Chapter IX (part 3 of 3)

Chapter IX (part 3 of 3)

[1308] From Major John Butler's report to Lieut.-Col. Bolton, dated at Lackwanak, July 8, 1778. This report was apparently withheld from Miner's agent, who wrote against its title "Disallowed at the foreign office." Butler's humanity "in making those only his object who were in arms" was the subject of congratulation of Lord George Germain, in a letter to Sir Henry Clinton. See extract in Miner's Wyoming, p. 234. Butler probably understates his losses; but, as is the case with all successful ambuscades, it must have been light. Miner quotes from an American prisoner, who thinks from forty to eighty fell. This seems improbable, when the circumstances of the fight are taken into consideration. The report of Colonel Denison to Governor Trumbull is among the Trumbull MSS. in the Mass. Hist. Soc.

[1309] Eleven dead Indians were left on the field. The American loss was reported by Sullivan as three killed and thirty-three wounded. The number of the enemy engaged was reported by prisoners at eight hundred, although Butler himself stated that his whole force numbered only six hundred men.

[1310] Aug. 20, 1779, General Haldimand had a conference with deputies of the Six Nations. Sullivan was then invading the Indian country. Haldimand told the Indians that he did not "establish" Oswego, because he then "had intelligence that the rebels were preparing boats at Saratoga and Albany to go up the Mohawk River, with an intention to take post at Oswego; but in the course of a few weeks he received a different account, that that was not their intention, but a large rebel army was come up the Connecticut River under the command of the rebel General Haysen, with an intention to invade this province." "As to your apprehensions of the rebels coming to attack your country, I cannot have the least thought of it" (N. Y. Col. Doc., viii. p. 776). Sullivan's force was accounted for as "a feint to be made upon the Susquehanna to draw the attention of Colonel Butler and the Six Nations of Indians from going to Detroit."

[1311] Respecting the original maps made by Lieut. Lodge, of Sullivan's army, showing by actual survey the routes of the several divisions of the army, General Clark informs me that they have been discovered, and will be included in a proposed volume on the campaign, to be issued by the State of New York. What seems to be an original map is preserved among the Force maps in the library of Congress. There is in Simms's Frontiersmen (ii. 272) a map of Sullivan's march along Seneca and Cayuga lakes from the Tioga, following a sketch found among the papers of Capt. Machin, who was in the expedition. See note following this chapter.

For the route of Brodhead, see Mag. of Amer. Hist., iii. 655. Maps of the Groveland ambuscade and the Newtown fight are in the Cayuga County Hist. Soc. Coll., no. 1.—ED.

[1312] There is in the Penna. Archives, xii., a list of the forts in Pennsylvania built and maintained during the war.

[1313] It did not need that with the adoption of Indian tactics the barbarous custom of mangling the dead should be included, even for purposes of economy. "On Monday, the 30th, sent out a party for some dead Indians." "Toward morning found them, and skinned two of them from their hips down, for boot-legs: one pair for the major, the other for myself" (Proc. N. J. Hist. Soc., ii. p. 31,—Diary of Lieut. William Barton).

[1314] The destruction of grain in Schoharie Valley alarmed Washington. On November 5th he wrote Governor Clinton, saying: "We had the most pleasing prospects of forming considerable magazines of bread from the country which has been laid waste, and which from your Excellency's letter is so extensive that I am apprehensive we shall be obliged to bring flour from the South to support the troops at and near West Point" (Sparks's Washington, vii. p. 282).

[1315] The operations of the several columns are reported by Gen. Haldimand in a letter to Lord George Germain, dated Quebec, Oct. 25, 1780. The return of "rebels killed and taken on the expedition to the Mohawk River, in October, 1780", was as follows: On the Mohawk River and at Stone Arabia, the 18th, 19th, and 20th of October, prisoners, 10 privates; killed, 1 colonel and 100 privates. At Canaghsioraga, the 23d of October, prisoners, 2 captains, 1 lieutenant, 4 sergeants, 4 corporals, 45 privates; killed, 1 lieutenant, 3 privates. The returns of October 23d must refer to the capture of the party sent to destroy the boats, an event which is generally said to have been accomplished without firing a shot.

[1316] "It is thought, and perhaps not without foundation, that this incursion was made upon a supposition that Arnold's treachery had succeeded" (Sparks's Washington, vii. p. 269).

[1317] By a pocket-book found on Butler's person it appears that he had with him 607 men, including 130 Indians. This list is appended to Willett's report in Almon's Remembrancer, xiii. 341.

[1318] Secret Journals, p. 255.

[1319] Cf. Vol. V. p. 584.

[1320] William Leete Stone was born April 20, 1792. He died August 15, 1844. He was for many years one of the proprietors and editors of the New York Commercial Advertiser. In addition to the works enumerated in the text, and besides several miscellaneous works, he also published Border Wars of the American Revolution (two volumes, 1839), Poetry and History of Wyoming, (1841), and Life of Uncas and Miantonamoh (1842). He is generally spoken of as Col. Stone, a title which he gained through a staff-office. (Cf. account of Col. S. in Hist. Mag., Sept., 1865, and his portrait in Feb., 1866).

[1321] Cf. Vol. III. p. 510.

[1322] See Vol. IV. pp. 409-12.

[1323] The Journals of the Provincial Congress, The Provincial Convention, The Committee of Safety, and the Council of Safety of the State of New York, 1775-1776-1777, Albany, 1842, in two volumes, the second volume being devoted to the correspondence of the Provincial Congress. Here we are able to trace the doubts about Brant, the suspicion of Guy Johnson, and we learn what steps were taken to check their influence. Reports of conferences and meetings are given here, including the meeting between Brant and Herkimer at Unadilla.

[1324] Two of these which have been found useful in connection with this chapter are: Indian Treaties and Laws and Regulations relating to Indian affairs, to which is added an Appendix, containing the proceedings of the Old Congress, and other important State Papers, in relation to Indian Affairs (published by the War Department, Washington, 1826); and Laws, Treaties, and other documents having operation and respect to the Public Lands. Collected and arranged pursuant to an Act of Congress, passed April 27, 1810 (Washington City, 1811).

See also Indian Treaties, 1778-1837. Compiled by the Committee on Indian Affairs (Washington, 1837).

[1325] See notice in Vol. V. p. 581.

[1326] In this book there is a full account of the organization of a company of rangers, and a description of their mock Indian costume. There is also an account of the seizure and destruction by the settlers of a lot of goods which the authorities had quietly permitted to be forwarded by traders to the frontier for traffic with the Indians at a time when the border inhabitants did not wish it done. The military authorities, who interfered, were brushed away as lightly as the traders had been who complained to them. The bibliography of the book is given in Vol. V. p. 579.

[1327] See Vol. V. p. 580.

[1328] Upper Mississippi, or historical sketches of the Mound Builders, the Indian Tribes and the progress of civilization in the Northwest, from A. D. 1600, to the Present time, by George Gale (Chicago, 1867).

[1329] An authentic and comprehensive history of Buffalo, with some account of its early inhabitants, both savage and civilised, comprising historic notions of the Six Nations, or Iroquois Indians, including a sketch of the life of Sir William Johnson, and of other prominent white men long resident among the Senecas. Arranged in chronological order, by William Ketchum (Buffalo, 1864), 2 vols.

[1330] Mary Jemison, the white woman who lived among the Senecas so many years, is carelessly spoken of several times as Mary Johnson; elsewhere he gives the name correctly.

[1331] The Book of the Indians and History of the Indians of North America from its first discovery to the year 1841, by Samuel G. Drake (Boston, 1841). This is the title of the 8th edition.

[1332] The Memoir and writings of James Handasyd Perkins, edited by William Henry Channing (Boston, 1851), 2 vols. His chief paper originally appeared in the N. A. Rev., Oct., 1839.

[1333] Annals of the West, embracing a concise account of principal events which have occurred in the Western States and territories, from the discovery of the Mississippi Valley to the year eighteen hundred and fifty-six. Compiled from the most authentic sources, and published by James R. Albach (Pittsburgh, 1858, 3d edition).

[1334] Cf. Vol. V. p. 581.

[1335] Lack of space prevents the proper development of the influence upon the Indians, of the constant absorption by the colonies of their lands. Besides settlers with their families; besides squatters, and in addition to English companies, like the Ohio Company and the Walpole Company, the attention of individuals was directed towards these lands for the double purposes of colonization and investment. Bancroft (vi. 377) says that Franklin organized "a powerful company to plant a province in that part of the country which lay back of Virginia, between the Alleghanies and a line drawn from Cumberland Gap to the mouth of the Scioto." The correspondence of Washington discloses his eagerness to secure land for investment (see Vol. V. p. 271). He labored to get for the soldiers who had participated with him in the French wars the land bounties offered by Dinwiddie, and in addition he sought to secure land for himself by purchase. "Nothing is more certain", he wrote to his agent, "than that the lands cannot remain long ungranted, when once it is known that rights are to be had" (Sparks's Washington, ii. 346). "My plan is to secure a good deal of land" (Ibid. 348). He wished the matter kept secret, as he apprehended that others would enter into the same movement if they knew about it (Ibid. 349). In 1770 he personally visited the valley of the Ohio, and marked corners for the soldiers' land. While on this trip he was told by Indians that they viewed the settlements of the people on this river with an uneasy and jealous eye, and that they must be compensated for their right if the people settle there, notwithstanding the cession of the Six Nations (Ibid. 531).

In Pennsylvania an act was passed Feb. 18, 1769, "to prevent persons from settling on lands within the boundaries of this province not purchased of Indians." The preamble recites that "Whereas, many disorderly persons have presumed to settle upon lands not purchased of the Indians, which has occasioned great uneasiness and dissatisfaction on the part of the said Indians, and have [sic] been attended with dangerous consequences to the peace and safety of the province", etc. (Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, etc., republished under authority of the Legislature, by Alexander James Dallas, Philadelphia, 1797).

[1336] See Vol. III. p. 161.

[1337] If land companies were disposed to avail themselves of the doubt as to what tribe of Indians had a right to sell land, so the British government itself had treated the question of their shadowy allegiance to suit its convenience. Bradstreet, in his abortive attempts at making a treaty with them, called them subjects. Sir William Johnson said the very idea of being "subjects was abhorrent to them." Compare this with the doctrine laid down in Huske's Present State of North America, pp. 16, 17.

[1338] Croghan's testimony does not materially alter the boundaries as they were defined by Sir William Johnson in his report to the Lords of Trade, Nov. 13, 1763 (N. Y. Col. Docs., vii. p. 573). "Along the ridge of the Blue Mountains to the head of the Kentucky River, and down the same to the Ohio above the rifts, thence northerly to the south end of Lake Michigan", etc. Cf. letters (1767) to Franklin from George Croghan, Joseph Galloway, and Samuel Wharton, in the Shelburne Papers (Hist. MSS. Com. Rep., v. 218).

Charles W. E. Chapin contributed an article entitled "The Property Line of 1768", to the Magazine of American History, January, 1887. He shows how the boundary line defined in the Fort Stanwix treaty came to be known as the "Property Line", and forcibly points out the powerful influence this treaty had upon the Revolution.

[1339] The Register of Pennsylvania, devoted to the preservation of facts and documents, and every other kind of useful information respecting the State of Pennsylvania, 16 vols., 1828-1835, a weekly journal, edited by Samuel Hazard. See Vol. III. p. 510.

[1340] Cf. Vol. III. p. 508.

[1341] An historical Amount of the Expedition against the Ohio Indians in the year 1764 under the command of Henry Bouquet, etc., (London, reprinted for T. Jefferies, etc., 1766), App., vol. v. p. 69.

[1342] See also Stone's Sir William Johnson, Appendix, ii. no. vii. p. 486.

[1343] This original edition is called History of the Discovery of America, of the landing of our forefathers at Plymouth, and of their most remarkable engagements with the Indians in New England from their first landing in 1620, until the final subjugation of the natives in 1669. To which is annexed the defeat of Generals Braddock, Harmer, and St. Clair by the Indians at the Westward, etc. By the Rev. James Steward, D. D. (Brooklyn, L. I., no date). Slight changes were made in some of the titles to later editions, to indicate the material added, and the date 1669 was altered to 1679. Pritts, under the impression that it was a rare book, reprinted it in his Border Life, etc. Its accuracy was impugned in the Historical Magazine (1857, p. 376; and 1858, p. 29). It was vigorously denounced in Field's Indian Bibliography (no. 1,570, p. 397). "This work under all its Protean forms bears evidence that it was written for a comparatively unlettered public." Col. Peter Force is quoted as having said that he found twenty-two chronological errors on a single page. The notice concludes: "Under all forms there is only a variation of worthlessness." Dr. Trumbull gives a brief bibliographical notice in the Brinley Catalogue (which shows six editions), from which I have extracted some of the information used in the text. The very poor woodcuts with which the book was originally illustrated, the violent colors with which the wretched illustrations of some of the later editions were disfigured, and the errors of dates, have prevented recognition of what there was of value about it.

[1344] It is not worth while to undertake to follow this book through all its editions and changes. It is important, however, for our purposes to note some of them. The estimate to which I have alluded is given in the appendix of the edition referred to above (p. 176), and the statement is made that it was obtained "from a gentleman employed in one of the Indian treaties." There was a second issue of the first edition with the imprint "Norwich", and the authorship attributed to "A Citizen of Connecticut." An edition was published at "Norwich, for the Author, at his Office", in 1810. In this edition "Henry Trumbull" appears as the author. Another edition was issued at Norwich in 1811, and another in 1812. One was also issued at Trenton in 1812. In these various editions slight changes in the arrangement of materials took place, some corrections were made, and from time to time additional matter was inserted. The name of the gentleman who furnished the list of Indians is given on page 115 of the Trenton edition, which I have been able to consult, as Benjamin Hawkins. Editions were published at Boston in 1819, 1828, 1841, and 1846. Dr. Trumbull is of opinion that there must be twenty editions of the book, which is certainly poor enough; but it happens that this list, which was evidently furnished by some one familiar with the subject, is to our purpose. The same list did service in A Tour in the United States of America, etc., by J. F. D. Smyth (London, 1784), where it appears (i. p. 347) without recognition of the original source. The arrangement of the order of tribes is changed, and the spelling of many of the Indian names is altered to correspond with the French methods of spelling, thus suggesting the possibility that the list may have been transcribed by Smyth from some French work. The author foots up the total number of warriors, including certain tribes west of the Mississippi and others in Canada, at 58,930. To these he adds one third to represent the old men, and making an error in his calculation, calls the total number of men 88,570. Allowing six souls for each male warrior he arrives at a total of 531,420, which, he says, "I consider as the whole number of souls, namely, men, women, and children of all the Indian nations."

[1345] Views of Louisiana, together with a Journal of a Voyage up the Missouri River in 1811. By H. M. Brackenridge, Esq. (Pittsburgh, 1814).

[1346] Voyage dans les deux Louisianes et chez les Nations Sauvages du Missouri, par les Etats-Unis, l'Ohio et les Provinces qui le bordent, en 1801, 1802, et 1803; Avec un apperçu des mœurs, des usages, du caractère et des coutumes religieuses et civiles des peuples de ces diverses Countrées, par M. Perrin du Lac (A Lyon, 1805).

[1347] It is also given in Campbell's Annals of Tryon County, note L, p. 319.

[1348] Three of the estimates referred to in the text are reprinted by Schoolcraft under the following headings: "Enumeration of M. Chauvignerie's Official Report to the Government of Canada, A. D. 1736;" "Estimate of Colonel Bouquet, 1764;" "Estimate of Captain Thomas Hutchins, 1764." Schoolcraft also gives one more estimate of that period, viz.: "Account of the Indian Nations given in the year 1778 by a Trader who resided many years in the neighborhood of Detroit. (From the MSS. of James Madison.)" (Schoolcraft's Indian Tribes, iii. p. 553.)

[1349] All of the authorities to which he refers have already been cited, and it may fairly be said that there is nothing of special value in his remarks on the subject. In the development of the topic to which the work is devoted the author alludes to the custom of the Indians to refrain from connection with women not only during the time that they were on the war-path, but for some days before starting. The unanimity of testimony as to this custom of the Indians renders special citations unnecessary. Until the natives were debauched in this respect by contact with civilization, no authentic instance can be found of the violation of a woman by a warrior on the war-path. Brantz Mayer, in his defence of Cresap (Logan and Cresap, p. 110), quotes from the Md. Gazette (Nov. 30, 1774) a charge of this sort. If there was foundation for it in the minds of those who made it, investigation would probably have traced the outrage to whites disguised as Indians. The superstition which protected women from Indian assault was still in force at that time.

[1350] The editor says he "has given the following memorandum of Indian fighting men, inhabiting near the distant parts, in 1762; to indulge the curious in future times, and show also the extent of Dr. Franklin's travels. He believes it likely to have been taken by Dr. Franklin in an expedition which he made as a commander in the Pennsylvania militia, in order to determine measures and situation for the outposts; but is by no means assured of the accuracy of this opinion. The paper, however, is in Dr. Franklin's handwriting: but it must not be mistaken as containing a list of the whole of the natives enumerated, but only as such part of them as lived near the places described."

[1351] In addition to a vast number of reports, extracts from letters, and proceedings of one sort and another, I would call especial attention to the following papers: Carleton's Commission (ii. p. 120); Proceedings connected with Connolly's arrest (ii. pp. 218-221); Schuyler's expedition to Tryon County (iii. p. 135); Stuart's letter to Gage, Oct. 3, 1776 (Part iii., 1776, iv. p. 180); an account of Wyoming massacre from fugitives (vii. p. 51); Col. Wm. Butler's report to General Stark of the destruction of Unadilla, etc. (vii. pp. 253-255); Colonel Van Schaick's report of the destruction of Onondaga (viii. p. 272); the Minisink affair (viii. pp. 275, 276); the letter of the Earl of Dartmouth to Lord Dunmore (viii. p. 278); attack On Indians at Ogeechee, April, 1779 (viii. p. 300); action of the Council at Williamsburgh in Hamilton's case (viii. p. 337); letters from Sullivan's headquarters concerning battle at Newtown (ix. p. 23); Sullivan's proclamation to Oneidas (ix. p. 25); Brodhead's report of his expedition (ix. p. 152); Sullivan's report, Teaoga, Sept. 30, 1779 (ix. p. 158); Joint movements in the valleys of Mohawk, Hudson, and Connecticut (xi. pp. 81-83). The foregoing sufficiently illustrates the wealth of historical material collected in the Remembrancer.

[1352] The Register contains nearly all the papers submitted to Parliament which bore upon American affairs, together with other documents which the publishers from time to time added to the volumes. The Remembrancer and the Register together furnish the means of writing a history of the border warfare of the Revolution which would be nearly complete. A large mass of documentary material respecting the relation of General Haldimand in Quebec with the Indians and with British officers operating with the Indians is in the Haldimand Papers, in the British Museum, of which the Dominion archivist, Douglas Brymner, is now printing a calendar in his Annual Reports (Ottawa). The correspondence of Haldimand and Guy Johnson, 1778-1783, makes three vols. Many papers on this border warfare are in the Quebec series of MSS. in the Public Record Office, and are also noted by Brymner (Report, 1883, p. 79).—ED.

[1353] In the Secret Journals, the Articles of Confederation, proposed by Franklin on the 21st of July, 1775, are printed in full. I have had occasion to refer to them because an offensive and defensive alliance with the Six Nations is proposed in them. In the "Advertisement" to the edition of the Secret Journals which is cited, the publishers say that these Articles "have never before been published." In the Gentleman's Magazine (xlv. p. 572) a "Plan of the American Confederacy" is given. This plan is copy of Franklin's proposed Articles of Confederation, with a preamble addressed to the Provincial Congress of North Carolina, and was apparently received from that colony. In connection with this, see Bancroft (viii. p. 97). In the Scot's Magazine (Edinburgh, 1775, xxxvii. p. 665) these Articles were copied from the Gentleman's Magazine, with this comment: "The copy from whence this was printed was addressed particularly to the Province of North Carolina; but the same was without doubt submitted to the consideration of every other Provincial Congress, as the preamble clearly shows." The preamble thus referred to reads: "The Provincial Congress of —— are to view the following Articles as a subject which will be proposed to the Continental Congress at their next session." These two magazines publish the Articles as a mere submission of a plan. When the proposed Articles of Confederation reached the Annual Register they became "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union entered into by the several colonies of New Hampshire, &c., &c., in General Congress met at Philadelphia, May 20, 1775" (Annual Register, 1775, p. 253). These Articles were also published as if they had been adopted in The History of the British Empire, etc. By a Society of Gentlemen. (Printed for Robert Campbell & Co., Philadelphia, 1798, 2 vols.: i. p. 188, note.) They are also given as Articles of Confederation, etc., entered into, etc., May 20, 1775, in An Impartial History of the War in America, etc., Boston, 1781, Appendix to vol. i. p. 410.

[1354] The rumors current in the colonies during the progress of events express the hopes and the fears of the colonists, and to a certain extent also indicate their opinions. We should naturally expect to find in an American collection of this sort something to help us in getting at the views of the colonists on the question of employing Indians. In fact, there is but little to be found in the book on this subject, and we are obliged to turn again to Almon's Remembrancer, where we find numerous rumors recorded, some of them improbable in their very nature, but serving to indicate the hopes of the people; as for instance, in a letter from Pittsfield, May 18, 1775: "The Mohawks had given permission to the Stockbridge Indians to join us, and also had 500 men of their own in readiness to assist" (i. p. 66). Again, Worcester, May 10: "We hear that the Senecas, one of the Six Nations, are determined to support the colonies" (i. p. 84). [This extract will be found in the Spy of that date.] June 20, 1775: "The Indians from Canada, when applied to by Governor Carleton to distress the settlement, say they have received no offence from the people, so will not make war with them" (i. p. 147). August 3: "The Canadians and Indians cannot be persuaded by Governor Carleton to join his forces, but are determined to remain neuter" (i. p. 169). August 12: "The Indian nations, for a thousand miles westward, are very staunch friends to the colonies, there being but one tribe inclined to join Governor Carleton, of which, however, there is no danger, as the others are able to drive that tribe and all the force Carleton can raise" (i. p. 251). The Boston Gazette and Country Journal for August 21, 1775, contains the statement that "all apprehensions of danger from our fellow-subjects in Canada and the Indians are entirely removed." The arrival of Swashan, with four other Indians of the St. Francois tribe, at Cambridge, with the statement that "they were kindly received and are now in the service", is printed in the columns of the same journal. Cf. Drake's Book of the Indians, iii. ch. xii. p. 156; Moore's Diary of the Rev., i. p. 127. The Boston Gazette, etc. (Dec. 4, 1775) has the following: "Last week his Excellency the Commander-in-Chief received some despatches from the Honorable Continental Congress, by which we have authentic intelligence that several nations of the Western Indians have offered to send 3,000 men to join the American forces whenever wanted." The New England Chronicle or the Essex Gazette, from Thursday, July 27, to Thursday, August 3, 1775, published at Stoughton Hall, Harvard College, under date of Aug. 3, says: "We can't learn that a single tribe of savages on this continent have been persuaded to take up the hatchet against the colonies, notwithstanding the great pains made use of by the vile emissaries of a savage ministry for that purpose."

[1355] Also in Campbell's Border Warfare of New York during the Rev. War (a second edition of his Annals of Tryon County), App.

[1356] This petition, if in the Mass. Archives, as one might infer, cannot now be found there.

[1357] For instance, John Sullivan and John Langdon write from Philadelphia, May 22, 1775, that the Indians tell them Guy Johnson "has really endeavored to persuade the Indians to enter into a war with us" (vii. p. 501); Lewa, a well-known Indian, reports the Canadian Indians friendly to the Americans, and says he "can raise 500 Indians to assist at any time" (vii. p. 525); Governor Trumbull has learned that "the Cognawaga Indians have had a war-dance, being bro't to it by Gen. Carleton" (vii. p. 532); Rev. Dr. Eleazer Wheelock gives Dean's report as to the good-will of the Canadian Indians (vii. p. 547).

[1358] Sparks asserts that Natanis, a Penobscot chief, was in the interest of Carleton (Washington, iii. p. 112, note). Judge Henry says he was one of those who joined Arnold at Sartigan. In the American Archives (5th ser., i. pp. 836, 837), James Bowdoin, writing to Washington, says that the Penobscots said "that when General Washington sent his army to Canada, five of their people went with them, and two of them were wounded and three taken prisoners." The small number of Indians who accompanied Arnold cut no figure in the campaign, but the advance of the column under Montgomery excited fears in the minds of the English in Canada that the invaders might use the natives as auxiliaries, precisely as the Americans feared a similar use on the English side. In Almon's Remembrancer (ii. p. 108), a letter from Quebec states: "General Montgomery, who commands the provincial troops, consisting of two regiments of New York militia, a body of Continental troops, and some Indians", etc. On Sept. 16, 1775, General Carleton, writing from Montreal to Gage, in an account of the landing of the Americans near St. John's, says: "Many Indians have gone over to them, and large numbers of Canadians are with them at Chamblée" (Sparks's Washington, iii. 110, note). The Canadian Indians, instead of contributing to Montgomery's force, asked for protection,—a plea which apparently seemed, in the excitement of the hour in Canada, to be a declaration of friendship. "The Caghnawagas have desired a 100 men from us. I have complied with their request, and am glad to find they put so much confidence in us, and are so much afraid of Mr. Carleton" (letter from Montgomery, camp before St. John's, Oct. 20, 1775, in Almon's Remembrancer, ii. p. 122). The Mohawks, on the contrary, acted on the English side, and some of them were killed by the Americans.

[1359] It was from these reports, as well as from personal interviews, that Washington formed his opinion as to the temper of the Canadian and Northern Indians. A few quotations will illustrate what he had a right to think, e. g. (p. 35) report of committee, August 3, 1775, appointed to confer with Lewis, a chief of the Caughnawaga tribe. "Question. Has the governor of Canada prevailed on the St. Francois Indians to take up arms against these colonies? Answer. The governor sent out Messi'rs St. Luc and Bœpassion to invite the several tribes of Indians to take up arms against you.... They answered nobody had taken up arms against them, and they would not take arms against anybody to trouble them, and they chose to rest in peace." Again (p. 80), the committee appointed to confer with the St. Francois tribe reported, Aug. 18, 1775: "Q. If Governor Carleton should know you offered us your assistance, are you not afraid he would destroy you? A. We are not afraid of it; he has threatened us, but if he attacks us we have arms to defend ourselves." Once more (p. 81): "Q. Do you know whether any tribes have taken up arms against us? A. All the tribes have agreed to afford you assistance, if wanted." Also (p. 89), Aug. 21st, £10 was appropriated for the use of five Indians belonging to the St. Francois tribe, "one being a chief of said tribe; the other four, having entered into the Continental army, are to receive eight pounds of said sum as one month's advance wages for each of them;" and (p. 148) Oct. 9, speech of two head sachems of the St. John's tribe. "Penobscot Falls, September 12, 1775. We have talked with the Penobscot tribe, and by them we hear that you are engaged in a war with Great Britain, and that they are engaged to join you in opposing your and our enemies. We heartily join with our brethren in the colony of Massachusetts, and are resolved to stand together, and oppose the people of Old England, that are endeavoring to take your and our lands and liberties from us."

[1360] "A company of minute-men, before the 19th of April, had been embodied among the Stockbridge tribe of Indians, and this company repaired to camp. On the 21st of June two of the Indians, probably of this company, killed four of the regulars with their bows and arrows, and plundered them" (Frothingham's Siege of Boston, p. 212). A letter of July 9th says: "Yesterday afternoon some barges were sounding the river of Cambridge (Charles) near its mouth, but were soon obliged to row off, by our Indians (fifty in number), who are encamped near that place" (Ibid. p. 212, note). On the 25th (June): "This day the Indians killed more of the British guard." On the 26th: "Two Indians went down near Bunker Hill, and killed a sentry" (Ibid. p. 213). Frothingham's authority is given as "John Kettel's diary. This commences May 17, and continues to Sept. 31, 1775." Through the kindness of Mr. Thomas G. Frothingham I have examined the original diary, which, in addition to the extracts given, contains several others showing that our riflemen picked off the British sentries. The Boston Gazette and Country Journal (August 7, 1775) contains the following: "Watertown, August 7. Parties of Rifle Men, together with some Indians, are constantly harassing the Enemy's advanced Guards, and say they have killed several of the Regulars within a Day or two past." (Ibid. 14th): "We hear that last Thursday Afternoon a number of Rifle men killed 2 or 3 of the Regulars as they were relieving the Centries at Charlestown lines." The fact that two Indians were wounded by our own sentries in August is recorded in Craft's Journal, etc. (Essex Institute Hist. Coll., iii. p. 55). As there were no Indians with the English, this must have been an accidental collision.

[1361] The correspondence of Allan and Haldimand is in the Quebec Series, vol. xvii. (Public Record Office), and is chronicled in Brymner's Report on the Dominion Archives (1883). Cf. further in N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg., 1858, p. 254, Mag. of Amer. Hist., 1882, p. 486; W. S. Bartlet's Frontier Missionary (1853); G. W. Drisko's Life of Hannah Weston (Machias, 1857); Journal of sloop "Hunter" in Hist. Mag., viii. 51; Ithiel Town's Particular Services, etc. There is a portrait and memoir of Frederic Kidder in N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg., April, 1887.—ED.

[1362] Cf. N. S. Benton's Herkimer County; Harold Frederic in Harper's Mag., lv. 171; Dawson's Battles, ch. 36; Lossing's Field-Book, i. ch. 12, etc.

[1363] This work was reviewed in the Monthly Review, iii. p. 349; The New York Review, iii. p. 195; Christian Examiner and General Review, xxvi. p. 137; Christian Review, iii. p. 537; No. Amer. Rev., Oct., 1839, by J. H. Perkins. (Cf. Poole's Index.)

The two volumes originally published in 1838 were edited by the son in 1865. An abridgment of it, known as the Border Wars of the Rev., makes part of Harper's Family Library.

There is some account of the early life of Brant in J. N. Norton's Pioneer Missionaries (N. Y., 1859), and of his posterity by W. C. Bryant, of Buffalo, in Amer. Hist. Record, July, 1873; reprinted in W. W. Beach's Indian Miscellany. S. G. Drake told Brant's story in the Book of the Indians, and in the N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg., ii. 345; iii. 59. There are references to letters of Brant among the Haldimand Papers, in the Index of MSS. (Brit. Mus.), 1880, p. 195. Mr. Lyman C. Draper, of Madison, Wisconsin, has been an amasser of material respecting Brant for forty years, but has not yet published his studies.

[1364] Col. Stone speaks of two conferences held in 1775, one at Ontario and one at Oswego. He says: "Tha-yen-dan-e-gea had accompanied Guy Johnson from the Mohawk Valley first westward to Ontario, thence back to Oswego" (Brant, i. p. 149). Lossing, upon the evidence at his command, adopted the same opinion: "Johnson went from Ontario to Oswego" (Schuyler, i. p. 355). I have made some effort to discover the site of Ontario, which apparently was to the "westward" of Oswego, but have been unable to find it, and have been forced to the conclusion that the officers who dated their letters from Fort Ontario at Oswego, and who spoke of the post in their correspondence, used the words Ontario and Oswego indifferently to express the same place. Guy Johnson dates several letters at Ontario. Col. Butler, in his correspondence in connection with the St. Leger expedition, dates his letters first at Niagara, then at Ontario. On Guy Johnson's map of the country [see ante, p. 609] the site is designated as Fort Ontario, and no other Ontario is put down. Guy Johnson reported that St. Leger had gone "on the proposed expedition by way of Ontario" (N. Y. Col. Doc., viii. p. 714). We know that he went by Oswego, and except that Col. Butler writes from Ontario, we have no mention of Ontario in any of the accounts of this expedition. Gen. Haldimand, in speaking of the proposed reëstablishment of the post, calls it Oswego (Ibid. viii. p. 777). Guy Johnson, in the same connection, calls it Ontario (Ibid. p. 775) and Fort Ontario (Ibid. p. 780). Rev. Dr. Wheelock, describing Johnson's movements, said he had withdrawn with his family by the way of Oswego (N. H. Provincial Papers, vii. p. 548).

Shortly after Johnson's arrival in Montreal he wrote a brief account of his transactions to the Earl of Dartmouth, in which he spoke of the conference at Ontario, but said nothing of a second at Oswego (N. Y. Col. Doc., viii. p. 636). This journal, certified by Joseph Chew, Secretary of Indian Affairs, appears to account for his motions continuously during this period, and speaks only of the conference at Ontario. He arrived at Ontario June 17th, embarked at that point July 11th for Montreal, and arrived at the latter place July 17th, with 220 Indians from Ontario (Ibid. viii. p. 658; Ketchum's Buffalo, i. p. 243). Mr. Berthold Fernow informs me that in Guy Johnson's account for expenses in the Indian Department in 1775 this item occurs: "July 8, 1775. For cash given privately to the chiefs and warriors of the 6 Nations during the treaty at Ontario, £260." No other conference in that immediate neighborhood is mentioned in the Johnson MSS. An instance of indifference in the application of the two names will be found in Mrs. Grant's Memoirs of an American Lady. Mr. B. B. Burt, of Oswego, writes to me that "there was not any Ontario west of Oswego except the lake", and kindly calls my attention to several instances in the records which tend to show the confusion in the use of these names. Among others he refers to a letter of Sir William Johnson's, in which he speaks of Ontario and Oswego, apparently meaning the same place (N. Y. Col. Doc., vii. p. 530). A similar instance, as I believe, is to be found in the letter of Capt. Walter N. Butler to Gen. Clinton, Feb. 18, 1779, quoted in Stone's Brant, i. p. 384. In this latter case it is not surprising that the identity of the two places was not suspected by Col. Stone. At first sight Butler seems to be speaking of two distinct spots. In Orasmus H. Marshall's Niagara Frontier, embracing Sketches of its early history and French and English local names (1865), Ontario as a town or site is not mentioned. O'Reilly's Rochester contains an Indian account of the alliance, which makes no mention of Ontario (see pp. 388, 389). On the other hand, the Duc de la Rochefoucault Liancourt's Travels through the United States of North America, the country of the Iroquois and Upper Canada, in the years 1795, 1796, and 1797, mentions a place called Ontario on the Genessee River, but he gives no other description of it than of the log-cabin where he spent the night.

Hough, in his Northern Invasion of October, 1780, gives his reason for disputing Stone's statement that the Oneida settlements were destroyed by the enemy in the winter of 1779-1780. The reasons for believing that Hough was correct are stated elsewhere.

Stone places the invasion of the Schoharie Valley in October, 1780; but Simms (Frontiersmen, ii. p. 392 et seq.) makes it clear that there were two invasions during that year, as indeed Stone himself (vol. ii. p. 97) seems to allow in quoting from Almon's Remembrancer (part ii., 1780).

In his enthusiasm for his hero, Col. Stone is betrayed into calling Brant the principal war-chief of the confederacy; but Morgan, in his League of the Iroquois (p. 103), speaking of the celebrated Joseph Brant Ta-yen-dä-ná-ga, says his "abilities as a military leader secured to him the command of the war parties of the Mohawks during the Revolution. He was also but a chief, and held no other office or title in the nation or in the confederacy." (Ketchum's Buffalo, i. p. 331). Stone (ii. p. 448) further says "the Six Nations had adopted from the whites the popular game of ball or cricket", but the Jesuit Relations, as well as La Potherie and Charlevoix, would have put him right in this respect.

[1365] Tryon County was formed in 1772 (Albany County then embracing all the northern and western part of the colony), so as to cover all that part of New York State lying west of a line running north and south nearly through the centre of the present Schoharie County. Campbell's work, by its title, therefore fairly included the scene of all the border warfare of New York. Many of the notes in the appendix are valuable, and they contain sketches of the lives of Sir William Johnson, Brant, Gen. Clinton, and Gen. Schuyler; Moses Younglove's account of his captivity and his charges against the English; and an account of the Wyoming massacre. Franklin's successful imitation, the Gerrish letter, is copied (as genuine in the first edition) from a local newspaper of the Revolutionary period. A table of the number of Indians employed by the English in the Revolutionary War is given, and an article, by the author, on the direct agency of the English government in the employment of Indians in the Revolutionary War is reprinted. The sketch of Clinton's life was separately published as Lecture on the Life and Military Services of General James Clinton, read before the New York Historical Society, Feb., 1839.

[1366] Life of Kirkland, by S. K. Lothrop, in Sparks's Amer. Biog., vol. xv. A sketch will also be found in the History of the town of Kirkland, New York, by Rev. A. D. Gridley (New York, 1874).

[1367] In the History of the United States for families and libraries, by Benson J. Lossing (New York, 1857), the author deals briefly, but accurately, with the events covered by this chapter. Cf. also his earlier Seventeen Hundred and Seventy-Six (New York, 1849).

[1368] Historical writers have been greatly at variance on this point. John M. Brown (pamphlet History of Schoharie County, quoted by Simms and Stone) says the event took place in June or July, 1776; but Stone (Brant, ii. p. 313), in giving Brown's account, corrects the date to July, 1778. In the Gansevoort Papers Stone found the affair assigned to the close of May, 1778, corresponding with the date in Thacher, and with the account given in McKendry's journal of the disaster to "Capt. Partrick" at "Coverskill;" this was adopted by Simms in his Frontiersmen (ii. p. 151), and Stone put his narrative under this date in his Brant (ii. p. 354). Campbell (Border Warfare) places it in 1779, but Stone (Brant, ii. p. 412) says that Capt. Patrick could not possibly have commanded the troops, as he was killed in the attack of the previous year. It seems to me that Simms clearly establishes that there was but one attack on Cobleskill.

[1369] See Vol. V. p. 616. Fort Stanwix, which is sometimes spoken of as a log fort, is thus described by Pouchot: "This fort is a square of about ninety toises on the outside, and is built of earth, revetted within and without by great timbers, in the same fashion as those at Oswego" (vol. ii. p. 138). We find no mention of Ontario.

[1370] See ante, ch. iv.—ED.

[1371] De Peyster seems to have misinterpreted the language of St. Leger's letter, where St. Leger states that Lieut. Bird was led to suppose that Sir John Johnson needed succor, and in consequence of this false information Bird went to the rescue, thus leaving the camp without defenders. On page cxi, De Peyster says: "The white troops, misled by the false reports of a cowardly Indian, were recalled to the defence of the camp." There is no phrase in any accounts that I have met with in which action on the part of the troops is predicated on the information of a "cowardly Indian", except that contained in St. Leger's account, which De Peyster himself quotes, p. cxxx, as follows: "Lieut. Bird, misled by the information of a cowardly Indian that Sir John was prest had quitted his post; to march to his assistance." In spite of his mistake as to which marched to the other's assistance, on page cxxxiv he says "When the Indians began to slip out of the fight, the Royal Greens must have been hurried to the scene of action, leaving the lines south of the fort entirely destitute of defenders."

[1372] The troops which were intended for St. Leger are named in the Parl. Reg., viii. p. 211. He was to have 675 regulars and Tories, "together with a sufficient number of Canadians and Indians." St. Leger was to report to Sir William Howe at Albany. The numbers of the force which he took with him, although different in detail, corresponded as a whole with the estimate. He was so confident of success that at Lachine he detached a sergeant, a corporal, and thirty-two privates to accompany the baggage of the king's royal regiment by way of Lake Champlain to Albany. Ten "old men" were also ordered to be left at Point Clair (Johnson's Orderly-Book, p. 63). Carleton on the 26th of June reported as follows: "St. Leger has begun his movement, taking the detachment of the 34th regiment [100 men], the royal regiment of New York increased to about 300 men, and a company of Canadians [say 75 men]. He will be joined by the detachment of the 8th regiment [100 men] and the Indians of the Six Nations with the Misasages, as he proceeds. About 100 Hanau chasseurs have since arrived, and are on their way to join him" (Parl. Reg., viii. p. 215). The king's (8th) regiment, which was to join as the expedition proceeded, and the Hanau chasseurs, were at Buck Island July 10th (Johnson's Orderly-Book, p. 67). The increase of Johnson's regiment is to be accounted for by the presence of "Jessup's corps" (Ibid. p. 36, note 17). This force, apparently numbering 675 men, was increased at Oswego by Butler's rangers, a company of 70 to 75 men, making the total force of whites nominally about 750 men. From that number 44 men had been detached, as above. Forty days' provisions for 500 men were on the 17th of July ordered to be made ready to be embarked. From this order De Peyster and Stone argue that St. Leger's total effective force of whites was 500 men. In the same order Lieut. Collerton was directed "to prepare ammunition for two 6-pounders and 2 cohorns, and 50 rounds ball cartridges per man for 500 men", showing by the same reasoning that there were 500 men who bore muskets. No entry is made in the order-book concerning provisions for the Indians and rangers after leaving Buck Island. Col. Claus reported "150 Mississaugas and Six Nation Indians" at that point (Claus to Secretary Knox, N. Y. Col. Doc., viii. p. 719), and said that St. Leger had 250 with him when he arrived at Oswego (Ibid.). Brant joined the expedition at this point with 300 more (Ibid.). A company of rangers raised by Col. Butler participated in the campaign (Carleton to Germain, July 9 and Sept. 20, 1777, Parl. Reg., viii. pp. 220, 224). They apparently joined the expedition at "Ontario", as Butler calls "Oswego." The Western Indians and the Senecas had been summoned by Col. Butler. He reported that "the number of Indians at Ontario and the Senecas at 'three rivers' cannot fall much short of 1,000" (Ibid. 226). The Indians were stopped at "three rivers" by Col. Claus; but from those assembled at Oswego and "three rivers", there were "upwards of 800" who went forward with the expedition to Fort Stanwix (Claus to Secretary Knox, N. Y. Col. Doc., viii. p. 719). Among these were some Senecas, who participated in the ambuscade under the leadership of chiefs of their own tribe, in concurrence with Sir John Johnson and Col. Butler (Parl. Reg., viii. p. 226). It is evident that the rations for 500 men did not make provision for the Indians nor for the company of rangers. Making every allowance for the reduction of the force by illness, it would seem as if the allowance of 650 whites to St. Leger's effective force must be within limits. The presence of each separate command alluded to by Carleton in his report of what had gone forward, is recognized at some point in the Orderly-Book. The "upwards of 800 Indians" mentioned by Claus makes a total of about 1,450. St. Leger throws a doubt over the number of Indians present by saying that all of them participated in the ambuscade. Both Butler and Claus say there were 400 of them in the fight. The probability is that some of them were engaged in transporting supplies across the portage, and that all in camp were sent forward. Col. Stone gives Brant credit for devising the ambuscade and leading the Indians. Butler says not a ward of Brant, but praises the Senecas. Here again we must resort to conjecture for explanation. It may be that Brant was on one side of the road with his "poor Mohawks", of whose sufferings in the battle he afterwards spoke, while Butler with his Senecas was on the other side. St. Leger's statement that all the Indians went to the front shows one thing at least,—that the force with which he undertook to cut off Willett's 250 men must have been whites. He had men enough with him while engaged in clearing the creek and in transporting provisions—with 80 men at the front, and with Lieut. Bird's command, decoyed from camp by false intelligence—to return to intercept Willett. Cf. Precis of the Wars in Canada (London, 1826), which states that St. Leger's corps "consisted of 700 regulars, with eight pieces of ordnance and about 1,000 Indians."

In all this discussion I have assumed that Sir John Johnson's orderly-book contained all the orders with reference to rations. As such orders were not a necessary part of the record, it may he doubted whether other orders not affecting that corps would not be found in St. Leger's order-book.

[1373] Mary Jemison puts the loss of the Senecas alone above what Claus and Butler reported the total Indian loss. Claus states the British loss at three officers, two or three privates, and thirty-two Indians killed (N. Y. Col. Doc., viii. p. 720). Col. Butler puts the English loss in the action at four officers killed and two privates wounded; the Indian loss at thirty-three killed and twenty-nine wounded (Parl. Reg., viii. p. 226). Mary Jemison (p. 116) says: "Previous to the battle of Fort Stanwix the British sent for the Indians to come and see them whip the rebels; and at the same time stated that they did not wish to have them fight, but wanted to have them just sit down, smoke their pipes, and look on. Our Indians went, to a man, but, contrary to their expectation, instead of smoking and looking on, they were obliged to fight for their lives; and in the end were completely beaten, with a great loss of killed and wounded. Our Indians alone had thirty-six killed and a great number wounded. Our town exhibited a scene of real sorrow and distress when our warriors returned, recounted their misfortunes, and stated the real loss they had sustained in the engagement. The mourning was excessive, and was expressed by the most doleful yells, shrieks, and howlings, and by inimitable gesticulations."

[1374] The exaggerated rumors of the losses at Minisink which first reached Sullivan's camp were immediately displaced by more accurate accounts. "The accts we rec'd from the Delaware at Minisings on the 29th are more favorable than at first represented. The Tories and savages made a descent upon that settlement, and, having burned several houses, barns, etc., were attacked by a Regt. of Militia, who repulsed and pursued them a considerable distance. Forty men were killed on our side, the Colo. and Major included" (Major Norris's journal in Publications of the Buffalo Hist. Soc., i. p. 225).

The account which appears in the Boston Gazette and Country Journal, Sept. 6, 1779, is singularly free from exaggeration. Indeed, it underrates the whole affair. It speaks of the destruction of the town as "an excursion on old Minisink", and says the militia marched to the assistance of their neighbors and followed the savages thirty miles into the wilderness. An action ensued in which upwards of twenty of the enemy were killed, and our losses, killed, wounded, and missing, were upwards of thirty. The later accounts are in E. M. Ruttenber's Orange County (Newburgh, 1875); Charles E. Stickney's Minisink Region (Middletown, 1867); in the N. Y. Columbian, copied in Niles's Principles and Acts, and in Dr. Arnell's Address to the Med. Soc. of Orange Co.; and the addresses at the dedication of the monument at Goshen (showing forty-five names of the slain), in Samuel W. Eager's Outline Hist. of Orange County.

[1375] Almon's Remembrancer, viii. 51. The Boston Gazette and Country Journal (July 27, 1778) contains a letter from Samuel Avery, July 15, 1778, giving the "disagreeable intelligence, brought by Mr. Solomon Avery, this moment returned from Wyoming, on the Susquehanna River", which says: "The informant conceives, that of about five thousand inhabitants one half are killed and taken by the enemy prisoners, and the other half fleeing away naked and distressed." The same paper (August 3) contains the Poughkeepsie account.

[1376] Botta's account is reprinted in the Penna. Register (i. 129; cf. vi. 58, 73, 310; vii. 273).

[1377] Miner, in 1806, called Judge Marshall's attention to some of the errors in his account. In 1831 the judge revived the correspondence on the subject, and expressed his intention to avail himself of the information furnished by Mr. Miner.

[1378] William L. Stone, in the Life and Times of Red Jacket, referring to his father's Life of Brant, says (p. 75): "Indeed, until this work appeared, it was universally believed that Brant and his Mohawk warriors were engaged in the massacre of Wyoming. Gordon, Ramsay, Thacher, and Marshall assert the same thing." Thacher in his account of Wyoming, under date of August 3, does not mention Brant's name, but charges the responsibility for the atrocities upon Col. John Butler.

Ramsay (ii. 323, etc.) mentions Brant's name, but does not charge upon the invaders an indiscriminate slaughter. He says the women and children were permitted to cross the Susquehanna and retreat through the woods to Northampton County. Stone claimed an alibi for Brant in his Border Wars, while Caleb Cushing (Democratic Rev.) thought the case not proved; but Stone, again, in his Wyoming, reasserted it, and Peck, in his Wyoming (3d ed., N. Y., 1868), sustains Stone. The question is also discussed by Thomas Maxwell in Schoolcraft's Indian Tribes, v. 672.

On this subject see "Letter to the Mohawk chief, Ahyonwaegho, commonly called John Brant, Esq., of the Grand River, Upper Canada, from Thomas Campbell, Jan. 20, 1822", published in the New Monthly Magazine, London, 1822 (vol. iv. p. 97).

It has been already stated that the correspondence of Guy Johnson shows that in the plan of campaign Brant's field of operations in 1778 did not include Wyoming. Gen. John S. Clark in a private note quotes from a MS. in the handwriting of Col. Daniel Claus, entitled Anecdotes of Captain Joseph Brant, 1778, a copy of which is in the possession of Hon. J. B. Plumb, of Niagara, Canada, a statement that Sakayenwaraghton led the Senecas at Oriskany (1777), and that after the battle a council was held at Canadesege, at which it was agreed that this chieftain should attack Wyoming in the early spring, and that Brant should attack the New York settlements. This MS. further says that the Indians "bore the whole brunt of the action, for there were but two of Butler's rangers killed." What is known of the life of this Seneca chieftain is given by Geo. S. Conover in his pamphlet, Sayengueraghta, King of the Senecas (Waterloo, 1885).

[1379] Ryerson in his Loyalists of America (ii. ch. 34) compares the accounts of Wyoming given by Ramsay, Bancroft, Tucker, and Hildreth, and credits Hildreth with the most accurate story. He copies Stone's account from the Life of Brant, and expresses himself in approbation of it. There is an account of the Wyoming affair in The History of Connecticut from the first Settlement to the present time, by Theodore Dwight, Jr. (New York, 1841), which is unusually full of errors. I should be strongly inclined to quote here from the pages of Murray's Impartial History of the present War, etc., to show that British opinions were as strongly pronounced in their expressions against the reported acts of Butler, and that they held the authorities who permitted him to bear a commission responsible, were it not that I find so many pages in this book identical with An Impartial History of the War in America, which was published about the same time in Boston, that I am at a loss to determine which was the original book. The two books are not in all respects the same. The one purports to be an English composition, the other an American recital. Phrases in which the enemy are alluded to in the one are reversed in the other, while topics which are elaborated in one are barely mentioned in the other; still, there are enough pages identical in the two, except for the toning down of the adjectives, to make me doubtful of the authorship of the Rev. James Murray. The bibliography of these books is examined elsewhere in this History.

[1380] In order to show what has been accepted as history on this point, I quote a portion of the account in this history, which is typical: "After the savages had completed their work of slaughter in the field, they proceeded immediately to invest Fort Kingston, in which Col. Dennison had been left with the small remnant of Butler's troops and the defenceless women and children. In such a state of weakness the defence of the fort was out of the question; and all that remained to Dennison was to attempt to gain some advantageous terms by the offer of a surrender. For this purpose he went himself to the savage chief; but that inhuman monster, that Christian cannibal, replied to the question of terms that he should grant them the hatchet. He was more than true to his word, for when, after resisting until all his garrison were killed or disabled, Col. Dennison was compelled to surrender at discretion, his merciless conqueror, tired of scalping, and finding the slow process of individual murder insufficient to glut his appetite, shut up all that remained in the houses and barracks, and by the summary aid of fire reduced all at once to one promiscuous heap of ashes. Nothing now remained that wore the face of resistance to these savage invaders but the little fort of Wilksborough, into which about seventy of Col. Butler's men had effected their retreat, as has been said. These, with about the same number of Continental soldiers, constituted its whole force, and when their enemy appeared before them they surrendered without even asking conditions, under the hope that their voluntary obedience might find some mercy. But mercy dwelt not in the bosoms of these American Tories; submission could not stay their insatiable thirst of blood. The cruelties and barbarities which were practised upon these unresisting soldiers were even more wanton, if possible, than those which had been exhibited at Fort Kingston. The seventy Continental soldiers, because they were Continental soldiers, were deliberately butchered in cruel succession; and then a repetition of the same scene of general and promiscuous conflagration took place, which had closed the tragedy at the other fort. Men, women, and children were locked up in the houses, and left to mingle their cries and screams with the flames that mocked the power of an avenging God."

[1381] Chapman's sketch, although it repeats many of the errors in the popular accounts, says that the women and children fled from the valley. It also gives a copy of the articles of capitulation at the final surrender (note ii.). This account is a long step towards the story as at present accepted.

[1382] It is also given, with other official documents, in Dawson's Battles, i. ch. 38.

[1383] This report is also given in a sketch of the life of Zebulon Butler, which forms a part of the article headed Edmund Griffin Butler, in Geo. B. Kulp's Families of the Wyoming Valley (Wilkesbarre, Pa., 1885, vol. i.).

[1384] Bancroft has necessarily treated such events briefly, but the peculiar facilities which he has enjoyed for gaining access to the papers in foreign archives give especial value to his statistics in connection with such incidents in the war as the battle of Oriskany and the destruction of Wyoming.

[1385] In the N. E. Hist. and Gen. Register (xiv. p. 265) an article, "Mrs. Skinner and the Massacre at Wyoming", by D. Williams Patterson, opens with a quotation from Col. Stone's book, and then proceeds as follows: "The above account, which was probably taken by Col. Stone from a newspaper article, published soon after the death of Mrs. Skinner, contains so many errors that it seems proper to place on record a version of the story more nearly in accordance with facts." The facts stated are of a biographical and genealogical character.

[1386] In a previous note I have reproduced one of the typical accounts of the Wyoming massacre, as the story was told by the earlier historians. The details given in accounts of that class were accepted for a long time without question. Fortunately for the good name of the human race, Butler, with all his responsibility for the wrongs done during the continuance of this border warfare, was not the inhuman wretch which he was represented to be, and the wholesale slaughter of the women and children turned out to be a pure invention. Horrors enough remain unchallenged to raise a doubt if even now all errors have been removed. I have not introduced any of these shocking stories in my narrative, but they can be found in Chapman, Miner, and Stone.

The story of the horrors of the night is told in Hubbard's Life of Van Campen in such a way as to make it seem more probable than the same story appears when read in some of the other accounts.

Among the more general accounts are those in Egle's Pennsylvania; Hollister's Connecticut, with a good account of the Connecticut colony in Pennsylvania; H. Hollister's Lackawana Valley (N. Y., 1857), following Miner closely; Stuart Pearce's Luzerne County (Philadelphia, 1860); Campbell's Tryon County, App.; Mrs. E. F. Ellet's Domestic Hist. of the Amer. Rev. (N. Y., 1850), ch. 13, and her Women of the Amer. Rev. (N. Y., 1856), ii. 165; Henry Fergus's United States in Lardner's Cab. Cyclopædia, reproducing the old erroneous accounts; and even so late a history as Cassell's United States, by Edmund Ollier, is little better. A marked instance of the heedless method of popular historians is J. A. Spencer's United States (N. Y., 1858), who seems to have followed at that late day Thacher as he found his account in Lossing, Seventeen Seventy-Six (Hist. Mag., ii. 126-128), which author reasonably complained that if he were to be trusted at all, he should have been taken in the later research of his Field-Book, or even of his school history, since Dr. Spencer was fond of quoting such authorities.

Poole's Index gives references to several periodical articles. Chief among such contributions are those in the Worcester Mag., i. 37; the reviews of Peck in the Methodist Quarterly (3d ser., xviii. p. 577, and the 4th ser., vol. xl.), and the paper in Household Words, xviii. p. 282; A. H. Guernsey in Harper's Mag., xvii. 306 (also see vii. 613); L. W. Peck in National Mag., v. 147; Erastus Brooks in the Southern Lit. Messenger, vii. 553.

The whole subject of the invasion of the valley was reviewed by Steuben Jenkins in an historical address, which is embodied in "A record of the one hundredth year commemorative observances of the battle and massacre", etc., etc., edited by Wesley Johnson (Wilkesbarre, Pa., 1882).

The bibliography of Wyoming, by H. E. Hayden, is given in the Proc. of the Wyoming Valley Hist. and Geol. Soc. (1885).

[1387] There are contemporary letters in the Hist. Mag., x. 172.

[1388] The story of Cherry Valley is one of the numerous incidents connected with the border war included in the Historical Collections of the State of New York, edited by John W. Barber and Henry Howe (New York, 1845). Such accounts in this work are generally transferred bodily from Campbell or Stone, but occasionally some old newspaper cutting is reproduced. At the celebration in 1840, addresses were made by William W. Campbell and by William H. Seward. They were published in pamphlet form, and Mr. Campbell printed his own address as a note to the 2d edition of the Annals of Tryon County.

The speeches made at centennial anniversary in 1878 were published in the Centennial Celebration of the State of New York (Albany, 1879). The main address was delivered by Major Douglass Campbell (p. 359). Cf. H. C. Goodwin's Cortland County (N. Y., 1859); Dawson's Battles, i. ch. 45; Lossing's Field-Book, i. 268, 297.

[1389] Ibid., Jan. 4, 1779, has a letter from Cherry Valley, dated Nov. 24, 1778.

[1390] See Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc., 1886. One hundred copies of McKendry's journal were privately printed from these proceedings in 1886, with the title,—1779. Sullivan's Expedition against the Indians of New York, edited by the writer of this chapter.

[1391] See note E, at the end of this chapter.—ED.

[1392] In a note, vol. iii. p. 312, he says: "Sullivan in his account says forty: but if a few old houses which had been deserted for years were met with and burnt, they were put down for a town. Stables and wood hovels and lodges in the field, when the Indians were called to work, these were all reckoned as houses." He charges that Sullivan was importunate in absurd demands for supplies, and amongst other things called for eggs to take upon his Indian campaign. This statement of Gordon undoubtedly rests upon something which he had seen in print. Is it not probable that his prejudice prevented him from seeing the humor in a newspaper squib inserted by some wag, in which Sullivan's slow movements and pertinacious demands for supplies are thus ridiculed? Cf. Eben Hazard in Belknap Papers, i. 23. The writers of "Allen's History" follow the same lead. "He lived during the march in every species of extravagance, was constantly complaining to Congress that he was not half supplied, and daily amused himself in unwarrantable remarks to his young officers respecting the imbecility of Congress and the board of war" (Allen's Amer. Rev., ii. 277). Bancroft (x. 231) speaks of Sullivan as "wasting his time writing strange theological essays", and gives him credit for destroying only "eighteen towns."

[1393] The attendant controversies touching Sullivan's career as a soldier and a legislator are examined in another place in this History, but reference may be here made to T. C. Amory's paper on this expedition in the Mag. Amer. Hist., iv. 420, and to another on the same subject in the Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., xx. 88.

[1394] Quotations from Haldimand's correspondence and speeches are given elsewhere. The openness of Clinton's movements seemed to Washington such a complete betrayal of the whole scheme that on the 1st of July he wrote to Sullivan that Clinton "had transported, and by last accounts was transporting, provisions and stores for his whole brigade three months, and two hundred and twenty or thirty batteaux to receive them; by which means, in the place of having his design concealed till the moment of execution, and forming his junction with you, in a manner by surprise, it is announced" (Sparks's Washington, vi. p. 281). During the whole of this hazardous proceeding Clinton was not molested, nor did Haldimand seem to derive any conception of what it meant. Yet Washington was so far right in saying that the intention of the movement was "announced" that on the 5th of July the following appeared in the Boston Gazette and Country Journal: "The stores are all arrived, and the greatest exertions are made by Gen. Clinton to transport them unto Lake Otsego, over a carrying-place of about thirty miles. Everything will be then ready to go down the Susquehanna and join Gen. Sullivan."

[1395] The latest official figures given by Sullivan are those of July 21st,—2,312 rank and file; the entire number given in the report footing up, according to Craft, 2,539. In the same estimate, Craft puts Clinton's force at 1,400, and the total marching column at 3,100 to 3,200 men. It was promised by Washington that Lieut.-Col. Pawling should join Clinton at Anaguaga with 200 men (Sparks's Washington, vi. p. 275). Stone says Clinton was joined at "Oghkwaga" by a detachment of Col. Pawling's levies from Wawarsing (Brant, ii. p. 18). Peabody in his Life of Sullivan makes the same statement. Bleeker in his order-book makes no mention of Pawling's regiment. Erkuries Beatty, August 16th, says: "Major Church marched to meet the militia here. Returned in the evening and saw nothing of them" (Cayuga Co. Hist. Soc. Coll. no. i. p. 64). McKendry in his journal corroborates this statement (Sullivan's Expedition against the Indians, p. 30). In a letter (Aug. 24, 1779) from Gen. Clinton to his brother, contained in the Sparks collection, the general states that the expected reinforcement by Pawling was not effected. Geo. Clinton papers—Sparks MSS., no. xii. (Harvard Col. library).

[1396] Washington in his instructions to Sullivan had insisted that Sullivan should dispense with everything possible, on the ground that the delays incident to the transportation of a great bulk of stores might balk the expedition (Sparks, vi. 264; Hist. Mag., xii., Sept., 1867, p. 139). He was indignant when he heard that Clinton had taken to great a quantity of stores with him. Referring to this, Sullivan wrote to Clinton, July 11, 1779 saying "Gen. Washington has wrote to me as he has to you, but I have undeceived him by showing him that in case you depended on our magazines for stores we must all starve together, as the commissaries have deceived us in every article" (Bleeker's Order-book, p. 15). Lt.-Col. Adam Hubley wrote to the President of Pennsylvania: "Our expedition is carrying on rather slow, owing to the delay in provisions, etc. I sincerely pity Gen. Sullivan's situation. People who are not acquainted with the reasons of the delay, I'm informed, censure him, which is absolutely cruel and unjust" (Penna. Archives, vii. p. 554). "The long stay at Wyoming was owing to the infamous conduct of the commissaries and quartermasters employed in furnishing the necessary provisions and stores. And finally, when the army did move, it was so scantily supplied that the success of the expedition is by that means rendered exceedingly precarious" (Diary of Jabez Campfield, surgeon, etc., N. J. Hist. Soc. Coll., 2d Series, iii. p. 118). "Various opinions prevailed about our proceeding any further on account of our provisions" (Hubley, in Miner's History, App., p. 97).

[1397] Sullivan to Col. John Cook, July 30, 1779: "Nothing could afford me more pleasure than to relieve the distressed, or to have it in my power to add to the safety of your settlement; but should I comply with your requisition, it would most effectually answer the intentions of the enemy, and destroy the grand objects of this expedition" (Penna. Arch., vii. p. 593).

[1398] "We converted some old tin kettles, found in the Indian settlements, into large graters, and obliged every fourth man not on guard to sit up all night and grate corn, which would make meal, something like hominy. The meal was mixed with boiled squash or pumpkin, when hot, and kneaded into cakes and baked at the fire" (Nathan Davis, in Hist. Mag., April, 1868, p. 203).

[1399] Adam Hubley says 500 savages, 200 Tories (Miner's History, Appendix, p. 93); Daniel Livermore says 600 chosen savages (N. H Hist. Soc. Coll., vi. p. 308); Lieut. Barton, 200 whites, 500 Indians (N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc., ii. p. 31); Daniel Gookin, 600 Indians, 14 regulars, 200 Tories (N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg., xvi. p. 27); Jabez Campfield, 1,000 strong, 300 or 400 of whom were Tories (N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc., iii. 2d Series, p. 124); George Grant, 1,500 (Hazard's Reg., xiv. p. 74); Major Norris, 1,500 Indians (Jones's New York, vol. ii. p. 613); Gen. Sullivan, 1,500 (Remembrancer, ix. p. 158); Rev. David Craft, after a study of the subject, estimates the force at 200 to 250 whites, and probably not less than 1,000 Indians (Centennial Celebration, etc., p. 127, note). Cf. Mag. Amer. Hist., iv. 420, and F. Barber's letter in Sparks MSS., xlix. vol. iii.

[1400] Dr. Campfield says: "The Indian houses might have been comfortable had they made any convenience for the smoke to be conveyed out; only a hole in the middle of the top of the roof of the house. The Indians are exceedingly dirty; the rubage of one of their houses is enough to stink the whole country" (N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc., iii., 2d Series, p. 132). Erkuries Beatty, speaking of the houses at Onoguaga, says that they were good log houses, with stone chimneys and glass windows (Cayuga Hist. Soc. Coll., no. i. p. 64). Van Campen says that the houses were generally built by fixing large posts in the ground, at a convenient distance from each other, between which poles were woven. This formed the covering of the sides. The roof was made by laying bark upon poles, which were properly placed as a support. To afford greater warmth the sides were plastered with mud. The houses that were found on the route were all of this description (John N. Hubbard's Border Adventures of Major. Moses Van Campen, Bath, N. Y. 1842). "They were built chiefly with split and hewn timbers, covered with bark and some other rough materials, without chimneys or floors" (Norris in Jones's New York, ii. p. 613). Col. Dearborn (MS. Journal) uses almost identical language with Norris. "Newtown—here are some good buildings of the English construction" (Capt. Daniel Livermore, in N. H. Hist. Coll., vi. pp. 308-335). The huts or wigwams were constructed of bark, and very narrow in proportion to their length, some being thirty or forty feet long, and not more than ten feet wide, generally with a bark floor, except in the centre, where there was a place for the fire (Nathan Davis, in Hist. Mag., April, 1868, p. 202). According to Hubley, Chemung contained fifty or sixty houses built of logs and frames; Catharine's town, fifty houses, in general very good; Canadea, about forty well-finished houses, and everything about it seemed neat and well improved; Kanadalauga, between twenty and thirty well-finished houses, chiefly of hewn plank; Anayea, twelve houses, chiefly of hewn logs (Penna. Archives, 2d Series, vol. xi.). Nukerck describes the houses at "Kandaia" as "large and elegant; some beautifully painted" (Campbell, Annals Tryon County, p. 155); speaking of "Kanandagua", he says: "This town, from the appearance of the buildings, seems to have been inhabited by white people. Some houses have neat chimneys, which the Indians have not, but build a fire in the centre, around which they gather" (Ibid. p. 157). McKendry speaks of the "cellars and walls" of the houses at "Onnaguago", and says it was a "fine settlement, considering they were Indians." This place had been destroyed fifteen years before by Capt. Montour, and Sir William Johnson then described it as having houses "built of square logs, with good chimneys" (N. Y. Col. Docs., vii. p. 628). McKendry says some of the houses at "Appletown" were of "hew'd timber." At "Canondesago", some of them built with hewed timber and part with round timber and part with bark.

[1401] Hildreth and others speak of Niagara as if it were Sullivan's objective point. John C. Hamilton (History of the Republic, i. p. 543) says: "Instructions from Hamilton's pen were addressed to Sullivan", etc. (p. 544). "A surprise of the garrison at Niagara and of the shipping on the lakes was to be attempted." By whom was Niagara to be surprised? Hamilton leaves it to be inferred that Sullivan was instructed to attempt it, whereas it was only mentioned as one of the possible advantages to be gained from the Indians in case they should sue for peace.

[1402] Washington's letters in Sparks, and in Mag. Amer. Hist., Feb., 1879, p. 142.

[1403] Ryerson in his Loyalists of America, etc., devotes a chapter to the Sullivan campaign, which he terms "Revenge for Wyoming." He confounds Zebulon Butler with William Butler, which is not perhaps to be wondered at, for Campbell and Stone did the same thing, although the fact that there were two English officers of the name of Butler engaged in the border wars on the English side, and two American officers of the same name opposed to them in the same campaigns, and the further fact that at Wyoming the forces on each side were commanded by a Butler, were warnings enough that especial scrutiny should be observed in distinguishing these persons.

[1404] General Stryker (p. 7) gives Clinton's force at 1,700, and Sullivan's at 3,500. He states that his account was compiled from twenty published (by typographical error, the compositor has put thirty) and five unpublished diaries. He suggests that Sullivan's delay may possibly have been a part of Washington's strategy. T. C. Amory shares this opinion.

Sullivan's fight at Newtown is thus described by H. C. Goodwin in Pioneer History of Cortland Co., etc.: "The contest was one which has but few parallels. The enemy yielded inch by inch, and when finally forced at the point of the bayonet to leave their intrenchments and flee, terror-stricken, to the mountain gorges or almost impassable lagoons, the ground they had occupied was found literally drenched with the blood of the fallen victims." Accounts of varying length are given in other local histories: Delaware County and Border Wars of New York, etc., by Jay Gould (Roxbury, 1856); Centennial History of Erie County, New York, by Crisfield Johnson (Buffalo, 1876); Annals of Binghamton and of the Country connected with it, from he earliest settlement, by J. B. Wilkinson (Binghamton, 1840); History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham's Purchase, and Morris reserve, etc., by O. Turner (Rochester, 1851); J. M. Parker's Rochester (1884, p. 236); Ketchum's Buffalo (ii. 318); Campbell's Tryon County; Simms's Frontiersmen, etc.

There is a monograph on the campaign by A. T. Norton,—Hist. of Sullivan's Campaign (1879),—and special chapters in Dawson (i. 537), and accounts in the more general works, like Stone's Brant; Ryerson's Loyalists (ii. 108), examining Stone's account; O. W. B. Peabody's Life of Sullivan; Hamilton's Republic of the U. S.; some local traditions in Timothy Dwight's Travels (iv. 204). Gen. J. Watts De Peyster has some essays on the campaign in the N. Y. Mail, Aug. 26, 29, and Sept. 15, 1879.

There are various letters respecting the campaign in the Gansevoort Papers, as copied by Sparks (Sparks MSS., vol. lx.). Cf. the autobiography of Philip van Cortlandt in Mag. of Amer. Hist., ii. 289, and William M. Willett's Narrative of the military actions of Col. Marinus Willett (N. Y., 1831).

[1405] The New Jersey Historical Society has a MS. order-book kept by Lieutenant-Colonel Barber, of the Third New Jersey Regiment, who was also appointed deputy adjutant-general for the Western army. The last entry made is dated Sept. 6, 1779. In Hammersly, and in the roster compiled by General Stryker, Francis Barber is put down as lieutenant-colonel of this regiment. This order-book has been attributed by some to George C. Barber. The library of Cornell University owns one kept by Thomas Gee, quartermaster's sergeant in Col. John Lamb's regiment of artillery, which contains the orders of the day issued at Fort Sullivan from Aug. 27, 1779, to Oct. 2, 1779 also the return march to Easton, the last entry being Oct. 26, 1779. My knowledge of these MS. order-books was derived from Gen. John S. Clark, of Auburn, N. Y. I am indebted to Hon. Steuben Jenkins for details concerning the Barber order-book, and to Professor Moses Coit Tyler, of Cornell University, for a description of the Gee order-book. Dr. F. B. Hough edited the Order-book of Capt. Leonard Bleeker, major of brigade in the early part of the expedition under Gen. James Clinton against the Indians in the Campaign of 1779 (N. Y., 1865). On Clinton's share in the expedition, see W. W. Campbell's Services of James Clinton (N.Y. Hist. Soc., 1839); Chaplain Gano's Biog. Memoirs (1806). For a portrait of Clinton, see Irving's Washington, 4^o ed., v., and Lossing's Field-Book, ii. 112.

[1406] Craft, May 9, 1879, had already furnished a list of journals of the campaign, and had appealed to the public for further information (Penna. Mag. of Hist., iii. pp. 348, 349).

[1407] See note E, at end of chapter.—ED.

[1408] The journals thus used are Erkuries Beatty's, covering Clinton's movements; Thomas Grant's and George Grant's, covering the march up the east side of Lake Cayuga; and Henry Dearborn's, for the march up the west side of the same lake.

[1409] Boston Gazette and Country Journal, Nov. 1, 1779.

[1410] The expedition is referred to by Gordon, Ramsay, and Marshall, each of these writers giving a brief account of the march and the work accomplished. On the 27th of October, 1779, Congress resolved that "the thanks of Congress be given to his excellency General Washington for directing, and to Colonel Brodhead and the brave officers and soldiers under his command for executing, the important expedition against the Mingo and Munsey Indians, and that part of the Senecas on the Allegheny River, by which the depredations of those savages, assisted by their merciless instigators, subjects of the King of Great Britain, upon the defenceless inhabitants of the Western frontiers have been restrained and prevented."

[1411] A descriptive article entitled "Mohawk Valley in the Revolution", by Harold Frederic, was published in Harper's Magazine (lv. p. 171). Cf. Mag. of Amer. Hist., Oct., 1879. The activity of the Tories and Indians in the Mohawk Valley gave rise from time to time to various rumors, some of which found their way into print. It was stated in 1779 that Fort Stanwix had surrendered to the English. This was repeated in a pamphlet of the day, a mere chronological register of events, published in 1783, and entitled The American and British Chronicle of War and Politics; being an accurate and comprehensive Register of the most memorable occurrences in the last ten years of his Majesty's reign, etc. From May 10, 1773, to July 16, 1783. The entry of Nov. 2, 1779, was, "Col. Butler, with some Indians, surprise and take Fort Stanwix, Mohawk River." In 1780 this rumor was repeated, and found its way into the Remembrancer (x. 347): "New York, Sept. 23.... We are informed that about a fortnight ago Fort Stanwix, after having been five or six weeks closely invested, was taken by 600 British troops commanded by a Lieutenant-Colonel, supposed to be the King's or 8th Regiment: Our faithful friend, Capt. Joseph Brant, with a party of Indians, shared in the glory of the conquest."

Occasionally we meet, in the accounts of the fighting in the Mohawk Valley and vicinity, with the statement that some Indian was present who was commissioned by the Continental Congress. In the Journals of Congress (v. 133) we find that on the 3d of April, 1779, the board of war submitted a report, whereupon it was resolved, "That twelve blank commissions be transmitted to the commissioners of Indian affairs for the Northern Department, and that they or any two of them be empowered to fill them up with the names of faithful chiefs of the Oneidas and Tuscaroras, giving them such rank as said commissioners shall judge they merit." (Cf. Remembrancer, viii. p. 121)

[1412] Stone relied upon the statement of John T. Kirkland (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, iv. p. 69): "In the year 1780, the hostile Indians, British troops, and refugees drove them from their villages", etc.

[1413] Sparks MSS. (Harvard College library,—no. xiii. p. 281), where are various letters of John Butler, Brant, Lt.-Col. Bolton, etc., taken from the headquarters or Carleton Papers, and they include Brant's report on the Minisink affair and Butler's report of the Newtown fight. The letter of Guy Johnson is in Ketchum's Buffalo (i. 337).

[1414] As early as 1774 the minds of the colonists were turned inquiringly towards this question. Joseph Reed wrote on Sept. 25, 1774, to the Earl of Dartmouth, that "the idea of bringing down the Canadians and savages upon the English colonies is so inconsistent, not only with mercy, but justice and humanity of the mother country, that I cannot allow myself to think that your lordship would promote the Quebec Bill, or give it your suffrage, with such intention" (Reed's Reed, i. p. 79). The "full power to levy, arm, muster, command, and employ all persons whatsoever residing within our said province", and to "transport such force to any of our plantations in America", with which Carleton was commissioned, was but a renewal of the authority conferred upon James Murray in 1763 (Parl. Reg., iv., App., "The New Commission of the Governor of Quebec", etc., pp. 8, 26). The same language was used in the commission of Sir Danvers Osborn, Bart., to be captain-general of New York in 1754 (Ibid. p. 48). In the XV. section of the charter granted by Charles II. to the Lords Proprietors of South Carolina, the grantees were authorized to levy, muster, and train "all sorts of men, of what condition, or wheresoever born", and to pursue enemies, "yea, even without the limits of the said province" (Ibid. p. 64). The clause is repeated in the second charter of Charles II. to the Lords Proprietors of Carolina (Ibid. p. 79). Lord Baltimore was authorized by Charles I. with the same general powers to levy and arm, and "to make war and pursue the enemies and robbers aforesaid, as well by sea as by land, yea, even without the limits of the said province, and (by God's assistance) to vanquish and take them." (Cf. The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, etc., Washington, 1877, part ii. p. 1388, "Charter of Carolina, 1663, § 15.")

[1415] Samuel Kirkland was born at Norwich, Conn., Dec. 1, 1744; graduated at Princeton, 1765; became a missionary among the Indians. The hostility of Guy Johnson bore testimony to the influence of the missionary among the natives. Kirkland was afterward a chaplain in the army. In 1789 he received a grant of land two miles square, now the town of Kirkland, N. Y. He died in 1808. His life, by S. K. Lothrop, was published in Sparks's American Biography.

James Deane was born at Groton, Conn., Aug. 20, 1748; graduated at Dartmouth in 1773; and then went as missionary among the Indians. He was employed to pacificate the Northern Indians, and acted as interpreter on many important occasions. He was afterward a judge in Oneida County, N. Y., where he died in 1823. He was much esteemed. Gov. Trumbull said: "The abilities and influence of Mr. Deane to attach the Six Nations to the interest of these colonies is an instance of Divine favor."

[1416] See incidents of this border warfare in James Banks's Hist. Address (Fayetteville, N. C., 1859).

[1417] The rank of this officer is sometimes given as colonel. The expedition is stated by Haywood, in his History of Tennessee, to have been led by Col. Leonard McBury. Capt. Leonard Marbury, who at that time commanded a company under Major Jack, is probably the officer referred to.

[1418] The experience of South Carolina in these border wars is exemplified in Alexander Gregg's History of the old Cheraws: containing an account of the aborigines of the Pedee, the first white settlements, their subsequent progress, civil changes, the struggle of the revolution, and growth of the country afterward; extending from about A. D. 1730 to 1810, with notices of families and sketches of individuals (N. Y., 1867).—ED.

[1419] In a letter from Col. Charles Robertson, trustee of the Watauga Association, to his excellency Richard Caswell, etc., April 27, 1777, it is stated that on the 27th of March last Col. Nathaniel Guess brought letters from the governor of Virginia soliciting the Indians to come in to treat for peace. The Indians, in reply to pressure brought to bear upon them, said "they could not fight against their Father King George", etc. (Ramsey's History of Tennessee, p. 171).

[1420] Calendar of Virginia State Papers, i. 415.

[1421] See Vol. V. p. 280.

[1422] The definitive treaty is in Hansard, xv. (1753-65) p. 1291; Lond. Mag., 1763, p. 149; and the preliminary articles signed at Fontainebleau, Nov. 3, 1762, are in Hansard, xv. p. 1240; Lond. Mag., 1762, p. 657. There are in the archives of the Dept. of Foreign Affairs in Paris several vols. (nos. 444-449) of papers respecting the negotiation between France and England which led to the treaty of 1763. Cf. Report, 1874, on the Canadian archives. Cf. Vol. V. 614.—ED.

[1423] See Parkman's Montcalm and Wolfe, ii. 383-413; Green's Hist. of the English People (Lond., 1880), iv. 193; Macaulay's "Earl Chatham", Ed. Rev., lxxx. 549, also in his Essays; Olden Time, i. 329. Cf. Vol. V. ch. viii.—ED.

[1424] "The treaty of cession to Spain was never published, and the terms of it remain a secret to this day" (Stoddard's Louisiana, 1812, p. 72).

[1425] Monette, Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi (New York, 1848), vol. i., has a map showing the territorial possessions before the treaty. For later maps showing the treaty lines, see Vol. V. p. 615.—ED.

