and the women had again been spared through public sympathy with
their apparent helplessness and misfortunes. What was to become
of them and of Little Harpe and of the seven determined men who
had run down the gigantic monster? How were these men rewarded for
their heroism? The records, hunted down with the utmost patience,
constitute a new story in which mystery, tragedy, suspicion and
pathos all enter to bring about poetic justice. It enables us also
to get closer to these terrible personalities.
First as to the seven avengers. On December 16, 1799, the Kentucky
Legislature passed “An Act directing the payment of money to John
Leiper and others.” The preamble stated that “Micajah Harpe, a
notorious offender” had committed “the most unheard of murders” and
the Governor on April 22, had offered a reward of three hundred
dollars “for the apprehension of said Harpe.” It recites its
enactment because “sundry good citizens ... were, while in the
attempt to apprehend him, reduced to the necessity of slaying him,”
and further declares by its enactment all doubt as to the right
of these men to the reward is removed. The money was ordered paid
to “John Leiper, James Tompkins, Silas McBee, Mathew Christian,
Moses Stegall, Neville Lindsey, and William Gresham ... one hundred
of which shall be appropriated to the said John Leiper, and the
residue to be equally divided among the others.”
The second clause shows that “Alexander M’Farling, John M’Farling,
Daniel M’Farling, and Robert White, who from motives of public good
incurred very considerable expense and toil in the pursuit of the
said Harpe and his associates ... be allowed one hundred and fifty
dollars.” These four men probably lived near Danville, and, as
previously noted, had been appointed by the governor to take charge
of the Harpes should they be found “in any adjacent state.”
Five of the men who captured and killed Big Harpe fared well.
Tompkins and Matthew Christian continued to live in Henderson
County, where they died old and highly respected citizens. William
Grissom, about 1810, moved to southern Illinois where he continued
the life of a well-to-do farmer. Neville Lindsey was identified
with the development of west Tennessee. Squire Silas McBee opened
up a plantation in Pontotoc County, Mississippi, and ranked among
the best and most prominent men in that state. It was there, in
1841, he met the historian Draper, to whom he supplied much data
relative to King’s Mountain and also the facts used for his “Sketch
of the Harpes.”
As for Stegall and Leiper, the immediate executioners of Big Harpe,
no sooner had they sprung into public notice by reason of their
acts, than they were enveloped in a mystery of suspicion almost as
deep as that surrounding the Harpes themselves. It has grown deeper
with time, though their deaths within eight years after the tragedy
of the death chase rendered the suspicion more sinister and seemed
to confirm it.
It appears that John Leiper had not only seen the Harpes before
he joined the band in the chase, but was strongly suspected of
having been secretly involved in some of their crimes committed in
central Kentucky. In April, 1799, when Colonel Trabue’s boy was
killed by the Harpes, “Leiper then resided in Adair County and knew
the Trabue family well.” [12E] He probably lived near “old Mr.
Roberts,” the father-in-law of Big Harpe, who then had a farm in
that part of Adair County which, in 1825, became a part of Russell
County. Hypocrite that he was, in all likelihood, he joined some of
the men who had gone out to hunt the murderer of John Trabue. For
some reason he left that section shortly after the Harpes appeared
on the scene. He may have feared that the two outlaws had planned
to establish themselves near “old man Roberts” and therefore went
to Henderson County, where he was least likely to see them again,
and so escape any vengeance they might see fit to execute upon him
for joining the posse. Thus, not to begin a better life but to
escape death, he left Adair County for parts unknown. On July 3, of
the same year, the Henderson County grand jury found an indictment
against him for “living in adultery with Ann L. Allen, from the
20th day of last May.”
When Leiper was asked to join in the Harpe chase it was observed
that he hesitated, saying he had no proper horse for such work, but
that if Captain Robert Robertson’s could be procured, he would go.
