and while he was in office, Binns exercised great power, but only
maintained his sway a few years after Snyder’s last term.
Binns bitterly opposed Jackson for President. He issued the famous
coffin handbills in 1828, and excited thereby such opposition that his
house was mobbed, Binns escaping by the roof.
He was appointed an alderman by Governor Hiester in 1822, and in 1829
the publication of the Democratic Press ceased.
John Binns died November 16, 1860.
----------
Administration of Sir William Keith as
Deputy-Governor. He Died
November 17, 1749
During the administration of Sir William Keith, Deputy-Governor of the
Province, July, 1718, to July, 1726, a difficulty arose between the
Southern Indians upon the Shenandoah, and those resident upon the
Susquehanna in the Province of Pennsylvania, respecting the limits of
their hunting grounds. Hostilities between them seemed imminent. It was
necessary to settle these difficulties amicably or the peace of the
Province was seriously threatened.
To avert this, says Proud, Governor Keith paid a visit to the Governor
of Virginia, with whom he framed a convention, confining the Indians on
the North and South of the Potomac to their respective side of that
river. A conference was held with the Pennsylvania Indians and the Five
Nations, at Conestoga, July 6, 1721, when this convention was fully
ratified.
Governor Keith made this visit in state. He was attended by seventy
horsemen, many of them were armed. He was welcomed upon his return at
the upper ferry on the Schuylkill, by Mayor William Fishbourne and the
Aldermen of Philadelphia, accompanied by two hundred of the most
respectable citizens, who conducted him through the streets after the
manner of a hero returned from a conquest.
Trouble over the boundary arose when the Governor of Maryland proposed
making a survey on the Susquehanna, within the limits of the present
York County.
Governor Keith resolved to resist this attempt by force, and ordered out
a militia company from New Castle. The Provincial Council discouraged
this show of violence.
The Indians became alarmed at the encroachments of the Marylanders and
conveyed to Governor Keith a large tract of land, that he might have a
better title to resist them. This land was given for the use of
Springett Penn, the grandson of William Penn, and was afterwards known
by the name of Springettsbury Manor.
The fears of the Province were soon after awakened by a quarrel between
two brothers named Cartlidge and an Indian near Conestoga, in which the
Indian was killed, with many evidences of cruelty. The known principles
of revenge professed by the Indians gave reason to apprehend severe
retaliation. Policy and justice required a rigid inquiry and punishment
of the murderers.
Governor Keith took prompt measures for their apprehension and the
Assembly ordered a coroner’s inquest, though the body had been buried
two months, and the arrest of the Cartlidge brothers.
Messengers were dispatched to the Five Nations to deprecate hostilities,
and, to prevent further irregularities, the prohibition of sale of
spirituous liquors to the Indians was re-enacted, with additional
penalties.
The Indians invited Governor Keith and the governors of Virginia, New
York, and the New England colonies, to meet with them in council at
Albany, where with great magnanimity, the Indians pardoned the offense
of the Cartlidges, and requested they might be discharged without
further punishment. The address of the Indian sachem is worth repeating:
“The great King of the Five Nations is sorry for the death of the Indian
that was killed, for he was of his own flesh and blood; he believes the
Governor is also sorry; but, now that it is done, there is no help for
it, and he desires that Cartlidge may not be put to death, nor that he
should be spared for a time and afterwards executed; one life is enough
to be lost; there should not two die. The King’s heart is good to the
Governor, and all the English.”
Governor Keith was attended on this journey to Albany by Messrs. Hill,
Norris, and Hamilton, of his Council.
A considerable part of the emigration to the colonies was composed of
servants, who were of two classes. The first and the larger part, were
poor and oppressed in the land of their nativity, sometimes the victims
of political changes or religious intolerance, who submitted to
temporary servitude, as a price of freedom, plenty and peace. The
second, vagrants and felons, the dregs of the British populace, who were
cast by the mother country upon her colonies, with the most selfish
disregard of the feelings she outraged.
As early as 1682 the Council proposed to prohibit convicts from the
province, but as none had entered and this was only prospective, no law
was enacted. Now the Council did enact such a law, by placing a duty of
five pounds upon every convicted felon brought into the Province, and
the importer was also required to give surety for the good behavior of
the convict for one year.
In the year 1722 there were commercial embarrassments caused by the
deficiency of the circulating medium. Governor Keith proposed to
overcome this difficulty by the introduction of paper money. The
Assembly moved with caution, for they had full knowledge of the mistakes
of the colonies, and issued only £15,000 on favorable terms to keep up
their credit. This act was passed March 2, 1723. The emission proved of
advantage but was insufficient, so towards the end of the year £30,000
more were emitted on the same terms.
Governor Keith, in espousing this popular cause, pleased the Assembly
but incurred the displeasure of the Proprietary party and its leader,
James Logan. Complications arose which eventuated in the triumph of
Logan and the deposition of Keith, who was decidedly the most successful
of the Proprietary Governors.
Franklin said of Keith, that “he differed from the great body of the
people whom he governed, in religion and manners, yet he acquired their
esteem and confidence. If he sought popularity, he promoted the public
happiness; and his courage in resisting the demands of the family may be
ascribed to a higher motive than private interest. The conduct of the
Assembly toward him was neither honorable nor polite; for his sins
against his principles were virtues to the people, with whom he was
deservedly a favorite; and the House should have given him substantial
marks of their gratitude as would have tempted his successors to walk in
his steps. But fear of further offence to the Proprietary family, the
influence of Logan, and a quarrel between the Governor and Lloyd, turned
their attention from him to his successor.”
After his removal, Sir William Keith resided in the Province, and was
elected to the Assembly, but he manifested a most unjustifiable and
malicious spirit, and caused dissensions in the administration of his
successor. His power and influence rapidly waned.
In 1729 he returned to England, where, it is sad to record, he died in
obscurity, in London, November 17, 1749.
“It may be very little known,” says Watson, “that he who moved with so
much excitement and as our Governor in 1726, should at last fall into
such neglect, as to leave his widow among us unnoticed and almost
forgotten! She lived and died in a small wooden house on Third Street,
between High and Mulberry. There, much pinched for subsistence, she eked
out her existence with an old female, declining all intercourse with
society or with her neighbors. The house itself was burnt in 1786.”
Lady Ann Keith died July 31, 1740, aged 65 years, and lies entombed at
Christ Church graveyard.
----------
Governor Joseph Hiester, Distinguished
Revolutionary Officer and Statesman,
Born November 18, 1872
In the early settlement of that part of Pennsylvania which is now
included within the limits of Berks County a large portion of the
population was drawn from those parts of Germany bordering on or near
the River Rhine.
Among these sturdy emigrants were three brothers, John, Joseph and
Daniel Hiester.
John, the eldest, emigrated in 1732, and was followed in 1737 by Joseph
and Daniel, who sailed in that year in the ship St. Andrew from
Rotterdam.
These three brothers were sons of John and Catherine Hiester and their
birthplace was the village of Elcoff in the county of Wittgenstein, in
the province of Westphalia, Prussia. The father, John Hiester, was born
in January, 1708.
The three brothers first settled in Goshenhoppen, then Philadelphia, now
Montgomery County. Soon after the arrival of Joseph and Daniel, they
purchased of the Proprietary Government a tract of several thousand
acres in Bern Township, now Berks County.
Here John and Joseph settled, and the Hiester family in America are
their descendants. Here was born a patriot of the Revolution,
distinguished citizen and statesman, who afterwards became a governor of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Joseph Hiester, son of John Hiester, was born in Bern Township, November
18, 1752.
He spent his early days on the farm and in the intervals of the routine
from labor, Joseph received the rudiments of an English and German
education under the supervision of the pastor of Bern Reformed Church.
In 1771, in his nineteenth year, he married Elizabeth Whitman, daughter
of Adam Whitman, of Reading, to which place he soon removed, and went
into the mercantile business with his father-in-law.
Joseph Hiester was an ardent Whig in politics and took an aggressive
part in espousing the cause of the Revolution.
As a representative of that party he was chosen a member of the
Pennsylvania Conference, which met in Philadelphia, June 18, 1776, and
which in reality assumed the government of the Province, called a
convention to frame a new constitution, gave instructions for the
guidance of its representatives in Congress, and authorized the calling
out of troops for the Continental Army. In all these proceedings he was
a warm supporter of the popular cause.
He was then a captain of militia, and no sooner had the conference
adjourned, than he hastened home and aroused the young men of Reading
and vicinity to the importance of enlisting in the cause of American
independence, at that time but feebly supported.
Joseph Hiester called together, by beat of drum, his fellow-townsmen, to
take into consideration the alarming state and gloomy prospects of their
country. He explained to them the perilous situation of General
Washington in New Jersey, and urged them to enlist and march to his
support.
He was heard with attention and respect, and his proposition was kindly
received. He then laid forty dollars on the drum-head and said: “I will
give this sum as a bounty, and the appointment of a sergeant to the
first man who will subscribe to the articles of association to form a
volunteer company to march forthwith and join the Commander-in-Chief;
and I will also pledge myself to furnish the company with blankets and
necessary funds for their equipment, and on the march!”
This promise he honorably and faithfully fulfilled.
Matthias Babb stepped forward, signed the article, and took the money
from the drumhead. His example, and the further advancement of smaller
sums of money, induced twenty men that evening to subscribe to the
articles of association. In ten days Captain Joseph Hiester had enrolled
a company of eighty men.
The company became a part of the Flying Camp, but soon Captain Hiester
was induced to extend his efforts, and a battalion was shortly obtained.
He could have been made their colonel but declined to be even a major,
so attached was he to his original company.
When his command reached Elizabethtown, N. J., it was learned General
Washington had moved to Long Island. Captain Hiester used his best
endeavor to induce the men to advance, as they had enlisted only for
Pennsylvania service, and following his patriotic lead, they marched to
join Washington.
The gallant captain little knew the hard fate that was to be his. In the
battle of Long Island he was taken prisoner, with most of his men, and
confined in the notorious prison-ship, Jersey, where they were subjected
to every indignity which refined cruelty could invent.
After seven months’ imprisonment Captain Hiester was exchanged, and
returned in time to take part in the battle of Germantown, where he
received a wound in the head.
In the varied fortunes of the patriot army he continued to share until
the close of the war.
He was appointed by the Supreme Executive Council one of the
commissioners of exchange, April 5, 1779, and on October 21, following,
one of the committee to seize the personal effects of traitors.
He was chosen to the General Assembly in 1780, and served almost
continuously from that date until 1790.
He was a delegate to the Pennsylvania convention to ratify the Federal
Constitution in 1787, and in 1789, he was a member of the convention
which framed the State Constitution of 1790. He was chosen a
presidential elector in 1792, and again in 1796.
He served in the fifth to eighth Congress, and again in the fifteenth
and sixteenth Congresses, and during his last term was elected Governor
of Pennsylvania by the Federalists, defeating Governor William Findlay,
in a campaign which for personal vituperation has never been equalled in
Pennsylvania.
Governor Hiester’s administration was most successful, but he would not
allow himself to be nominated for a second term.
Returning to Reading, he retired to private life, and died there June
10, 1832.
----------
President Lincoln Delivered Address at Dedication
of the National Cemetery at
Gettysburg, November 19, 1863
Abraham Lincoln made many notable speeches, the most prominent of which,
probably, were those delivered in his historic debates with Stephen A.
Douglas, the “Little Giant.”
On his way from his home in Springfield to Washington for his
inauguration he made a number of speeches, the most notable of which was
delivered in Philadelphia in Independence Hall. But the most famous of
all his addresses as President was delivered November 19, 1863, at the
dedication of the Soldiers’ National Cemetery on the battlefield of
Gettysburg.
President Lincoln left Washington at noon on Wednesday, November 18,
1863. There were four passenger coaches, in which were seated the
President, members of his Cabinet, several foreign ministers, the
private secretaries of the President, officers of the Army and Navy, a
military detail serving as a guard, and newspaper correspondents. This
special train pulled into the town of Gettysburg about dark of that day.
Mr. Lincoln passed the evening and night in the home of David Wills, who
was the special representative of Governor Andrew G. Curtin and the most
active agent in the establishment of the Soldiers’ Cemetery.
Arnold, in his “History of Lincoln and the Overthrow of Slavery,”
asserts that the President while on his way from the White House to the
battlefield was notified that he would be expected to make some remarks,
and that asking for some paper a rough sheet of foolscap was handed to
him. Retiring to a seat by himself, with a pencil be wrote the address.
Mrs. Andrews in her beautiful story entitled “The Perfect Tribute” says,
“The President appealed to Secretary Seward for the brown paper he had
just removed from a package of books: ‘May I have this to do a little
writing?’ and then with a stump of a pencil labored for hours over his
speech.”
Contrary to those statements, General James B. Fry, who was present in
the car as one of the escort, says:
“I have no recollection of seeing him writing or even reading his speech
during the journey; in fact, there was hardly any opportunity for him to
read or write.”
That opinion is shared by no less an authority than Nicolay, the senior
of the President’s private secretaries, who in an interesting and highly
valuable paper on the Gettysburg address, says:
“There is neither record, evidence, nor well-founded tradition that Mr.
Lincoln did any writing or made any notes on the journey between
Washington and Gettysburg. The many interruptions incident to the
journey, together with the rocking and jolting of the train, made
writing virtually impossible.”
Morory in his “History of the United States for Schools,” says: “There
is conclusive evidence that the words of the address were not written
out until after the presidential party had arrived on the ground”; and
in an appendix it is stated:
“The following account of how the address was written was received
directly from the lips of ex-Governor Curtin, of Pennsylvania, who was
present on the occasion and knew whereof he affirmed. Governor Curtin
said that after the arrival of the party from Washington, while the
President and his Cabinet, Edward Everett, the orator of the day,
Governor Curtin, and others were sitting in the parlor of the hotel, the
President remarked that he understood that the committee expected him to
say something. He would, therefore, if they would excuse him, retire to
the next room and see if he could write out something.”
The Hon. Edward McPherson, of Gettysburg, for many years Clerk of the
House of Representatives and father of the present Judge Hon. Donald P.
McPherson, of Adams County, said in 1875, that after Lincoln had retired
to his room on the night of the 18th he sent for his host and “inquired
the order of exercises for the next day and begun to put in writing what
he called some stray thoughts to utter on the morrow.” Mr. Wills always
believed the address was written in his house and said in 1893, as he
had earlier, that the President read “from the same paper on which I had
seen him writing it the night before.”
Noah Brooks, a newspaper correspondent at Washington during the war, who
was on terms of friendly intimacy, declared that a few days prior to
November 19, 1863, Lincoln told him that Mr. Everett had kindly sent him
a copy of his oration in order that the same ground might not be gone
over by both. The President added, “There is no danger that I shall; my
speech is all blocked out—it is very short.”
Ward H. Lamon, a personal friend and chief marshal of the ceremonies at
Gettysburg, in his “Recollections of Abraham Lincoln,” states that Mr,
Lincoln read to him, a day or two before the dedication, what he claims
to have been in substance, if not in exact words, what was afterward
printed in his famous Gettysburg speech.
Senator Simon Cameron, also asserted, in a newspaper interview, that he
had seen a draft of the address in the White House before the President
left Washington.
Such are the divergent testimonies concerning the preparation of the
Address. Fortunately there exists documentary evidence to substantiate
the statements of Noah Brooks, Ward H. Lamon and Senator Cameron and to
establish conclusively that the address was the outcome of deliberation
and careful thought.
That is further emphasized in the wording of the formal invitation to
the President, which was written on November 2, and specifically stated
that “it is the desire that you as Chief Executive of the Nation
formally set apart these grounds to their sacred use by a few
appropriate remarks.”
The address has been so long and so generously accepted as the highest
expression of American oratory, that it is difficult to realize that it
ever had less appreciation than now. The testimonies of those who heard
the address delivered differ widely as to the reception given and as to
the impression it made.
Bates in his “History of the Battle of Gettysburg,” in 1875, says: “Its
delivery was more solemn and impressive than is possible to conceive
from its perusal.”
Arnold says: “Before the last sentence was completed, a thrill of
feeling like an electric spark pervaded the crowd. As he closed, and the
tears and sobs and cheers which expressed the emotions of the people
subsided, he turned to Everett and, grasping his hand, said, ‘I
congratulate you on your success.’ The orator gratefully replied, 'Ah!
Mr. President, how gladly would I exchange all my hundred pages to have
been the author of your twenty lines’.” Major Nickerson, Robert Miller
and many others commented on a similar vein.
The reports of the address, published November 20, 1863, in the Public
Ledger, the North American, the Press, and the Bulletin, of
Philadelphia, were furnished by the Associated Press, the text is
identical in each. But many variations of this address are to be found
even today.
Not until the war itself had ended and the great leader had fallen did
the Nation realize that this speech had given to Gettysburg another
claim to immortality and to American eloquence its highest glory.
----------
The Seneca Chief Hiokatoo, “Most Cruel
Human Being,” Died November
20, 1811
The second husband of Mary Jemison, the celebrated Indian captive known
as “The White Woman of the Genesee” was Chief Hiokatoo, who she
describes as the most cruel human being of whom we have any authentic
record.
When Mary Jemison was an old woman she related the thrilling narrative
of her long life among the Indians. Nothing told by the venerable
captive was more thrilling than the life of Hiokatoo, also known as
Gardow.
She says: “He was an old man when I first saw him, but he was by no
means enervated. During the nearly fifty years that I lived with him, I
received, according to Indian customs, all the kindness and attention
that was my due as his wife. Although war was his trade from youth till
old age and decrepitude stopped his career, he uniformly treated me with
tenderness, and never offered an insult.
“I have frequently heard him repeat the history of his life from his
childhood; and when he came to that part which related to his actions,
his bravery and his valor in war; when he spoke of the ambush, the
combat, the spoiling of his enemies and the sacrifice of the victims,
his nerves seemed strung with youthful ardor. The warmth of the able
warrior seemed to animate his frame and to produce the heated gestures
he had practiced in middle age. He was a man of tender feelings to his
friends, ready and willing to assist them in distress. Yet, as a
warrior, his cruelties to his enemies perhaps were unparalleled, and
will not admit of a word of palliation.
“Hiokatoo was born in one of the tribes of the Six Nations that
inhabited the banks of the West Branch of the Susquehanna, in
Pennsylvania. He belonged to a tribe of the Seneca nation. He was a
cousin to Farmer’s Brother, a chief who has been justly celebrated for
his worth. Their mothers were sisters, and it was through the influence
of Farmer’s Brother that I became the wife of Hiokatoo.
“In early life Hiokatoo showed signs of thirst for blood by attending
only to the art of war, in the use of the tomahawk and scalping knife
and in practicing cruelties upon everything that chanced to fall into
his hands which was susceptible of pain. In that way he learned to use
his implements of war effectually and at the same time blunted all those
fine feelings and tender sympathies that are naturally excited by seeing
or hearing a fellow being in distress.
“He could inflict the most excruciating tortures upon his enemies and
prided himself upon his fortitude in having performed the most barbarous
ceremonies and tortures without the least degree of pity or remorse.
Thus qualified, when very young he was initiated into scenes of carnage
by being engaged in the wars that prevailed among the Indian tribes.”
In 1731 he was appointed a runner and assisted in collecting an army to
go against the Catawba, Cherokee and other Southern Indians. In one
great battle of this war the Northern Indians ambushed their enemies and
in two days massacred 1200 of their Southern enemies.
During the French and Indian War Hiokatoo was in every battle that was
fought along the Susquehanna and Ohio Rivers. At Braddock’s defeat he
took two white prisoners and burned them alive in a fire of his own
kindling.
Mary Jemison says he participated in the battle at Fort Freeland, on
Warrior Run, Northumberland County, July 28, 1779. She says: