their breastworks and in their trenches, and the French and Indians on
the ascending wooded hill-sides. The rain which began to fall soon
flooded Mackaye’s men out of their trenches. No other change of
position was made. And, so far as the battle went, the English
doggedly held their own. In the contest with hunger and rain however,
they were fighting a losing battle. The horses and cattle escaped and
were slaughtered by the enemy. The provisions were being exhausted and
the ammunition was spending fast. As the afternoon waned, though there
was some cessation of musketry fire, many guns being rendered useless
by the rain, the smoking little swivels were made to do double duty.
They bellowed their fierce defiance with unwonted zest as night came
on, giving to the English an appearance of strength which they were
far from possessing. The hungry soldiers made up for the lack of food
from the abundance of liquor, which, in their exhausted state had more
than its usual effect. By nightfall half the little doomed army was
intoxicated. No doubt, had Villiers dared to rush the entrenchments,
the English would have been annihilated. The hopelessness of their
condition could not have been realized by the foe on the hills.
But it was realized by the young Colonel commanding. And as he looked
about him in the wet twilight of that July day, what a dismal ending
of his first campaign it must have seemed. Fifty-four of his three
hundred and four men were killed or wounded in that little palisaded
enclosure. Provisions and ammunition were about gone. Horses and
cattle were gone. Many of the small arms were useless. The army was
surrounded by _Le Grande Villiers_, watchfully abiding his time. And
there was comedy with the tragedy--half the tired men were under the
influence of the only stimulant that could be spared. What mercy could
be hoped for from the brother of the dead Jumonville? A fight to the
death, or at least a captivity at Fort Duquesne or Quebec was all that
could be expected--for had not Jumonville’s party already been sent
into Virginia as captives?
[Illustration:
Battle
at the
Great Meadows
July 3^d 1751
JARED SPARK’S
DRAWING IN
“WRITINGS OF
WASHINGTON”]
At eight in the evening the French requested a parley and Washington
refused to consider the suggestion. Why should a parley be desired
with an enemy in such a hopeless strait as they? It was clear that
Villiers had resorted to this strategy to gain better information of
their condition. But the request was soon repeated, and this time
Villiers asked for a parley between the lines. To this Washington
readily acceded, and Captain van Braam went to meet le Mercier, who
brought a verbal proposition for the capitulation of Fort Necessity
from Villiers. To this proposition Washington and his officers
listened. Twice the commissioners were sent to Villiers to submit
modifications demanded by Washington. They returned a third time
with the articles reduced to writing--but in French. Washington
depended upon van Braam’s poor knowledge of French and mongrel English
for a verbal translation. Jumonville’s death was referred to as an
assassination though van Braam Englished the word “death”--perhaps
thinking there was no other translation of the French _l’assassinat_.
By the light of a flickering candle, which the mountain wind
frequently extinguished, the rain falling upon the company, George
Washington signed this, his first and last capitulation.
ARTICLE 1st. We permit the English Commander to withdraw with
all the garrison, in order that he may return peaceably to his
country, and to shield him from all insult at the hands of our
French, and to restrain the savages who are with us as much as
may be in our power.
ART. 2nd. He shall be permitted to withdraw and to take with
him whatever belongs to his troops, _except the artillery,
which we reserve for ourselves_.
ART. 3d. We grant them the honors of war; they shall withdraw
with beating drums, and with a small piece of cannon, wishing
by this means to show that we consider them friends.
ART. 4th. As soon as these articles shall be signed by both
parties, they shall take down the English flag.
ART. 5th. Tomorrow at daybreak a detachment of French shall
lead forth the garrison and take possession of the aforesaid
fort.
ART. 6th. Since the English have scarcely any horses or oxen
left, they shall be allowed to hide their property, in order
that they may return to seek for it after they shall have
recovered their horses; for this purpose they shall be
permitted to leave such number of troops as guards as they may
think proper, _under this condition, that they give their word
of honor that they will work on no establishment either in the
surrounding country or beyond the Highlands during one year
beginning from this day_.
ART. 7th. Since the English have in their power an officer and
two cadets, and, in general, all the prisoners whom they took
_when they murdered Lord Jumonville_, they now promise to send
them, with an escort to Fort Duquesne, situated on Belle River;
and to secure the safe performance of this treaty article, _as
well as of the treaty_, Messrs. Jacob van Braam and Robert
Stobo, both Captains, shall be delivered to us as hostages
until the arrival of our French and Canadians herein before
mentioned.
We on our part declare that we shall give an escort to send
back in safety the two officers who promise us our French in
two months and a half at the latest.
Copied on one of the posts of our block-house the same day and
year as before.
(Signed.) MESSRS. JAMES MACKAYE, GO.
GO. WASHINGTON,
COULON VILLIER.
The parts printed in italics were those misrepresented by van Braam.
The words “_pendent une annee a compter de ce jour_” are not found in
the articles printed by the French government, as though it repudiated
Villier’s intimation that the English should ever return. Yet within a
year--lacking nine days--an English army, eight times as great as the
one now capitulating, marched across this battle-field. The nice
courtesy shown by the young Colonel in allowing Captain Mackaye’s name
to take precedence over his own, is significant, as Mackaye, a King’s
officer, had never considered himself amenable to Washington’s orders,
and his troops had steadily refused to bear the brunt of the
campaign--working on the road or transporting guns and baggage. In the
trenches, however, the Carolinians did their duty.
And so, on the morning of July 4th, the red-uniformed Virginians and
the King’s troops marched out from Fort Necessity between the files of
French, with all the honors of war and _tambour battant_. Much baggage
had to be destroyed to save it from the Indians whom the French could
not restrain. Such was the condition of the men--the wounded being
carried on stretchers--that only three miles could be made on the
homeward march the first day. However glorious later July Fourths may
have seemed to Washington, memories of this distress and gloom and
humiliation served to temper his transports. The report of the
officers of the Virginia regiment made at Will’s Creek, where they
arrived July 9th, shows thirteen killed, fifty-three wounded, thirteen
left lame on the road, twenty-one sick, and one hundred sixty-five fit
for duty.
On August 30th, the Virginian House of Burgesses passed a vote of
thanks to “Colonel George Washington, Captain Mackaye of his Majesty’s
Independent Company, and the officers under his command,” for their
“gallant and brave Behavior in Defence of their Country.” The sting of
defeat was softened by a public realization of the odds of the contest
and the failure of Dinwiddie to forward reinforcements and supplies.
But the young hero was deeply chagrined at his being duped to
recognize Jumonville’s death as an assassination. Captain van Braam,
being held in disrepute for what was probably nothing more culpable
than carelessness, was not named in the vote of thanks tendered
Washington’s officers. But this chagrin was no more cutting than the
obstinacy of Dinwiddie in refusing to fulfil the article of the treaty
concerning the return of the French prisoners. For this there was
little or no valid excuse, and Dinwiddie’s action in thus playing fast
and loose with Washington’s reputation was as galling to the young
Colonel as it was heedless of his country’s honor and the laws of war.
Washington’s first visit to the Ohio had proven French occupation of
that great valley. This, his second mission, had proven their power.
With this campaign began his military career. “Although as yet a
youth,” writes Sparks, “with small experience, unskilled in war, and
relying on his own resources, he had behaved with the prudence,
address, courage, and firmness of a veteran commander. Rigid in
discipline, but sharing the hardships and solicitous for the welfare
of his soldiers, he had secured their obedience and won their esteem
amidst privations, sufferings and perils that have seldom been
surpassed.”
III.
FORT NECESSITY AND ITS HERO.
On a plateau surrounded by low ground at the western extremity of
classic Great Meadows, Fort Necessity was built, and there may be seen
today the remains of its palisades.
The site was not chosen because of its strategic location but because,
late in that May day, a century and a half ago, a little army hurrying
forward to find any spot where it could defend itself, selected it
because of the supply of water afforded by the brooks.
From the hill to the east the young Commander no doubt looked with
anxious eyes upon this well watered meadow, and perhaps he decided
quickly to make his resistance here. As he neared the spot his hopes
rose, for he found that the plateau was surrounded by wet ground and
able to be approached only from the southern side. Moreover the
plateau contained “natural fortifications,” as Washington termed them,
possibly gullies torn through it sometime when the brooks were out of
banks.
Here Washington quickly ensconced his men. From their trenches, as
they looked westward for the French, lay the western extremity of
Great Meadows covered with bushes and rank grasses. To their
right--the north--the meadow marsh stretched more than a hundred
yards to the gently ascending wooded hillside. Behind them lay the
eastern sweep of meadows, and to their left, seventy yards distant,
the wooded hillside to the south. The high ground on which they lay
contained about forty square rods, and was bounded on the north by
Great Meadows brook and on the east by a brooklet which descended from
the valley between the southern hills.
When, in the days following, Fort Necessity was raised, the palisades,
it is said, were made by erecting logs on one end, side by side, and
throwing dirt against them from both sides. As there were no trees in
the meadow, the logs were brought from the southern hillside over the
narrow neck of solid ground to their place. On the north the palisade
was made to touch the waters of the brook. Without its embankments on
the south and west sides, two trenches were dug parallel with the
embankments, to serve as rifle-pits. Bastion gateways, three in
number, were made in the western palisade.
The first recorded survey of Fort Necessity was made by Mr. Freeman
Lewis, senior author, with Mr. James Veech, of “The Monongahela of
Old,” in 1816. This survey was first reproduced in Lowdermilk’s
“History of Cumberland”; it is described by Mr. Veech in “The
Monongahela of Old,” and has been reproduced, as authoritative, by the
authors of “Frontier Forts of Pennsylvania” published in 1895 by the
State of Pennsylvania. The embankments are described thus by Mr. Veech
on the basis of his collaborator’s survey: “It (Fort Necessity) was in
the form of an obtuse-angled triangle of 105 degrees, having its base
or hypothenuse upon the run. The line of the base was about midway,
sected or broken, and about two perches of it thrown across the run,
connecting with the base by lines of the triangle. One line of the
angle was six, the other seven perches; the base line eleven perches
long, including the section thrown across the run. The lines embraced
in all about fifty square perches of land on (or?) nearly one third of
an acre.”
This amusing statement has been seriously quoted by the authorities
mentioned, and a map is made according to it and published in the
“Frontier Forts of Pennsylvania” without a word as to its
inconsistencies! How could a triangle, the sides of which measure six,
seven and eleven rods, contain fifty square rods or one third of an
acre? It could not contain half that amount.
The present writer went to Fort Necessity armed with this two page map
of Fort Necessity in the “Frontier Forts of Pennsylvania” which he
trusted as authoritative. The present owner of the land, Mr. Lewis
Fazenbaker objected to the map, and it was only in trying to prove its
correctness that its inconsistencies were discovered.
The mounds now standing on the ground are drawn on the appended chart
“Diagrams of Fort Necessity” as lines C A B E. By a careful survey of
them by Mr. Robert McCracken C. E., sides C A and A B are found to be
the identical mounds surveyed by Mr. Lewis, the variation in direction
being exceedingly slight and easily accounted for by erosion. The
direction of Mr. Lewis’ sides were N 25 W and S 80 W: their direction
by Mr. McCracken’s survey are N 22 W and S 80.30 W. This proves beyond
a shadow of a doubt that the embankments surveyed in 1816 and 1901
are identical.
But the third mound B E runs utterly at variance with Mr. Lewis’
figure. By him its direction was 59¼ E; its present direction is S
76 E. The question then arises; Is this mound the one that Mr. Lewis
surveyed? Nothing could be better evidence that it is than the very
egregious error Mr. Lewis made concerning the area contained within
his triangular embankment. He affirms that the area of Fort Necessity
was fifty square rods. Now take the line of B E for the hypothenuse of
the triangle and extend it to F where it would meet the projection of
side A C. _That triangle contains almost exactly 50 square rods or
one-third of an acre!_ The natural supposition must be that some one
had surveyed the triangle A F B and computed its area correctly as
about fifty square rods. The mere recording of this area is sufficient
evidence that the triangle A F B had been surveyed in 1816, and this
is sufficient proof that mound B E stood just as it stands today and
was considered in Mr. Lewis’ day as one of the embankments of Fort
Necessity.
[Illustration: MAP OF FORT NECESSITY IN “FRONTIER FORTS OF
PENNSYLVANIA” FOLLOWING SURVEY OF FREEMAN LEWIS.]
Now, why did Mr. Lewis ignore the embankment B E and the triangle A F
B which contained these fifty square rods he gave as the area of Fort
Necessity? For the very obvious reason that that triangle crossed the
brook and ran far into the marsh beyond. By every account the
palisades of Fort Necessity were made to extend on the north to touch
the brook, therefore it would be quite ridiculous to suppose the
palisades crossed the brook again on the east. Mr. Lewis, prepossessed
with the idea that the embankments must have been triangular in shape,
drew the line B C as the base of his triangle, bisecting it at M
and N, and making the loop M S N touch the brook. This design
(triangle A B C) of Fort Necessity is improbable for the following
reasons:
1. It has not one half the area Mr. Lewis gives it.
2. It would not include much more than one-half of the high ground of
the plateau, which was none too large for a fort.
3. There is no semblance of a mound B C nor any shred of testimony nor
any legend of its existence.
4. The mound B E is entirely ignored though there is the best of
evidence that it stood in Mr. Lewis’ day where it stands today and was
considered an embankment of Fort Necessity. Mr. Lewis gives exactly
the area of a triangle with it as a part of the base line.
5. Loop M S N would not come near the course of the brook without
extending it far beyond Mr. Lewis’ estimate of the length of its
sides.
6. Its area is only about 5200 square feet which would make Fort
Necessity unconscionably small in face of the fact that more high
ground was available.
In 1759 Colonel Burd visited the site of Fort Necessity. This was only
five years after it was built. He described its remains as circular in
shape. If it was originally a triangle it is improbable that it could
have appeared round five years later. If, however, it was originally
an irregular square it is not improbable that the rains and frosts of
five winters, combined with the demolition of the Fort by the French,
would have given the mounds a circular appearance. Was Fort Necessity,
then, built in the form of an irregular square? There is the best of
evidence that it was.
In 1830--fourteen years after Mr. Lewis’ “survey,”--Mr. Jared Sparks,
a careful historian and author of the standard work on Washington,
visited Fort Necessity. According to him its remains occupied “an
irregular square, the dimensions of which were about one hundred feet
on each side.” Mr. Sparks drew a map of the embankments which is
incorporated in his “Writings of Washington.” This drawing has not
been reproduced in any later work, the authors of both “History of
Cumberland” and “Frontier Forts of Pennsylvania” preferring to
reproduce Mr. Lewis’ inconsistent survey and speculation rather than
the drawing of what Mr. Sparks, himself, saw.
It is plain that Mr. Sparks found the embankment B E running in the
direction it does today and not at all in direction of the line B C as
Mr. Lewis drew it. By giving the approximate length of the sides as
one hundred feet, Mr. Sparks gives about the exact length of the line
B E in whatever direction it is extended to the brook. The fact that
such an exact scholar as Mr. Sparks does not mention a sign or
tradition of an embankment at B C, only fourteen years after Mr. Lewis
“surveyed” it, is evidence that it never existed which cannot come far
from convicting the latter of a positive intention to speculate.
Mr. Sparks gives us four sides for Fort Necessity. Three of these have
been described as C A, A B and the broken line B E D. Is there any
evidence of the fourth side such as indicated by the line C D? There
is.
When Mr. Fazenbaker first questioned the accuracy of the map of Fort
Necessity in “Frontier Forts of Pennsylvania,” he believed the fort
was a four sided construction and pointed to a small mound,
indicated at O, as the remains of the fourth embankment. The mound
would not be noticed in a hasty view of the field but, on examination
proves to be an artificial, not a natural, mound. It is in lower
ground and nearer the old course of the brook than the remains of Fort
Necessity. A mound here would suffer most when the brook was out of
banks, which would account for its disappearance.
[Illustration: Western embankment of Fort Necessity marked with
a line of white stones.]
[Illustration: Remains of the Southern embankment of Fort
Necessity. The low ground covered with rank grass, on the right,
marks the rifle-pit. In the distance is the Eastern sweep of
Great Meadows.]
