THE FOUNDING OF FORT DEARBORN
The strategic value of Chicago as a center of control for the region
between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi had been recognized long
before our government took the step of establishing a fort there. On
more than one occasion during the French régime recommendations were
made to the French government in favor of a fort at Chicago. As early
as 1697 two Frenchmen, Louvigny and Mantet, conceived the project of
making a combined trading and exploring expedition from Canada toward
Mexico by way of the Mississippi River, and to this end petitioned the
French minister of war for a post at Chicago to serve as an entrepôt
for their enterprise.[290] The importance of Chicago in the struggle
between the British and the Americans during the Revolution has already
been shown. After Wayne's triumph at Fallen Timbers in August, 1794,
the British officer, Simcoe, proposed to the Lords of Trade a plan for
shutting American traders out of the Mississippi Valley by establishing
British dèpôts along the portages leading to it, particularly at the
Chicago Portage.[291] The British control of the Northwest which Simcoe
was striving to perpetuate was, however, about to cease, and nothing
came of his project. Wayne's appreciation of the importance of Chicago
was shown by his demand in the Treaty of Greenville that the Indians
cede to the United States a tract of land six miles square at the mouth
of the Chicago River, to serve as the site for a future fort.
[Footnote 290: Margry, IV, 9 ff.]
[Footnote 291: Winsor, _Westward Movement_, 461.]
Two facts, both of them of great importance in American history,
account for the establishment of Fort Dearborn, eight years after
Wayne thus acquired from the Indians the title to its site. One was
Wayne's victory over the northwestern tribes, the results of which
were registered in this same Treaty of Greenville; the other, the
acquisition of Louisiana by the United States in 1803. Probably the
first of these would alone have been sufficient to determine the
establishment ere long of a fort at Chicago, but the influence of the
two combined rendered delay impossible.
The victory of Wayne, by removing the menace of Indian hostilities,
made possible the rapid settlement of the region northwest of the
Ohio. During the next few years a veritable flood of immigration
poured into this Northwest Territory, the portion nearest at hand
being, as was natural, first occupied. Within five years of the
Treaty of Greenville this portion of the territory was ready for
statehood. In 1800, therefore. Congress provided for the separation
of the Northwest Territory into two parts, and two years later the
eastern section was admitted into the Union as the state of Ohio. The
remaining portion became the territory of Indiana with William Henry
Harrison, then a young man of twenty-seven, as governor. During the
following years the line of white settlement advanced steadily, though
more slowly, into the North and West. The two military posts farthest
advanced in this direction were Detroit and Mackinac. Neither of these
was advantageously situated for the administration of the country
stretching from the upper lakes to the Mississippi.
With every passing year the necessity of exercising a firmer control
over this region became greater. The settlers must be protected from
Indian depredations, and the lawlessness of the traders and other
frontiersmen must be curbed. One fact of great importance pertained to
the British control of the Indian trade of the Northwest. The surrender
of the posts in 1796 had not broken the grip of the traders on this
region. Until the close of the War of 1812--and in the remoter portion
of the Northwest, for some years after this--the influence of the
Canadian traders over the Indians was paramount. It was impossible,
therefore, for the United States to exercise an effective control over
them, and a garrison to the west of Lake Michigan was needed to assist
in wresting this commercial supremacy from the British traders.
The acquisition of Louisiana advanced our western boundary from the
Mississippi to the crest of the Rocky Mountains. If before it had
been difficult to control our westernmost frontier from Detroit and
Mackinac, with this advance it became utterly impossible. New outposts
must be established in order to keep pace with both the advancing
boundary and the swelling wave of settlement. Chicago, still far in
advance of the latter, was the logical place for the new establishment.
A garrison here in the heart of the Indian country would serve to
protect the settlements of Indiana and lower Illinois, would perfect
the communication between the latter and the posts of Detroit and
Mackinac, and constitute a convenient center of control for the region
between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi.[292]
[Footnote 292: See on this point the letter from Mackinac, September
6, 1803, printed in _Relf's Philadelphia Gazette and Commercial
Advertiser_, November 19, 1803.]
Rumors of a purpose to establish a post at Chicago preceded by some
years its actual consummation. In the winter of 1797-98 William
Burnett, a French trader on the St. Joseph River, informed the Montreal
house from which he obtained his supplies for the Indian trade of
the expectation that a garrison would be established at Chicago the
following summer.[293] What the basis for this expectation was does not
appear, but evidently Burnett considered it probable, for in August,
1798, he wrote that he now had reason to expect the garrison would
arrive in the fall. The shrewd trader's interest in the matter was due
to the fact that, having already a house at Chicago, and "a promise of
assistance from headquarters," he would have occasion for "a good deal
of liquors," and some other articles, for that post. Thus rum attended
the birth, and, as we shall see, was prominent at the downfall, of old
Fort Dearborn.
[Footnote 293: Hurlbut, _Chicago Antiquities_, 66.]
The "promise of assistance from headquarters" furnishes a possible
clue to the source of Burnett's information. Though five years were
yet to elapse before the project materialized, the letter is of some
importance as showing that among those most interested it had long
been regarded as a probability of the near future. Early in 1803 the
matter was at last determined. A letter from the Secretary of War,[294]
dated March 9, to Colonel Hamtramck of the First Infantry, who was then
stationed at Detroit, directed that an officer and six men be sent to
make a preliminary investigation of the situation at Chicago and the
route thither from Detroit. The party was to go by land from Detroit to
the mouth of the St. Joseph River, marking a trail and noting suitable
camping-places for the company which was to follow. Inquiry was to be
made concerning the supplies of provisions which Burnett and the other
traders could furnish, and a suitable "scite" was to be selected at St.
Joseph for a temporary encampment of the company until preparations
could be made at "Chikago" for its reception. In case the overland
route should be found to be practicable for a company with packhorses
for carrying provisions and light baggage, Colonel Hamtramck should
order it to go, under command of a "discreet, judicious captain," and
should send around the lakes the necessary tools and other equipment
for the erection and maintenance of a strong stockade post at Chicago,
together with two light fieldpieces and the necessary supply of
ammunition.
[Footnote 294: Copy, by Daniel O. Drennan, of letter of
Inspector-general Gushing to Hamtramck, March 14, 1803, in Chicago
Historical Society library. Mr. Drennan, as agent of the society, made
exact copies of a large number of documents in the files of the War
Department at Washington pertaining to Hull's campaign and to Fort
Dearborn and early Chicago. These will be cited henceforth as the
_Drennan Papers_.]
Six weeks later the appointment of Captain John Whistler as commander
of the new post had been made and, soon after, he departed with six
men to examine the route and report to Major Pike.[295] At the same
time the firm of Robert and James Abbott of Detroit was considering
the advantages of the post as a possible trading center. They report
that Whistler desired them to establish a store there, and it is
possible that the sentiment the culmination of which is recorded in the
quaint announcement of Whistler to Kingsbury in November, 1804, of the
marriage of his eldest daughter to a "gentleman of my old acquaintance
(James Abbott)"[296] was already blossoming. If, as seems likely,
Hamtramck was responsible for Whistler's appointment to the new command
it must have been almost his last official act, for he died on April
11, less than a month after the issuance by the Inspector-general
at Cumberland, Maryland, of the order for the establishment of the
fort.[297]
[Footnote 295: Letter of Robert and James Abbott of Detroit to Abbott
and Maxwell of Mackinac, April 30, 1803, copied in _Chicago from 1803
to 1812_, by James Grant Wilson, MS in the Chicago Historical Society
library.]
[Footnote 296: _Kingsbury Papers_, Whistler to Kingsbury, November 3,
1804.]
[Footnote 297: Hamtramck was a veteran soldier, having joined
Montgomery's army before Quebec in 1776. He served throughout the
remainder of the Revolution, and at its close continued in the army,
rising by successive promotions to the rank of colonel. He was
stationed on the northwestern frontier for many years prior to his
death. At the battle of Fallen Timbers he commanded the left wing of
the legion, and received special mention in Wayne's official report of
the battle.]
At half-past five o'clock on the morning of July 14, 1803, the
troops set out from Detroit under command of Lieutenant James Strode
Swearingen of the artillery, then a youth of twenty-one.[298]
Swearingen had volunteered to lead the troops to Chicago for Captain
Whistler, on account of the infirm state of the latter's health.
Whistler and his family, together with his son Lieutenant William
Whistler and his young wife, embarked on the schooner "Tracy,"
commanded by Lieutenant Dorr, which had been ordered to proceed around
the lakes with provisions and military stores for the new post. We have
the journal which Swearingen kept on the trip, containing observations
on the country, timber, camping-places, and water courses.[299] The
daily march varied greatly in length. Sometimes the start was made
before five in the morning and the march ended by two in the afternoon;
at other times bad weather or other obstacles necessitated a late start
and a march of only a few miles. The route followed was that of the old
Chicago Trail, later known as the "Chicago Road." It led the troops
across the Rouge and Huron rivers, past the site of the modern city of
Ypsilanti to the upper waters of Grand River, which flows into Lake
Michigan. Thence the route lay across country to the St. Joseph and
down this river to its mouth.
[Footnote 298: For an account of Swearingen's career see report of an
interview with him in 1863, together with his own sketch of his life,
preserved in the MS volume of _Proceedings_ of the Chicago Historical
Society, 1856-64, 348.]
[Footnote 299: Printed as Appendix I.]
On July 25 we find Swearingen at "Kinzie's improvement" on the St.
Joseph. The site today is occupied by the sleepy hamlet of Bertrand, a
short distance south of Niles, and the highway that crosses the river
here is still called the Chicago Road. Here the party was detained
for a day while boats were being procured. On July 27 the expedition
proceeded down the river, the baggage and seventeen of the men in the
boats, the remainder of the men marching by land. From July 28 to
August 12 the troops were encamped at the mouth of the St. Joseph,
awaiting the arrival of the "Tracy" with needed provisions. Swearingen
estimated the distance from Detroit to the mouth of the St. Joseph
at two hundred and seventy-two miles. The distance by rail today is
considerably less, but the expedition had followed the tortuous Indian
trail and then the course of the meandering St. Joseph. The remainder
of the march around the lake to Chicago was accomplished in three days,
the troops marching along the lake shore. The distance according to
Swearingen's estimate was ninety miles, and in this he was not far
astray. Probably the rapidity of the march, averaging thirty miles each
day, may be explained by the supposition that the baggage continued to
be transported by boat, for the journal records that the start from St.
Joseph was delayed two days by the roughness of the lake. Unless the
boats continued on to Chicago this would, apparently, have been of no
concern to the expedition.
[Illustration: CAPTAIN JAMES STRODE SWEARINGEN
As a youthful lieutenant of twenty-one he led the troops to Chicago in
1803
(By courtesy of the Chicago Historical Society)]
While the land detachment was thus marching across the wilderness of
southern Michigan and northern Indiana, the "Tracy" was conveying the
artillery, provisions, and heavy baggage around the lakes. A short stop
was made at the mouth of the St. Joseph where the troops were supplied
with provisions. Here the Whistlers, father and son, disembarked, and
continued their journey to Chicago in a row-boat.[300] We have several
accounts, each of them more or less fragmentary, of what happened upon
the arrival of the troops at Chicago. Some of them are of contemporary
origin, while two which will demand consideration were written over
half a century later by two surviving participants in the founding of
the first Fort Dearborn.[301] Of these Swearingen's Journal is easily
the most authoritative, but unfortunately it confines itself largely to
describing the physical situation. The other reports help out the story
by the addition of various details. The troops reached the Chicago
River at two o'clock on the afternoon of August 17, after a march of
twenty-four miles from their last camping-place on the Little Calumet.
They found the Chicago a sluggish stream thirty yards in width at the
bend where the fort was to be constructed. The river was eighteen feet
or more in depth, but a sand bar at its mouth rendered the water dead
and unfit for use. The existence of the bar made it possible for the
troops to cross the river "dry shod" and encamp on the other side a
short distance above its mouth. The river bank was eight feet high at
the point where the fort was to be built, a half-mile above the mouth
of the stream. The opposite bank was somewhat lower, while farther up
the stream both banks were very low.
[Footnote 300: This circumstance was related over seventy years
later by the wife of Lieutenant William Whistler (Hurlbut, _Chicago
Antiquities_, 25). The reason for such a proceeding is not apparent.]
[Footnote 301: Swearingen's Journal, Appendix I; his statements made
in 1863 preserved in the _Chicago Historical Society, Proceedings_,
1856-64, 348; letter from Mackinac, September 6, 1803, printed in
_Relf's Philadelphia Gazette_, November 19, 1803; letter of Dr. William
Smith from Fort Dearborn, December 9, 1803, to James May of Detroit, MS
in Detroit Public Library; story of the wife of Lieutenant Whistler in
1875, Hurlbut, _Chicago Antiquities_, 23-28.]
Swearingen's Journal says nothing of the Indians, but in the sketch
of his life written sixty years later he records that the troops were
greeted on their arrival by many Indians, all of whom were friendly.
The wife of Lieutenant Whistler, who came a matron of sixteen summers
to the site of the future metropolis, relates that while the schooner
was here some two thousand natives gathered to see the "big canoe with
wings." Doubtless their souls were stirred at the sight by emotions
even stronger than those which today animate their more sophisticated
successors at sight of the schooners of the air. Three weeks later a
Mackinac letter-writer reported to the eastern press that the natives
opposed the commander's design of building a fort and threatened to
collect their warriors and prevent it.[302] The writer's source of
information was evidently someone on board the "Tracy," which touched
at Mackinac on its return voyage to Detroit.[303] Since a hostile
attitude on the part of the Indians is not mentioned by Mrs. Whistler,
and is expressly denied by Swearingen, we may safely ascribe the
statement to the desire of someone to tell an interesting story.
[Footnote 302: _Relf's Philadelphia Gazette_, November 19, 1803.]
[Footnote 303: Swearingen's statements in 1863, in _Chicago Historical
Society_, Proceedings, 1856-64, 348.]
The construction of the stockade and a shelter for the troops was the
commander's first care. Mrs. Whistler relates that there were no horses
or oxen at hand, so that the soldiers were compelled to perform the
work of dragging the timbers to their required positions. It seems
likely, however, that there were some animals, though their number
was probably inadequate. The original order for the establishment
of a fort contemplated the use of packhorses by the troops on their
overland march, and Whistler, writing to Kingsbury in July, 1804,
complains of the scarcity of corn.[304] The public oxen had had none
all summer, and when he first came here he could obtain but eighteen
bushels. Evidently, then, the commander had oxen before many months
elapsed, if not from the beginning. There was, however, another source
of annoyance. If the natives did not threaten to prevent the building
of the fort, we may be sure they made life a burden to the troops by
their begging and petty thievery. The Illinois Indians had an ancient
reputation, dating back to the early French period, for being expert
thieves. When the second Fort Dearborn was built a dozen years later,
begging and stealing by the Indians became such an intolerable nuisance
that if we are to credit the assertion of Moses Morgan, who aided in
its construction, it required more men to mount guard by day to keep
the squaws and papooses away than at night.[305]
[Footnote 304: _Kingsbury Papers_, Whistler to Kingsbury, July 27,
1804.]
[Footnote 305: Moses Morgan's narrative, preserved by William R. Head,
MS in Chicago Historical Society library. Head was, until his death in
1910, a worker in the local historical field. Most of his papers have
been destroyed, but a few of them are in the Chicago Historical Society
library, and a considerably larger number are owned by his widow. They
will be cited henceforth as the _Head Papers_.]
We have no such detailed account of the building of the first fort,
but at least one characteristic incident has been preserved for us by
Thomas G. Anderson. Anderson, who later fought on the British side in
the War of 1812, was at this time a fur trader at Milwaukee. In his old
age he prepared a long narrative of his life in the West.[306] It is
vainglorious and unreliable in many respects, but with proper care one
may glean much of interest and something of value from it. He relates
that on learning of the coming of the troops to Chicago, he mounted
his horse and went to pay a neighborly call.[307]' He found Captain
Whistler's family ensconsed temporarily in one of the wretched log huts
which belonged to the traders, while his officers and men were living
under canvas. Anderson accepted an invitation to dine with Whistler.
The table was spread and the guests were seated, when through the door
strode a band of painted warriors. The women shrieked and fled, leaving
the men to play the role of hosts alone. The leader of the savages,
unperturbed by this reception, proceeded to help himself to the bread
on the table and distribute it among his warriors. Anderson berated him
for his conduct and succeeded in inducing the band to leave; whereupon
the doughty trader assumed to himself the credit of having averted a
massacre of the garrison. It may seem hazardous to attempt to extract
the kernel of truth in this tale from the chaff which surrounds it;
however, the opinion may be ventured that some such scene may have
occurred, but that the element of danger, and therewith the credit
which Anderson assumes for his action, was wholly lacking.
[Footnote 306: For Anderson's narrative, together with a biographical
sketch of the author, see _Wisconsin Historical Collections_, IX, 137
ff. The narrative is unreliable in many ways, and its statements should
be used with caution.]
[Footnote 307: _Wisconsin Historical Collections_, IX, 154-55.]
The work of construction progressed but slowly. Soon after their
arrival the troops suffered much from bilious fevers.[308] These abated
with the coming of cold weather, but in December the garrison was still
sheltered in small, temporary huts, and the fort was described as "not
much advanced." Fortunately the autumn persisted long. On December 9
the surgeon wrote to a friend in Detroit that there was neither snow
nor ice, there had been but little rain or frost, and the season had
been "remarkably fine."[309]
[Footnote 308: Letter of Dr. William Smith to James May, December 9,
1803.]
[Footnote 309: Letter of Dr. William Smith to James May, December 9,
1803.]
Before leaving the subject of the building of Fort Dearborn, it may be
well to refer to another tale in connection therewith which has often
been repeated.[310] It is to the effect that the government, having
decided to establish a fort on Lake Michigan, sent commissioners to
St. Joseph with a view of locating it there; they selected a site and
began preparations for erecting a fort, when the Indians objected, and
so the commissioners passed on to Chicago, where Fort Dearborn was
constructed. No evidence has been offered in support of this story,
notwithstanding its improbability. In the light of documents discovered
in recent years it is possible to suggest an explanation of its origin.
We have seen that Colonel Hamtramck was directed to send a detail to
explore the route and select a site at the mouth of the St. Joseph
for a temporary camp; and that Swearingen's company halted here for
two weeks on its way to Chicago. It is possible that the natives, not
knowing that the camp was but a temporary, one, protested against it
and believed their protest responsible for the removal of the troops to
Chicago.
[Footnote 310: The earliest publication of the story which I have found
occurs in the _Michigan Pioneer Collections_, I, 122.]
We may now turn our attention to the civilian population of Chicago at
the time of the establishment of Fort Dearborn, and in this connection
to what is known of the first white man who settled at this point.
Here as elsewhere, in connection with the history of early Chicago,
the truth has been obscured by a mass of tradition, fostered in large
part by family pride. The effort to fix upon any certain person the
distinction of being the first resident of Chicago is idle. Traders and
other travelers passed through the place more or less frequently from
the time of Marquette on, and at various times individuals, ordinarily
traders, established themselves here for a shorter or longer period.
The story of Father Pinet's mission of the Guardian Angel at Chicago
near the close of the seventeenth century has already been noted.[311]
After this there are several more or less shadowy traditions of
dwellers on the banks of the Chicago River during the second half of
the eighteenth century. The earliest of these deals with a remarkable
woman, whose career as painted for us by Reynolds would be difficult to
parallel elsewhere in history.[312] Born of French parents of the name
of La Flamme at St. Joseph on Lake Michigan in 1734, she first migrated
to Mackinac. From thence with her husband, Pilette de Sainte Ange, she
removed to Chicago about the year 1765. After some years' residence
here her husband died and she removed to the French settlement of
Cahokia, where she married a Canadian named La Compt and reared a large
family of children. Widowed again, she became in due time the wife
of Tom Brady. No issue resulted from this union, and Mrs. Brady was
destined to still another widowhood, dying at Cahokia in 1843 at the
age of one hundred and nine years.
[Footnote 311: _Supra_, pp. 38-42.]
[Footnote 312: Reynolds, _Pioneer History of Illinois_, 168-69. The
story is told, also, with certain variations and additional details, by
Wm. R. Head (_Head Papers_, owned by his widow).]
Governor Reynolds knew Mrs. La Compt, as she was commonly known after
Brady's death, for thirty years, and describes her as a woman of strong
mind and an extraordinary constitution, and endowed with the courage
and energies of a heroine. The Indians were her neighbors from her
infancy until extreme old age; she became familiar with their language
and their character, and over the Pottawatomies and other tribes she
developed a remarkable influence. This she frequently exerted during
the stormy days of the Revolution to protect the French settlers
from attack by the hostile warriors, and later, in the early days of
American domination in Illinois, she continued to shield the white
settlers. Reynolds avers that on numerous occasions she was awakened
in the dead of night by her Indian friends to give her warning of an
impending attack in order that she might leave Cahokia. Instead of
seeking her own safety, however, she would set out alone to meet the
hostile war party, and never failed to avert the storm and prevent
bloodshed. She sometimes remained with the warriors for days, appeasing
their anger and urging wise counsels upon them. In due time the anxious
villagers, who had been watching meanwhile with arms in their hands for
the expected attack, would see Mrs. La Compt approach at the head of
a band of warriors, their angry passions stilled and their war paint
changed to somber black to manifest their sorrow for having entertained
hostile designs against their friends. A feast would usually follow,
cementing the reconciliation which Mrs. La Compt had been instrumental
in effecting, and the warriors would disperse.
That tradition has exaggerated the influence and services of Mrs.
La Compt is quite probable. But making due allowance for this, the
impression remains that she was a woman of unusual vigor and strength
of character, and it seems appropriate that her name should head
the ever-lengthening list of white women who have been residents of
Chicago. The next tangible tradition of white occupation of Chicago
is contained in a story told to Gurdon S. Hubbard by the trader,
Antoine De Champs.[313] He pointed out to the youthful Hubbard the
traces of corn hills on the west side of the North Branch, and related
that as early as 1778 a trader by the name of Guarie had lived here,
from whom the river had taken its name. Hubbard gives further details
concerning Guarie's trading house, taking pains to point out, however,
that the statements are based on oral tradition. But this tradition is
corroborated in one respect at least, for as late as 1823 the North
Branch was called the "Gary" river by the historian of Major Long's
expedition.[314]
[Footnote 313: For it see Blanchard, _Discovery and Conquests of the
Northwest_, 757-58.]
[Footnote 314: Keating, _Narrative of an Expedition to the Sources of
the St. Peter's River ... in 1823_, I, 172.]
Our only knowledge of Guarie's residence at Chicago is contained
in the story recorded by Hubbard, but with the mixed-breed negro,
Baptiste Point Du Sable, we reach more solid ground. The traditional
account of his Chicago career, first recorded by Mrs. Kinzie[315] and
afterward repeated and enlarged upon by others,[316] must be regarded
as largely fictitious and wholly unauthenticated. But by assembling
the information contained in a number of documents widely scattered
as to date and origin it is possible to learn much about him.[317]
The usual accounts, following Mrs. Kinzie, represent Du Sable to have
been a native of San Domingo. Matson, on the other hand, states that
he was a runaway slave from the vicinity of Lexington, Kentucky, and
describes his coming to Chicago and his supposed doings here with much
circumstantial detail.[318] Much of this is obviously imaginary, and
the two accounts are probably equally unworthy of credence. In general,
Du Sable's occupation seems to have been that of a trader, though
according to his own testimony he had improved a thirty-acre farm at
Peoria as early as 1780.[319]
[Footnote 315: Mrs. John H. Kinzie, _Wau Bun, the "Early Day" in the
Northwest_, Caxton Club edition. This work has been reprinted several
times since its first appearance in 1856. Page references to it in this
work are to the Caxton Club edition of 1901.]
[Footnote 316: See, for example, Mason, "Early Visitors to Chicago," in
_New England Magazine_, VI, 205-6.]
[Footnote 317: The following sources, on a study of which the
accompanying account of Du Sable is based, contain practically all the
information I have been able to collect concerning him: Kinzie, _Wau
Bun_, 146; De Peyster's allusion, in speech to the Indians at l'Arbre
Croche July 4, 1779, in _Wisconsin Historical Collections_, XVIII, 384;
McCulloch, _Early Days of Peoria and Chicago_, 91-92; "Recollections
of Augustin Grignon," in _Wisconsin Historical Collections_, III,
292; Lieutenant Bennett's report of arrest of Du Sable, August, 1779,
in _Wisconsin Historical Collections_, XVII, 399; inventory of goods
taken from Du Sable by Bennett, in _Michigan Pioneer Collections_, X,
366; Journal of Hugh Heward (MS original owned by Clarence M. Burton
of Detroit; I have used the copy in the Chicago Historical Society
library'); Schoolcraft, _Personal Memoirs_, 478; Draper Collection, S,
Vols. XXI and XXII, _passim_; McCulloch, "Old Peoria," in _Illinois
State Historical Society_, Transactions, 1901, 46.]
[Footnote 318: Matson, N., _French and Indians of Illinois River_,
187-91. Matson's information purports to have been obtained from a
grandson of Du Sable.]
[Footnote 319: McCulloch, _Early Days of Peoria and Chicago_, 91.]
As a trader he moved from place to place and the date of his
settlement at Chicago and the regularity of his stay here are alike
uncertain. De Peyster says that he was here in 1779, and also darkly
hints at some punishment meted out to him by Langlade, the reputed
"father of Wisconsin."[320] In the summer of that year, however, we
find him established with a house on the River Chemin, later known
as Trail Creek, probably on the site of Michigan City, Indiana.
Here he was arrested by Lieutenant Bennett, who had been sent by
De Peyster toward Vincennes to forestall an anticipated attack on
Mackinac by George Rogers Clark.[321] Du Sable's offense seems to have
consisted only in his attachment to the American cause, and even his
captor speaks highly of him. Curiously enough, he was in the employ
of a British trader, Durand, at Mackinac, who this same summer had
undertaken to guide a British war party to the Illinois country to
co-operate with Bennett. The goods which Bennett seized from Du Sable
belonged to Durand, Who proceeded to file a claim with his government
for their value. Because of this circumstance there is preserved an
itemized inventory of Du Sable's stock in trade.[322] Perhaps the most
interesting entry, aside from the quaint designation of Du Sable as a
"naigre Libre," is the rum, ten barrels of twenty gallons each, with a
value nearly twice as great as all of the remainder of the stock.
[Footnote 320: _Wisconsin Historical Collections_, XVIII, 384; see also
in this connection _ibid._, 399, note 98.]
[Footnote 321: _Wisconsin Historical Collections_, XVIII, 399.]
[Footnote 322: _Michigan Pioneer Collections_, X, 366.]
Whatever his nativity may have been, Du Sable proved, at least to
the satisfaction of a government commission, that he was a citizen of
the United States. In pursuance of a series of congressional acts and
resolutions providing for grants in the Illinois country to citizens
of the United States who had made improvements or who were heads of
families, Du Sable made proof that both before and after 1783 he had
resided at Peoria, that he was the head of a family, and that he had
improved a farm of thirty acres at Peoria as early as 1780.[323] The
commission therefore reported that he was entitled to eight hundred
acres of land. How long after 1783 he continued to reside at Peoria
does not appear, but in 1790 we find him established at Chicago near
the mouth of the river. Whether, as Mrs. Kinzie suggests, he went
into politics and sought election as a chief of the Pottawatomies is
dubious,[324] but when Heward passed through Chicago in the spring
of 1790, he was entertained by Du Sable. The traveler exchanged some
cotton cloth with him for a supply of food, and also borrowed his boat.
Four years later he was still here, if Grignon's recollections are to
be trusted. Alexander Robinson in his old age related that Du Sable,
who had long lived at Chicago and was prominent among the Indians, came
to Mackinac about the year 1796, accompanied by quite a band of Indians
in several birch-bark canoes. The British greeted him on his arrival by
the discharge of cannon.[325]
[Footnote 323: McCulloch, _Early Days of Peoria and Chicago_, 91.]
[Footnote 324: Mrs. Kinzie's brief statement on this point is greatly
enlarged and improved upon by Matson, _French and Indians of Illinois
River_, 188-91.]
[Footnote 325: Interview with Lyman C. Draper, Draper Collection, S,
XXI, 276.]
The accounts we have of the personality and character of Du Sable are
for the most part highly creditable to him. Robinson describes him as
tall and of commanding appearance. Another observer, Stephen Hempstead,
who was acquainted with him in his old age, describes him as quite gray
and venerable, about six feet in height, with a well-formed figure
and a very pleasant countenance.[326] De Peyster, himself a rhymster
and a friend of Robert Burns, calls him "handsome" and well educated.
Doubtless in this case allowance should be made for poetic license and
for the fact that the poet probably never actually saw the subject
of his verse. Grignon recalled that Du Sable "drank pretty freely,"
and Robinson stated that he danced and caroused with the Indians and
"drank badly." By way of palliation of this charge it may be noted that
drinking was a habit common alike to Du Sable's age and his profession.
There is a much larger mass of testimony in Du Sable's favor to offset
this venial habit. Hempstead, who has already been quoted, says that
he was not degraded, and that he appeared to be respected by those who
knew him. Long years after his death the observant Schoolcraft recorded
the information received from Mrs. La Framboise, an aged métif lady
at Mackinac, that he was "a respectable man."[327] But the strongest
praise comes from Lieutenant Bennett, Du Sable's captor in 1779. He
reported to De Peyster that since his imprisonment Du Sable had behaved
in every respect as became a man in his situation, and that he had many
friends who gave him a good character.
[Footnote 326: Interview of Lyman C. Draper with Hempstead, Draper
Collection, S, XXII, 177.]
[Footnote 327: Schoolcraft, _Personal Memoirs_, 478.]
According to the tradition preserved by Mrs. Kinzie, Du Sable withdrew
from. Chicago to the home of a friend in Peoria, where he terminated
his career. Alexander Robinson stated that he went off to the region
of St. Louis and died there, probably before the beginning of the War
of 1812.[328] A more specific and, apparently, reliable account of his
last years is furnished by Hempstead.[329] He states that Du Sable had
no goods in these last years, but spent his time hunting and fishing
and lived by himself. He had a hut near the mouth of the Osage River,
and here he died, probably about the year 1811.
[Footnote 328: Interview with Lyman C. Draper, Draper Collection, S,
XXI, 276.]
[Footnote 329: _Ibid._, XXII, 177.]
When the troops came to Chicago in 1803 they found four huts or cabins
here, belonging to some French-Canadian traders.[330] One of these was
occupied by Le Mai, who had bought out Du Sable, one by Ouilmette, and
a third by Fettle. The fourth, apparently, belonged to Kinzie and was
at this time vacant. Doctor Smith, the first surgeon at Fort Dearborn,
and John La Lime shortly secured possession of it for the winter and
fitted it up in a comfortable manner for their joint occupancy.[331]
[Footnote 330: Hurlbut, _Chicago Antiquities_, 25.]
[Footnote 331: Letter of Dr. Smith to James May, December 9, 1803.]
Our information concerning Fettle is meager. According to Mrs. Whistler
he was a French-Canadian living here with an Indian wife when the
garrison came in 1803.[332] The entries in John Kinzie's account books
show that his first name was Louis, and that he either dealt in furs or
himself hunted them.[333] His name occurs at intervals down to 1812,
showing that he was a resident of Chicago during the entire period.
With the last entry of his name in Kinzie's account book he disappears
from history. Possibly it may have been his fate to fight and die
with the Chicago militia at the baggage wagons on the fatal day of
evacuation in the summer of 1812.
[Footnote 332: Hurlbut, _Chicago Antiquities_, 25.]
[Footnote 333: _Barry Transcript_.]
Ouilmette claimed to have come to Chicago in 1790.[334] He was
illiterate, and the statement, uncorroborated as it is, must be
accepted with caution. We know, however, that when the soldiers came
to establish the fort he was living with his Indian wife in one of
the four huts which they found here.[335] When Doctor Cooper came to
Fort Dearborn as post surgeon five years later, there were still but
four houses on the north side of the river, of which Ouilmette's was
one.[336] Ouilmette's chief dependence for a livelihood, apparently,
was on the transportation of travelers and their baggage across the
portage. It has already been shown that the French settlers at Chicago
carried on this business in the first quarter of the nineteenth
century.[337] That Ouilmette was engaged in this work was stated by Mr.
Bain to Rev. William Barry, founder and first secretary of the Chicago
Historical Society.[338] An entry in Kinzie's account book charges him
for the use of a wagon and oxen to transport goods over the portage to
the "Fork" of the Illinois River.[339]
[Footnote 334: Ouilmette to John (H.) Kinzie, June 1, 1839, in
Blanchard, _The Northwest and Chicago_, I, 574.]
[Footnote 335: Hurlbut, _Chicago Antiquities_, 25.]
[Footnote 336: _Barry Transcript._]
[Footnote 337: Wilson, _Chicago from, 1803 to 1812_.]
[Footnote 338: _Ibid._, entry for June 14, 1806.]
[Footnote 339: _Supra_, p. 19.]
In the summer of 1820 John Tanner, who had been for thirty years a
captive among the Indians, passed through Chicago with his family,
going by canoe from Mackinac to St. Louis.[340] His progress was halted
here for a time by the low stage of water in the Illinois River.
During this time he suffered greatly from illness and destitution;
he was rescued from his plight by a Frenchman who had been to carry
some boats across the portage. His wife, who was an Indian, usually
accompanied him on such expeditions. Although his horses were much worn
from their long journey, he agreed for a moderate price to transport
Tanner and his canoe sixty miles, and, if his horses should hold out,
twice this distance, the length of the portage at this stage of the
river. In addition he lent Tanner, who was weak from illness, a young
horse to ride. Before the sixty miles had been traversed the Frenchman
was himself taken sick, and as there was now some water in the river
Tanner dismissed him and attempted to descend the river in his canoe.
That this Frenchman was Ouilmette seems probable. If so, the narrative
throws an interesting light upon both his business and his character.
It shows that the transporting of travelers over the portage was a
common occupation of Ouilmette, and further that he was not inclined to
take an unfair advantage of a weak and destitute traveler.
[Footnote 340: _Tanner's Narrative_, 257-58.]
Mrs. Kinzie represents that in 1812 Ouilmette was "a part of the
establishment" of John Kinzie, and relates a remarkable story of the
rescue by his family of Mrs. Helm and Sergeant Griffith from impending
slaughter at the hands of the Wabash Indians.[341] That Ouilmette may
have been employed more or less by Kinzie is not unlikely; but the
details of the rescue story, however creditable to his family, are so
improbable as to challenge belief. It has been said that Ouilmette
remained in Chicago after the massacre, being the only white inhabitant
during the next few years.[342] However this may be, the new garrison
which came in 1816 found him living here in serene possession.[343]
With him, too, was the half-breed chief, Alexander Robinson, and the
two were engaged by the soldiers to harrow the ground for a vegetable
garden for the garrison. That Ouilmette continued to reside here after
this time is shown by the occasional mention of his name by travelers
and others as one of the inhabitants of the place.[344] In 1825 he was
credited with taxable property to the amount of four hundred dollars,
according to the earliest known Chicago assessment roll, and his name
is found the following year on the first Chicago poll list.[345]
[Footnote 341: Kinzie, _Wau Bun_, 182-86.]
[Footnote 342: Hurlbut, _Chicago Antiquities_, 452; Andreas, _History
of Chicago_, I, 184. I have found no indication of the authority on
which these statements rest.]
[Footnote 343: _Head Papers_, Narrative of Moses Morgan.]
[Footnote 344: See, for example, Hubbard, _Life_, 37; John H. Fonda,
"Recollections," in _Wisconsin Historical Collections_, V, 216.]
[Footnote 345: Blanchard, _The Northwest and Chicago_, I, 516-17.]
But little can be said of the character of Ouilmette. His dealings
with Tanner, which have already been recounted, argue well for his
fairness and humanity. That he was possessed of more thrift than was
the typical frontier French habitant of this period would seem to be
attested by the facts already noted. Moses Morgan, who was employed in
the construction of the second Fort Dearborn, had a poor opinion of
Ouilmette and described his appearance as that of a "medium sized half
starved Indian." He was a Roman Catholic and signed the petition for
the establishment of the first Catholic church in Chicago.[346]
[Footnote 346: Andreas, _History of Chicago_, I, 289. For additional
data about the Ouilmette family see Grover, _Some Indian Landmarks of
the North Shore_, 277 ff.]
We are now ready to consider the reputed "father of Chicago," John
Kinzie. According to Mrs. Kinzie, the family historian, he was born
at Quebec in 1763. Shortly afterward his parents moved to Detroit,
where the father died while John was still in infancy. His mother
later married William Forsyth, who removed to New York City, where the
boy's early childhood was passed. At the age of ten or eleven he ran
away from home, and, making his way to Quebec, fell into the hands of
a silversmith from whom he learned enough of the trade to enable him
to make the ornaments which so delighted the simple red man. Meanwhile
his mother's family returned to Detroit where, later, it was rejoined
by the runaway son. In time he engaged in the Indian trade, carrying
on operations in various places. The same authority states that his
earlier establishments were at Sandusky and Maumee,[347] and this is
confirmed by two independent sources. About the time of St. Clair's
defeat Joseph Brant, the famous Iroquois chieftain, purchased a horse
and other supplies from "Mr. Kinzie, Silver Smith at the Miami."[348]
Henry Hay, who passed the winter of 1789-90 at the Miami settlement,
makes frequent mention of Kinzie in the journal which he kept of his
travels.[349] According to the journal Kinzie had both a house and a
shop and "apprentices." Hay draws an interesting picture of the life
of the little settlement. Neither social nor religious consolation was
lacking, and Hay played his flute and Kinzie his fiddle indifferently
for drinking bout and mass. At times the two classes of entertainment
followed each other so closely that the musicians went reeling from
one to the other. "Got infernally drunk last night with Mr. Abbot and
Mr. Kinzie," wrote the journalist on one occasion. "Mr. A. gave me
his daughter Betsy over the bottle. Damnation sick this morning in
consequence of last night's debashe--eat no breakfast, Kinzie & myself
went to mass and played as usual. Mrs. Ranjard gave us a Cup of Coffee
before mass to settle our heads."
[Footnote 347: Kinzie, _Wau Bun_, 149.]
[Footnote 348: _Michigan Pioneer Collections_, XX, 336.]
[Footnote 349: _Journal from Detroit to the Miami River_, MS in the
Detroit Public Library. The journal is anonymous, but Mr. Clarence M.
Burton, who has a typewritten copy of it, ascribes it to Henry Hay.]
During these years Kinzie was, of course, in league with the enemies
of the United States. Hay makes frequent mention of the bringing in
of American prisoners by the Indians, and of the presence of Little
Turtle, Blue Jacket, and other chiefs hostile to the Americans, at
the village. In the autumn of 1793 Kinzie was still at the Maumee
Rapids, where he incurred the suspicion of the Indians by his
communications with Wells, one of Wayne's chief scouts.[350] Probably
his establishment was destroyed, along with those of the other British
traders, by the American army following the battle of Fallen Timbers.
The family historian states that he removed to the St. Joseph River
about the year 1800,[351] but he must have located there at an earlier
date, for William Burnett in 1798 speaks of him as "Mr. McKenzie of
this place."[352] Apparently, however, while carrying on trade with the
Indians at these places Kinzie retained some connection with Detroit.
Hurlbut found evidence in the Wayne County records that he was doing
business there in 1795 and again in 1797.[353] In 1798 he married Mrs.
Eleanor McKillip,[354] the widow of a Detroit militia officer in the
British Indian service who had been slain on the Maumee during Wayne's
campaign against the northwestern tribes. Mrs. McKillip had a daughter,
Margaret, whom we shall meet later as the wife of Lieutenant Helm of
the Fort Dearborn garrison.
[Footnote 350: _Michigan Pioneer Collections_, XX, 342, 347.]
[Footnote 351: Kinzie, _Wau Bun_, 349.]
[Footnote 352: Hurlbut, _Chicago Antiquities_, 67. Kinzie is a
corruption of the Scotch name Mackenzie, which was the name of Kinzie's
father.]
[Footnote 353: Hurlbut, _Chicago Antiquities_, 469.]
[Footnote 354: Kinzie had formed an earlier connection with a woman
of the same family name as his own, Margaret McKenzie. The story that
has been handed down to us of her career, while doubtless idealized
through dint of repetition, well illustrates the possibilities for
adventure of life on the American border a century and a quarter ago.
In the course of Lord Dunmore's war, Margaret and Elizabeth McKenzie
were carried away from their Virginia home into captivity among the
Indians. The children were adopted by a Shawnee chief who lived near
the Indian town of Chillicothe in western Ohio. Years later, when they
had grown to womanhood, Margaret, the elder, accompanied her foster
parent on a hunting expedition to the vicinity of the modern Fort
Wayne, Indiana. Here a young brave sought to force her to marry him.
Spurning his attentions, she mounted a horse by night and fled through
the forest a distance of seventy-five miles to her Indian home. The
horse is said to have died from the effects of the wild ride, but the
maiden was made of sterner stuff. At length Margaret McKenzie became
the wife of John Kinzie, and her sister, Elizabeth, the wife of a
Scotchman named Clark. Whether the two white men rescued the women from
captivity and were rewarded for this service by their respective hands,
or the old chief voluntarily brought them to Detroit on a visit, where
the marriages were brought about in the usual way, depends upon which
faction of Kinzie's descendants tells the story. So, too, it is still
a matter of dispute whether or not the union was cemented by a formal
marriage ceremony. Whatever the truth in these respects may be, the
unions endured for a number of years, two children being born to the
Clarks and three to the Kinzies. With the restoration of peace to the
northwestern frontier in 1795 Isaac McKenzie, the father, learned of
the whereabouts of his long-lost children. He journeyed to Detroit to
see them, and when he returned to his home in Virginia his daughters
with their children accompanied him, leaving their woodland husbands
behind.
Conflicting explanations, colored in each case by partisan pride,
have been given of the reasons for this untimely breaking-up of the
two families. Since the only evidence in the premises is family
tradition, it seems vain to seek to determine where the truth lies.
Margaret Kinzie later married Benjamin Hall, while her sister became
the wife of Jonas Clybourne. Two of the former's children by Kinzie,
James and Elizabeth, in later years came to Chicago; so, too, did the
Halls and the Clybournes; and these various family groups comprised
a considerable proportion of the population of Chicago in the later
twenties. On the subject of this footnote see Blanchard, _The Northwest
and Chicago_; Hurlbut, _Chicago Antiquities_; Andreas, _Chicago_;
Gordon, _John Kinzie, the "Father of Chicago."_ For obvious reasons
the Kinzie family historian makes no mention in _Wau Bun_ of this
feature of her father-in-law's career. Mr. Clarence M. Burton has a
genealogy (MS) of the Kinzie family to which descendants respectively
of John Kinzie's first and second families have contributed their views
concerning the legitimacy of the former.]
In the spring of 1804 Kinzie became a resident of Chicago. The last
entry in his account book at St. Joseph bears date of April 30, 1804,
while the first at Chicago occurs on May 12. The hut which Du Sable and
Le Mai had in turn occupied now became the habitation of Kinzie. His
business prospered and he conducted trading "adventures" at Peoria, on
the Kankakee, and elsewhere, in addition to the main establishment at
Chicago.[355] By the massacre and the train of events brought on by the
War of 1812, however, Kinzie's property was largely destroyed and his
business was ruined. After his return to Chicago in 1816 the formidable
competition of the American Fur Company combined with other causes to
prevent him from achieving the degree of success which he had attained
during the years from 1803 to 1812.
[Footnote 355: _Barry Transcript_; Kinzie, _Wau Bun_, 150.]
The propriety of designating Kinzie the "father of Chicago" is dubious.
No one individual can properly claim exclusive right to this title. The
event which, more adequately than any other, signalizes the beginning
of modern white settlement here was the founding of Fort Dearborn;
and the man who with more propriety than any other may be regarded as
the "father" of the modern city is Captain John Whistler, who built
the first fort and for seven years dominated the life within and
around its walls. He came in obedience to an order, of course, as an
officer in the army. Kinzie, on the other hand, came nearly a year
later to conduct the usual Indian trading-house. There is no reason
to suppose that he would have come to Chicago at all, but for the
prior establishment of the garrison. Yet several other traders had
established themselves here, not only before Kinzie, but also before
the garrison came.
It has been stated that for nearly twenty years Kinzie was the only
white inhabitant of northern Illinois outside the military.[356] So
far is this from being true that there was never a moment of time
during his residence at Chicago when he was the only civilian here.
Particularly during the latter years of his life, a number of civilians
were living in Chicago and in the immediate vicinity. The undue
prominence in this period of Chicago history which Kinzie has come to
hold in the popular mind is due to the fact that he gained, after his
death, a daughter-in-law who possessed the literary skill to weave a
romantic narrative celebrating the family name and deeds.
[Footnote 356: Kinzie, _Wau Bun_, 146-47.]
The name of Kinzie is unpleasantly associated with two other
characters of these early years, John La Lime and Jeffrey Nash. La
Lime was at St. Joseph in 1787, apparently in the employ of William
Burnett.[357] Whether he located at Chicago before the garrison came
is not apparent; if not, he came the same year. Shortly after the
arrival of the garrison he and Doctor Smith, the surgeon, began living
together; they secured Kinzie's house for the first winter and fitted
it up "in a very comfortable manner."[358] The fourth name entered
in Kinzie's account book after his removal to Chicago in May, 1804,
is that of La Lime.[359] In the same month he signed as witness the
articles of indenture of Jeffrey Nash to Kinzie and Forsyth, "Merchants
of Chicago."[360] When Cooper came to Fort Dearborn as surgeon in 1808,
La Lime was living in one of the four houses on the north side of the
river and acting as government Indian interpreter.[361] He continued to
serve in this capacity until his death shortly before the massacre in
the summer of 1812.
[Footnote 357: Hurlbut, _Chicago Antiquities_, 55.]
[Footnote 358: Letter of Dr. William Smith to James May, December 9,
1803.]
[Footnote 359: _Barry Transcript._]
[Footnote 360: This document is preserved in the Draper Collection,
_Forsyth Papers_, I, Doc. No. I.]
[Footnote 361: Wilson, _Chicago from 1803 to 1812_.]
But for a single exception, all the reports concerning La Lime's
character which have come to light are highly creditable to him. His
few remaining letters show him to have been a man of some education.
The esteem in which Jouett held him is shown by his naming a son after
him.[362] Doctor Smith, who was living with him in the winter of
1803-4, described him as "a very decent man and a good companion."[363]
[Footnote 362: Hurlbut, _Chicago Antiquities_, 108.]
[Footnote 363: Letter of Dr. William Smith to James May, December 9,
1803.]
In the summer of 1812, a few weeks before the massacre. La Lime was
stabbed to death by Kinzie in a personal encounter just outside the
entrance to Fort Dearborn. Unless new sources of information shall
come to light, the responsibility for this affray will never be
determined. La Lime's side of the story has not been preserved, except
in the form of unreliable verbal tradition, which pictures Kinzie in
the light of aggressor and murderer.[364] The Kinzie family tradition
represents that La Lime, insanely jealous over Kinzie's success as a
trader, treacherously attacked him, armed with a pistol and dirk, and
was stabbed to death by Kinzie in self-defense.[365] Practically all
writers on Chicago history hitherto have accepted this version,[366]
but it is as little worthy of credence as the contrary one. The
interest in the killing of La Lime must, in the nature of things, have
soon given place to the general anxiety over the situation produced
by the hovering war cloud which was now about to burst. Within four
months came the massacre,[367] as the result of which over half of
the inmates of the frontier settlement were slain and the remainder
scattered far and wide. But few of them ever returned to Chicago, and
these, like Rip Van Winkle, drifted back after the passage of years, as
to a new world. That the fate of La Lime should be obliterated by the
horrors and confusion of a three years' war was only natural. When in
a later generation interest in his fate was revived only the version
of it originating with the relatives and friends of the slayer gained
the public ear, and this, for obvious reasons, put the onus of the
affray on the slain. The fact of La Lime's death at the hands of Kinzie
is clear; the responsibility for it cannot, in the light of existing
information, be determined.
[Footnote 364: Head Papers. Head was acquainted with various pioneer
Chicagoans, and his statements purport to be drawn from such sources.
His methods of work were such, however, that but little confidence can
be had in his statements.]
[Footnote 365: The details of the affair vary, naturally, in the
different accounts. For the Kinzie family tradition see Eleanor
Kinzie Gordon, _John Kinzie, the "Father of Chicago,"_ 8-9; letter
of Gurdon S. Hubbard, in Wentworth, Early Chicago, Fergus Historical
Series, No. 16, 83; Mrs. Porthier's narrative in Andreas, _History of
Chicago_, I, 105. Hubbard procured his information from the members of
Kinzie's family. Mrs. Porthier, who in old age claimed to have been
an eye-witness of the killing of La Lime, was an inmate of the Kinzie
household for several years following 1816.]
[Footnote 366: See for example Wentworth, _Early Chicago_; Kirkland,
_The Chicago Massacre_; Andreas, _History of Chicago_.]
[Footnote 367: I have not been able to determine the exact date of
the death of La Lime. It could not have been earlier than April 13,
however, since on this date he wrote to Captain Wells of Fort Wayne an
account of the murders at the Lee farm on April 6 (_Louisiana Gazette_,
May 30, 1812, copied by Lyman C. Draper, Draper Collection, S, Vol.
XXVI).]
On May 22, 1804, articles of indenture were entered into which
bound Jeffrey Nash, a "Negro man," to serve John Kinzie and Thomas
Forsyth, "Merchants of Chicago," for the term of seven years.[368]
The instrument describes Nash as an inhabitant of Wayne County,
although it was executed, apparently, at Chicago.[369] The Chicago
of 1804 was located in Wayne County, Indiana Territory, whose county
seat was Detroit, over three hundred miles away. In return for meat,
drink, apparel, washing, and lodging "fitting for a Servant," Nash
bound himself to the maintenance of an utterly impossible standard
of conduct.[370] Doubtless the quaint language of the indenture
simply followed the customary form of such documents; it can scarcely
have been expected that the bound man would live up to its numerous
stipulations.
[Footnote 368: Draper Collection, _Forsyth Papers_, I, Doc. No. 1.]
[Footnote 369: That the indenture was entered into at Chicago I infer
from the facts that Kinzie opened his account books here on May 12, and
numerous entries in them were made during the ensuing ten days, and
that the name of John La Lime, one of the witnesses of the indenture,
occurs among the entries for May 12.]
[Footnote 370: Among the other things it was agreed that for the space
of seven years "the said servant his said Masters shall faithfully
serve their Secrets keep their lawfully Command everywhere gladly
Obey. He shall do no damage to his said Masters. He shall not wast his
Masters goods nor lend them unlawfully to others. He shall not commit
Fornication nor contract Matrimony within said Term. At dice Cards or
any unlawful game he shall not play where by his said Masters may be
damaged with his own goods or the goods of others during the said Term
without licence of his said Masters he shall neither buy nor sell he
shall not absent day nor night from his said Masters Service without
their leave nor haunt Taverns or any place or places without permission
from said Masters but in all things behave as a faithful Servant ought
to do during the said Term."]
Nash signed the instrument by making his mark. It might reasonably be
concluded, even in the absence of other information concerning him,
that this indenture practically reduced him to slavery. That Kinzie and
Forsyth chose to so regard Nash's status is shown by their treatment
of him. He was taken to Peoria, Forsyth's place of residence from 1802
until 1812, and for many years held by the latter as a slave.[371] At
length he ran away from his bondage and made his way to St. Louis, and
eventually to New Orleans, where he was said to have had a wife and
children. Forsyth and Kinzie sought to recover possession of him and
to this end a suit was instituted in the parish court; the case went
ultimately to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, where an interesting
decision was rendered.[372]
[Footnote 371: Draper Collection, _Forsyth Papers_, Vol. I, copy of
decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, June 5, 1816, in the case
of _Kensy and Forsyth, plaintiffs_, versus _Jeffrey Nash, defendant_.]
[Footnote 372: The summary given here is based on the manuscript
copy of the decision in the _Forsyth Papers_. The case is reported in
Martin, _Louisiana Reports_, II, 180.]
The plaintiffs submitted two lines of evidence in support of their
contention that Nash was their lawful slave. A number of witnesses
testified that for a term of years he had lived at Peoria as Forsyth's
slave, being "known and reputed" as such by the villagers. Furthermore
the plaintiffs produced a bill of sale of Nash to them, dated at
Detroit, September 5, 1803, and there recorded and duly authenticated.
In view of the fact that the articles of indenture whereby Nash bound
himself "voluntarily as a servant" to Kinzie and Forsyth for a term of
seven years were executed in May, 1804, there seems to be no escape
from the conclusion that the bill of sale was a forgery, fabricated
for the use to which it was now put. Although it deceived the court,
the fraud brought no profit to the plaintiffs. The judges declared
that since the Ordinance of 1787 prohibited slavery in the Northwest
Territory unless under two exceptions, the plaintiffs' "alleged
possession" of Nash could only have been lawful at the time the bill
of sale was produced on two grounds. There could be complete ownership
and slavery only in case the person claimed had been convicted of a
crime by which his freedom was forfeited. Or, if the defendant were
a fugitive from involuntary servitude in another state, he might be
seized and returned to servitude there.
The plaintiffs did not claim Nash on this latter ground, however.
Their contention was for the absolute right to hold Nash during his
natural life and dispose of him as they pleased. Their conduct toward
him showed that they unlawfully attempted to, and did successfully,
exercise for years the right of absolute control over him, until he
at last sought safety in flight. Since no evidence had been produced
to show that Nash had forfeited his freedom because of conviction for
crime, the decision was given for him with costs. Thus did the Supreme
Court of the slave state of Louisiana uphold the free character of the
soil of Illinois, and rescue a free man from bondage, at a time when
slavery openly flourished here, and slaves were bought and sold and
held in bondage even by such prominent characters as the governor of
the territory.