When such arrangement was made, Leiper boastingly declared that
if he got sight of either of the Harpes he “would stick to the
chase until he killed them or they killed him.” Later, when Leiper
and Christian overtook Big Harpe, shortly before he was killed,
the outlaw called to Leiper, “I told you to stay back or I’d kill
you,” and Leiper replied, “My business with you is for one or
the other of us to be killed.” These and other remarks, as later
interpreted by the other pursuers, indicated that more than a
casual acquaintance existed between Leiper and the Harpes. Although
applauded for taking part in the killing of Big Harpe, and thus
ridding the country of a scourge, he was nevertheless condemned for
his motive in doing so. He “died suddenly of winter fever some time
during the winter of the cold Friday” (Friday, February 6, 1807).
Up to the day of his death he was looked upon as a suspicious
character by all his neighbors and so, being unworthy of trust and
an outcast, lived and died friendless. [12E]
Moses Stegall was at first the hero of heroes in the returning
band. He had suffered the loss of his wife, child, and home, and it
seems that fate itself had destined him to strike the last deserved
blow. He had been regarded as a questionable character, yet no
one could trace any particular crime to him. The report of the
tragic manner in which he had put an end to Big Harpe kept in the
background, for a time, all unfavorable reports heretofore heard.
But it soon became apparent that he, too, had a hidden motive in
taking so active a part in the pursuit of the outlaws. It was
recalled that when he discovered that Big Harpe had been wounded,
but was still able to talk, he had stepped forward and deliberately
cut off his head. This act was, at the dreadful instant, regarded
by the excited spectators as one highly deserved as far as Harpe
was concerned, but for Stegall it was soon suspected to have been
an act whereby he could silence the tongue of a dangerously wounded
man who might still survive sufficiently to reveal some of the
lawlessness in which Stegall himself was implicated. That this
was his motive is verified by a number of authorities. Draper,
after a conversation with General Thomas Love, of Tennessee, who
was a cousin of Major William Love, and whose wife was a cousin
of Thomas Langford, noted this: “The company, before his arrival,
had some confession from Harpe, and Stegall was afraid he would
be implicated and wanted him out of the way, for Stegall bore a
bad character. Parson Henry says it was suspected that Stegall
purposely left his home to give the Harpes an opportunity to kill
his victims.” [12E]
Forty years after Big Harpe was killed, a preacher traveling from
Lexington, Kentucky, by way of the Henderson and Harpe’s Head
Road to Mammoth Cave, heard the tradition of the capture of Harpe
as then told in the neighborhood where Stegall lived. Relative
to Stegall’s motive, he wrote: “As for Stegall, he never bore a
good character and his excessive zeal and forwardness created
new suspicions against him as being an accomplice of Harpe whom
he might wish effectually to prevent from betraying him by a
precipitate death under colour of vengeance.” [38]
Governor John Reynolds, in his comments on the notoriety of some of
the settlers who, in pioneer days, lived in Illinois near Ford’s
Ferry and Cave-in-Rock, pictures the last scene in Stegall’s life:
“In 1806, at the place, ten miles from the Ohio, where Potts
resided afterwards, on the road west of the river, a bloody tragedy
was acted. A man named Stegall--the same who assisted to kill one
of the Harpes in Kentucky--eloped with a young girl and made the
above place his residence.... Two or three brothers of the seduced
girl, and her father, followed them from Trade Water, Kentucky,
the residence of the father.... They found Stegall and the others
sitting up under a gallery outside of the cabin, with a lamp
burning. The assailing party advanced in silence and secrecy, near
Stegall, and shot him without doing any of the others any injury
whatever ... and brought back the deluded girl to her home and
family.” [102]
Thus within about a half dozen years after Stegall and Leiper
helped to capture Big Harpe they had passed into the Great
Beyond. Tradition insists that but for the persistence of these
two men, the other five would have abandoned the hunt for the
Harpes--as many others had done elsewhere--and both outlaws, in all
probability, would have escaped to add more crimes to their long
list.«16»
Such is the story of the Harpes and their principal crimes. No
doubt regarding these crimes existed in the various localities.
How many similar deeds they actually committed will never be
discovered, for in the sparsely settled country isolated settlers
could, and often did, disappear without leaving any trace of their
fate and in many instances travelers who were killed were missed by
no one.
There also hangs somewhat of a veil of personal mystery over these
criminals. Who were the Harpes and what sort of men were they in
appearance and bearing? Who were the three women that, from choice
or because of terror of their mates, lived through such terrible
experience with them, bore children to them and so became forever
linked with the history of these horrible outlaws?
Whether or not the two Harpes were brothers and the two “wives” of
Big Harpe sisters, is, after all, a question that is not definitely
settled by any authoritative record or direct testimony that
has yet been produced. At this date it seems unlikely that any
further proof of their origin, names or relationship will ever be
discovered. When they were active it was necessary to their safety
to assume various false names. They changed clothing to such an
extent as they could, in order to avoid pursuit and capture, as
well as to avoid suspicion among those they might later approach as
intended victims.
They certainly seem to have been brothers in crime and brutality;
but were they brothers by birth? The supposed wife and the
“supplementary” wife of Big Harpe were, in the same degree, sisters
in their toleration of his crimes, but were they actually sisters
through one sire? Throughout the story the view has been taken that
the two men were brothers and the two women sisters, for such was
the prevailing belief. All the contemporary and early subsequent
accounts so refer to them, except Smith, who, in his _Legends of
the War of Independence_, published in 1855, says the men were
first cousins. He designates Micajah or “Big” Harpe as “William
Harpe,” a son of John Harpe, and Wiley or “Little” Harpe as “Joshua
Harpe,” a son of William Harpe, who was a brother of John Harpe.
Smith also represents Susan, the wife of Big Harpe, as a daughter
of Captain John Wood, and Betsey, Big Harpe’s supplementary wife,
as Maria Davidson, a daughter of Captain John Davidson. Their
fathers, he says, were North Carolinians, both captains in the
Revolutionary army, but in no wise related by blood. Concerning the
two women, he says that they were abducted by the Harpes and became
their “involuntary wives.” He ignores the fact that the two women
seem to have taken no advantage of any of the chances they had to
escape from these villains, and is likewise apparently ignorant
of the fact that the third woman, Sally Rice, the wife of Little
Harpe, was associated with the outlaws during their most outrageous
actions. This same writer says that “Big Harpe and Joshua Harpe”
fought at King’s Mountain in October, 1780, and were about twenty
years old at that time, whereas all other records show the two men
could not then have reached the age of ten.
Smith cites no authority for his various statements, although in
the preface to his book he declares that he obtained his materials
for his pioneer day sketches by questioning survivors of the times
and the events. It is also observed that no other writers of that
time present authority for the statements they make as to the
origin and relationships of the Harpe band.
Breazeale, himself a resident of Knoxville, had opportunities
to gather on the ground early recollections of them. In 1842 he
wrote that when the Harpes appeared there in 1797 or 1798, they
“professed” to have come from Georgia, “represented” themselves
to be brothers, and “said” their name was Harpe. He is careful to
add, “whether their real name was Harpe or not, no one knew; nor
was it ever ascertained where they had been born and brought up, or
who were their relatives.” As they soon turned out to be thieves
and were driven away from the neighborhood of Knoxville, it is at
least possible that the relationship, the name and all else they
gave out might have been assumed and false in order to cover their
tracks from a former place. After the murder of Langford in Lincoln
County in 1799, they were both indicted under the name of Roberts,
which they had evidently assumed and under which they pleaded and
were held. It may be suggested here that if Roberts was the true
name of Big Harpe’s two “wives,” a shrewd criminal would, it seems,
hesitate to assume it as an alias, for the name would help identify
him. After their escape from the Danville jail the governor in his
proclamation of reward for their capture called them “Harpe alias
Roberts,” which shows that their actual names were unknown. It is
reasonable to assume that they used false names as the necessity
arose. When, in Henderson County, they represented themselves as
“preachers,” they must have used fictitious names for the occasion.
The name of Harpe became so full of terror and their description
as “big” and “little” brothers was so broadcast, that change of
name, appearance and pretended occupation was necessary to their
safe movement. It will later appear that Little Harpe, after his
escape from Kentucky, assumed various names, none of which he had
used before and one of which he signed under oath to an official
document.«17»
Having told of some of the deeds the Harpes committed, an effort
is now made to picture to the readers how the monsters looked who
could and did commit these crimes. The career of the Harpes was so
swift and so veiled by its criminal nature, that the opportunities
to examine in detail their appearance and manner was very brief.
“Dead men tell no tales” and since those who saw the Harpes at
their work were usually victims, they could leave no record. Those
who have left descriptions received them from others who had had
them second hand. When the difference in observers and conditions
is considered, and when the disguises and changes of attire
and situation are allowed for, it is surprising to find that a
plausible and convincing portrait is made of Big Harpe.
As already stated, Judge James Hall, in April, 1824, published in
_The Port Folio_ a brief account of one of the crimes committed
by the Harpes, and having been accused of having written a story
“unworthy of belief,” he published in the same magazine about a
year later an account of another of their murders and convinced his
critics and other readers that his stories of the Harpe atrocities
were true. Judge Hall evidently continued his investigation of
the Harpes, and seems to have made a special effort to gather
data relative to their personal appearance. He realized that
fiction is often a better visualizer of persons and their acts
than is formal history. So when, in 1833, he published his romance
entitled _Harpe’s Head_, and later republished it under the title
of _Kentucky, A Tale_, his readers were given a striking picture
of the Harpes, and especially of Big Harpe. In his preface to this
romance he states that although the tale is the “offspring of
invention,” nevertheless “two of the characters [the two Harpes]
introduced are historical and their deeds are still freshly
remembered by many of the early settlers of Kentucky.” Their
acts were, he explains “of a character too atrocious for recital
in a work of this description ... and have therefore been merely
introduced into a tale wholly fictitious.”
Judge Hall’s description of Big Harpe is as follows:
“His appearance was too striking not to rivet attention. In size
he towered above the ordinary stature, his frame was bony and
muscular, his breast broad, his limbs gigantic. His clothing
was uncouth and shabby, his exterior weatherbeaten and dirty,
indicating continual exposure to the elements, and pointing out
this singular person as one who dwelt far from the habitations of
men, and who mingled not in the courtesies of civilized life. He
was completely armed, with the exception of a rifle, which seemed
to have only been laid aside for a moment, for he carried the usual
powder horn and pouch of the backwoodsman. A broad leathern belt,
drawn closely around his waist, supported a large and a smaller
knife and a tomahawk. But that which attracted the gaze of all ...
was his bold and ferocious countenance, and its strongly marked
expression of villainy. His face, which was larger than ordinary,
exhibited the lines of ungovernable passion, but the complexion
announced that the ordinary feelings of the human breast were
extinguished, and instead of the healthy hue which indicates the
social emotions, there was a livid, unnatural redness, resembling
that of a dried and lifeless skin. The eye was fearless and
steady, but it was also artful and audacious, glaring upon the
beholder with an unpleasant fixedness and brilliancy, like that
of a ravenous animal gloating upon its prey and concentrating all
its malignity into one fearful glance. He wore no covering on his
head, and the natural protection of thick, coarse hair, of a fiery
redness, uncombed and matted, gave evidence of long exposure to the
rudest visitations of the sunbeam and the tempest. He seemed some
desperate outlaw, an unnatural enemy of his species, destitute of
the nobler sympathies of human nature, and prepared at all points
for assault or defense.”«18»
It is a vivid, splendid sketch full-length; a portraiture in
full keeping with the idea of a super-criminal and his crimes.
In all points except one it is sustained as to its faithfulness
by the scattered fragments of description that have come down
to us from others speaking independently. The disputed point is
the color of his hair. Instead of the “fiery redness” that Hall
has set down every other witness makes it black. The fact quite
well agreed upon that Little Harpe’s hair was red, suggests that
in this particular Hall’s memory confounded the two. In Governor
Garrard’s proclamation offering a reward for their capture, Big
Harpe is described as being “about six feet high, of robust make,”
“built very straight,” “full fleshed in the face,” “ill-looking
downcast countenance,” “his hair black and short but comes very
much down his forehead.” Trabue says “the big man is pale, dark,
swarthy, has bushy hair.” Breazeale says he was a “very large,
brawny-limbed, big-boned man” and “of a most vicious, savage and
ferocious countenance,” while Stewart [12F] reports him as “among
the tallest class of men, say six feet two to six feet four inches”
and with “sunken black eyes, a downcast, sour look; dark hair and
high cheek bones.” As to the hair being short or long, Draper, as
already stated, recorded in one of his unpublished note books the
pungent and grim picture of Big Harpe’s wife being compelled, after
his death, to carry his decapitated head some distance “by the
hair.” There were evidently times when the hair of both Harpes was,
by force of circumstances, long and times when it was short during
that terrible year they scoured the wilderness. But Big Harpe’s
hair was probably black or dark and may have been curly.
Little Harpe seems to have passed comparatively unobserved in the
presence of his gigantic elder. Governor Garrard’s proclamation
does not even mention Little Harpe’s height, but says he “is very
meager in his face, has short black hair, but not quite so curly
as his brother’s, he looks older, though really younger.” His
countenance was also “downcast.” Hall says he “was smaller in
size, but having the same suspicious exterior, his countenance
equally fierce and sinister.” Breazeale passes his appearance
over, while Stewart, who probably got his account of Little Harpe
from the latter’s wife while she was in his custody, merely says
he was “somewhat under common size, had light hair, blue eyes
and a handsome look.” It may be thought that the wife formulated
that description to lead his pursuers astray. But the Frankfort
_Guardian of Freedom_, of February 29, 1804, four years after Big
Harpe’s death, contained an extract “from a letter from a gentleman
in the Mississippi territory,” written January 8, 1804, in which
is noted the arrest and trial of two outlaws in Greenville,
Mississippi, one of whom, although he gave another name, “was
proved to be the villain who was known by the name of Little or
Red-headed Harpe and who committed so many acts of cruelty in
Kentucky.” Red hair was the particular mark of Little Harpe.
Curiosity as to the three women must be satisfied with even a
less personal account and description. Hall in his _Harpe’s
Head_, merely says of them: “Two of them were coarse, sunburnt,
and wretchedly attired and the other somewhat more delicate and
better dressed.” Major Stewart, who had them in personal charge for
some time and saved them from being lynched, says that Susan, Big
Harpe’s first wife, was “rather tall, rawboned, dark hair and eyes,
and rather ugly,” and was about twenty-five years old. Betsey, the
“supplementary” wife, he described as “rather handsome, light hair
and blue eyes and a perfect contrast with her sister.” Sally, the
wife of Little Harpe, he records was “really pretty and delicate,”
about twenty years old, but he gives no word of description. It
is to be assumed that when Major Stewart saw them they had been
restored to cleanliness and decent attire. [12F]
One is tempted to pause and reflect upon these three women, all
young and once innocent as other girls, who had so swiftly ridden
the “hurricane of all horrors” with two such men, had borne them
children as nomads do traveling the desert. One had had her child
snatched from her arm by Big Harpe and seen its brains dashed out
against a tree. Yet apparently not one of the three attempted
to escape her fate, although frequently separated and having
opportunity to do so. The normal man accustomed to normal women
wonders what they looked like and in what respect the horrors
of their experience had affected them. In the absence of all
description that curiosity cannot be gratified.
The two wives of Big Harpe, if they were really sisters, and
daughters of “old Mr. Roberts” mentioned but once in the pitiable
record, had a brother of whom the Reverend Jacob Young, in his
_Autobiography of a Pioneer_, has drawn a portrait scarcely less
vivid than that which Hall drew of his ferocious brother-in-law,
Big Harpe. It is a curious sensation to gaze even upon this brother
of two such women. The wandering preacher tells how, in 1802,
he entered a cabin in Russell County, Kentucky, where he had an
appointment to conduct religious services. While singing to a small
audience that came barefooted and bareheaded, a man of remarkable
size, who was even more poorly clad than the others, walked into
the room. Then follow the preacher’s words: