jersey, requiring them to fill up their battalions, and to have their

quotas of six thousand two hundred militia in readiness within a week

after the time they might be called for. But all these States not adding

five hundred men to Washington's army, Sir Henry Clinton having received

a reinforcement of three thousand Germans, and intelligence having been

received that Count de Grasse, with a French fleet of twenty-eight ships

and seven thousand troops (besides seamen), had sailed for the

Chesapeake, Washington and Count de Rochambeau changed their plan of

operations and determined to proceed to Virginia, and, in combination

with the French fleet and soldiers, to capture the army under the

command of Earl Cornwallis in Virginia. The appearance of an intention

to attack New York was nevertheless kept up. While this deception was

played off, the allied army crossed the North River on August 24th, and

passed on by the way of Philadelphia through the intermediate country to

Yorktown, Virginia. An attempt to reduce the British force in Virginia

promised success with more expedition, and to secure an object of nearly

equal importance to the reduction of New York." (Ramsay's History of the

United States, Vol. II., Chap. xxv., pp. 448-451.)]

[Footnote 50: Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap.

xxv., pp. 450, 451.]

[Footnote 51: Lord Mahon's History of England, etc., Vol. VII., Chap.

lxiv., p. 172.

"On the other hand, Lord Cornwallis is admitted to have shown most

undaunted resolution. The officers under him, and the troops, German and

English, all did their duty well. For some weeks they had laboured hard,

and unremittingly, in raising their defences; and they were now prepared

with equal spirit to maintain their half-completed works. But besides

the enemy without, they had another within--an epidemic sickness, that

stretched many hundreds helpless in their pallet-beds. Nor could they

hinder Washington from completing his first parallel and opening his

fire upon them in the evening of the 9th of October. For two days the

fire was incessant from heavy cannon, and from mortars and howitzers,

throwing shells in showers on the town, until, says Cornwallis, all our

guns on the left were silenced, our works much damaged, and our loss of

men considerable. By these shells, also, the _Charon_, a ship of

forty-four guns, together with three British transports in the river,

were set in flames and consumed."--_Ib._, p. 173.]

[Footnote 52: Before the investment of Yorktown, Lord Cornwallis sent a

despatch to Sir Henry Clinton, informing him of the delicacy and danger

of his situation, and requesting reinforcements. On the evening of the

29th of September, Lord Cornwallis was cheered by the arrival of an

express, bringing despatches from Sir Henry Clinton, dated the 24th,

informing him that by the 5th of October a fleet of twenty-three sail of

the line, three of which were three-deckers, with 5,000 men, rank and

file, would start for his assistance. The auxiliary forces at New York

were ready and eager to depart by the 5th of October; but the ships were

delayed by the slowness and obstinacy of Admiral Arbuthnot. Sir Henry

Clinton writes: "We had the misfortune to see almost every succeeding

day produce some naval obstruction or other to protract our departure;

and I am sorry to add, that it was the afternoon of the 19th before the

fleet was fairly at sea. This was the day of Lord Cornwallis's

capitulation. Five days afterwards the fleet with the 5,000 troops

arrived off the Chesapeake, when they received the news of the surrender

of Lord Cornwallis, and sailed back to New York. Had these auxiliary

forces started from New York at the time promised, the siege of Yorktown

would have been raised, the allied army defeated, and Lord Cornwallis

and his little army would have been victors instead of prisoners."]

[Footnote 53: Lord Mahon's History of England, etc., Vol. VII., Chap.

lxiv., pp. 177, 178.

"The officers were to retain their side arms and private property of

every kind, but all property obviously belonging to inhabitants of the

United States to be subject to be reclaimed; the soldiers to be supplied

with the same rations as were allowed to soldiers in the service of

Congress. Cornwallis endeavoured to obtain permission for the British

and German troops to return to their respective countries, under no

other restrictions than an engagement not to serve against France or

America. He also tried to obtain an indemnity for those of the

inhabitants who had joined him; but he was obliged to recede from the

former, and also to consent that the loyalists in his camp should be

given up to the unconditional mercy of their countrymen. His lordship,

nevertheless, obtained (from Washington) permission for the _Bonetta_

sloop of war to pass unexamined to New York. This gave an opportunity of

screening such of the loyalists as were most obnoxious to the

Americans." (Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap.

xxv., pp. 454, 455.)

"The regular troops of France and America, employed in this siege,

consisted of about 7,000 of the former (besides ships and seamen), and

5,500 of the latter; and they were assisted by about 4,000 militia. The

troops of every kind that surrendered prisoners of war were about 7,000;

but so great was the number of the sick and wounded, that there were

only 3,800 capable of bearing arms."--_Ib._, p. 455.]

[Footnote 54: During the discussion on this question, it had been argued

that the Americans are fed, clothed, and paid by France; they are led on

by French officers; the French and the American armies are incorporated

into one; it was merely a locality that should give name to a war.

France had formerly been fought with success in Germany, and there could

be no solid objection to fighting her in America. General Conway argued

that French troops did not cost more than £40 per man a year, while the

expense of the English troops cost £100 per man a year. General Conway

reminded the House that though seventy-three thousand men were voted and

paid for, we had never above half that number in actual service.

Government had, therefore, only to complete the regiments, and they

would have more men in America than ever they had before. (Annual

Register of Parliament for 1782, pp. 158-161.)]

[Footnote 55: Annual Register of Parliament for 1782, Vol. XXIX., p.

173.]

[Footnote 56: Abridged from the Parliamentary Register for 1782, Vol.

XXV., Chap. vii. See also Lord Mahon's History of England, etc., Vol.

VII., Chap. lxv.

Lord Mahon concludes his account of this Administration as follows:

"Thus ended Lord North's Administration of twelve years. It is certainly

strange, on contemplating these twelve years, to find so many harsh and

rigorous measures proceed from the most gentle and good-humoured of

Prime Ministers. Happy, had but greater firmness in maintaining his own

opinions been joined to so much ability in defending opinions even when

not his own.

"Even as to the disasters and miscarriages, however, which could not be

denied in his Administration, the friends of Lord North contended that

in truth he was not answerable for them. The points in his favour were

argued a few days before his fall by Mr. George Onslow in the House of

Commons. 'Why,' said Mr. Onslow, 'have we in this war with America such

ill success? Mainly,' he continued, 'from the support and countenance

given in that House to American rebellion. The army of Washington had

been called by the Opposition "our army;" the cause of the Americans had

been called "the cause of liberty;" and one gentleman (this was Mr.

Burke), while lavishing his praises on Dr. Franklin and Mr. Laurens, had

declared he would prefer a prison with them to freedom in company with

those who were supporting the cause of England.' But this vindication,

though spirited, nay, though true, is faulty; because, though true, it

is not the whole truth; because it overlooks what no statesman

should--the certainty that when free principles are at stake,

dissensions will always arise in a free country."--_Ib._, pp. 209, 210.]

[Footnote 57: I have not a shadow of doubt, that had the leaders in

Congress adhered to their pretensions of contending and fighting for

British constitutional rights, as aforetime, instead of renouncing those

rights and declaring Independence in 1776, the changes which took place

in the Administration in England in 1783 would have taken place in 1777;

for the corrupt Administration showed as strong symptoms of decline, and

was as manifestly "tottering to its fall" in the parliamentary session

which commenced in 1776, as it did in the session which commenced in

1782. In both cases its predictions and assured successes had been

completely falsified; in both cases the indignation of the nation was

aroused against the Administration, and the confidence of Parliament was

on the point of being withdrawn in 1776-77, as it was withdrawn in the

session of 1782-83; but in 1776, the Congress, instead of adhering to

its heretofore professed principles, was induced by its leaders, as

related in Chapter xxvi., to renounce its former principles; to falsify

all its former professions to its advocates in England and

fellow-subjects in America; to renounce the maintenance of the

constitutional rights of British subjects; to adopt a Declaration of

Independence, of eternal separation from England; to extinguish the

national life of the British empire and the unity of the Anglo-Saxon

race, and seek an alliance with their own and Great Britain's hereditary

enemies for a war upon their mother country, which had protected them

for a hundred years against the French and Spaniards, who had also

employed and rewarded the Indians to destroy them.]

CHAPTER XXXI.

CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATION IN ENGLAND--CHANGE OF POLICY FOR BOTH ENGLAND

AND THE COLONIES--PEACE NEGOTIATIONS AT PARIS--THE CAUSE OF THE UNITED

EMPIRE LOYALISTS.

During the adjournment of Parliament from the 24th to the 28th of March,

the new Administration was formed, and announced in the Commons on the

28th, when the House adjourned over the Easter holidays, to give time

for the re-election of such members as had accepted office. The King

first sent for the Earl of Shelburne to form a new Administration,

naming some members of it; but the Earl of Shelburne declined, as unable

to form an Administration upon such conditions, and recommended the King

to send for the Marquis of Rockingham. The King refused to see

Rockingham face to face, but requested Shelburne to be the bearer of a

message to him; but Shelburne only consented on the condition of "full

power and full confidence." "Necessity," relates the King, "made me

yield to the advice of Lord Shelburne." Before accepting the offer of

First Lord of the Treasury, the Marquis of Rockingham, without

neglecting some minor matters, stipulated that there should be no veto

to the independence of America.[58] But it was nearly three months

before an Act passed the Commons authorizing peace with America, and

the acknowledgment of American Independence, and it was nearly a year

before the treaty for that purpose was agreed upon.

In the meantime, "Immediately before the fall of Lord North's Ministry,

in anticipation of that event, Dr. Franklin had written from Paris to

Lord Shelburne with general expressions of his pacific views. On

receiving that letter, Lord Shelburne, then Secretary of State, sent to

Paris, as agent, Mr. Richard Oswald, a London merchant well versed in

American affairs. Dr. Franklin readily conferred with Mr. Oswald, and

put into his hands a paper drawn up by himself, suggesting that, in

order to produce a thorough reconciliation, and to prevent any future

quarrel on the North American continent, England should not only

acknowledge the thirteen united States, but concede to them the Province

of Canada. Such a project was not likely to find favour in the eyes of

any British statesman. Mr. Oswald, however, undertook to return to

England and lay it before his chief, Dr. Franklin, at his departure,

expressing an earnest hope that all future communications to himself

might pass through the same hands.

"Under these circumstances, the Cabinet determined that Mr. Oswald

should go back to France and carry on the treaty with Franklin, though

by no means with such concessions as the American philosopher

desired."[59]

After the termination of hostilities between Great Britain and the

colonies, the American Commissioners evinced a desire to treat with

England alone. Mr. Oswald, as early as July, 1782, wrote privately to

Lord Shelburne, "The Commissioners of the colonies have shown a desire

to treat and to end with us on a separate footing from the other

Powers." "The separate negotiation thus arising was delayed," says Lord

Mahon, "first by the severe illness of Dr. Franklin, and next by some

points of form in the commission of Mr. Oswald. When at length the more

solid part of the negotiation was commenced, the hints of Franklin for

the cession of Canada were quietly dropped, with greater case from their

having been transmitted in a confidential form. It is also worthy of

note that Lord Shelburne prevailed, in his desire of acknowledging the

independence of the United States, by an article of the treaty, and not,

as Mr. Fox had wished, by a previous declaration."

The two most difficult questions of the treaty related to the fishing

grounds of Newfoundland, and the Loyalists or "Tories," as they were

called. The English were unwilling to concede the use of the fishing

grounds, but the Americans were firm; the result was, that by the

provisions of the treaty it was agreed that the Americans should have

the right to take fish on the banks of Newfoundland, but not to dry or

cure them on any of the King's settled dominions.[60]

But the question which transcended all others in importance, with which

this work has chiefly to do, was that of the Loyalists--a class which,

by the testimony of American historians themselves, constituted, at the

beginning of the war, a majority of the population of the colonies.

