GROWTH AND CIVIL ORGANIZATION OF KENTUCKY, 1776.
By the end of 1775 Kentucky had been occupied by those who were
permanently to hold it. Stouthearted men, able to keep what they had
grasped moved in, and took with them their wives and children. There was
also of course a large shifting element, composing, indeed, the bulk of
the population: hunters who came out for the season; "cabinners," or men
who merely came out to build a cabin and partially clear a spot of
ground, so as to gain a right to it under the law; surveyors, and those
adventurers always to be found in a new country, who are too restless,
or too timid, or too irresolute to remain.
The men with families and the young men who intended to make permanent
homes formed the heart of the community, the only part worth taking into
account. There was a steady though thin stream of such immigrants, and
they rapidly built up around them a life not very unlike that which they
had left behind with their old homes. Even in 1776 there was marrying
and giving in marriage, and children were born in Kentucky. The
new-comers had to settle in forts, where the young men and maidens had
many chances for courtship. They married early, and were as fruitful as
they were hardy.[1] Most of these marriages were civil contracts, but
some may have been solemnized by clergymen, for the commonwealth
received from the outset occasional visits from ministers.
These ministers belonged to different denominations, but all were sure
of a hearing. The backwoodsmen were forced by their surroundings to
exercise a grudging charity towards the various forms of religious
belief entertained among themselves--though they hated and despised
French and Spanish Catholics. When off in the wilderness they were
obliged to take a man for what he did, not for what he thought. Of
course there were instances to the contrary, and there is an amusing and
authentic story of two hunters, living alone and far from any
settlement, who quarrelled because one was a Catholic and the other a
Protestant. The seceder took up his abode in a hollow tree within
speaking distance of his companion's cabin. Every day on arising they
bade each other good-morning; but not another word passed between them
for the many months during which they saw no other white face.[2] There
was a single serious and important, albeit only partial, exception to
this general rule of charity. After the outbreak of the Revolution, the
Kentuckians, in common with other backwoodsmen, grew to thoroughly
dislike one religious body which they already distrusted; this was the
Church of England, the Episcopal Church. They long regarded it as merely
the persecuting ecclesiastical arm of the British Government. Such of
them as had been brought up in any faith at all had for the most part
originally professed some form of Calvinism; they had very probably
learnt their letters from a primer which in one of its rude cuts
represented John Rogers at the stake, surrounded by his wife and seven
children, and in their after lives they were more familiar with the
"Pilgrim's Progress" than with any other book save the Bible; so that it
was natural for them to distrust the successors of those who had
persecuted Rogers and Bunyan.[3] Still, the border communities were, as
times then went very tolerant in religious matters; and of course most
of the men had no chance to display, or indeed to feel, sectarianism of
any kind, for they had no issue to join, and rarely a church about which
to rally.
By the time Kentucky was settled the Baptists had begun to make headway
on the frontier, at the expense of the Presbyterians. The rough
democracy of the border welcomed a sect which was itself essentially
democratic. To many of the backwoodsmen's prejudices, notably their
sullen and narrow hostility towards all rank, whether or not based on
merit and learning, the Baptists' creed appealed strongly. Where their
preachers obtained foothold, it was made a matter of reproach to the
Presbyterian clergymen that they had been educated in early life for the
ministry as for a profession. The love of liberty, and the defiant
assertion of equality, so universal in the backwoods, and so excellent
in themselves, sometimes took very warped and twisted forms, notably
when they betrayed the backwoodsmen into the belief that the true
democratic spirit forbade any exclusive and special training for the
professions that produce soldiers, statesmen, or ministers.
The fact that the Baptist preachers were men exactly similar to their
fellows in all their habits of life, not only gave them a good standing
at once, but likewise enabled them very early to visit the farthest
settlements, travelling precisely like other backwoodsmen; and once
there, each preacher, each earnest professor, doing bold and fearless
missionary work, became the nucleus round which a little knot of true
believers gathered. Two or three of them made short visits to Kentucky
during the first few years of its existence. One, who went thither in
the early spring of 1776, kept a journal of his trip.[4] He travelled
over the Wilderness Road with eight other men. Three of them were
Baptists like himself, who prayed every night; and their companions,
though they did not take part in the praying, did not interrupt it.
Their journey through the melancholy and silent wilderness resembled in
its incidents the countless other similar journeys that were made at
that time and later.
They suffered from cold and hunger and lack of shelter; they became
footsore and weary, and worn out with driving the pack-horses. On the
top of the lonely Cumberland Mountains they came upon the wolf-eaten
remains of a previous traveller, who had recently been killed by
Indians. At another place they met four men returning--cowards, whose
hearts had failed them when in sight of the promised land. While on the
great Indian war-trail they killed a buffalo, and thenceforth lived on
its jerked meat. One night the wolves smelt the flesh, and came up to
the camp-fire; the strong hunting-dogs rushed out with clamorous barking
to drive them away, and the sudden alarm for a moment made the sleepy
wayfarers think that roving Indians had attacked them. When they reached
Crab Orchard their dangers were for the moment past; all travellers grew
to regard with affection the station by this little grove of wild
apple-trees. It is worthy of note that the early settlers loved to build
their homes near these natural orchards, moved by the fragrance and
beauty of the bloom in spring.[5]
The tired Baptist was not overpleased with Harrodstown, though he there
listened to the preaching of one of his own sect.[6] He remarked "a poor
town it was in those days," a couple of rows of smoky cabins, tenanted
by dirty women and ragged children, while the tall, unkempt frontiersmen
lounged about in greasy hunting-shirts, breech-clouts, leggings, and
moccasins. There was little or no corn until the crops were gathered,
and, like the rest, he had to learn to eat wild meat without salt. The
settlers,--as is always the case in frontier towns where the people are
wrapped up in their own pursuits and rivalries, and are obliged to talk
of one another for lack of outside interests,--were divided by
bickering, gossiping jealousies; and at this time they were quarrelling
as to whether the Virginian cabin-rights or Henderson's land-grants
would prove valid. As usual, the zealous Baptist preacher found that the
women were the first to "get religion," as he phrased it. Sometimes
their husbands likewise came in with them; at other times they remained
indifferent. Often they savagely resented their wives and daughters
being converted, visiting on the head of the preacher an anger that did
not always find vent in mere words; for the backwoodsmen had strong,
simple natures, powerfully excited for good or evil, and those who were
not God-fearing usually became active and furious opponents of all
religion.
It is curious to compare the description of life in a frontier fort as
given by this undoubtedly prejudiced observer with the equally
prejudiced, but golden- instead of sombre-hued, reminiscences of
frontier life, over which the pioneers lovingly lingered in their old
age. To these old men the long-vanished stockades seemed to have held a
band of brothers, who were ever generous, hospitable, courteous, and
fearless, always ready to help one another, never envious, never
flinching from any foe.[7] Neither account is accurate; but the last is
quite as near the truth as the first. On the border, as elsewhere, but
with the different qualities in even bolder contrast, there was much
both of good and bad, of shiftless viciousness and resolute honesty.
Many of the hunters were mere restless wanderers, who soon surrendered
their clearings to small farming squatters, but a degree less shiftless
than themselves; the latter brought the ground a little more under
cultivation, and then likewise left it and wandered onwards, giving
place to the third set of frontiersmen, the steady men who had come to
stay. But often the first hunters themselves stayed and grew up as
farmers and landed proprietors.[8] Many of the earliest pioneers,
including most of their leaders, founded families, which took root in
the land and flourish to this day, the children, grandchildren, and
great-grandchildren of the old-time Indian fighters becoming Congressmen
and judges, and officers in the regular army and in the Federal and
Confederate forces during the civil war.[9] In fact the very first
comers to a wild and dangerous country are apt to be men with fine
qualities of heart and head; it is not until they have partly tamed the
land that the scum of the frontier drifts into it.[10]
In 1776, as in after years, there were three routes that were taken by
immigrants to Kentucky. One led by backwoods trails to the Greenbriar
settlements, and thence down the Kanawha to the Ohio;[11] but the travel
over this was insignificant compared to that along the others. The two
really important routes were the Wilderness Road, and that by water,
from Fort Pitt down the Ohio River. Those who chose the latter way
embarked in roughly built little flat-boats at Fort Pitt, if they came
from Pennsylvania, or else at the old Redstone Fort on the Monongahela,
if from Maryland or Virginia, and drifted down with the current. Though
this was the easiest method, yet the danger from Indians was so very
great that most immigrants, the Pennsylvanians as well as the
Marylanders, Virginians, and North Carolinians,[12] usually went
overland by the Wilderness Road. This was the trace marked out by Boon,
which to the present day remains a monument to his skill as a practical
surveyor and engineer. Those going along it went on foot, driving their
horses and cattle. At the last important frontier town they fitted
themselves out with pack-saddles; for in such places two of the leading
industries were always those of the pack-saddle maker and the artisan in
deer leather. When there was need, the pioneer could of course make a
rough pack-saddle for himself, working it up from two forked branches of
a tree. If several families were together, they moved slowly in true
patriarchal style. The elder boys drove the cattle, which usually headed
the caravan; while the younger children were packed in crates of hickory
withes and slung across the backs of the old quiet horses, or else were
seated safely between the great rolls of bedding that were carried in
similar fashion. The women sometimes rode and sometimes walked, carrying
the babies. The men, rifle on shoulder, drove the pack-train, while some
of them walked spread out in front, flank, and rear, to guard against
the savages.[13] A tent or brush lean-to gave cover at night. Each
morning the men packed the animals while the women cooked breakfast and
made ready the children. Special care had to be taken not to let the
loaded animals brush against the yellow-jacket nests, which were always
plentiful along the trail in the fall of the year; for in such a case
the vicious swarms attacked man and beast, producing an immediate
stampede, to the great detriment of the packs.[14] In winter the fords
and mountains often became impassable, and trains were kept in one place
for weeks at a time, escaping starvation only by killing the lean
cattle; for few deer at that season remained in the mountains.
Both the water route and the wilderness road were infested by the
savages at all times, and whenever there was open war the sparsely
settled regions from which they started were likewise harried. When the
northwestern tribes threatened Fort Pitt and Fort Henry--or Pittsburg
and Wheeling, as they were getting to be called,--they threatened one of
the two localities which served to cover the communications with
Kentucky; but it was far more serious when the Holston region was
menaced, because the land travel was at first much the more important.
The early settlers of course had to suffer great hardship even when they
reached Kentucky. The only two implements the men invariably carried
were the axe and rifle, for they were almost equally proud of their
skill as warriors, hunters, and wood-choppers. Next in importance came
the sickle or scythe. The first three tasks of the pioneer farmer were
to build a cabin, to make a clearing--burning the brush, cutting down
the small trees, and girdling the large--and to plant corn. Until the
crop ripened he hunted steadily, and his family lived on the abundant
game, save for which it would have been wholly impossible to have
settled Kentucky so early. If it was winter-time, however, all the wild
meat was very lean and poor eating, unless by chance a bear was found in
a hollow tree, when there was a royal feast, the breast of the wild
turkey serving as a substitute for bread.[15] If the men were suddenly
called away by an Indian inroad, their families sometimes had to live
for days on boiled tops of green nettles.[16] Naturally the children
watched the growth of the tasselled corn with hungry eagerness until the
milky ears were fit for roasting. When they hardened, the grains were
pounded into hominy in the hominy-block, or else ground into meal in the
rough hand-mill, made of two limestones in a hollow sycamore log. Until
flax could be grown the women were obliged to be content with lint made
from the bark of dead nettles. This was gathered in the spring-time by
all the people of a station acting together, a portion of the men
standing guard while the rest, with the women and children, plucked the
dead stalks. The smart girls of Irish ancestry spun many dozen cuts of
linen from this lint, which was as fine as flax but not so strong.[17]
Neither hardship nor danger could render the young people downhearted,
especially when several families, each containing grown-up sons and
daughters, were living together in almost every fort. The chief
amusements were hunting and dancing. There being no permanent ministers,
even the gloomy Calvinism of some of the pioneers was relaxed. Long
afterwards one of them wrote, in a spirit of quaint apology, that
"dancing was not then considered criminal,"[18] and that it kept up the
spirits of the young people, and made them more healthy and happy; and
recalling somewhat uneasily the merriment in the stations, in spite of
the terrible and interminable Indian warfare, the old moralist felt
obliged to condemn it, remarking that, owing to the lack of ministers of
the gospel, the impressions made by misfortune were not improved.
Though obliged to be very careful and to keep their families in forts,
and in spite of a number of them being killed by the savages,[19] the
settlers in 1776 were able to wander about and explore the country
thoroughly,[20] making little clearings as the basis of "cabin claims,"
and now and then gathering into stations which were for the most part
broken up by the Indians and abandoned.[21] What was much more
important, the permanent settlers in the well-established stations
proceeded to organize a civil government.
They by this time felt little but contempt for the Henderson or
Transylvania government. Having sent a petition against it to the
provincial authorities, they were confident that what faint shadow of
power it still retained would soon vanish; so they turned their
attention to securing a representation in the Virginia convention. All
Kentucky was still considered as a part of Fincastle County, and the
inhabitants were therefore unrepresented at the capital. They determined
to remedy this; and after due proclamation, gathered together at
Harrodstown early in June, 1776. During five days an election was held,
and two delegates were chosen to go to Williamsburg, then the seat of
government.
This was done at the suggestion of Clark, who, having spent the winter
in Virginia had returned to Kentucky in the spring. He came out alone
and on foot, and by his sudden appearance surprised the settlers not a
little. The first to meet him was a young lad,[22] who had gone a few
miles out of Harrodstown to turn some horses on the range. The boy had
killed a teal duck that was feeding in a spring, and was roasting it
nicely at a small fire, when he was startled by the approach of a fine
soldierly man, who hailed him: "How do you do my little fellow? What is
your name? Ar'n't you afraid of being in the woods by yourself?" The
stranger was evidently hungry, for on being invited to eat he speedily
finished the entire duck; and when the boy asked his name he answered
that it was Clark, and that he had come out to see what the brave
fellows in Kentucky were doing, and to help them if there was need. He
took up his temporary abode at Harrodstown--visiting all the forts,
however, and being much in the woods by himself,--and his commanding
mind and daring, adventurous temper speedily made him, what for ten
critical years he remained, the leader among all the bold "hunters of
Kentucky"--as the early settlers loved to call themselves.
He had advised against delegates to the convention being chosen,
thinking that instead the Kentuckians should send accredited agents to
treat with the Virginian government. If their terms were not agreed to,
he declared that they ought to establish forthwith an independent state;
an interesting example of how early the separatist spirit showed itself
in Kentucky. But the rest of the people were unwilling to go quite as
far. They elected two delegates, Clark of course being one. With them
they sent a petition for admission as a separate county. They were
primarily farmers, hunters, Indian fighters--not scholars; and their
petition was couched in English that was at times a little crooked; but
the idea at any rate was perfectly straight, and could not be
misunderstood. They announced that if they were admitted they would
cheerfully cooperate in every measure to secure the public peace and
safety, and at the same time pointed out with marked emphasis "how
impolitical it would be to suffer such a Respectable Body of Prime
Riflemen to remain in a state of neutrality" during the then existing
revolutionary struggle.[23]
Armed with this document and their credentials, Clark and his companion
set off across the desolate and Indian-haunted mountains. They travelled
very fast, the season was extremely wet, and they did not dare to kindle
fires for fear of the Indians; in consequence they suffered torments
from cold, hunger, and especially from "scalded" feet. Yet they hurried
on, and presented their petition to the Governor[24] and Council--the
Legislature having adjourned. Clark also asked for five hundred-weight
of gunpowder, of which the Kentucky settlement stood in sore and
pressing need. This the Council at first refused to give; whereupon
Clark informed them that if the country was not worth defending, it was
not worth claiming, making it plain that if the request was not granted,
and if Kentucky was forced to assume the burdens of independence, she
would likewise assume its privileges. After this plain statement the
Council yielded. Clark took the powder down the Ohio River, and got it
safely through to Kentucky; though a party sent under John Todd to
convey it overland from the Limestone Creek was met at the Licking and
defeated by the Indians, Clark's fellow delegate being among the killed.
Before returning Clark had attended the fall meeting of the Virginia
Legislature, and in spite of the opposition of Henderson, who was
likewise present, he procured the admission of Kentucky as a separate
county, with boundaries corresponding to those of the present State.
Early in the ensuing year, 1777, the county was accordingly organized;
Harrodstown, or Harrodsburg, as it was now beginning to be called, was
made the county seat, having by this time supplanted Boonsborough in
importance. The court was composed of the six or eight men whom the
governor of Virginia had commissioned as justices of the peace; they
were empowered to meet monthly to transact necessary business, and had a
sheriff and clerk.[25] These took care of the internal concerns of the
settlers. To provide for their defence a county lieutenant was created,
with the rank of colonel,[26] who forthwith organized a militia
regiment, placing all the citizens, whether permanent residents or not,
into companies and battalions. Finally, two burgesses were chosen to
represent the county in the General Assembly of Virginia.[27] In later
years Daniel Boon himself served as a Kentucky burgess in the Virginia
Legislature;[28] a very different body from the little Transylvanian
parliament in which he began his career as a law-maker. The old
backwoods hero led a strange life: varying his long wanderings and
explorations, his endless campaigns against savage men and savage
beasts, by serving as road-maker, town-builder, and commonwealth-founder,
sometimes organizing the frontiersmen for foreign war, and again doing
his share in devising the laws under which they were to live and prosper.
But the pioneers were speedily drawn into a life-and-death struggle
which engrossed their whole attention to the exclusion of all merely
civil matters; a struggle in which their land became in truth what the
Indians called it--a dark and bloody ground, a land with blood-stained
rivers.[29]
It was impossible long to keep peace on the border between the
ever-encroaching whites and their fickle and blood-thirsty foes. The
hard, reckless, often brutalized frontiersmen, greedy of land and
embittered by the memories of untold injuries, regarded all Indians with
sullen enmity, and could not be persuaded to distinguish between the
good and the bad.[30] The central government was as powerless to
restrain as to protect these far-off and unruly citizens. On the other
hand, the Indians were as treacherous as they were ferocious; Delawares,
Shawnees, Wyandots, and all.[31] While deceiving the commandants of the
posts by peaceful protestations, they would steadily continue their
ravages and murders; and while it was easy to persuade a number of the
chiefs and warriors of a tribe to enter into a treaty, it was impossible
to make the remainder respect it.[32] The chiefs might be for peace, but
the young braves were always for war, and could not be kept back.[33]
In July, 1776, the Delawares, Shawnees, and Mingo chiefs assembled at
Fort Pitt and declared for neutrality;[34] the Iroquois ambassadors, who
were likewise present, haughtily announced that their tribes would
permit neither the British nor the Americans to march an army through
their territory. They disclaimed any responsibility for what might be
done by a few wayward young men; and requested the Delawares and
Shawnees to do as they had promised, and to distribute the Iroquois
"talk" among their people. After the Indian fashion, they emphasized
each point which they wished kept in mind by the presentation of a
string of wampum.[35]
Yet at this very time a party of Mingos tried to kill the American
Indian agents, and were only prevented by Cornstalk, whose noble and
faithful conduct was so soon to be rewarded by his own brutal murder.
Moreover, while the Shawnee chief was doing this, some of his warriors
journeyed down to the Cherokees and gave them the war belt, assuring
them that the Wyandots and Mingos would support them, and that they
themselves had been promised ammunition by the French traders of Detroit
and the Illinois.[36] On their return home this party of Shawnees
scalped two men in Kentucky near the Big Bone Lick, and captured a
woman; but they were pursued by the Kentucky settlers, two were killed
and the woman retaken.[37]
Throughout the year the outlook continued to grow more and more
threatening. Parties of young men kept making inroads on the
settlements, especially in Kentucky; not only did the Shawnees,
Wyandots, Mingos, and Iroquois[38] act thus, but they were even joined
by bands of Ottawas, Pottawatomies, and Chippewas from the lakes, who
thus attacked the white settlers long ere the latter had either the will
or the chance to hurt them.
Until the spring of 1777[39] the outbreak was not general, and it was
supposed that only some three or four hundred warriors had taken up the
tomahawk.[40] Yet the outlying settlers were all the time obliged to
keep as sharp a look-out as if engaged in open war. Throughout the
summer of 1776 the Kentucky settlers were continually harassed. Small
parties of Indians were constantly lurking round the forts, to shoot
down the men as they hunted or worked in the fields, and to carry off
the women. There was a constant and monotonous succession of unimportant
forays and skirmishes.
One band of painted marauders carried off Boon's daughter. She was in a
canoe with two other girls on the river near Boonsborough when they were
pounced on by five Indians.[41] As soon as he heard the news Boon went
in pursuit with a party of seven men from the fort, including the three
lovers of the captured girls. After following the trail all of one day
and the greater part of two nights, the pursuers came up with the
savages, and, rushing in, scattered or slew them before they could
either make resistance or kill their captives. The rescuing party then
returned in triumph to the fort.
Thus for two years the pioneers worked in the wilderness, harassed by
unending individual warfare, but not threatened by any formidable
attempt to oust them from the lands that they had won. During this
breathing spell they established civil government, explored the country,
planted crops, and built strongholds. Then came the inevitable struggle.
When in 1777 the snows began to melt before the lengthening spring days,
the riflemen who guarded the log forts were called on to make head
against a series of resolute efforts to drive them from Kentucky.
1. Imlay, p. 55, estimated that from natural increase the population of
Kentucky doubled every fifteen years,--probably an exaggeration.
2. Hale's "Trans-Alleghany Pioneers," p. 251.
3. "Pioneer Life in Kentucky," Daniel Drake, Cincinnati, 1870, p. 196
(an invaluable work).
4. MS. autobiography of Rev. William Hickman. He was born in Virginia,
February 4, 1747. A copy in Col. Durrett's library at Louisville, Ky.
5. There were at least three such "Crab-Orchard" stations in Virginia,
Kentucky, and Tennessee. The settlers used the word "crab" precisely as
Shakespeare does.
6. A Mr. Finley. Hickman MS.
7. McAfee MSS.
8. McAfee MSS.
9. Such was the case with the Clarks, Boons, Seviers, Shelbys,
Robertsons, Logans, Cockes, Crocketts, etc.; many of whose descendants
it has been my good-fortune personally to know.
10. This is as true to-day in the far west as it was formerly in
Kentucky and Tennessee; at least to judge by my own experience in the
Little Missouri region, and in portions of the Kootenai, Coeur d'Alene,
and Bighorn countries.
11. McAfee MSS. See also "Trans-Alleghany Pioneers," p. III. As Mr. Hale
points out, this route, which was travelled by Floyd, Bullitt, the
McAfees, and many others, has not received due attention, even in
Colonel Speed's invaluable and interesting "Wilderness Road."
12. Up to 1783 the Kentucky immigrants came from the backwoods of
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, and were of almost
precisely the same character as those that went to Tennessee. See Imlay,
p. 168. At the close of the Revolutionary war, Tennessee and Kentucky
were almost alike in population. But after that time the population of
Kentucky rapidly grew varied, and the great immigration of upper-class
Virginians gave it a peculiar stamp of its own. By 1796, when Logan was
defeated for governor, the control of Kentucky had passed out of the
hands of the pioneers; whereas in Tennessee the old Indian fighters
continued to give the tone to the social life of the State, and remained
in control until they died.
13. McAfee MSS. Just as the McAfee family started for Kentucky, the wife
of one of their number, George, was confined. The others had to leave
her; but at the first long halt the husband hurried back, only to meet
his wife on the way; for she had ridden after them just three days after
her confinement, taking her baby along.
14. "Pioneer Biography," James McBride (son of a pioneer who was killed
by the Indians in 1789 in Kentucky), p. 183, Cincinnati, 1869. One of
the excellent series published by Robert Clarke & Co., to whom American
historians owe a special and unique debt of gratitude.
15. McAfee MSS.
16. McBride, II., 197.
17. McAfee MSS.
18. _Do._
19. Morehead, App. Floyd's letter.
20. They retained few Indian names; Kentucky in this respect differing
from most other sections of the Union. The names were either taken from
the explorers, as Floyd's Fork; or from some natural peculiarity, as the
Licking, so called from the number of game licks along its borders; or
else they commemorated some incident. On Dreaming Creek Boon fell asleep
and dreamed he was stung by yellow-jackets. The Elkhorn was so named
because a hunter, having slain a monstrous bull elk, stuck up its horns
on a pole at the mouth. At Bloody Run several men were slain. Eagle
Branch was so called because of the many bald eagles round it. See
McAfee MSS.
21. Marshall, 45.
22. Afterwards General William Ray. Butler, p. 37.
23. Petition of the committee of West Fincastle, dated June 20, 1776. It
is printed in Col. John Mason Brown's "Battle of the Blue Licks"
pamphlet.