Excavations in the other mounds had been unsuccessful; nothing had
been discovered of the palisades, though every mound gave certain
proof of having been artificially made. But excavations at mound O
gave a different result. At about four and one-half feet below the
surface of the ground, at the water line, a considerable amount of
bark was found, fresh and red as new bark. It was water-soaked and the
strings lay parallel with the mound above and were not found at a
greater distance than two feet from its center. It was the rough bark
of a tree’s trunk--not the skin bark such as grows on roots. Large
flakes, the size of a man’s hand, could be removed from it. At a
distance of ten feet away a second trench was sunk, in line with the
mound but quite beyond its northwestern extremity. Bark was found here
entirely similar in color, position, and condition. There is little
doubt that the bark came from the logs of the palisades of Fort
Necessity, though nothing is to be gained by exaggerating the
possibility. Bark, here in the low ground, would last indefinitely,
and water was reached under this mound sooner than at any other point.
No wood was found. It is probable that the French threw down the
palisades, but bark would naturally have been left in the ground. If
wood had been left it would not withstand decay so long as bark.
Competent judges declare the bark to be that of oak. An authority of
great reputation, expresses the opinion that the bark found was
probably from the logs of the palisades erected in 1754.
If anything is needed to prove that this slight mound O was an
embankment of Fort Necessity, it is to be found in the result of Mr.
McCracken’s survey. The mound lies in _exact line_ with the eastern
extremity of embankment C A, the point C, being located seven rods
from the obtuse angle A, in line with the mound C A, which is broken
by Mr. Fazenbaker’s lane. Also, the distance from C to D (in line with
the mound O) measures ninety-nine feet and four inches,--almost
exactly Mr. Sparks’ estimate of one hundred feet. Thus Fort Necessity
was in the shape of the figure represented by lines K C, C A, A B, and
B E, and the projection of the palisades to the brook is represented
by E D K, E H K, or L W K, (line B E being prolonged to L.) Mr.
Sparks’ drawing of the fort is thus proven approximately correct,
although Mr. Veech boldly asserts that it is “inaccurate,” (the
quotation being copied in the “Frontier Forts of Pennsylvania”) and
despite the fact that two volumes treating of the fort, “History of
Cumberland,” and “Frontier Forts of Pennsylvania,” refuse to give Mr.
Sparks’ map a place in their pages. It is of little practical moment
what the form of the fort may have been, but it is all out of order
that a palpably false description should be given by those who should
be authorities, in preference to Mr. Sparks’ description which is
easily proven to be approximately correct.
[Illustration: Lewis’ plan of Fort Necessity: A, B, N, S, M, C.
Enlarged triangle (containing “⅓ of an acre”): A, B, F. Sparks
plan: A, B, L, W, K, C. Remains of Eastern embankment: O.
Variation of Lewis’ triangle (given in “Fort Cumberland”): A, B,
N, R, P, M, C. Actual shape of Fort Necessity according to last
survey: K, C, A, B, E; the projection to the water may have been
E, D, K, or E, H, K, or L, W, K. This detail is immaterial. The
irregular square A, B, K, C, gives the general outline of the
fortifications, CA, (save where the lane crosses it) AB, BE and
O being still visible in 1901.]
Relics from Fort Necessity are rare and valuable, for the reason that
no other action save the one Battle of Fort Necessity ever took place
here. The barrel of an old flint-lock musket, a few grape shot, a
bullet mould and ladle, leaden and iron musket balls, comprise the few
silent memorials of the first battle in which Saxon blood was shed
west of the Allegheny Mountains. The swivels, it is said, were taken
to Kentucky to do brave duty there in redeeming the “dark and bloody
ground” to civilization.
* * * * *
But, after all--and more precious than all--our study of this historic
spot in the Alleghenies and the memorials left near it becomes, soon,
a study of its hero, that young Virginian Colonel. Even the battles
fought hereabouts seem to have been of little real consequence, for
New France fell, never to rise, with the capture of Quebec--“amid the
proudest monuments of its own glory and on the very spot of its
origin!”