Their numbers had been greatly reduced from various causes during the

war; they had been plundered and scattered by the alternate ascendancy

of opposite parties; they had all of them suffered in their property and

liberty; many of them had suffered imprisonment, and not a few of them

had been executed as criminals for preferring their oath of allegiance

and connection with the mother country to a renunciation of their former

profession of faith, and absolute submission to a newly self-created

authority of rule and a new political creed. At the conclusion of the

war, and in the treaty of peace, "the question of Loyalists or Tories,"

says Lord Mahon, "was, as it ought to be, a main object with the British

Government to obtain, if possible, some restitution to the men who, in

punishment for their continued allegiance to the King, had found their

property confiscated and their persons banished. But from the first Dr.

Franklin held out no hopes of any satisfaction on that point. 'The

Commissioners,' he said, 'had no such power, nor had even Congress.'[61]

They were willing that Congress should, with certain modifications,

recommend those indemnities to the several States; and, as one of the

negotiators from England tells us, they to the last 'continued to assert

that the recommendation of Congress would have the effect we proposed.'

The British diplomatists persevered in their original demand, and at one

time there seemed a probability that the negotiations might break off,

chiefly on this ground. Twice was Mr. Strachey, the Undersecretary of

State, an able and experienced man, dispatched to Paris to aid Mr.

Oswald with his counsel and co-operation. But at last the mind of

Franklin, ever ingenious and fertile of resources, devised a counter

scheme. He said that he would allow the losses which the Loyalists had

suffered, provided another account were opened of the mischief they had

done, as of slaves carried off, or houses burned; new Commissioners to

be appointed to strike a balance between the two computations. At this

formidable proposal, involving an endless train of discussions and

disputes, the negotiators from England finally gave way."[62]

This account of the negotiation in regard to the United Empire

Loyalists, taken from Lord Mahon's impartial history, is corroborated in

all essential particulars by American historians. Mr. Bancroft says that

"Franklin having already explained that nothing could be done for the

Loyalists by the United States, as their estates had been confiscated by

laws of particular States, which Congress had no power to repeal, he

further demonstrates that Great Britain had forfeited every right to

intercede for them by its conduct and example, to which end he read to

Oswald the orders of the British in Carolina for confiscating and

selling the lands and property of all patriots under the direction of

the military; and he declared definitely that, though the separate

governments might show compassion where it was deserved, the American

Commissioners for Peace could not make compensation of refugees a part

of the treaty."

"This last demand (adequate indemnity for the confiscated property of

loyal refugees) touched alike the sympathy and the sense of honour of

England. The previous answer, that the Commissioners had no power to

treat on the business of the Loyalists, was regarded as an allegation

that though they claimed to have full power, they were not

plenipotentiaries; that they were acting under thirteen separate

sovereignties, which had no common head. To meet the exigence, Shelburne

proposed either an extension of Nova Scotia to the Penobscot, or

Kennebec, or the Saco, so that a province might be formed for the

reception of Loyalists; or that a part of the money to be received from

sales of the Ohio lands might be applied to their subsistence."

"On the 29th of November, 1782, Strachey, Oswald, and Fitzherbert, on

the one side, and Jay, Franklin, Adams, and for the first time Laurens,

on the other, came together for their last word at the apartments of

Jay. The American Commissioners agreed that there should be no future

confiscations nor prosecutions of Loyalists, that all pending

prosecutions should be discontinued, and that Congress should recommend

to the several States and their Legislatures, on behalf of refugees,

amnesty and the restitution of their confiscated property." "On the

30th, the Commissioners of both countries signed and sealed fair copies

of the Convention." "The treaty was not a compromise, nor a compact

imposed by force, but a free and perfect solution and perpetual

settlement of all that had been called in question."[63]

Dr. Ramsay observes: "From the necessity of the case, the Loyalists were

sacrificed, nothing further than a simple recommendation for restitution

being stipulated in their favour. * * The case of the Loyalists was

undoubtedly a hard one, but unavoidable from the complex Constitution of

the United States. The American Ministers engaged, as far as they were

authorized, and Congress did all they constitutionally could; but this

was no more than simply to recommend their case to the several States,

for the purpose of making them restitution. To have insisted on more,

under such circumstances, would have been equivalent to saying that

there should be no peace. It is true, much more was expected from the

recommendations of Congress than resulted from them; but this was not

the consequence of deception, but of misunderstanding the principles of

the confederation. In conformity to the letter and spirit of the treaty,

Congress urged, in strong terms, the propriety of making restitution to

the Loyalists, but to procure it was beyond their power. * * There were

doubtless among the Loyalists many worthy characters, friends of peace

and lovers of justice. To such restitution was undoubtedly due, and to

many such it was made; but it is one of the many calamities incident to

war, that the innocent, from the impossibility of discrimination, are

often involved in the same distress with the guilty.

"The return of the Loyalists to their former places of residence was as

much disrelished by the Whig citizens of America as the proposal for

reimbursing their confiscated property. In sundry places Committees were

formed, who, in an arbitrary manner, opposed their peaceable residence.

The sober and dispassionate citizens exerted themselves in checking

these irregular measures; but such was the violence of party spirit, and

so relaxed were the sinews of government, that, in opposition to legal

authority and the private interference of the judicious and moderate,

many indecent outrages were committed on the persons and property of the

returning Loyalists.

"Nor were these all the sufferings of those Americans who had attached

themselves to the royal cause. Being compelled to depart from their

native country, many of them were obliged to take up their abodes in the

inhospitable wilds of Nova Scotia, or on the barren shores of the Bahama

Islands. Parliamentary relief was extended to them; but this was

obtained with difficulty, and distributed with a partial hand. Some, who

invented plausible tales of loyalty and distress, received much more

than they ever possessed; while others, less artful, were not half

reimbursed for their actual losses."[64]

Mr. Hildreth remarks, under date of September, 1783, "that at New York a

general release of prisoners had taken place on both sides; but the

necessity of finding transports for the numerous Loyalists assembled

there protracted the evacuation of New York. In consequence of laws

still in force against them, several thousand American Loyalists found

it necessary to abandon their country. A considerable portion of these

exiles belonged to the wealthier classes; they had been officials,

merchants, large landholders, conspicuous members of the colonial

aristocracy. Those from the North settled principally in Nova Scotia or

Canada, provinces the politics of which their descendants continued to

control until quite recently. Those from the South found refuge in the

Bahamas and other West India islands. Still objects of great popular

odium, the Loyalists had little to expect from the stipulated

recommendations of Congress in their favour. Some of the States, whose

territory had been longest and most recently occupied by the enemy, were

even inclined to enact new confiscations."[65]

In each and all of these historical statements it is clearly admitted

that the claim of the Loyalists to compensation for loss of property was

founded in equity, as well as in national policy. This is sanctioned by

the admission of the American Commissioners and the recommendation of

Congress. The want of power in Congress to do what is admitted to be an

act of justice to the Loyalists is the plea for not restoring them the

property which had gone into the hands of their opponents, who were

proportionally enriched thereby. It was left to local avarice and local

resentment to deal with the property of banished exiles.

What was claimed by and in behalf of the Loyalists accorded with the

practice of even modern nations, as well as with the sentiments of

humanity. When the Dutch provinces asserted their independence of Spain,

and after a long and bloody war obtained the recognition of it, they

cordially agreed to an act of oblivion, and even restored to those who

had adhered to the cause of Spain, their property of every denomination

that had been confiscated, or the full value of it. Even Spain herself

had twice thus acted towards the province of Catalonia--first, on its

revolting from that Crown, and calling in the assistance of France; and

secondly, on its refusing to acknowledge the Bourbon family, at the

beginning of the last century. Though the inhabitants had forfeited life

and property, yet, on their return to obedience, life, possessions, laws

and immunities remained inviolate. England had conducted herself in the

same spirit towards that party in Ireland which had taken up arms in

support of James the Second. No proscriptions took place, and every man,

on submitting to Government, was admitted to the undisturbed enjoyment

of his property. Had this spirit actuated, and these examples, with many

others of like character, influenced the Americans, how much more

honourable to them, and more consistent with sound policy, to efface at

once all remembrance of internal discords, than to pursue, in the

execrable spirit of revenge and avarice, those of their countrymen who

differed from them in opinion in the late contest, and sided with Great

Britain.[66] That the plea that Congress had no power in granting

amnesty and compensation to the Loyalists was a mere pretext, is

manifest from the fact that the Commissioners agreed that there should

be no more confiscations or proscriptions against the Loyalists; for if

the laws under which these prosecutions were instituted and

confiscations made were State laws, with which Congress had no power to

interfere, how could the Congress Commissioners stipulate that there

should be no more confiscations or proscriptions?

Dr. Franklin, the most experienced and ablest of the American

diplomatists, was the most crafty and overbearing against England. At

the beginning of the negotiations for peace, he demurely proposed, and

half converted Mr. Oswald to his proposition, to concede Canada (which

at that time meant all British North America) to the United States,

though his commission related simply to the independency of the thirteen

colonies; and when the British Cabinet vetoed this extra-official and

extravagant proposition, Dr. Franklin and his colleagues overreached the

ignorance and weakness of the British diplomatists by carefully

constructed maps for the purpose of making the boundary lines between

the proposed possessions of Great Britain and the United States on their

northern and north-western frontiers. These lines were so ingeniously

drawn as to take from Great Britain and include in the United States the

immense and valuable territories, back settlements, and the whole

country between the Alleghany Mountains and the Mississippi, and which

have since become the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa,

Wisconsin, Missouri, Michigan, Minnesota, etc.--to not one foot of which

the thirteen American colonies had the slightest claim--territories

ample to compensate Loyalists for their losses and banishment, but whose

interests, together with these most valuable possessions, were lost to

Great Britain by the subserviency of the British Commissioner, Oswald (a

London and American merchant), who looked to his own interests, and was

the subservient tool and echo of Dr. Franklin. The above territories

were a part of the domain of Congress, irrespective of any State, and

therefore at the absolute disposal of Congress. Yet, with these immense

accessions of resources, the American Commissioners professed that the

Congress had no power or means to compensate the United Empire Loyalists

for the confiscation and destruction of their property! One knows not at

which most to marvel--the boldness, skill, and success of the American

Commissioners, or the cowardice, ignorance, and recklessness of the

British diplomatists.

The result of these negotiations was, that the adherents to Great

Britain during the civil war were deprived of the amnesty and

restoration of property upon any ground of right, as had been granted at

the termination of civil strife by all civilized nations--to the

restoration of what had been taken from them during the war--and turned

over as suppliant culprits to the several States by whose laws their

property had been confiscated, and themselves declared guilty of

treason, and condemned to the death of traitors. Dr. Franklin, in the

beginning of his negotiations, had proposed to give all that now

constitutes British North America to the United States, and thus leave

to the British Loyalists not an inch of ground on which to place their

feet; but all that was now left to them, as far as America was

concerned, was to prostrate themselves as suppliants before the

Legislatures of the several States, each of which was for the most part

a seething cauldron of passion and resentment against them.[67]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 58: The new Cabinet was composed as follows: The Marquis of

Rockingham, First Commissioner of the Treasury; the Earl of Shelburne

and Mr. Fox, Secretaries of State; Lord Camden, President of the

Council; Duke of Grafton, Privy Seal; Lord John Cavendish, Chancellor of

the Exchequer; Admiral Keppel, raised to be a Viscount, First

Commissioner of the Admiralty; General Conway, Commander of the Forces;

Duke of Richmond, Master General of the Ordnance. Lord Thurlow was

continued in the office of Lord High Chancellor, and Mr. Dunning raised

to the peerage under the title of Lord Ashburton, as Chancellor of the

Duchy of Lancaster. Mr. Burke was not made a member of the Cabinet, but

was appointed to the lucrative office of Paymaster of the Forces, and

was further gratified by the appointment of his son to a small office.

About six months after the formation of the new Cabinet the Marquis of

Rockingham died, and the Earl of Shelburne was appointed to succeed him,

when the Duke of Richmond, Mr. Fox, and Lord John Cavendish seceded from

the Cabinet, and were succeeded by Mr. Thomas Townsend and Lord Graham

as Secretaries of State, while the place of Lord John Cavendish, as

Chancellor of the Exchequer, was more than filled by Mr. Pitt.]

[Footnote 59: Lord Mahon's History of England, etc., Vol. VII., Chap

lxvi., pp. 265, 266.

"At Paris, the negotiations had been much impeded by the resignation of

Mr. Fox and the return of Grenville. These events had, in many minds,

cast a shade of doubt over the true intentions of the British

Government. Lord Shelburne, however, renewed the most pacific

assurances, sending to Paris, in place of Mr. Grenville and conjointly

with Mr. Oswald, Mr. Alleyne Fitzherbert, well known in after years as

Lord St. Helens. These gentlemen acted in amity and concert with each

other, although, strictly speaking, negotiation with America was, as

before, the province of Mr. Oswald, and negotiation with the European

Powers the province of Mr. Fitzherbert. Dr. Franklin, on the other hand,

had associated with him three other American Commissioners, arriving in

succession--first, Mr. Jay, from Spain; then Mr. Adams, from Holland;

and finally, Mr. Laurens, from London.

"It became, ere long, apparent to the British agents that the Courts of

France and Spain were by no means earnest and sincere in the wish for an

immediate close of the war. With the hope of soon reducing Gibraltar, or

of otherwise depressing England, they put forward at this time either

inadmissible pretensions, or vague and ambiguous words. It therefore

became an object of great importance to negotiate, if possible, a

separate pacification with America. At first sight there appeared almost

insuperable difficulties in the way of such a scheme. The treaty of

alliance of February, 1778, between France and the United States,

stipulated in the most positive terms that neither party should conclude

a peace or truce with England, unless with the consent of the other

party first obtained. Since that time the French, far from falling short

of their engagement, had gone much beyond it. To say nothing of their

despatch of a fleet and army, and besides their annual loans and

advances to the United States, they had made, in 1781, a free gift of

six millions of livres, and in the spring of 1782 granted another to the

same amount.

"On the other hand, however, there was a strong temptation to treat

without delay. War, if still waged, would be mainly for French and

Spanish purposes. It could be made clear that when the independence of

the Americans was fully established and secured, they had no interest

anymore than England in continuing an unprofitable contest."--_Ib._, pp.

291-293.

"Moreover, there had sprung up in the minds of the American

Commissioners at Paris a strong feeling of distrust and suspicion

against their new allies. That feeling we find most plainly expressed by

Mr. Adams in relating his own conversations with Mr. Oswald. 'You are

afraid,' said Mr. Oswald to-day, 'of being made the tools of the Powers

of Europe?' 'Indeed I am,' said I. 'What Powers?' said he. 'All of

them,' said I.

"But in the minds of the American Commissioners, the distrust against

France was more vehement than against any other State. The best American

writers of the present day acknowledge that all surmises thence arising

were, in truth, ill-founded; that the conduct of France towards the

United States had been marked throughout not only by good faith and

honour, but by generosity." (Lord Mahon's History of England, etc., Vol.

VII., Chap. lxvi., pp. 293, 294.)]

[Footnote 60: In the preamble of the treaty, it was provided that "The

treaty was not to be concluded until terms of peace shall be agreed upon

between Great Britain and France." By this limitation (which was a mere

form, as the provisional articles were to be meanwhile binding and

effective), the Americans were in hopes of avoiding, at least of

softening, their French allies. "The first Article acknowledged in the

fullest terms the independence of the United States. The second fixed

their boundaries, and certainly to their advantage. The third gave their

people the right to take fish on all the banks of Newfoundland, but not

to dry or cure them on any of the King's settled dominions in America.

By the fourth, fifth, and sixth Articles, it was engaged that Congress

should earnestly recommend to the several Legislatures to provide for

the restitution of all estates belonging to real British subjects who

had not borne arms against them. All other persons were to be at liberty

to go to any of the provinces and remain there for twelve months to wind

up their affairs, the Congress also recommending the restitution of

their confiscated property, on their repayment of the sums for which

they had been sold. No impediment was to be put in the way of recovering

_bona fide_ debts; no further prosecutions were to be commenced, no

further confiscations made. It was likewise stipulated in the seventh

and eighth Articles, that the English should at once withdraw their

fleets and armies from every port or place which they still possessed

within the limits of the United States; and that the navigation of the

Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, should be for ever free and

open to both parties." (Lord Mahon's History, etc., Vol. VII., Chap.

lxvi., pp. 297, 298.)

"It is not to be supposed that the French Government could view with

unconcern the studied secrecy of this negotiation. The appearances of

amity were, indeed, for the sake of mutual interest, kept up on either

side. But thus did the Comte de Vergennes (the French Minister of

Foreign Affairs) unbosom himself in writing to the French Minister at

Philadelphia: 'You will surely be gratified, as well as myself, with the

very extensive advantages which our allies, the Americans, are to

receive from the peace; but you certainly will not be less surprised

than I have been with the conduct of the commissioners. * * They have

cautiously kept themselves at a distance from me. Whenever I have had

occasion to see any one of them, and enquire of them briefly respecting

the progress of the negotiation, they have constantly clothed their

speech in generalities, giving me to understand that it did not go

forward, and that they had no confidence in the sincerity of the British

Ministry. Judge of my surprise when, on the 30th of November, Dr.

Franklin informed me that Articles were signed. The reservation retained

on our account does not save the infraction of the promise which we have

made to each other, not to sign except conjointly. * * This negotiation

has not yet so far advanced in regard to ourselves as that of the United

States; not but what the King, if he had shown as little delicacy in his

proceedings as the American Commissioners, might have signed articles

with England long before them.'"--_Ib._, pp. 298, 299.]

[Footnote 61: It was self-contradictory to say that Congress had power

to confiscate property, and yet had no power to restore it when

confiscated.]

[Footnote 62: Lord Mahon's History of England, etc., Vol. VII., Chap.

lxvi., pp 295, 296.]

[Footnote 63: History of the United States, Vol. X., Chap, xxix., pp.

555, 583, 589, 590, 591.]

[Footnote 64: Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap,

xxvii., pp. 489, 490, 491.]

[Footnote 65: Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap,

xlv., p. 439.]

[Footnote 66: The royal historian, Dr. Andrews, remarks strongly on this

subject as follows:

"The demands of restitution to the Loyalists of their property

confiscated during the war, for their attachment to our cause, had been

refused by the American Commissioners, on pretence that neither they,

nor Congress itself, could comply with it, any farther than by

recommendation of it to the different States. The demand was in itself

so just, and founded on so many historical precedents, that Congress

could not possibly plead a want of foresight that it would be made. It

had been usual in all ages, on the cessation of civil war, to grant a

general amnesty. No other motive but that of the basest and most

barbarous revenge could induce men to express an averseness to so humane

and necessary a measure. Next to the cruelty of such a refusal was the

meanness of those who submitted to it.

"Circumstances empowered this nation to have acted with such firmness as

to compel the Americans to relax their obstinacy in this particular.

Until they had consented to a generous treatment of the Loyalists, we

ought to have withheld the restitution of the many strong places still

remaining in our hands, and made the surrender of them the price of

their acquiescence in our demands in favour of the brave and faithful

people who had suffered so much on our account." (Dr. Andrews' History

of the Late War, Vol. IV., pp. 401, 402.)

"All parties in the Commons unanimously demanded amnesty and indemnity

for the Loyalists." (Bancroft, Vol. X., Chap, xxix., p. 586.)]

[Footnote 67: Dr. Ramsay justly remarks: "The operation of treason laws

added to the calamities of the war. Individuals on both sides, while

they were doing no more than they supposed to be their duty, were

involved in the penal consequences of capital crimes. The Americans, in

conformity to the usual policy of nations, demanded the allegiance of

all who resided among them; but many preferred the late royal

government, and were disposed, when opportunity offered, to support it.

While they acted in conformity to these sentiments, the laws enacted for

the security of the new government condemned them to death. Of all wars,

civil are most to be dreaded. They are attended with the bitterest of

resentments, and produce the greatest quantity of human woes. In the

American war the distresses of the country were greatly aggravated from

the circumstance that every man was obliged, some way or other, to be in

the public service. In Europe, where the military operations are carried

on by armies hired and paid for the purpose, the common people partake

but little of the calamities of the war; but in America, where the whole

people were enrolled as a militia, and where both sides endeavoured to

strengthen themselves by oaths and by laws, denouncing the penalties of

treason on those who aided or abetted the opposite party, the sufferings

of individuals were renewed as often as fortune varied her standard.

Each side claimed the co-operation of the inhabitants, and was ready to

punish them when it was withheld.

"In the first institution of the American governments the boundaries of

authority were not properly fixed. Committees exercised legislative,

executive, and judicial powers. It is not to be doubted that in many

instances these were improperly used, and that private resentments were

often covered under the specious veil of patriotism. The sufferers, in

passing over to the Loyalists, carried with them a keen remembrance of

the vengeance of Committees, and when opportunity presented were tempted

to retaliate. From the nature of the case, the original offenders were

less frequently the objects of retaliation than those who were entirely

innocent. One instance of severity begat another, and they continued to

increase in a proportion that doubled the evils of common war. * * The

Royalists raised the cry of persecution, and loudly complained that,

merely for supporting the Government under which they were born, and to

which they owed a natural allegiance, they were doomed to suffer all the

penalties of capital offenders. Those of them who acted from principle

felt no consciousness of guilt, and could not but look with abhorrence

upon a Government which could inflict such severe punishments for what

they deemed a laudable line of conduct. Humanity would shudder at a

particular recital of the calamities which the Whigs inflicted on the

Tories and the Tories on the Whigs. It is particularly remarkable, that

many on both sides consoled themselves with the belief that they were

acting and suffering in a good cause." (History of the United States,

Vol. II., Chap. xxvi., pp. 467, 468, 469.)]

CHAPTER XXXII.

ORIGIN OF REPUBLICANISM AND HATRED OF MONARCHY IN AMERICA--THOMAS PAINE:

A SKETCH OF HIS LIFE, CHARACTER, AND WRITINGS, AND THEIR EFFECTS.

No social or political phenomenon in the history of nations has been

more remarkable than the sudden transition of the great body of the

American colonists, in 1776, from a reverence and love of monarchical

institutions and of England, in which they had been trained from their

forefathers, to a renunciation of those institutions and a hatred of

England. Whatever influence the oppressive policy of the British

Administration may have had in producing this change, was confined to

comparatively few in America, was little known to the masses, and had

little influence over them. This sudden and marvellous revolution in the

American mind was produced chiefly by a pamphlet of forty pages, written

at the suggestion of two or three leaders of the American

revolutionists, over the signature of "An Englishman." This Englishman

was no other than Thomas Paine, better known in after years as Tom

Paine, "the blasphemous infidel and beastly drunkard," as the New York

_Observer_, in answer to a challenge, proved him to be beyond the

possibility of successful contradiction. Tom Paine was of a Quaker

family; was a staymaker by trade, but an agitator by occupation. He had

obtained an appointment as exciseman, but was dismissed from his office,

and emigrated to America in 1774. He somehow obtained an introduction to

Dr. Franklin in London, who gave him a letter of introduction to a

gentleman in Philadelphia, through whom he procured employment in the

service of a bookseller. Beginning forthwith to write for a leading

newspaper on the agitated questions of the day, his articles attracted

attention and procured him the acquaintance of some influential persons,

and he at length became editor of the "Pennsylvania Magazine." He was

the master of a singularly attractive, lucid, and vituperative style,

scarcely inferior to that of _Junius_ himself. At the suggestion of

Franklin and one or two other leaders of the revolution, he wrote a

pamphlet of forty pages in favour of Independence, entitled "Common

Sense," and over the signature of "An Englishman," yet bitter against

England and English institutions. It was addressed to the inhabitants of

America, and was arranged under four heads: first, "Of the origin and

design of government in general, with concise remarks on the English

Constitution;" secondly, "Of monarchy and hereditary succession;"

thirdly, "Thoughts on the present state of military affairs;" fourth,

"Of the present ability of America, with some miscellaneous

reflections." Mr. Frothingham says: "The portion on Government has

little of permanent value; the glance at the English Constitution is

superficial; and the attack on Monarchy is coarse. The treatment of the

American question under the two last heads gave the pamphlet its

celebrity."[68]

Mr. Gordon says that "No publication so much promoted the cause of

Independence as that. The statements which are now adopted were then

strange, and Paine found difficulty in procuring a publisher to

undertake it."

Dr. Ramsay says: "The style, manner, and language of Thomas Paine's

performance were calculated to interest the passions and to rouse all

the active powers of human nature. With the view of operating on the

sentiments of religious people, Scripture was pressed into his service;

and the powers and name of a king were rendered odious in the eyes of

numerous colonists who had read and studied the history of the Jews, as

recorded in the Old Testament. Hereditary succession was turned into

ridicule. The absurdity of subjecting a great continent to a small

island on the other side of the globe was represented in such striking

language as to interest the honour and pride of the colonists in

renouncing the government of Great Britain. The necessity, the advantage

and practicability of independence were forcibly demonstrated.

"Nothing could be better timed than this performance. It was addressed

to freemen, who had just received convincing proof that Great Britain

had thrown them out of her protection, and engaged foreign mercenaries

to make war upon them, and seriously designed to compel their

unconditional submission to her unlimited power. It found the colonists

most thoroughly alarmed for their liberties, and disposed to do and

suffer anything that promised their establishment. In union with the

feelings and sentiments of the people, it produced surprising effects.

Many thousands were convinced, and were led to approve and long for a

separation from the mother country. Though that measure, a few months

before, was not only foreign to their wishes, but the object of their

abhorrence, the current suddenly became so strong in its favour that it

bore down all opposition. The multitude was hurried down the stream; but

some worthy men could not easily reconcile themselves to the idea of an

eternal separation from a country to which they had long been bound by

the most endearing ties. * * The change of the public mind of America

respecting connection with Great Britain is without a parallel. In the

short space of two years, nearly three millions of people passed over

from the love and duty of loyal subjects to the hatred and resentment of

enemies."[69]

The American press and all the American historians of that day speak of

the electric and marvellous influence of Tom Paine's appeal against

kings, against monarchy, against England, and in favour of American

independence.

The following remarks of the London _Athenæum_ are quoted by the New

York _Observer_ of the 10th of April, 1879:

"A more despicable man than Tom Paine cannot be found among the ready

writers of the eighteenth century. He sold himself to the highest

bidder, and he could be bought at a very low price. He wrote well;

sometimes as pointedly as Junius or Cobbett (who had his bones brought

to England). Neither excelled him in coining telling and mischievous

phrases; neither surpassed him in popularity-hunting. He had the art,

which was almost equal to genius, of giving happy titles to his

productions. When he denounced the British Government in the name of

'Common Sense,' he found willing readers in the rebellious American

colonists, and a rich reward from their grateful representatives. When

he wrote on behalf of the 'Rights of Man,' and in furtherance of the

'Age of Reason,' he convinced thousands by his title-pages who were

incapable of perceiving the inconclusiveness of his arguments. His

speculations have long since gone the way of all shams; and his

charlatanism as a writer was not redeemed by his character as a man.

Nothing could be worse than his private life; he was addicted to the

most degrading vices. He was no hypocrite, however, and he cannot be

charged with showing that respect for appearances which constitute the

homage paid by vice to virtue. Such a man was well qualified for earning

notoriety by insulting Washington. Only a thorough-paced rascal could

have had the assurance to charge Washington with being unprincipled and

unpatriotic."

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 68: Frothingham's Rise of the Republic of the United States,

Chap, xi., p. 472.

The pamphlet was called "Common Sense," and was written by Thomas Paine,

an Englishman, who held and expressed extreme opinions upon the "Rights

of Man." He had been a staymaker in England, and was ruined; when, in

the winter of 1774, by Franklin's advice, he came to America and rapidly

grasped and comprehended the position of affairs. (Elliott's History of

New England, Vol. II., Chap, xxviii., p. 383.)

Referring to this demagogue of the American and French Revolution, his

American biographer, Cheetham, says: "All sects have had their

disgraceful members and offspring. Paine's father, a peaceful and

industrious Quaker, connects him with the exemplary sect of the Friends.

He received his education at the Grammar School of his native place,

Thetford, in Norfolk, but attained to little beyond the rudiments of

Latin. His first application to business was in the trade of his father,

that of staymaker, which he followed in London, Dover, and Sandwich,

where he married; afterwards he became a grocer and an exciseman, at

Lewes, in Sussex. This situation he lost through some misdemeanor. After

this, however, so well were the public authorities of his native country

disposed to serve him, that one of the Commissioners of Excise gave him

a letter of recommendation to Dr. Franklin, then a colonial agent in

London, who recommended him to go to America. At this period he had

first exercised his talents as a writer by drawing up a pamphlet

recommending the advance of the salaries of excisemen.

"His age at this time was thirty-seven. His first engagement in

Philadelphia was with Mr. Aitkin, a respectable bookseller, who, in

January, 1775, commenced the 'Pennsylvania Magazine,' the editorship of

which work became the business of Mr. Paine, who had a salary of £50

currency a year. When Dr. Rush, of Philadelphia, suggested to Paine the

propriety of preparing the Americans for a separation from England, it

seems that he seized with avidity the idea, and immediately commenced

his famous pamphlet on that subject, which being shown in MS. to Doctors

Franklin and Rush and Mr. Samuel Adams, was, after some discussion,

entitled, at the suggestion of Dr. Rush, 'Common Sense.' For this

production the Legislature of Pennsylvania voted him £500. Shortly

afterwards Paine was appointed Secretary to the Committee of the United

States on Foreign Affairs. His business was merely to copy papers,

number and file them, and generally do the duty of what is now called a

clerk in the Foreign Department. But in the title-page of his 'Rights of

Man,' he styles himself 'Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the Congress

of the United States in the Late War.' While in this office, he

published a series of appeals on the struggle between Great Britain and

the colonies. In 1777 he was obliged to resign his secretaryship on

account of a quarrel with Silas Deane, American agent in France. The

next year, however, he obtained the appointment of Clerk to the Assembly

of Pennsylvania; and in 1785, on the rejection of a motion to appoint

him historiographer to the United States, the Congress granted him three

thousand dollars, and the Legislature of New York granted him an estate

of 500 acres of highly cultivated land, the confiscated property of a

Loyalist. Having no more revolutionary occupation in the United States,

he embarked for France in 1787, with a letter of recommendation from Dr.

Franklin to the Duke de la Rochefoucault. From Paris he went to London,

where, the following year, he was arrested for debt, but was bailed by

some American merchants. He went to Paris in 1791 to publish, under the

name of 'Achilles Du Chatellet,' a tract _recommending the abolition of

royalty_. He again returned to London and wrote the first part of his

'Rights of Man,' in answer to Mr. Burke's 'Reflections on the French

Revolution.' The second part was published early in 1792. He was ordered

to be arrested and prosecuted for his seditious and blasphemous

writings, but escaped to France, and was elected a member of the French

National Convention--grateful for the honour which the bloody anarchists

had conferred upon him by electing him a member of their order. His

conduct, however, offended the Jacobins, and towards the close of the

year 1793 he was excluded from the convention, was arrested and

committed to the prison of the Luxembourg. Just before his confinement

he had finished the first part of his 'Age of Reason,' and confided it

to the care of his friend Joel Barlow for publication. He was now taken

ill, to which circumstance he ascribed his escape from the guillotine;

and on the fall of Robespierre was released. In 1795 he published, at

Paris, the second part of his 'Age of Reason.' He returned to America in

1802, bringing with him a woman named Madame Bonneville, whom he had

seduced away from her husband, with her two sons, and whom he seems to

have treated with the utmost meanness and tyranny. His friend and

American biographer, Mr. Cheetham, in continuation, gives the following

account of Paine's arrival at New York in 1802: 'The writer,' says Mr.

Cheetham, 'supposing him (Paine) to be a gentleman, was employed to

engage a room for him at Lovett's hotel, New York. On his arrival, in

1802, about ten at night, he wrote me a note, desiring to see me

immediately. I waited on him at Lovett's, in company with Mr. George

Clinton, jun. We rapped at the door. A small figure opened it within,

meanly dressed, having an old top-coat, without an under one; a dirty

silk handkerchief loosely thrown around his neck, a long beard of more

than a week's growth, a face well carbuncled as the setting sun, and the

whole figure staggering under a load of inebriation. I was on the point

of inquiring for Mr. Paine, when I noticed something of the portraits I

had seen of him. We were desired to be seated. He had before him a small

round table, on which were a beefsteak, some beer, a pint of brandy, a

pitcher of water and a glass. He sat eating, drinking, and talking with

as much composure as if he had lived with us all his life. I soon

perceived that he had a very retentive memory, and was full of anecdote.

The Bishop of Llandaff (Dr. Watson) was almost the first word he

uttered, and it was followed by his informing us that he had in his

trunk a manuscript reply to the bishop's 'Apology for the Bible.' He

then calmly mumbled his steak, and ever and anon drinking his brandy and

beer, repeated the introduction to his reply, which occupied nearly half

an hour. This was done with deliberation and the utmost clearness, and a

perfect apprehension, intoxicated as he was, of all that he repeated.

Scarcely a word would he allow us to speak. He always, I afterwards

found, in all companies, drunk or sober, would be listened to; in his

regard, there were no _rights of men_ with him--no equality, no

reciprocal immunities and obligations--for he would listen to no one.'

"On the 13th of October, 1802, he arrived at Baltimore, under the

protection of Mr. Jefferson. But it appears that curiosity induced no

one of distinction to suffer his approach. While at his hotel he was

principally visited by the lower class of emigrants from Scotland,

England, and Ireland, who had read and admired his 'Rights of Man.' With

them, it appears, 'he drank grog in the tap-room morning, noon, and

night, admired and praised, strutting and staggering about, showing

himself to all and shaking hands with all. The leaders of the party to

which he had attached himself paid him no attention.'"

Paine's subsequent years, until his miserable death in 1809, were

characterized by the lowest degradation, blasphemy, drunkenness, and

filthiness, which rendered him unfit for any human society, as his

biographies, written even by his friends, abundantly testify.

Those who knew Paine in his earlier years were, of course, not

responsible for the depravity and degradation of his subsequent years;

but from the beginning he was an infidel and an enemy of all settled

government.

Such was the author of American republicanism and of American hatred to

England, to all British institutions, to all monarchy, and the advocate

of the abolition of kings.]

[Footnote 69: Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap.

xii., pp. 161, 162, 163.]

CHAPTER XXXIII.

HIRING OF FOREIGNERS AND EMPLOYMENT AND TREATMENT OF INDIANS IN THE

AMERICAN WAR.

No two acts of the British Government in connection with the American

war were more deprecated on both sides of the Atlantic than the

employment of foreign troops and Indians against the colonists; they

were among the alleged and most exciting causes of the Declaration of

Independence; they weakened British influence throughout the colonies;

they roused thousands to arms who would have otherwise remained

peacefully at home. In England they were denounced by the highest

personages both in and out of Parliament, and by the public at

large.[70]

These Hessian mercenaries, though much lauded at first, and dreaded by

the colonists, proved to be inferior to the British soldiers, were not

reliable, deserted in large numbers, and plundered everywhere, without

regard to Loyalists or Disloyalists, and strengthened the American

resistance far more than they strengthened the British army.[71]

But if the hiring of foreign troops at an enormous expense was

disgraceful and impolitic, the employment _of Indians_ against the

colonists was still more impolitic and unnatural an outrage upon

civilization and humanity; and what is still even more to be lamented is

that this enlistment of savages in the warfare of one branch of the

British family against another was sanctioned if not instigated by the

King himself.[72]

During the war between France and England, which commenced in 1755, both

parties sought the alliance and support of the Indians, and employed

them in the savage work of border warfare. The French succeeded in

securing the greater number of the Indians, and used them with dreadful

effect, murdering and scalping thousands of the British colonists along

the inland frontiers of the several colonies. At the termination of the

war by the Treaty of Paris, in 1763, and the extinction of French power

in America, the French authorities commended the Indians to cultivate

the friendship of England, whose great superiority and success in the

war tended to turn the Indian affections and interest in favour of the

British. Dr. Ramsay observes: "The dispute between Great Britain and her

colonies began to grow serious, and the friendship of the Indians became

a matter of consequence to both parties. Stretching for fifteen hundred

miles along the whole north-western frontier of the colonies, they were

to them desirable friends and formidable enemies. As terror was one of

the engines by which Great Britain intended to enforce the submission of

the colonies, nothing could be more conducive to the excitement of this

passion than the co-operation of the Indians. Policy, not cruelty, led

to the adoption of this expedient, but it was of that over refined

species which counteracts itself. In the competition for the friendship

of the Indians, the British had advantages far superior to any possessed

by the colonists. The expulsion of the French from Canada--an event

which had taken place only thirteen years before--was still fresh in the

memory of many of the savages, and had inspired them with high ideas of

the martial superiority of the British troops. The first steps taken by

Congress to oppose Great Britain put it out of their power to gratify

the Indians. Such was the effect of the non-importation agreement of

1774. While Great Britain had access to the principal Indian tribes

through Canada on the north, and Florida on the south, and was

abundantly able to supply their many wants, the colonists had debarred

themselves from importing the articles which were necessary for the

Indian trade."[73]

The employment of the Indians in this civil war was in every respect

disadvantageous to England. It was disapproved and denounced throughout

England and Europe, as unnatural and inhuman; it was disapproved by the

English commanders and even Loyalists in America, and inflamed the

colonists to the highest degree. Wherever the Indians were employed,

they were a source of weakness to the English army, while their ravages

and cruelties disgusted the Loyalists and brought disgrace upon the

English arms and cause. Sir Guy Carleton forbade their crossing from

Canada into the colonies, and was afterwards accused in England for

disobedience in not employing them;[74] and General Burgoyne gave the

strictest orders against their murdering and plundering. His defeat near

Saratoga was largely owing to the conduct of the Indians in his army.

American historians dilate with much eloquence and justice upon the

employment of Indians against the colonists, and narrate, with every

possible circumstance of aggravation, every act of depredation and

cruelty on the part of the Indians against the white inhabitants that

espoused the cause of Congress; but they omit to state in like manner

that Congress itself endeavoured to enlist the Indians in its quarrel

with the mother country; that General Washington recommended their

employment against the English,[75] and that the very idea of engaging

the Indians in this civil war originated with the first promoters of the

revolution in Massachusetts. Nor do American historians state frankly

and fairly that for every aggression and outrage committed by the

Indians, the American soldiers, even under the express order of

Congress, retaliated with a tenfold vengeance--not in the manner of

civilized warfare, but after the manner and destruction of the savages

themselves. The American writers had also great advantages in

representing everything in regard to the proceedings of the

revolutionists in the brightest light, and everything connected with the

Loyalists and the English in the darkest colours, as they had the

reports, letters, and all other papers relating to these subjects in

their own exclusive possession, and published only such and so much of

them as answered their purpose; even the internal proceedings of

Congress were secret,[76] and only became known after the close of the

war. And many of the most important historical facts relating to the war

have been brought to light in the biographies and correspondence of the

men who figured in the revolution; and many letters and papers of great

historical value in throwing light upon the events and conduct of

parties during that period have only been published during the present

century, and some of them for the first time during the present

generation. This is true in regard to much that relates to the

employment and proceedings of the Indians, as well as in regard to those

of the Loyalists and various events of the American revolution.

According to American historians, the idea of employing the Indians in

the civil war was the wicked conception of British malignity, and

everywhere reprobated in America; while the idea was actually first

conceived and embodied in a resolution by the Provincial Congress of

Massachusetts. At Cambridge a new Provincial Congress had assembled,

with the popular feeling in their favour, and with several thousands of

militia or minute men under their command. But the most determined of

all their measures was to enlist a company of Stockbridge Indians

residing in their province. Further still, they directed a secret

letter--and a secret it has been kept for more than fifty years--to a

missionary much esteemed by the Indians in the western parts of New

York, entreating "that you will use your influence with them to join us

in the defence of our rights,"--in other words, to assail and scalp the

British soldiers.[77] It is worthy of remark, that the Massachusetts

delegates, the framers of this letter, were among those who expressed

the highest astonishment and indignation when, at a later period, a

similar policy was adopted on the British side.[78]

"Under date of the 27th of July, 1776, General Washington wrote to

Congress," says Mr. Allen, "expressing respectful anxiety that the

Stockbridge Indians shall be employed, and remarks that they were

dissatisfied at not being included in the late order for enlisting their

people, and had inquired the cause of General Putman.

"The reasons he assigns for recommending their employment are such as

have influenced, and probably determined, the Americans from that time

to the termination of the last war (1812-1815) with Great Britain--that

is, the impossibility of keeping them neutral; the fear of their joining

the enemy; while the customs of savage warfare are so repulsive to all

the feelings of humanity and pride of the soldier, that it would seem no

palliation could be received for the crime of having sanctioned them by

example. Indians are active and serviceable when properly employed. They

are the best defence against Indians. Acquainted from their birth with

wiles and stratagems, they can trace the enemy, and tell its numbers,

its footsteps, when the eye of the white man cannot discover a trace;

and the moving of grass or rushes, which would be unregarded by a

regular soldier, as the natural effect of winds, leads the Indian to be

prepared for an ambush. The certainty that Indians can be restrained

when it is wished, reconciles the opposite contradictions which are so

often seen between the complaints made by the Americans that the enemy

employed savages, at the very moment that they also employed them."[79]

It is thus clear that both parties courted the co-operation of the

Indians, and employed them to the utmost of their power; and therefore

one party has no just ground of reproach against or advantage over the

other party for the inhuman policy of enlisting the Indians in their

cause, though the British had larger means and greater facilities in

securing this savage co-operation.

It has been alleged, and no doubt truly, that the American commanders

restrained the cruel and plundering propensities of the Indians, and the

English commanders did the same; but neither the English nor the

Americans were always able to control their Indian allies on or after

the day of battle. American writers have, however, charged the outrages

of the Indians in the English army, and scouting parties, to the

sanction of the British generals,[80] and the prompting of the British

Loyalists, and some English writers have reiterated the charge. The

employment of the Indians at all was against the judgment of both

General Burgoyne and Sir Guy Carleton,[81] and only submitted to in

obedience to the King's authority. As early as the 11th of July, 1776,

Burgoyne (while pursuing his enterprise from Montreal to Albany)

complains as follows of the conduct of the Indians to the Secretary of

State: "Confidentially to your Lordship, I may acknowledge that in

several instances I have found the Indians little more than a name. If,

under the management of their conductors, they are indulged for

interested reasons in all the caprices and humours of spoiled children

like them, they grow more unreasonable and importunate upon every new

favour. Were they left to themselves, enormities too horrid to think of

would ensue; guilty and innocent, women and infants, would be a common

prey."[82]

While the Indians were an incumbrance to Burgoyne's army during his

whole campaign, and forsook him in the eventful hour when he most needed

them, their barbarities contributed greatly to swell the revolutionary

army, and to alienate great numbers of Loyalists, weakening Burgoyne's

army in the very country where he expected most support from the

inhabitants, and giving the American general, Gates, a great

preponderance of strength over him--the army of Burgoyne being reduced

to 3,500 men fit for actual service, while that of Gates was increased

to upwards of 16,000 fit for actual service.[83]

But if the British exceeded the Americans in gaining the greater part of

the Indians to their cause, and the corresponding disgrace and

disadvantage of their accompanying the army, the Americans far outdid

the English and the Indians themselves in the work of desolation and

destruction. Dr. Ramsay remarks:

"The undisturbed tranquillity which took place in South Carolina and the

adjacent States after the British had failed in their designs against

them in the spring and summer of 1776, gave an opportunity of carrying

war into the Indian country. This was done, not so much to punish what

was past, as to prevent all future co-operation between the Indians and

British in that quarter. Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and

Georgia sent about the same time a considerable force, which traversed

the Indian settlements, burned their towns, and destroyed their fields

of corn. Above 500 of the Cherokees were obliged, from want of

provisions, to take refuge in Florida, and were fed at the expense of

the British Government."[84]

It is to be observed that this was not an invasion of the white

settlements by the Indians, but an invasion of the Indian settlements by

the whites; it was a "carrying war into the Indian country;" it was not

provoked by the Indians, but "was done to prevent all future

co-operation between the Indians and British in that quarter." Yet this

war of _invasion_, this war of _precaution_, was also a war more

destructive to the Indians than any which they, even under the French,

had inflicted on the white colonists; for not an Indian cornfield was

left undestroyed, nor an Indian habitation unconsumed.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 70: The royal historian, Dr. Andrews, says:

"The colonies were particularly exasperated at the introduction of

foreign troops into this quarrel. They looked upon this measure as an

unanswerable proof that all regard for their character as Englishmen was

fled, and that Great Britain viewed them as strangers, whom, if she

could not conquer and enslave, she was determined to destroy. This

persuasion excited their most violent indignation; they considered

themselves as abandoned to plunder and massacre, and that Britain was

unfeelingly bent on their ruin, by whatsoever means she could compass

it.

"While the colonists represented this measure in so sanguinary a light,

it was depicted at home in the same colour by their partisans. It was

even reprobated by many individuals who were not averse to the other

parts of the Ministerial plan, but who could not bring themselves to

approve of the interference of foreign mercenaries in our domestic

feuds.

"It was not only throughout the public at large this measure occasioned

so much discontent; after having in Parliament undergone the keenest

censure of the Opposition, it fell under the displeasure of a

considerable number of those who sided with the Minister and were

generally used to support the measures of Government; but on this

occasion they loudly dissented from them. Several quitted the House

without voting; others, who voted in his favour, obliged him previously

to give them an assurance that he would remove all their doubts and

scruples, and satisfy them clearly on this subject." (Dr. Andrews'

History of the Late War, Vol. II., Chap. xviii., pp. 76, 77.)]

[Footnote 71: "The employment of foreign troops to reduce America was an

object animadverted upon by the Opposition with peculiar violence and

indignation. This, indeed, of all the Ministerial measures, met with the

most acrimonious notice both in and out of Parliament. * * Foreigners

said the Opposition were now taught that Britain, with all its boasted

greatness, could not find people at home to fight its battles. * * Who

could behold so disgraceful a measure without feeling for that loss of

national honour which it must occasion? * * But exclusive of the

disgrace entailed upon our character, the danger of the system was no

less apparent. What reason had we to trust an army of foreigners, who

could possibly harbour no motives of enmity to the people against whom

they were to be employed? The country where these foreigners were to

wage war for us, was precisely that to which we had so often enticed

numbers to emigrate from their native homes by promises of more _ease_

and happiness than they could enjoy in their own country. * * Of all the

measures that had been taken against the Americans, that of hiring

foreigners to invade their country had given the highest offence.

British soldiers, though acting in the capacity of foes, still retained

the feelings of countrymen, and would not shed blood without some

compunction. They were born and bred in a country noted for humanity,

and the constitution of which inculcated mildness. But the Hessians were

of a ferocious disposition; educated under a despotic Government, they

knew no rights but those of force. They carried destruction wherever

they were masters, plundering all before them without distinction, and

committing the most barbarous ravages.

"They had, it was said, been told before their departure from Germany

that they were to be put in possession of the lands of those whom they

conquered, and they were full of this expectation at their arrival. But

upon discovering their mistake, they resolved, however, to make

themselves amends by appropriating whatever they could lay their hands

upon. * * The conduct of the Hessians was extremely offensive to the

British commanders, but they were too powerful a body to restrain by

compulsion, as they composed almost one-half of the army.

Notwithstanding the prudence and steadiness with which General Howe

conducted himself upon this emergency, it was not possible to restrain

their excesses, nor even prevent them from spreading among the English

troops in a degree to which they would not have certainly been carried

had they not such examples for a plea.

"The depredations of the Hessians grew at last, it was said, so

enormous, that the spoils they were loaded with became an absolute

incumbrance to them, and a frequent impediment to the discharge of their

military duties.

"The desolation of the Jerseys was one of the consequences of this

spirit of rapine. The Americans who adhered to Britain attributed to it

the subsequent decline of the British cause in these and other parts. As

the devastation was extended indiscriminately to friend and foe, it

equally exasperated both parties; it confirmed the enmity of the one,

and raised up a new enemy in the other; and it injured the British

interest in all the colonies." (Dr. Andrews' History of the Late War,

Vol. II., Chaps. xvii. and xxii., pp. 53, 54-268, 269.)

Dr. Andrews adds, in another place, that--

"The resentment occasioned by the depredations that had been carried on

in the Jerseys had left few, if any, friends to Britain in that

province. The dread of seeing those plunderers return, who had spared

neither friend nor foe, rendered all parties averse to the cause in

which they were employed. To this it was owing that their motions were

observed with such extreme vigilance, that they stood little or no

chance of succeeding in any of their enterprises. So many had suffered

through them, that there was no deficiency of spies to give instant

information of whatever they were suspected to have in view; and as much

mischief was done them by such as acted secretly from motives of private

revenge, as by those who took an open part against them in the field."

(Dr. Andrews' History of the American War, etc., Vol. II., Chap, xxiii.,

pp. 301, 302.)]

[Footnote 72: "At the north, the King called to mind that he might 'rely

upon the attachment of his faithful allies, the Six Nations of Indians,'

and he turned to them for immediate assistance. To insure the fulfilment

of his wishes, the order to engage them was sent directly in his name to

the unscrupulous Indian agent, Guy Johnson, whose functions were made

independent of Carleton. 'Lose no time,' it was said; 'induce them to

take up the hatchet against his Majesty's rebellious subjects in

America. It is a service of very great importance; fail not to exert

every effort that may tend to accomplish it; use the utmost diligence

and activity.'" (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VII.,

Chap. xxxiii., p. 349.)]

[Footnote 73: Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap.

xix., pp. 320, 321.

"It was unfortunate for the colonies that since the peace of Paris,

1763, the transactions with the Indians had been mostly carried on by

superintendents appointed and paid by the King of Great Britain. These

being under obligations to the Crown, and expectants of further favours

from it, generally used their influence with the Indians in behalf of

the mother country and against the colonies. * * The Americans were not

unmindful of the savages on their frontier. They appointed commissioners

to explain to them the grounds of their dispute, and to cultivate their

friendship by treaties and presents. They first sought to persuade the

Indians to join them against Great Britain, but having failed in that,

they endeavoured to persuade the Indians that the quarrel was by no

means relative to them, and that therefore they should take part with

neither side.

"For the greater convenience of managing the intercourse between the

colonies and the Indians, the latter were divided into three

departments--the northern, southern, and middle--and commissioners were

appointed for each. Congress also resolved to import and distribute

among them a suitable assortment of goods, to the amount of £40,000

sterling, on account of the United States; but this was not executed."

(Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xix., p.

321.)]

[Footnote 74: "Anxious (1775, October) to relieve St. John's, Carleton,

after the capture of Allen, succeeded in assembling about nine hundred

Canadians at Montreal; but a want of mutual confidence, and the

certainty that the inhabitants generally favoured the Americans,

dispirited them, and they disappeared by desertions thirty or forty of a

night, till he was left almost as forlorn as before. The Indians, too,

he found of little service; 'they were easily dejected, and chose to be

of the strongest side, so that when they were most wanted they

vanished'. But history must preserve the fact that though often urged to

let them loose on the rebel provinces, in his detestation of cruelty he

would not suffer a savage to pass the frontier." (Bancroft's History of

the United States, Vol. VIII., Chap. lii., p. 186.)]

[Footnote 75: "Reading at the present day, we can see how the passionate

and declamatory rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence has left its

stain to this hour on most of the political writing and oratory of

America, and may wish that the birth of a nation had not been screamed

into the world after this fashion. Nothing could have been easier than,

in the like rhetorical language, to draw up a list of lawlessness and

utter outrage committed by the colonists. Some of the charges will not

bear examination.

"For instance, the aid of the Indians had been willingly accepted by the

colonists in the Canadian expedition since September, 1775; the general

question of their employment had been considered by Washington in

conference with a Committee of Congress and delegates of New England

Governments in October of the same year; and the main objection which

Washington and other officers urged against it, as shown by a letter of

his to General Schuyler, January 27, 1776, and the answer from the

latter, was that of expense. He had, nevertheless (April 19, 1776),

advised Congress 'to engage them on our side,' as 'they must, and no

doubt soon will, take an active part either for or against us;' and the

Congress itself had, on June 3rd--not a month before the Declaration of

Independence was actually accepted--passed a resolution to raise 2,000

Indians for the Canadian service, which, shortly afterwards, was

extended by another (referred to in a letter of Washington's of June

20), authorizing General Washington to employ such Indians as he should

take into the service in any place where he might think that they would

be most useful, and to offer them bounties, not indeed for scalps, but

for every officer and soldier of the King's troops whom they might

capture in the Indian country or on the frontiers of the colonies. When

all this had been done, it needed the forgetfulness and the blind

hypocrisy of passion to denounce the King to the world for having

'endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless

Indian savages;' yet the American people have never had the self-respect

to erase this charge from a document generally printed in the fore-front

of their Constitution and Laws, and with which every schoolboy is

sedulously made familiar.

"Perhaps, indeed, it would have been otherwise had not the charge been

one which circumstances appeared to confirm. For, in fact, owing to

causes already indicated, the Americans never could make friends of the

Indians in the contest, and consequently the 'merciless savages'

continue in history to figure on the side of the British. Who could

wonder at it? At the date of the Declaration of Independence, the Indian

child had only just reached man's estate, who in the year of his birth

might have escaped being a victim to the bounty of £20, held out for the

scalp of every Indian woman and child, by Massachusetts, in 1775, whilst

one of £40 had been offered for that of his father, raised in 1776 to

£300. It did not require the retentive memory of the redskin to make him

look with suspicion on solicitations of friendship from men who might

have been parties to such schemes of extermination to his race." (The

Ludlow's History of the War of Independence, 1777-1783, Chap. v., pp.

124-126.)

"But Jefferson's violent pamphlet should, in fact, be looked upon less

as a Declaration of Independence than as a Declaration of War--less as

an assertion of right than as a cry of defiance uttered in the hour of

grave peril, and in the face of a formidable foe."--_Ib._, p. 126.]

[Footnote 76: Some of the members of Congress were, at times, not so

reticent as their oaths of secrecy required, and the squabbles of

Conference became known abroad. It is a curious illustration of the

dignity and character of a body, when the least publication of its

proceedings becomes its disgrace.

"In those days (1779), far unlike our own, the Congress resembled a

Committee or a Junta, much rather than a chamber of debate. The

speeches, it is said, were all in the style of private conversation.

There were never more than forty members present, often no more than

twenty. These small numbers, however, by no means ensured harmony, nor

precluded violent and unseemly quarrels, rumours of which were not slow

in passing the Atlantic. 'For God's sake,' thus wrote La Fayette from

France, 'for God's sake, prevent the Congress from disputing loudly

together. Nothing so much hurts the interest and reputation of America.'

Thus the object of concealment, unless, perhaps, for private purposes,

was most imperfectly attained, although, in name at least, the

deliberations of Congress at this time were secret. Historically, even

the Journal which they kept gives little light as to their true

proceedings. An American gentleman, who has studied that document with

care, laments that it is 'painfully meagre, the object being apparently

to record as little as possible.'" (Lord Mahon's History of England,

Vol. VII., Chap. lviii., pp. 420, 421; quoting as his authority, "Letter

of La Fayette to Washington, June 12, 1779," and "Life of President

Reed," by Mr. Wm. Reed, Vol. II., p. 18.)]

[Footnote 77: Lord Mahon's History of England, etc., Vol. VII., Chap,

lii., pp. 52, 53.]

[Footnote 78: This letter, dated Concord, April 4, 1775, may be seen at

length in the Appendix to Sparks' edition of Washington's Writings, Vol.

III., p. 495. The letter, it will be seen, was written a fortnight

before the affair of Concord and Lexington, which took place the 19th of

April, when the first blood was shed in the revolution.]

[Footnote 79: Allen's History of the American Revolution, Vol. I., Chap,

xiv., pp. 423, 424.

"Lord Suffolk, in his speech (in reply to Lord Chatham), undertook to

defend the employment of the savages. 'The Congress,' he said,

'endeavoured to bring the Indians over to their side, and if we had not

employed them they would most certainly have acted against us.' This

statement, which at the time was doubted or denied, has been, it must be

owned, in no small degree borne out by documents that have subsequently

come to light. Even several months later, we find Congress in treaty to

engage several parties of Indians in their service." (Lord Mahon's

History, etc., Vol. VII., Chap. lvi., p. 305.)

"See Washington's Writings, Vol. V., p. 273, and Appendix to Vol. III.,

p. 494. 'Divesting them,' says Washington, 'of the savage customs

exercised in their wars against each other, I think they may be made of

excellent use as scouts and light troops, mixed with our own parties.'

But what more did the English ever design or desire?" (Lord Mahon's

History, etc., Vol. VII., Chap. lvi., p. 305.)]

[Footnote 80: Even so amiable and generous a man as Burgoyne did not

escape these imputations. "It may well be imagined that while Burgoyne

was advancing, declamations against his and the Indians' cruelty (for no

distinction was admitted) were rife on the American side. By such means,

and still more, perhaps, by the natural spirit of a free-born people

when threatened with invasion, a resolute energy against Burgoyne was

roused in the New England States."--_Ib._, p. 261.]

[Footnote 81: "Carleton from the first abhorred the measure of employing

the Indians, which he was yet constrained to promote." (Bancroft, Vol.

VII., p. 119.)]

[Footnote 82: Quoted in Lord Mahon's History, Vol. VII., Chap. lvi., p.

259. After quoting this letter, Lord Mahon adds:

"It is due to Burgoyne to state, that from the first he had made most

strenuous exertions, both by word and deed, to prevent any such

enormities. The testimony, for example, of his aide-de-camp, Lord

Petersham, when examined before the House of Commons, is clear and

precise upon that point. (See Burgoyne's Narrative and Collection of

Documents, pp. 65, 66, second edition.) But in spite of all restraints,

the cruel temper and lawless habits of these savages would sometimes

burst forth--sometimes not more fatally to their enemies than to their

friends. The tragical fate of Miss MacRea raised one loud cry of

indignation on both sides of the Atlantic. This lady, in the bloom of

youth and beauty, the daughter of an American Loyalist, was betrothed to

an officer in the British provincial troops. Anxious for her security,

the officer engaged some Indians to escort her from her home and convey

her to the British camp, where the marriage would be solemnized. As a

further precaution, he promised to reward the person who should bring

her safe to him with a barrel of rum. But this very precaution, as it

seemed to be, was the cause of the disaster which ensued. Two of the

Indians who took charge of her began a quarrel on the way, as to which

of them should first present her to the bridegroom. Each was eager for

the rum; each resolute that his companion should not receive it in his

place. At last one of them in sudden fury raised his tomahawk, struck

Miss MacRea upon the head, and laid her a corpse at his feet. General

Burgoyne at this news displayed his utmost resentment and concern. He

compelled the Indians to deliver up the murderer, and designed to put

him to death. He was only induced to spare his life upon the Indians

agreeing to terms which the General thought would be more effectual than

any execution, in deterring them from similar barbarities. Deterred,

indeed, they were. But when they found themselves precluded from their

expected delights of plundering and scalping, they began to desert and

go home. Of nearly five hundred who at the outset had joined Burgoyne,

less than threescore at last remained beneath his banner."--_Ib._, pp.

259-261.

At the first general encampment of Burgoyne's army on the western side

of Lake Champlain, he met a deputation of the Indians in alliance with

Great Britain, and made an animated speech to them. "He exhorted them to

behave with courage and fidelity to their friends, and to avoid all

barbarity towards their enemies. He entreated them to be particularly

careful in distinguishing between the adherents and foes to the British

nation. He earnestly requested that they would put none to death but

such as actually opposed them with arms in their hands, and to spare old

men, women, children, and prisoners; to scalp only such as they had

killed in action, and to treat compassionately the wounded and dying. He

promised them a reward for every prisoner they brought in, but assured

them he would look narrowly into every demand for scalps." (Dr. Andrews'

History of the Late War, Vol. II., Chap, xxviii., p. 383.)]

[Footnote 83: "The apprehensions of those who had been averse to the

employment of the Indians in the British army began to be justified.

Notwithstanding the care and precautions taken by General Burgoyne to

prevent the effects of their barbarous disposition, they were sometimes

carried to an excess that shocked his humanity--the more, as it was

totally out of his power to control them in the degree that he had hoped

and proposed. The outrages they committed were such as proved highly

detrimental to the royal cause. They spared neither friend nor foe, and

exercised their usual cruelties with very little attention to the

threats that were held out in order to restrain and deter them.

"Several instances of this nature happened about this time, which

contributed powerfully to alienate the minds of many from the cause in

which they served. One was recorded, in particular, that equally struck

both parties with horror. A young lady, the daughter of Mr. MacRea, a

zealous royalist, being on her way to the British army, where she was to

be married to an officer, unhappily fell into the hands of the Indians,

who, without regarding her youth and beauty, murdered her with many

circumstances of barbarity.

"Scenes of this nature served to render the royal party extremely

odious. However the Americans might be conscious that the Indians were

as offensive, and as much abhorred by their enemies as by themselves,

still they could not forgive them the acceptance of such auxiliaries as

must necessarily disgrace the best cause.

"The resentment occasioned by the conduct of the Indians, and no less

the dread of being exposed to their fury, helped considerably to bring

recruits from every quarter to the American army. It was considered as

the only place of refuge and security at present. The inhabitants of the

tracts contiguous to the British army took up arms against it almost

universally. The preservation of their families was now become an object

of immediate concern. As the country was populous, they flocked in

multitudes to the American general's camp; and he soon found himself at

the head of an army which, though composed of militia and undisciplined

men, was animated with that spirit of indignation and revenge which so

often supplies all military deficiencies." (Dr. Andrews' History of the

Late War, Vol. II., Chap. xxviii., pp. 393, 394.)]

[Footnote 84: Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap.

xix., p. 322.]

CHAPTER XXXIV.

THE MASSACRE OF WYOMING--FOUR VERSIONS OF IT BY ACCREDITED AMERICAN

HISTORIANS, ALL DIFFERING FROM EACH OTHER--THE FACTS INVESTIGATED, AND

FALSE STATEMENTS CORRECTED.

It would be useless and tedious to attempt even a condensed account of

the battles and warfare in which the Indians took part between the

English and the Congress; but there is one of these revengeful and

murderous occurrences which must be minutely stated, and the American

accounts of it thoroughly investigated, as it has been the subject of

more misrepresentation, more declamation, more descriptive and poetic

exaggeration, and more denunciation against the English by American

historians and orators than any other transaction of the American

revolution--namely, what is known as the "Massacre of Wyoming." There

are four versions of it, by accredited American histories.

The account of this massacre is thus given in the words of Dr. Ramsay's

history:

"A storm of Indian and Tory vengeance burst in July, 1778, with

particular violence on Wyoming, a new and flourishing settlement on the

eastern branch of the Susquehanna. Unfortunately for the security of the

inhabitants, the soil was claimed both by Connecticut and Pennsylvania.

From the collision of contradictory claims, founded on Royal Charters,

the laws of neither were steadily enforced. In this remote settlement,

where government was feeble, the Tories were under less control, and

could easily assemble undiscovered. Nevertheless, twenty-seven of them

were taken and sent to Hartford, in Connecticut, but they were

afterwards released. These and others of the same description,

instigated by revenge against the Americans, from whom some of them had

suffered banishment and loss of property, made common cause with the

Indians, and attacked the Wyoming settlement with their combined forces,

estimated at 1,100 men, 900 of whom were Indians. The whole was

commanded by Colonel John Butler, a Connecticut Tory. One of the forts

which had been constructed for the security of the inhabitants, being

very weak, surrendered to this party; but some of the garrison had

retired to the principal fort at Kingston, called Forty Fort. Colonel

John Butler next demanded the surrender thereof. Colonel Zebulon Butler,

a continental officer, who commanded, sent a message to him, proposing a

conference at a bridge without the fort. This being agreed to, Colonel

Zebulon Butler, Dennison, and some other officers repaired to the place

appointed, and they were followed by the whole garrison, a few invalids

excepted. None of the enemy appeared. The Wyoming people advanced, and

supposed that the enemy were retiring. They continued to march on till

they were about three miles from the fort. They then saw a few of the

enemy, with whom they exchanged a few shots; but they presently found

themselves ambuscaded and attacked by the whole bodies of Indians and

Tories. They fought gallantly, till their retreat to the fort was cut

off. Universal confusion ensued. Out of 417 who had marched out of the

fort, about 360 were instantly slain. No quarter was given. Colonel John

Butler again demanded the surrender of Forty Fort. This was agreed to,

under articles of capitulation, by which the effects of the people

therein were secured to them. The garrison, consisting of thirty men and

two hundred women, were permitted to cross the Susquehanna, and retreat

through the woods to Northampton county. The most of the other scattered

settlers had previously retired, some through the woods to Northampton,

others down the river to Northumberland. In this retreat, some women

were delivered of children in the woods, and many suffered from want of

provisions. Several of the settlers at Wyoming had erected good houses

and barns, and made considerable improvements. These and the other

houses in the vicinity were destroyed. Their horses, cattle, sheep, and

hogs were, for the most part, killed or driven away by the enemy. A

large proportion of the male inhabitants were in one day slaughtered.

In a single engagement, near two hundred women became widows, and a much

greater number of children were left fatherless." (Dr. Ramsay's History

of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xix., pp. 323, 324.)

REMARKS UPON DR. RAMSAY'S ACCOUNT.

Such is the account of this melancholy affair by Dr. Ramsay, a friend of

General Washington, and a distinguished officer in the American army.

Let us note Dr. Ramsay's admissions and his omissions. He admits that

the Tories or Loyalists had been persecuted, imprisoned, plundered, and

banished; that no less than twenty-seven of them had been taken, and

sent to Hartford, in Connecticut, but were afterwards released; yet he

might have added that they were kept prisoners nearly a year, and then

discharged for want of any evidence against them. It is also admitted

that "others of the same description (as those who had been sent

prisoners to Connecticut) were instigated by _revenge_ against the

Americans, from whom some of them had suffered banishment and loss of

property." It is likewise admitted that the whole invading party

consisted of but 1,100 men, of whom only 200 were Tories, the remaining

900 being Indians. But it is not stated that those Indians were

neighbours, and many of them the connections of the northern tribes of

those Indians whose settlements had been invaded, their fields and towns

destroyed, as a precaution lest they should co-operate with the British;

nor is it said that many of these Indians were residents in the

neighbourhood, and were treated like the Tories.

It furthermore appears from this narrative that the Americans in Wyoming

were not even taken by surprise, but were prepared for their enemy; that

none were killed except in the conflict of the battle; that the thirty

men and two hundred women in the garrison were not murdered, but were

"permitted (with their effects) to cross the Susquehanna and retreat to

Northampton." The taking of the cattle and burning of the houses and

barns was after the example of the Americans in invading and destroying

the Indian settlements. It is therefore clear, according to Dr. Ramsay's

own narrative, that the "Massacre of Wyoming" was not an _unprovoked

aggression_, like that of the Americans against the more Southern

Indians, but a _retaliation_ for injuries previously inflicted by the

aggressors.[85]

But as the "Massacre of Wyoming" is the case selected by American

historians and poets to exhaust their indignation against English

cruelty in employing the Indians in the civil war, we will not dismiss

it with the above cursory remarks, but will examine it with some degree

of minuteness.

Wyoming was a pleasant and fertile valley, situated on the eastern

branch of the Susquehanna, and consisted of eight townships, five square

miles each. It had been claimed as part of Pennsylvania; but

Connecticut, relying upon the authority of a more ancient Charter, had

since the last war made a large settlement on the banks of that

beautiful river. "The exquisitely beautiful valley of Wyoming, where, on

the banks of the Susquehanna, the wide and rich meadows, shut in by

walls of wooded mountains, attracted emigrants from Connecticut, through

their claim of right under the Charter of their native colony, was in

conflict with the territorial jurisdiction of the proprietaries of

Pennsylvania."[86]

Such was the scene of a tragedy which thrilled all America and Europe;

for the accounts published in Europe were the repetitions of the

exaggerated American statements, omitting for the most part the causes

of the tragedy and the retaliation which followed it.

I will now present and collate the three other accounts, with that of

Dr. Ramsay, of those tragical events on both sides.

Mr. Bancroft states as follows:

"The Seneca tribe, fresh from the memory of their chiefs and braves who

fell in conflict with the New York husbandmen at Oriskany. Their king,

Sucingerachton, was, both in war and in council, the foremost man of

all the Six Nations. Compared with him, the Mohawk Brant, who had been

but lately known upon the warpath, was lightly esteemed.[87] His

attachment to the English increased to a passion on the alliance of the

Americans with the French, for whom he cherished implacable hate.

Through his interest, and by the blandishments of gifts and pay and

chances of revenge, Colonel John Butler lured the _Seneca_ warriors to

cross the border of Pennsylvania under the British flag.

"The party of savages and rangers, numbering between five hundred and

seven hundred men, fell down the Tioga river, and on the last day of

June hid in the forests above Wyoming. The next day the two northernmost

forts capitulated. The men of Wyoming, old and young, with one regular

company, in all hardly more than three hundred, took counsel with one

another, and found no hope of deliverance for their families but through

a victorious encounter with a foe twice their number, and more skilful

in the woods than themselves. On the 3rd day of July, the devoted band,

led by Colonel Zebulon Butler, who had just returned from the

continental service, began their march up the river.[88] The horde of

invaders, pretending to retreat, crouched themselves on the ground in

the open wood. The villagers of Wyoming began firing as they drew near,

and at the third volley stood within a hundred yards of the ambush, when

the Seneca braves began the attack, and were immediately seconded by the

rangers. The Senecas gave no quarter, and in less than half an hour took

two hundred and twenty-five scalps, among them those of two field

officers and seven captains. The rangers saved but five of their

captives. On the British side only two whites were killed and eight

Indians wounded. The next day the remaining forts, filled chiefly with

women and children, capitulated. The long and wailing procession of

survivors flying from their fields of corn, their gardens, the flames of

their cottages, the unburied bodies of their beloved defenders, escaped

by a pass through the hills to the eastern settlements. Every fort and

dwelling was burned down.

"The Senecas spread over the surrounding country, adepts in murder and

ruin. The British leader boasted in his report that his party had burned

a thousand houses and every mill (a great exaggeration). Yet, marauders

came to destroy and deal deaths, not to recover or hold; and the ancient

affection for England was washed out in blood (more truly, the revenge

for wrongs previously received). When the leader of the inroad turned to

desolate other scenes, Pennsylvania was left in undisputed possession of

her soil." (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. X., Chap. v.,

pp. 137, 138.)

Mr. Tucker briefly states the affair in the following words:

"The settlement of Wyoming, in Pennsylvania, was assailed in July by a

large body of savages, who, having obtained easy possession of it,

indiscriminately butchered both the garrison and the inhabitants; and

soon afterwards Wilkesbarre shared the same fate. Near three thousand

had succeeded in effecting their escape.[89]

"To prevent their return to the scenes of their former happiness,

everything that could contribute to their comfort--houses, crops,

animals--were, with an industry equal to their malignity, destroyed by

the savages." (Tucker's History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap.

iii., p. 239.)

The following account of the "Wyoming Massacre" appears more

intelligible and consistent than any of the preceding. Says Mr.

Hildreth:

"There had come in among the Connecticut settlers at Wyoming a number of

Dutch and Scotch from New York, some thirty of whom, shortly after the

commencement of the war, had been seized under the suspicion of being

Tories, and sent to Connecticut for trial. They were discharged for want

of evidence; but if not Tories before, they soon became so. Returning

to the valley of the Mohawk, whence they had emigrated to Wyoming, they

enlisted into the partisan corps of Johnson and Butler, and waited

eagerly for chances of revenge.

"Though Wyoming did not number three thousand inhabitants, it had

furnished two full companies (one writer says, a thousand men) to the

continental army, and had thus in a manner deprived itself of the means

of defence. Congress, upon rumours of intended Indian hostilities, had

ordered a third company to be raised as a local garrison; but this corps

was as yet hardly organized, and very imperfectly armed. Such was the

state of the settlement when there appeared at the head of the valley an

overwhelming force of Tories and Indians, principally of the Seneca

tribe of the Six Nations, led by Colonel Butler. Some of the inhabitants

were waylaid and slain. The upper fort, held by disaffected persons,

surrendered at once. The continentals, with such others as could be

mustered, marched out to meet the enemy: but they were surrounded,

defeated, and driven back with heavy loss, and several who were taken

prisoners were put to death by the Indians with horrible tortures. Those

who escaped fled to Fort Wyoming, which was speedily invested. The

surviving continentals, to avoid being taken prisoners, embarked and

escaped down the river; after which the fort surrendered, upon promise

of security of life and property. Desirous to fulfil these terms, Butler

presently marched away with his Tories, but he could not induce the

Indians to follow. They remained behind, burned the houses, ravaged the

fields, killed such as resisted, and drove the miserable women and

children through the woods and mountains to seek refuge where they

might.

"These barbarities, greatly exaggerated by reports embodied since in

poetry and history, excited everywhere a lively indignation. Wyoming was

presently re-occupied by a body of continental troops. A continental

regiment of the Pennsylvania line, stationed at Schoharie, penetrated to

the neighbouring branches of the Upper Susquehanna, and _destroyed the

settlement_ of Unadilla, occupied by a mixed population of Indians and

refugees. The Indians and Loyalists soon took their _revenge_ by

surprising Cherry Valley. The fort, which had a continental garrison,

held out; Colonel Alden, who lodged in the town, was killed, the

lieutenant-colonel was made prisoner, and the settlement suffered

almost the fate of Wyoming." (Hildreth's History of the United States,

Vol. III., Chap, xxxviii., pp. 262, 263.)

REMARKS ON THESE FOUR ACCOUNTS OF THE MASSACRE.

The attentive reader has doubtless observed that the four versions given

above, by four accredited American historians, in regard to the

"Massacre of Wyoming," differ from each other in several essential

particulars.

1. Two of these versions imply that the "massacre" was a mere marauding,

cruel, and murderous invasion of an inoffensive and peaceful settlement;

while the other two versions of Dr. Ramsay and Mr. Hildreth clearly show

the provocation and cruel wrongs which the Loyalists, and even Indians,

had experienced from the continentals and inhabitants of Wyoming; that

the settlement of Wyoming was the hot-bed of revolutionism, in which,

out of three thousand inhabitants, several hundred had volunteered into

the continental army, while they, as may be easily conceived, insulted,

imprisoned, banished and confiscated the property of those who regarded

their oath of allegiance as inviolate as their marriage vow, "for better

for worse," until death released them from it. Instead of treating a

solemn oath as secondary to caprice and passion, the Loyalists carried

it to an excess of integrity and conscience; they were to be the more

respected and honoured, rather than made on that account criminals and

outlaws, subject to imprisonment and banishment of their persons and the

confiscation of their property.

2. Two of these four versions import that the inhabitants, men, women,

and children, were "indiscriminately butchered;" the other two versions

import that none were "butchered" except in battle, and none were

"scalped" except those who had fallen in battle.

3. In two of these versions it is stated that those who were in the

forts after their surrender were "massacred," without respect to age or

sex; in the other two versions it is stated that not one of them was

massacred, but they were all permitted to cross the Susquehanna with

their effects.

4. In one of these versions, Colonel John Butler is represented as not

only the commander of the whole party of invasion, but the author of all

the cruelties perpetrated in the "massacre" of Wyoming; yet Mr.

Hildreth's statement shows the reverse--that Colonel Butler had accepted

the surrender of Fort Wyoming "upon the promise of security to life and

property;" that "desirous to fulfil these terms, he presently marched

away with his Tories; but he could not induce the Indians to follow;"

that "the depredations which followed were inflicted by the Indians

alone, and whom Colonel Butler could not command, and against his

remonstrance and example and that of his Tories."

It is therefore plain that the accounts at the time of the "Massacre of

Wyoming," published by the Congress party, were of the most exaggerated

and inflammatory character, containing the grossest misrepresentation,

and doing the greatest injustice to the leaders and conduct of the

expedition, of which accounts they had no knowledge, nor any means of

correcting them. These partial and shamefully exaggerated accounts and

misrepresentations were spread through Europe, and produced the most

unfavourable impression in regard to the "Tories" and their mixture with

the Indians--the only place of refuge for them, as they were driven from

their homes to escape the sentences of death, imprisonment, or

banishment, subject in all cases, of course, to the destruction and

confiscation of their property. The English Annual Register for 1779,

after reproducing these unjust and inflated accounts, candidly says:

"It is necessary to observe, with respect to the destruction of Wyoming,

that as no narrative of the exploits of the leaders in that transaction,

whether by authority or otherwise, has yet appeared in this country, we

can only rely for the authenticity of the facts which we have stated

upon the accounts published by the Americans.

"Happy should we deem it, for the honour of humanity that, the whole

account was demonstrated to be a fable." (Vol. IV., p. 14.)

The testimony furnished by the four versions of the transaction by

American historians shows how largely the original accounts of it were

fabulous.

Since compiling and analysing the foregoing four historical versions of

the "Massacre of Wyoming," I have read Colonel Stone's _Life of Joseph

Brant, Thayendanegea, including the Border Wars of the American

Revolution_, and have carefully examined his account of the "Massacre of

Wyoming." Colonel Stone visited the place (1838), and obtained all the

information which the oldest inhabitants and family letters could give,

and examined all the papers in the State Paper Office, and obtained much

information from correspondence and personal interviews with aged and

distinguished inhabitants, well acquainted with all the particulars of

the alleged "Massacre." The result of his researches was to justify the

hopes of the British Annual Register, quoted on previous page, which,

after having republished the American accounts of the "Massacre," says:

"Happy should we deem it, for the honour of humanity, that the whole

account were demonstrated to be a fable."

This has been done by Colonel Stone after the lapse of more than half a

century. In the fifteenth chapter of the first volume of his eloquent

and exhaustive work he gives a history of the settlement, and of the

many years' wars between the rival claimants of Connecticut and

Pennsylvania--the former styled "the Susquehanna Company," and the

latter "the Delaware Company." The question was also complicated by

Indian claims, as the land had been once acquired by the Six Nations,

and alleged to have been sold to both companies. Many of the Mohawks and

other Indians resided in and near the settlement. On the breaking out of

the war, politics largely entered into the disputes, and armed conflicts

ensued, and no less than ten forts were erected in the settlement.

According to Colonel Stone, the "Massacre" was not the result of

surprise, nor did it involve the indiscriminate massacre of women and

children, but was the result of a pitched battle between the Loyalists

and Continentals, in which the latter were the assailants and were

defeated, and whatever "massacre" there was followed the battle.[90]

Colonel Stone, after having given an account of the battle, as stated

in previous note, and having corrected several erroneous statements,

makes the following correction of what had been often written and

generally believed respecting the famous Chief Brant:

"There is another important correction to be made in reference to every

written history of this battle extant, not even excepting the revised

edition of the Life of Washington, by Chief Justice Marshall. This

correction regards the name and just fame of Joseph Brant, whose

character has been blackened with all the infamy, both real and

imaginary, connected with this bloody expedition. Whether Captain Brant

was at any time in company with this expedition, is doubtful; but it is

certain, in the face of every historical authority, British and

American, that so far from being engaged in the battle, he was many

miles distant at the time of its occurrence. Such has been the uniform

testimony of the British officers engaged in the expedition, and such

was always the word of Thayendanegea (Brant's Indian name) himself. It

will, moreover, be seen toward the close of the present work that after

the publication of Campbell's 'Gertrude of Wyoming,' in which poem the

Mohawk chieftain is denounced as 'the Monster Brant,' his son repaired

to England, and in correspondence with the poet, successfully vindicated

his father's memory from the calumny."--_Ib._, p. 338.

To all this Colonel Stone adds the following important note. He says:

"Since the present chapter was written, and while the work was under

revision, the author received a letter from Mr. Samuel C. Frey, of Upper

Canada, a son of the late Philip Frey, Esquire, a Loyalist of Tryon

County, who was ensign in H.B.M.'s Eighth Regiment, and who, with his

regiment, was engaged in the campaign and battle of Wyoming. Philip R.

Frey, the ensign spoken of, died at Palatine, Montgomery (formerly

Tryon) County, in 1823. It was his uniform testimony that Brant was not

at Wyoming. Mr. Frey writes to the author that there were no chiefs of

any notoriety with the Indians in that expedition, and that the Indians

themselves were led from Detroit by Captain Bird, of the Eighth

Regiment. Bird had been engaged in a love affair at Detroit, but being

very ugly, besides having a hare-lip, was unsuccessful. The affair

getting wind, his fellow-officers made themselves merry at his expense;

and in order to steep his grief in forgetfulness, he obtained permission

to lead an expedition somewhere against the American frontier. Joining

the Indians placed under him and a detachment of his regiment to

Butler's Rangers, they concerted the descent upon Wyoming. Ensign Frey

stated that Bird was ill-natured during the whole march, and acted with

foolhardiness at the battle. He further stated, according to the letter

of his son, that the American colonel challenged them to a fair

field-fight, which challenge was accepted. 'The next morning, about nine

o'clock, the Americans poured out of the fort, about 340 in number; the

Indians fell back over a hill; the troops on both sides drew up in

battle array and soon commenced. After a few rounds fired, the American

colonel ordered his drum-major to beat a charge; the drum-major mistook

the order, and beat a retreat; the Americans became disordered

immediately, and ran helter-skelter; the moment the Indians saw them

running, they poured down upon them from their hiding-places, so that no

more than about forty survived out of 340.'"

"Rarely, indeed," adds Colonel Stone, "does it happen that history is

more at fault in regard to facts than in the case of Wyoming. The remark

may be applied to nearly every writer who has attempted to narrate the

events connected with the invasion of Colonel John Butler. Ramsay and

Gordon and Marshall--nay, the British historians themselves have written

gross exaggerations. Marshall, however, in his revised edition, has made

corrections, and explained how and by whom he was led into error. My

excellent friend, Charles Miner, Esq., long a resident of Wyoming, a

gentleman of letters and great accuracy, furnished the biographer of

Washington with a true narrative of the transactions which he made the

basis of the summary account contained in his revised edition. Other

writers, of greater or less note, have gravely recorded the same

fictions, adding, it is to be feared, enormities not even conveyed to

them by tradition. The grossest of these exaggerations are contained in

Thatcher's Military Journal and in Drake's Book of the Indians. The

account of the marching out of a large body of the Americans from one of

the forts to hold a parley, by agreement, and then being drawn into an

ambuscade and all put to death, is false; the account of seventy

continental soldiers being butchered after having surrendered, is

totally untrue. No regular troops surrendered, and all escaped who

survived the battle of the 3rd. Equally untrue is the story of the

burning of the houses, barracks, and forts, filled with women and

children."--_Ib._, p. 338, 339.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 85: "The aggressors on this occasion were a troop of wild

Indians, in conjunction with some Tory exiles. They were headed by

Colonel Butler, a partisan commander of note, and by Joseph Brant, a

half Indian by birth, a whole Indian in cruelty. Unhappily, at Wyoming,

the soil was claimed both by Connecticut and Pennsylvania. From this

conflict of pretensions and consequent laxity of law, there had been the

freer license for rigours against the Loyalists. Few of them in that

district but had undergone imprisonment, or exile, or confiscation of

property; and thus they were provoked to form a savage alliance and to

perpetrate a fierce revenge." (Lord Mahon's History, etc., Vol. VII.,

Chap. lviii., pp. 382, 383.)]

[Footnote 86: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. V., Chap.

ix., p. 165.]

[Footnote 87: Brant was not at Wyoming. This appears from Butler's

report; and compare Broadhead documents, Vol. VIII., p. 572 (note by Mr.

Bancroft).]