24. Patrick Henry.
25. Among their number were John Todd (likewise chosen burgess--in these
early days a man of mark often filled several distinct positions at the
same time), Benj. Logan, Richard Galloway, John Bowman, and John Floyd;
the latter was an educated Virginian, who was slain by the Indians
before his fine natural qualities had time to give him the place he
would otherwise assuredly have reached.
26. The first colonel was John Bowman.
27. John Dodd and Richard Calloway. See Diary of Geo. Rogers Clark, in
1776. Given by Morehead, p. 161.
28. Butler, 166.
29. The Iroquois, as well as the Cherokees, used these expressions
concerning portions of the Ohio valley. Heckewelder, 118.
30. State Department MSS., No. 147, Vol. VI., March 15, 1781.
31. As one instance among many see Haldimand MSS., letter of Lt. Col.
Hamilton, August 17, 1778, where Girty reported, on behalf of the
Delawares, the tribe least treacherous to the Americans, that even these
Indians were only going in to Fort Pitt and keeping up friendly
relations with its garrison so as to deceive the whites, and that as
soon as their corn was ripe they would move off to the hostile tribes.
32. State Department MSS., No. 150, Vol. I., p. 107. Letter of Captain
John Doughty.
33. State Department MSS., No. 150, Vol. I., p. 115. Examination of John
Leith.
34. "Am. Archives," 5th Series, Vol. I., p. 36.
35. "The Olden Time," Neville B. Craig, II., p. 115.
36. "Am. Archives," 5th Series, Vol. I., p. 111.
37. _Do_., p. 137.
38. _Do._, Vol. II., pp. 516, 1236.
39. When Cornstalk was so foully murdered by the whites; although the
outbreak was then already started.
40. Madison MSS. But both the American statesmen and the Continental
officers were so deceived by the treacherous misrepresentations of the
Indians that they often greatly underestimated the numbers of the
Indians on the war-path; curiously enough, their figures are frequently
much more erroneous than those of the frontiersmen. Thus the Madison
MSS. and State Department MSS. contain statements that only a few
hundred northwestern warriors were in the field at the very time that
two thousand had been fitted out at Detroit to act along the Ohio and
Wabash; as we learn from De Peyster's letter to Haldimand of May 17,
1780 (in the Haldimand MSS.).
41. On July 14, 1776. The names of the three girls were Betsy and Fanny
Callaway and Jemima Boon, See Boon's Narrative, and Butler, who gives
the letter of July 21, 1776, written by Col. John Floyd, one of the
pursuing party.
The names of the lovers, in their order, were Samuel Henderson (a
brother of Richard), John Holder, and Flanders Callaway. Three weeks
after the return to the fort Squire Boon united in marriage the eldest
pair of lovers, Samuel Henderson and Betsey Callaway. It was the first
wedding that ever took place in Kentucky. Both the other couples were
likewise married a year or two later.
The whole story reads like a page out of one of Cooper's novels. The two
younger girls gave way to despair when captured, but Betsey Callaway was
sure they would be followed and rescued. To mark the line of their
flight she broke off twigs from the bushes, and when threatened with the
tomahawk for doing this, she tore off strips from her dress. The Indians
carefully covered their trail, compelling the girls to walk apart, as
their captors did, in the thick cane, and to wade up and down the little
brooks.
Boon started in pursuit the same evening. All next day he followed the
tangled trail like a bloodhound, and early the following morning came on
the Indians, camped by a buffalo calf which they had just killed and
were about to cook. The rescue was managed very adroitly, for had any
warning been given the Indians would have instantly killed their
captives, according to their invariable custom. Boon and Floyd each shot
one of the savages, and the remaining three escaped almost naked,
without gun, tomahawk, or scalping-knife. The girls were unharmed, for
the Indians rarely molested their captives on the journey to the home
towns, unless their strength gave out, when they were tomahawked without
mercy.
APPENDICES.
APPENDIX A--TO CHAPTER IV.
It is greatly to be wished that some competent person would write a full
and true history of our national dealings with the Indians. Undoubtedly
the latter have often suffered terrible injustice at our hands. A number
of instances, such as the conduct of the Georgians to the Cherokees in
the early part of the present century, or the whole treatment of Chief
Joseph and his Nez Percés, might be mentioned, which are indelible blots
on our fair fame; and yet, in describing our dealings with the red men
as a whole, historians do us much less than justice.
It was wholly impossible to avoid conflicts with the weaker race, unless
we were willing to see the American continent fall into the hands of
some other strong power; and even had we adopted such a ludicrous
policy, the Indians themselves would have made war upon us. It cannot be
too often insisted that they did not own the land; or, at least, that
their ownership was merely such as that claimed often by our own white
hunters. If the Indians really owned Kentucky in 1775, then in 1776 it
was the property of Boon and his associates; and to dispossess one party
was as great a wrong as to dispossess the other. To recognize the Indian
ownership of the limitless prairies and forests of this continent--that
is, to consider the dozen squalid savages who hunted at long intervals
over a territory of a thousand square miles as owning it
outright--necessarily implies a similar recognition of the claims of
every white hunter, squatter, horse-thief, or wandering cattle-man. Take
as an example the country round the Little Missouri. When the
cattle-men, the first actual settlers, came into this land in 1882, it
was already scantily peopled by a few white hunters and trappers. The
latter were extremely jealous of intrusion; they had held their own in
spite of the Indians, and, like the Indians, the inrush of settlers and
the consequent destruction of the game meant their own undoing; also,
again like the Indians, they felt that their having hunted over the soil
gave them a vague prescriptive right to its sole occupation, and they
did their best to keep actual settlers out. In some cases, to avoid
difficulty, their nominal claims were bought up; generally, and rightly,
they were disregarded. Yet they certainly had as good a right to the
Little Missouri country as the Sioux have to most of the land on their
present reservations. In fact, the mere statement of the case is
sufficient to show the absurdity of asserting that the land really
belonged to the Indians. The different tribes have always been utterly
unable to define their own boundaries. Thus the Delawares and Wyandots,
in 1785, though entirely separate nations, claimed and, in a certain
sense, occupied almost exactly the same territory.
Moreover, it was wholly impossible for our policy to be always
consistent. Nowadays we undoubtedly ought to break up the great Indian
reservations, disregard the tribal governments, allot the land in
severally (with, however, only a limited power of alienation), and
treat the Indians as we do other citizens, with certain exceptions,
for their sakes as well as ours. But this policy, which it would be
wise to follow now, would have been wholly impracticable a century
since. Our central government was then too weak either effectively to
control its own members or adequately to punish aggressions made upon
them; and even if it had been strong, it would probably have proved
impossible to keep entire order over such a vast, sparsely-peopled
frontier, with such turbulent elements on both sides. The Indians
could not be treated as individuals at that time. There was no
possible alternative, therefore, to treating their tribes as nations,
exactly as the French and English had done before us. Our difficulties
were partly inherited from these, our predecessors, were partly caused
by our own misdeeds, but were mainly the inevitable result of the
conditions under which the problem had to be solved; no human wisdom
or virtue could have worked out a peaceable solution. As a nation, our
Indian policy is to be blamed, because of the weakness it displayed,
because of its shortsightedness, and its occasional leaning to the
policy of the sentimental humanitarians; and we have often promised
what was impossible to perform; but there has been little wilful
wrong-doing. Our government almost always tried to act fairly by the
tribes; the governmental agents (some of whom have been dishonest, and
others foolish, but who, as a class, have been greatly traduced), in
their reports, are far more apt to be unjust to the whites than to the
reds; and the Federal authorities, though unable to prevent much of
the injustice, still did check and control the white borderers very
much more effectually than the Indian sachems and war-chiefs
controlled their young braves. The tribes were warlike and
bloodthirsty, jealous of each other and of the whites; they claimed
the land for their hunting grounds, but their claims all conflicted
with one another; their knowledge of their own boundaries was so
indefinite that they were always willing, for inadequate compensation,
to sell land to which they had merely the vaguest title; and yet, when
once they had received the goods, were generally reluctant to make
over even what they could; they coveted the goods and scalps of the
whites, and the young warriors were always on the alert to commit
outrages when they could do it with impunity. On the other hand, the
evil-disposed whites regarded the Indians as fair game for robbery and
violence of any kind; and the far larger number of well-disposed men,
who would not willingly wrong any Indian, were themselves maddened by
the memories of hideous injuries received. They bitterly resented the
action of the government, which, in their eyes, failed to properly
protect them, and yet sought to keep them out of waste, uncultivated
lands which they did not regard as being any more the property of the
Indians than of their own hunters. With the best intentions, it was
wholly impossible for any government to evolve order out of such a
chaos without resort to the ultimate arbitrator--the sword.
The purely sentimental historians take no account of the difficulties
under which we labored, nor of the countless wrongs and provocations
we endured, while grossly magnifying the already lamentably large
number of injuries for which we really deserve to be held responsible.
To get a fair idea of the Indians of the present day, and of our
dealings with them, we have fortunately one or two excellent books,
notably "Hunting Grounds of the Great West," and "Our Wild Indians,"
by Col. Richard I. Dodge (Hartford, 1882), and "Massacres of the
Mountains," by J. P. Dunn (New York, 1886). As types of the opposite
class, which are worse than valueless, and which nevertheless might
cause some hasty future historian, unacquainted with the facts, to
fall into grievous error, I may mention, "A Century of Dishonor," by
H. H. (Mrs. Helen Hunt Jackson), and "Our Indian Wards," (Geo. W.
Manypenny). The latter is a mere spiteful diatribe against various
army officers, and neither its manner nor its matter warrants more
than an allusion. Mrs. Jackson's book is capable of doing more harm
because it is written in good English, and because the author, who had
lived a pure and noble life, was intensely in earnest in what she
wrote, and had the most praiseworthy purpose--to prevent our
committing any more injustice to the Indians. This was all most
proper; every good man or woman should do whatever is possible to make
the government treat the Indians of the present time in the fairest
and most generous spirit, and to provide against any repetition of
such outrages as were inflicted upon the Nez Percés and upon part of
the Cheyennes, or the wrongs with which the civilized nations of the
Indian territory are sometimes threatened. The purpose of the book is
excellent, but the spirit in which it is written cannot be called even
technically honest. As a polemic, it is possible that it did not do
harm (though the effect of even a polemic is marred by hysterical
indifference to facts.) As a history it would be beneath criticism,
were it not that the high character of the author and her excellent
literary work in other directions have given it a fictitious value and
made it much quoted by the large class of amiable but maudlin fanatics
concerning whom it may be said that the excellence of their intentions
but indifferently atones for the invariable folly and ill effect of
their actions. It is not too much to say that the book is thoroughly
untrustworthy from cover to cover, and that not a single statement it
contains should be accepted without independent proof; for even those
that are not absolutely false, are often as bad on account of so much
of the truth having been suppressed. One effect of this is of course
that the author's recitals of the many real wrongs of Indian tribes
utterly fail to impress us, because she lays quite as much stress on
those that are non-existent, and on the equally numerous cases where
the wrong-doing was wholly the other way. To get an idea of the value
of the work, it is only necessary to compare her statements about
almost any tribe with the real facts, choosing at random; for
instance, compare her accounts of the Sioux and the plains tribes
generally, with those given by Col. Dodge in his two books; or her
recital of the Sandy Creek massacre with the facts as stated by Mr.
Dunn--who is apt, if any thing, to lean to the Indian's side.
These foolish sentimentalists not only write foul slanders about their
own countrymen, but are themselves the worst possible advisers on any
point touching Indian management. They would do well to heed General
Sheridan's bitter words, written when many Easterners were clamoring
against the army authorities because they took partial vengeance for a
series of brutal outrages: "I do not know how far these humanitarians
should be excused on account of their ignorance; but surely it is the
only excuse that can give a shadow of justification for aiding and
abetting such horrid crimes."
APPENDIX B--TO CHAPTER V.
In Mr. Shaler's entertaining "History of Kentucky," there is an
account of the population of the western frontiers, and Kentucky,
interesting because it illustrates some of the popular delusions on
the subject. He speaks (pp. 9, 11, 23) of Kentucky as containing
"nearly pure English blood, mainly derived through the old Dominion,
and altogether from districts that shared the Virginian conditions."
As much of the blood was Pennsylvanian or North Carolinian, his last
sentence means nothing, unless all the "districts" outside of New
England are held to have shared the Virginian conditions. Turning to
Marshall (I., 441) we see that in 1780 about half the people were from
Virginia, Pennsylvania furnishing the next greatest number; and of the
Virginians most were from a population much more like that of
Pennsylvania than like that of tide-water Virginia; as we learn from
twenty sources, such as Waddell's "Annals of Augusta County." Mr.
Shaler speaks of the Huguenots and of the Scotch immigrants, who came
over after 1745, but actually makes no mention of the Presbyterian
Irish or Scotch Irish, much the most important element in all the
west; in fact, on p. 10, he impliedly excludes any such immigration at
all. He greatly underestimates the German element, which was important
in West Virginia. He sums up by stating that the Kentuckians come from
the "truly British people," quite a different thing from his statement
that they are "English."
The "truly British people" consists of a conglomerate of as distinct
races as exist anywhere in Aryan Europe. The Erse, Welsh, and Gaelic
immigrants to America are just as distinct from the English, just as
"foreign" to them, as are the Scandinavians, Germans, Hollanders, and
Huguenots--often more so. Such early families as the Welsh Shelbys,
and Gaelic McAfees are no more English than are the Huguenot Seviers
or the German Stoners. Even including merely the immigrants from the
British Isles, the very fact that the Welsh, Irish, and Scotch, in a
few generations, fuse with the English instead of each element
remaining separate, makes the American population widely different
from that of Britain; exactly as a flask of water is different from
two cans of hydrogen and oxygen gas. Mr. Shaler also seems inclined to
look down a little on the Tennesseeans, and to consider their
population as composed in part of inferior elements; but in reality,
though there are very marked differences between the two commonwealths
of Kentucky and Tennessee, yet they resemble one another more closely,
in blood and manners, than either does any other American State; and
both have too just cause for pride to make it necessary for either to
sneer at the other, or indeed at any State of our mighty Federal
Union. In their origin they were precisely alike; but whereas the
original pioneers, the hunters and Indian fighters, kept possession of
Tennessee as long as they lived,--Jackson, at Sevier's death, taking
the latter's place with even more than his power,--in Kentucky, on the
other hand, after twenty years' rule, the first settlers were swamped
by the great inrush of immigration, and with the defeat of Logan for
governor the control passed into the hands of the same class of men
that then ruled Virginia. After that date the "tide-water" stock
assumed an importance in Kentucky it never had in Tennessee; and of
course the influence of the Scotch-Irish blood was greatly diminished.
Mr. Shaler's error is trivial compared to that made by another and
even more brilliant writer. In the "History of the People of the
United States," by Professor McMaster (New York, 1887), p. 70, there
is a mistake so glaring that it would not need notice, were it not for
the many excellencies and wide repute of Professor McMaster's book. He
says that of the immigrants to Kentucky, most had come "from the
neighboring States of Carolina and Georgia," and shows that this is
not a mere slip of the pen, by elaborating the statement in the
following paragraphs, again speaking of North and South Carolina and
Georgia as furnishing the colonists to Kentucky. This shows a complete
misapprehension not only of the feeding-grounds of the western
emigration, but of the routes it followed, and of the conditions of
the southern States. South Carolina furnished very few emigrants to
Kentucky, and Georgia practically none; combined they probably did not
furnish as many as New Jersey or Maryland. Georgia was herself a
frontier community; she received instead of sending out immigrants.
The bulk of the South Carolina emigration went to Georgia.
APPENDIX C--TO CHAPTER VI.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE,
NASHVILLE, TENN., June 12, 1888.
Hon. THEODORE ROOSEVELT,
SAGAMORE HILL,
LONG ISLAND, N. Y.
DEAR SIR:
I was born, "raised," and have always lived in Washington County, E.
Tenn. Was born on the "head-waters" of "Boone's Creek," in said
county. I resided for several years in the "Boone's Creek Civil
District," in Washington County (this some "twenty years ago"), within
two miles of the historic tree in question, on which is carved, "D.
Boon cilled bar &c."; have visited and examined the tree more than
once. The tree is a beech, still standing, though fast decaying. It is
located some eight miles northeast of Jonesboro, the county seat of
Washington, on the "waters of Boone's Creek," which creek was named
after Daniel Boone, and on which (creek) it is certain Daniel Boone
"camped" during a winter or two. The tree stands about two miles from
the spring, where it has always been understood Boone's camp was. More
than twenty years ago, I have heard old gentlemen (living in the
neighborhood of the tree), who were then from fifty to seventy years
old, assert that the carving was on the tree when they were boys, and
that the tradition in the community was that the inscription was on
the tree when discovered by the first permanent settlers. The posture
of the tree is "leaning," so that a "bar," or other animal could
ascend it without difficulty.
While the letters could be clearly traced when I last looked at them,
still because of the expansion of the bark, it was difficult, and I
heard old gentlemen years ago remark upon the changed appearance of
the inscription from what it was when they _first_ knew it.
Boone certainly camped for a time under the tree; the creek is named
after him (has always been known as Boone's Creek); the Civil District
is named after him, and the post-office also. True, the story as to
the carving is traditionary, but a man had as well question in that
community the authenticity of "Holy Writ," as the fact that Boone
carved the inscription on that tree.
I am very respectfully
JOHN ALLISON.
APPENDIX D--TO CHAPTER VI.
The following copy of an original note of Boon's was sent me by Judge
John N. Lea:
July the 20th 1786. Sir, The Land has Been Long Survayd and Not
Knowing When the Money would be Rady Was the Reason of my not
Returning the Works however the may be Returned when you pleas. But I
must have Nother Copy of the Entry as I have lost that I had when I
lost my plating instruments and only have the Short Field Notes. Just
the Corse Distance and Corner trees pray send me Nother Copy that I
may know how to give it the proper bounderry agreeable to the Location
and I Will send the plat to the offis medetly if you chose it, the
expense is as follows
Survayer's fees L9 3 8
Ragesters fees 7 14 0
Chanman 8 0 0
purvisions of the tower 2 0 0
--------
L26 17 8
You will also Send a Copy of the agreement betwixt Mr. [illegible]
overton and myself Where I Red the warrants. I am, sir, your omble
servant,
DANIEL BOONE.
APPENDIX E--TO CHAPTER VII.
Recently one or two histories of the times and careers of Robertson
and Sevier have been published by "Edmund Kirke," Mr. James R.
Gilmore. They are charmingly written, and are of real service as
calling attention to a neglected portion of our history and making it
interesting. But they entirely fail to discriminate between the
provinces of history and fiction. It is greatly to be regretted that
Mr. Gilmore did not employ his powers in writing an avowed historical
novel treating of the events he discusses; such a work from him would
have a permanent value, like Robert L. Kennedy's "Horseshoe Robinson."
In their present form his works cannot be accepted even as offering
material on which to form a judgment, except in so far as they contain
repetitions of statements given by Ramsey or Putnam. I say this with
real reluctance, for my relations with Mr. Gilmore personally have
been pleasant. I was at the outset prepossessed in favor of his books;
but as soon as I came to study them I found that (except for what was
drawn from the printed Tennessee State histories) they were extremely
untrustworthy. Oral tradition has a certain value of its own, if used
with great discretion and intelligence; but it is rather startling to
find any one blandly accepting as gospel alleged oral traditions
gathered one hundred and twenty-five years after the event, especially
when they relate to such subjects as the losses and numbers of Indian
war parties. No man with the slightest knowledge of frontiersmen or
frontier life could commit such a mistake. If any one wishes to get at
the value of oral tradition of an Indian fight a century old, let him
go out west and collect the stories of Custer's battle, which took
place only a dozen years ago. I think I have met or heard of fifty
"solitary survivors" of Custer's defeat; and I could collect certainly
a dozen complete accounts of both it and Reno's fight, each believed
by a goodly number of men, and no two relating the story in an even
approximately similar fashion. Mr. Gilmore apparently accepts all such
accounts indiscriminately, and embodies them in his narrative without
even a reference to his authorities. I particularize one or two out of
very many instances in the chapters dealing with the Cherokee wars.
Books founded upon an indiscriminate acceptance of any and all such
traditions or alleged traditions are a little absurd, unless, as
already said, they are avowedly merely historic novels, when they may
be both useful and interesting. I am obliged to say with genuine
regret, after careful examination of Mr. Gilmore's books, that I
cannot accept any single unsupported statement they contain as even
requiring an examination into its probability. I would willingly pass
them by without comment, did I not fear that my silence might be
construed into an acceptance of their truth. Moreover, I notice that
some writers, like the editors of the "Cyclopedia of American
Biography," seem inclined to take the volumes seriously.
APPENDIX F--TO CHAPTER IX.
I.
(_Campbell MSS.;_ this letter and the one following are from
copies, and the spelling etc., may not be quite as in the originals).
CAMP OPPOSITE THE MOUTH OF THE GREAT KENAWAY.
October 16--1774.
DEAR UNCLE,
I gladly embrace this opportunity to acquaint you that we are all here
yet alive through Gods mercies, & I sincerely wish that this may find
you and your family in the station of health that we left you. I never
had anything worth notice to acquaint you with since I left you till
now--the express seems to be hurrying, that I cannot write you with
the same coolness and deliberation as I would. We arrived at the mouth
of the Canaway, thursday 6th. Octo. and encamped on a fine piece of
ground, with an intent to wait for the Governor and his party but
hearing that he was going another way we contented ourselves to stay
there a few days to rest the troops, &c. where we looked upon
ourselves to be in safety till Monday morning the 10th. instant when
two of our company went out before day to hunt--to wit Val. Sevier and
James Robinson and discovered a party of Indians. As I expect you will
hear something of our battle before you get this, I have here stated
the affair nearly to you:
For the satisfaction of the people in your parts in this they have a
true state of the memorable battle fought at the mouth of the Great
Canaway on the 10th. instant. Monday morning about half an hour before
sunrise, two of Capt. Russells company discovered a large party of
Indians about a mile from camp, one of which men was killed, the other
made his escape & brought in his intelligence. In two or three minutes
after, two of Capt. Shelby's Company came in & confirmed the account,
Col. Andrew Lewis being informed thereof immediately ordered Col.
Charles Lewis to take the command of 150 men from Augusta and with him
went Capt. Dickison, Capt. Harrison, Capt. Wilson, Capt. John Lewis,
from Augusta and Capt. Sockridge which made the first division. Col.
Fleming was also ordered to take the command of one hundred and fifty
more, consisting of Battertout, Fincastle & Bedford troops,--viz.,
Capt. Buford of Bedford, Capt. Lewis of Battertout, Capt. Shelby &
Capt. Russell of Fincastle which made the second division. Col. Lewis
marched with his division to the right some distance from the Ohio.
Col. Fleming with his division up the bank of the Ohio to the left.
Col. Lewis' division had not marched little more than a quarter of a
mile from camp when about sunrise, an attack was made on the front of
his division in a most vigorous manner by the united tribes
Indians,--Shawnees, Delawares, Mingoes, Taways, and of several other
nations, in number not less than eight hundred, and by many thought to
be a thousand. In this heavy attack Col. Charles Lewis received a
wound which soon after caused his death, and several of his men fell
on the spot,--in fact the Augusta division was forced to give way to
the heavy fire of the enemy. In about the second of a minute after the
attack on Col. Lewis' division, the enemy engaged of Col. Fleming's
division on the ohio and in a short time Col. Fleming received two
balls thro' his left arm and one thro' his breast; and after animating
the Captains & soldiers in a calm manner to the pursuit of victory
returned to the camp. The loss of the brave Col's was severely felt by
the officers in particular. But the Augusta troops being shortly
reinforced from camp by Col. Field with his company, together with
Capt. M'Dowers, Capt. Matthew's and Capt. Stewart's from Augusta;
Capt. John Lewis, Capt. Paulins, Capt. Arbuckle's, and Capt.
M'Clannahan's from Battertout. The enemy no longer able to maintain
their ground was forced to give way till they were in a line with the
troops left in action on branches of ohio by Col. Fleming. In this
precipitate retreat Col. Field was killed; after which Capt. Shelby
was ordered to take the command. During this time which was till after
twelve of the clock, the action continued extremely hot, the close
underwood, many steep banks and logs greatly favored their retreat,
and the bravest of their men made the _best_ use of themselves,
while others were throwing their dead into the ohio, and carrying off
the wounded. After twelve the action in a small degree abated, but
continued sharp enough till after one o'clock. Their long retreat gave
them a most advantageous spot of ground; from which it appeared to the
officers so difficult to dislodge them, that it was thought most
advisable, to stand as the line was then formed, which was about a
mile and a quarter in length, and had till then sustained a constant
and equal weight of fire from wing to wing. It was till half an hour
of sunset they continued firing on us, which we returned to their
disadvantage, at length night coming on they found a safe retreat.
They had not the satisfaction of scalping any of our men save one or
two straglers, whom they killed before the engagement. Many of their
dead they scalped rather than we should have them, but our troops
scalped upwards of twenty of those who were first killed. Its beyond a
doubt, their loss in numbers far exceeds ours which is considerable.
Field officers killed--Col. Charles Lewis, & Col. John Fields. Field
officers wounded--Col. William Fleming;--Capts. killed, John Murray,
Capt. Samuel Wilson, Capt. Robert M'Clannahan, Capt. James Ward.
Capts. wounded--Thomas Buford, John Dickison & John Scidmore.
Subalterns killed, Lieutenant Hugh Allen, Ensign Matthew Brackin &
Ensign Cundiff; Subalterns wounded, Lieut. Lane, Lieut. Vance, Lieut.
Goldman, Lieut. James Robertson; and about 46 killed and 60 wounded.
From this sir you may judge that we had a very hard day; its really
impossible for me to express or you to conceive the acclamations that
we were under,--sometimes the hideous cries of the enemy, and the
groans of our wounded men lying around, was enough to shudder the
stoutest heart. Its the general opinion of the officers that we shall
soon have another engagement, as we have now got over into the enemy's
country. We expect to meet the Governor about forty or fifty miles
from here. Nothing will save us from another battle, unless they
attack the Governors party. Five men that came in dadys (daddy's)
company were killed, I don't know that you were acquainted with any of
them, except Mark Williams who lived with Roger Top. Acquaint Mr.
Carmack that his son was slightly wounded through the shoulder and arm
and that he is in a likely way of recovery. We leave him at the mouth
of the Canaway and one very careful hand to take care of him. There is
a garrison and three hundred men left at that place, with a surgeon to
heal the wounded. We expect to return to the garrison in about 16 days
from the Shawny towns.
I have nothing more particular to acquaint you with concerning the
battle. As to the country I cannot say much in praise of any that I
have yet seen. Dady intended writing you, but did not know of the
express until the time was too short. I have wrote to mammy tho' not
so fully to you, as I then expected the express was just going. We
seem to be all in a moving posture, just going from this place, so
that I must conclude, wishing you health and prosperity until I see
you and your family. In the meantime I am your truly affectionate
friend and humble servant,
ISAAC SHELBY.
To MR. JOHN SHELBY,
Holston River,
Fincastle County.
Favd. by Mr. Benj. Gray.
II.
(_Campbell MSS._)
October ye 31st. 1774.
DEAR SIR,
Being on my way home to Fincastle court, was overtaken this evening by
letters from Colo. Christian and other gentlemen on the expedition,
giving an account of a battle which was fought between our troops &
the enemy Indians, on the 10th instant, in the Fork of the Ohio & the
Great Kanhawa.
The particulars of the action, drawn up by Colo. Andr. Lewis I have
sent you enclosed, also a return of the killed and wounded, by which
you will see that we have lost many brave and valiant officers &
soldiers, whose loss to their families, as well as to the community,
is very great.
Colo. Christian with the Fincastle troops, (except the companies
commanded by Capts. Russell & Shelby, who were in the action) were on
their march; and on the evening of that day, about 15 miles from field
of battle, heard that the action began in the morning. They marched
hard, and got to the camp about midnight. The cries of the wounded,
without any persons of skill or any thing to nourish people in their
unhappy situation, was striking. The Indians had crossed the river on
rafts, 6 or 8 miles above the Forks, in the night, and it is believed,
intended to attack the camp, had they not been prevented by our men
marching to meet them at the distance of half a mile. It is said the
enemy behaved with bravery and great caution, that they frequently
damned our men for white sons of bitches. Why did they not whistle
now? (alluding to the fifes) & that they would learn them to shoot.
The Governor was then at Hockhocking, about 12 or 15 miles below the
mouth of the Little Kanhawa, from whence he intended to march his
party to a place called Chillicoffee, about 20 miles farther than the
towns where it was said the Shawneese had assembled with their
families and allies, to make a stand, as they had good houses and
plenty of ammunition & provisions & had cleared the woods to a great
distance from the place. His party who were to march from the camp was
about 1200, and to join Colo. Lewis' party about 28 miles from
Chillicoffee. But whether the action above mentioned would disconcert
this plan or not, I think appears a little uncertain, as there is a
probability that his excellency on hearing the news might, with his
party, fall down the river and join Colo. Lewis' party and march
together against the enemy.
They were about building a breastwork at the Forks, & after leaving a
proper party to take care of the wounded & the provisions there, that
Colo. Lewis could march upwards of a thousand men to join his
Lordship, so that the whole when they meet will be about 2200 choice
men. What may be their success God only knows, but it is highly
probable the matter is decided before this time.
Colo. Christian says, from the accounts he had the enemy behaved with
inconceivable bravery. The head men walked about in the time of
action, exhorting their men "to be close, shoot well, be strong of
fight." They had parties planted on the opposite side of both rivers
to shoot our men as they swam over, not doubting, as is supposed, but
they would gain a complete victory. In the evening late they called to
our men "that they had 2000 men for them to-morrow, and that they had
1100 men now as well as they." They also made very merry about a
treaty.
Poor Colo. Charles Lewis was shot on a clear piece of ground, as he
had not taken a tree, encouraging his men to advance. On being wounded
he handed his gun to a person nigh him and retired to the camp,
telling his men as he passed "I am wounded but go on and be brave." If
the loss of a good man a sincere friend, and a brave officer, claims a
tear, he certainly is entitled to it.
Colo. Fields was shot at a great tree by two Indians on his right,
while one on his left was amusing him with talk and the Colo.
Endeavoring to get a shot at him.
Besides the loss the troops met with in action by Colo. Fleming who
was obliged to retire from the field, which was very great, the
wounded met with the most irreparable loss in an able and skillful
surgeon. Colo. Christian says that his (Flemings) lungs or part of
them came out of the wound in his breast but were pushed back; and by
the last part of his letter, which was dated the 16th. instant, he has
some hopes of his recovery.
Thus, sir, I have given you an account of the action from the several
letters I recd., and have only to add, that Colo. Christian desires me
to inform Mrs. Christian of his welfare, which with great pleasure I
do through this channel, and should any further news come, which I
much expect soon, I shall take the earliest oppy. of communicating the
same to you. It is believed the troops will surely return in Nov.
I write in a hurry and amidst a crowd of inquisitive people, therefore
hope you will excuse the inaccuracy of, D'r. Sir,
Your sincere well wisher & most obedt. Servt.,
WM. PRESTON.
P. S. If you please you may give Mr. Purdie a copy of the enclosed
papers, & anything else you may think worthy the notice of the Public.
III.
LOGAN'S SPEECH.
There has been much controversy over the genuineness of Logan's
speech; but those who have questioned it have done so with singularly
little reason. In fact its authenticity would never have been impugned
at all had it not (wrongly) blamed Cresap with killing Logan's family.
Cresap's defenders, with curious folly, have in consequence thought it
necessary to show, not that Logan was mistaken, but that he never
delivered the speech at all.
The truth seems to be that Cresap, without provocation, but after
being incited to war by Conolly's letter, murdered some peaceful
Indians, among whom there were certainly some friends and possibly
some relations of Logan (see testimony of Col. Ebenezer Zane, in
Jefferson's Notes, and "American Pioneer," I., 12; also Clark's letter
in the Jefferson Papers); but that he had no share in the massacre of
Logan's family at Yellow Creek by Greathouse and his crew two or three
days afterwards. The two massacres occurring so near together,
however, produced the impression not only among the Indians but among
many whites (as shown in the body of this work), that Cresap had been
guilty of both; and this Logan undoubtedly believed, as can be seen by
the letter he wrote and left tied to a war club in a murdered
settler's house. This was an injustice to Cresap; but it was a very
natural mistake on Logan's part.
After the speech was recited it attracted much attention; was
published in newspapers, periodicals, etc., and was extensively
quoted. Jefferson, as we learn from his Papers at Washington, took it
down in 1775, getting it from Lord Dunmore's officers, and published
it in his "Notes," in 1784; unfortunately he took for granted that its
allegations as regards Cresap were true, and accordingly prefaced it
by a very unjust attack on the reputed murderer. Until thirteen years
after this publication, and until twenty-three years after the speech
had been published for the first time, no one thought of questioning
it. Then Luther Martin, of Maryland, attacked its authenticity, partly
because he was Cresap's son-in-law, and partly because he was a
Federalist and a bitter opponent of Jefferson. Like all of his
successors in the same line, he confused two entirely distinct things,
viz., the justice of the charge against Cresap, and the authenticity
of Logan's speech. His controversy with Jefferson grew very bitter. He
succeeded in showing clearly that Cresap was wrongly accused by Logan;
he utterly failed to impugn the authenticity of the latter's speech.
Jefferson, thanks to a letter he received from Clark, must have known
that Cresap had been accused wrongly; but he was irritated by the
controversy, and characteristically refrained in any of his
publications from doing justice to the slandered man's memory.
A Mr. Jacobs soon afterwards wrote a life of Cresap, in which he
attempted both of the feats aimed at by Martin; it is quite an
interesting production, but exceedingly weak in its arguments. Neville
B. Craig, in the February, 1847, number of _The Olden Time_, a
historical magazine, followed on the same lines. Finally, Brantz
Mayer, in his very interesting little book, "Logan and Cresap," went
over the whole matter in a much fairer manner than his predecessors,
but still distinctly as an advocate; for though he collected with
great industry and gave impartially all the original facts (so that
from what he gives alone it is quite possible to prove that the speech
is certainly genuine), yet his own conclusions show great bias. Thus
he severely rules out any testimony against Cresap that is not
absolutely unquestioned; but admits without hesitation any and every
sort of evidence leaning against poor Logan's character or the
authenticity of his speech. He even goes so far (pp. 122, 123) as to
say it is not a "speech" at all,--although it would puzzle a man to
know what else to call it, as he also declares it is not a
message,--and shows the animus of his work by making the gratuitous
suggestion that if Logan made it at all he was probably at the time
excited "as well by the cruelties he had committed as by liquor."
It is necessary, therefore, to give a brief summary of a portion of
the evidence in its favor, as well as of all the evidence against it.
Jefferson's Notes and Mr. Mayer's book go fully into the matter.
The evidence in its favor is as follows:
(1.) Gibson's statement. This is the keystone of the arch. John Gibson
was a man of note and of unblemished character; he was made a general
by Washington, and held high appointive positions under Madison and
Jefferson; he was also an Associate Judge of the Court of Common Pleas
in Pennsylvania. Throughout his life he bore a reputation for absolute
truthfulness. He was the messenger who went to Logan, heard the
speech, took it down, and gave it to Lord Dunmore. We have his
deposition, delivered under oath, that "Logan delivered to him the
speech nearly as related by Mr. Jefferson in his Notes," when the two
were alone together, and that he "on his return to camp delivered the
speech to Lord Dunmore," and that he also at the time told Logan he
was mistaken about Cresap. Brantz Mayer, who accepts his statement as
substantially true, thinks that he probably only reported the
_substance_ of Logan's speech, or so much of it as he could
recollect; but in the State Department at Washington, among the
Jefferson Papers (5-1-4), is a statement by John Anderson, a merchant
in Fredericksburg, who was an Indian trader at Pittsburg in 1774; he
says that he questioned Gibson as to whether he had not himself added
something to the speech, to which Gibson replied that he had not
changed it in any way, but had translated it literally, as well as he
could, though he was unable to come up to the force of the expressions
in the original.
This evidence itself is absolutely conclusive, except on the
supposition that Gibson was a malicious and infamous liar. The men who
argue that the speech was fictitious are also obliged to explain what
motive there could possibly have been for the deception; they
accordingly advance the theory that it was part of Dunmore's
(imaginary) treacherous conduct, as he wished to discredit Cresap,
because he knew--apparently by divination--that the latter was going
to be a whig. Even granting the Earl corrupt motives and a prophetic
soul, it remains to be explained why he should wish to injure an
obscure borderer, whom nobody has ever heard of except in connection
with Logan; it would have served the purpose quite as well to have
used the equally unknown name of the real offender, Greathouse. The
fabrication of the speech would have been an absolutely motiveless and
foolish transaction; to which Gibson, a pronounced whig, must needs
have been a party. This last fact shows that there could have been no
intention of using the speech in the British interest.
(2) The statement of General George Rogers Clark. (Like the preceding,
this can be seen in the Jefferson Papers.) Clark was present in
Dunmore's camp at the time. He says: "Logan's speech to Dunmore now
came forward as related by Mr. Jefferson and was generally believed
and indeed not doubted to have been genuine and dictated by Logan. The
Army knew it was wrong so far as it respected Cresap, and afforded an
opportunity of rallying that Gentleman on the subject--I discovered
that Cresap was displeased and told him that he must be a very great
Man, that the Indians shouldered him with every thing that had
happened.... Logan is the author of the speech as related by Mr.
Jefferson." Clark's remembrance of his rallying Cresap shows that the
speech contained Cresap's name and that it was read before the army;
several other witnesses, whose names are not necessary to mention,
simply corroborate Clark's statements, and a large amount of indirect
evidence to the same effect could be produced, were there the least
necessity. (See Jefferson's Notes, "The American Pioneer," etc., etc.)
The evidence against the authenticity of the speech, outside of mere
conjectures and inuendoes, is as follows:
(1) Logan called Cresap a colonel when he was really a captain. This
inability of an Indian to discriminate accurately between these two
titles of frontier militia officers is actually solemnly brought
forward as telling against the speech.
(2) Logan accused Cresap of committing a murder which he had not
committed. But, as we have already seen, Logan had made the same
accusation in his unquestionably authentic letter, written previously;
and many whites, as well as Indians, thought as Logan did.
(3) A Col. Benj. Wilson, who was with Dunmore's army, says that "he
did not hear the charge preferred in Logan's speech against Captain
Cresap." This is mere negative evidence, valueless in any event, and
doubly so in view of Clark's statement.
(4) Mr. Neville B. Craig, in _Olden Time_, says in 1847 that
"many years before a Mr. James McKee, the brother of Mr. William
Johnson's deputy, had told him that he had seen the speech in the
handwriting of one of the Johnsons ... before it was seen by Logan."
This is a hearsay statement delivered just seventy-three years after
the event, and it is on its face so wildly improbable as not to need
further comment, at least until there is some explanation as to why
the Johnsons should have written the speech, how they could possibly
have gotten it to Logan, and why Gibson should have entered into the
conspiracy.
(5) A Benjamin Tomlinson testifies that he believes that the speech
was fabricated by Gibson; he hints, but does not frankly assert, that
Gibson was not sent after Logan, but that Girty was; and swears that
he heard the speech read three times and that the name of Cresap was
not mentioned in it.
He was said in later life to bear a good reputation; but in his
deposition he admits under oath that he was present at the Yellow
Creek murder (_Olden Time_, II., 61; the editor, by the way,
seems to call him alternately Joseph and Benjamin); and he was
therefore an unconvicted criminal, who connived at or participated in
one of the most brutal and cowardly deeds ever done on the frontier.
His statement as against Gibson's would be worthless anyhow;
fortunately his testimony as to the omission of Cresap's name from the
speech is also flatly contradicted by Clark. With the words of two
such men against his, and bearing in mind that all that he says
against the authenticity of the speech itself is confessedly mere
supposition on his part, his statement must be promptly set aside as
worthless. If true, by the way, it would conflict with (4) Craig's
statement.
This is literally all the "evidence" against the speech. It scarcely
needs serious discussion; it may be divided into two parts--one
containing allegations that are silly, and the other those that are
discredited.
There is probably very little additional evidence to be obtained, on
one side or the other; it is all in, and Logan's speech can be
unhesitatingly pronounced authentic. Doubtless there have been verbal
alterations in it; there is not extant a report of any famous speech
which does not probably differ in some way from the words as they were
actually spoken. There is also a good deal of confusion as to whether
the council took place in the Indian town, or in Dunmore's camp;
whether Logan was sought out alone in his hut by Gibson, or came up
and drew the latter aside while he was at the council, etc. In the
same way, we have excellent authority for stating that, prior to the
battle of the Great Kanawha, Lewis reached the mouth of that river on
October 1st, and that he reached it on October 6th; that on the day
of the attack the troops marched from camp a quarter of a mile, and
that they marched three quarters; that the Indians lost more men than
the whites, and that they lost fewer; that Lewis behaved well, and
that he behaved badly; that the whites lost 140 men, and that they
lost 215, etc., etc. The conflict of evidence as to the dates and
accessory details of Logan's speech is no greater than it is as to the
dates and accessory details of the murder by Greathouse, or as to all
the preliminaries of the main battle of the campaign. Coming from
backwoods sources, it is inevitable that we should have confusion on
points of detail; but as to the main question there seems almost as
little reason for doubting the authenticity of Logan's speech, as for
doubting the reality of the battle of the Great Kanawha.
END OF VOL. I.