[1426] The Duc de Choiseul, in conducting the negotiations on the part of France, suggested that the English colonies would not fail to shake off their dependence the moment Canada should be ceded (Parkman's Montcalm, ii. 403); and Kalm, the Swedish botanist, who visited America in 1748-49, made a similar prediction in his Travels: "The English government has, therefore, the sufficient reason to consider the French in North America as the best means of keeping the colonies in their due submission" (London, 1772, i. 207). As to the spurious Montcalm letters, see Vol. V. p. 606.—ED.

[1427] A satirical article on restoring Canada to the French appeared in Gentleman's Mag., 1759, p. 620, which has the flavor of Dr. Franklin's style: "Canada ought to be restored in order that England may have another war; that the French and Indians may keep on scalping the colonists, and thereby stint their growth; for otherwise the children will be as tall as their mother; that, though we ought to keep faith with our allies, it is not necessary with our children. We must teach them, according to Scripture, not to 'put trust in princes.' Let 'em learn to trust in God. If we should not restore Canada, it would look as if our statesmen had courage like our soldiers. What have statesmen to do with courage? Their proper character is wisdom." Franklin's serious and avowed tract is considered in Vol. V. p. 615.—ED.

[1428] This document is in the London Mag., 1763, p. 541; Amer. Archives, 4th ser., i. 172, and in other places [given in Vol. V. p. 615.—ED.] Its terms were the subject of constant reference and discussion for the next twenty years.

[1429] "Many reasons may be assigned for this apparent omission. A consideration for the Indians was, we presume, the principal, because it might have given a sensible alarm to that people if they had seen us formally cantoning out their whole country into regular establishments" (Annual Register, 1763, p. 20). The writer of the very able and interesting political articles in this volume was Edmund Burke (Robertson's Burke, p. 18).

[1430] Sparks's Franklin, iv. 303-323. Dr. Franklin made an extended and vigorous reply to this report (Idem, iv. 324-374); and when the matter came up for action in the Privy Council, and his reply was read, the prayer of the petitioners was granted. Lord Hillsborough was so much offended by the decision that he resigned. The Doctor, writing to his son, July 14, 1773, said: "Mr. Todd told me, as a secret, that Lord Hillsborough was much chagrined at being out of place, and could never forgive me for writing that pamphlet against his report about the Ohio" (Works, viii. 75).

[1431] See ante, chap. i.

[1432] Sir William Johnson, the superintendent of Indian affairs, writing to Secretary Conway, June 28, 1766, said: "Our people in general are very ill calculated to maintain friendship with the Indians, they despise in peace those whom they fear to meet in war. This, with the little artifices used in trade, and the total want of that address and seeming kindness practiced with such success by the French, must always hurt the colonists. On the contrary, could they but assume a friendship, and treat them with civility and candor, we should soon possess their hearts, and much more of their country than we shall do in a century by the conduct now practiced" (N. Y. Col. Doc., vii. 836). The outrageous conduct of the English traders towards the Indians is a constant theme of complaint by Sir William Johnson in his letters to the Lords of Trade (see Idem, vii. 929, 955, 960, 964, 987). He speaks (vii. 965) of the contrast between the French and English traders. The former are gentlemen in character, manners, and dress; the latter, "for the most part, men of no zeal or capacity; men who often sacrifice the credit of the nation to the basest purposes. Can it otherwise happen but that the Indians' prejudices must daily increase, when they are on the one side seduced by men of abilities, influence, and address; and on the other, see such low specimens of British abilities, honor, and honesty? What, then, can be expected but loss of trade, robbery, murder of traders, and frequent general ruptures?" See also Diary of Siege of Detroit, ed. by Hough, preface, xiii., and Dr. Hall's tract on The Dutch and the Iroquois.

[1433] Sir William Johnson, writing Dec. 26, 1764, to the Lords of Trade, said: "Indeed, it is not to be wondered that they should be concerned at our occupying that country, when we consider that the French (be their motive what it will) loaded them with favors, and continue to do so, accompanied with all outward marks of esteem, and an address peculiarly adapted to their manners, which infallibly gains upon all Indians who judge by externals only; and in all their acquaintance with us [the English] upon the frontiers, have never found anything like it; but, on the contrary, harsh treatment, angry words, and, in short, everything which can be thought of to inspire them with a dislike for our manners and jealousy of our views. I have seen so much of these matters, and am so well convinced of the utter aversion our people have for them in general, and of the imprudence with which they constantly express it, that I absolutely despair of ever seeing tranquillity established until I may have proper persons to reside at the posts, whose business it shall be to remove their prejudices, and whose interests it becomes to obtain their esteem and friendship" (N. Y. Col. Doc., vii. 689).

[1434] Cf. Major Robert Rogers's Concise Account, 1765, pp. 240-243. It was the opinion of Rogers that if the English had used common sagacity in their treatment of Pontiac, the colonies would have been spared the horrors of the Pontiac War.

[1435] The fort at Detroit was a stockade on the west side of the Detroit River, twenty-five feet high, with a bastion at each corner, and a block-house over each gateway, the whole enclosing about a hundred small houses. A few pieces of light artillery were mounted on the bastions. The garrison consisted of eight officers, one hundred and twenty soldiers, and forty-five fur traders, under the command of Major Henry Gladwin, an experienced and gallant officer. Two small armed schooners were anchored in the stream. The white cottages of the Canadian farmers lined both banks of the river. About a mile below the fort, on the western bank, was a village of the Pottawattamies, and on the opposite shore a Wyandot village. Four miles above the fort were the lodges of the Ottawas (Parkman's Pontiac, i. 212-222). Parkman's, Conspiracy of Pontiac is one of the most entertaining monographs in American history; and no writer can treat the subject without acknowledging his indebtedness to the accurate and scholarly investigations of that distinguished historian. The reader of this brief summary of events will find full details in the charming narrative of Parkman. He says of the Bouquet and Haldimand Papers, in the British Museum, that they contain "several hundred letters from officers engaged in the Pontiac War, some official, others personal and familiar." These he availed himself of in his last revision (1870), but he had collected 3,400 MS. pages of unprinted documents for his original edition (1851). All these MS. collections are now in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society.—ED.

[1436] A biographical notice of Major Gladwin (who became major-general in 1782) by Dr. O'Callaghan is in N. Y. Col. Doc., vii. 961. Parkman spells the name "Gladwyn." Detroit was now the chief post of this new Northwestern government. Amherst, in a letter to Egremont, Nov. 30, 1762, had recommended the place as the proper headquarters (Shelburne Papers, vol. 48, Hist. MSS. Com. Report, v. 217).—ED.

[1437] See plan in Vol. V. p. 532.

[1438] Some years later, an Indian who was present described the scene to Sir William Johnson. A party of Senecas gained admission to the fort by treachery, and murdered all the garrison except the commander, and him they later put to death by roasting over a slow fire (Parkman, ii. 20).

[1439] Capt. Simeon Ecuyer was in the English service during the Revolutionary War, and is mentioned with high terms of praise, as "Major" Ecuyer, in "Journal of the most remarkable Occurrences in Quebec, from Nov. 14, 1775, to May 7, 1776" (N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., 1880, p. 232).

[1440] A biographical sketch (in French) of Col. Bouquet, by C. G. F. Dumas, is prefixed to the Amsterdam edition, 1769, of Bouquet's second expedition, 1764. The same (in English) is prefixed to Robert Clarke's reprint in the Ohio Valley Series, 1868. A different and fuller translation of Dumas's sketch is in Olden Time, i. 203, and is preceded (p. 200) by a sketch by another writer. George H. Fisher, in Penna. Mag., iii. 121-143, gives the life, with an excellent portrait, of Col. Bouquet, and his letters to Anne Willing, a young lady with whom he had tender relations, but whom he did not marry. J. T. Headley, in Harper's Mag., xxiii. 577 (Oct., 1861), has an illustrated article on Col. Bouquet. The Bouquet Papers, 1757-1765, were given by the heirs of Gen. Haldimand, in 1857, to the British Museum. There is a synopsis of them in Brymner's Report on the Canadian Archives, 1873.—ED.

[1441] Brymner, the Canadian archivist, in examining the papers in the Public Record Office in London, was denied access to the volume of the "America and West Indies" series, which contains the correspondence of Amherst, Jan.-Nov., 1763.—ED.

[1442] Sir Wm. Johnson (N. Y. Col. Doc., vii. 962) gives the number of men in Bouquet's command as 600.

[1443] He soon found that even they had the bad habit of losing themselves in the woods. He wrote to Amherst, July 26th: "I cannot send a Highlander out of my sight without running the risk of losing the man, which exposes me to surprise from the skulking villains I have to deal with" (Parkman, ii. 56).

[1444] The reports of Colonel Bouquet to General Amherst, Aug. 5th, 6th, and 11th, give the losses in both actions as 50 killed, 60 wounded, and 5 missing (Gent. Mag., 1763, p. 486; Lond. Mag., 1763, p. 545; Mag. of Western Hist., ii. 650; Annual Register, 1763, p. 31). Parkman (ii. 68) makes the losses "8 officers and 115 men." The officers were included in the above enumeration. Of the losses by the Indians, General Amherst wrote (Gent. Mag., 1763, p. 489): "The number of the savages slain was about 60, and a great many wounded in the pursuit. The principal ringleaders who had the greatest share in fomenting the present troubles were killed." As to the number of Indians engaged, Sir William Johnson (N. Y. Col. Doc., vii. 962) states on the best authorities of white men who were with the Indians, and of several different Indians, who all agree, that the true number of Indians who attacked Colonel Bouquet at Bushy Run was only ninety-five. This statement seems hardly probable, in view of the number killed and the accounts given by the officers engaged.

[1445] "His Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify to the commander-in-chief his royal approbation of the conduct and bravery of Col. Bouquet and the officers and troops under his command in the actions of the 5th and 6th of August" (General Orders from headquarters in New York, January 5, 1764).

An excellent description of Bouquet's expedition of 1763 and of the battle of Bushy Run is in Annual Register, 1763, pp. 27-32. It was doubtless written by Edmund Burke from authentic information furnished by some of the officers engaged. Another account is in the introduction to Bouquet's second expedition of 1764, in which the writer (Dr. William Smith) uses freely the account in the Annual Register. Cf. T. J. Chapman on the siege of Fort Pitt in Mag. of Western Hist., Feb., 1886.

[1446] See Parkman's Pontiac, i. 305-317; Annual Register, 1763, p. 26; and General Amherst's report in Gent. Mag., 1763, p. 486; Lond. Mag., 1763, p. 543; Mag. of West. Hist., ii. 648. He concludes his detailed "Return of killed and wounded" with "Total, 19 killed and 42 wounded." The name of Captain Dalzell, whom he had previously reported as killed, is not included in the return, and the wounded named number only 39. The Annual Register gives the loss as "only seventy men killed, and about forty wounded"!

[1447] An orderly-book of Bradstreet's campaign, June-Nov., 1764, is in the library of the American Antiquarian Society.

[1448] Bradstreet sent Capt. Thomas Morris on a mission to Pontiac, and an account of Morris's experience and his capture by the Indians is given in his Miscellanies in prose and verse (London, 1791). See Field, Ind. Bibliog., no. 1,095, and Thomson's Bibliog. of Ohio, no. 854. Morris's original journal, sent to Bradstreet, is in the Public Record Office, London. He extended the copy from which he printed. A letter from Morris to Bradstreet is among the papers of Sir William Johnson in the State Library at Albany (Parkman, ii. 195). The Parkman MSS. (Mass. Hist. Soc.) have minutes of the council held by Bradstreet with the Indians at Detroit, Sept. 7, 1764, and the Shelburne Papers (vol. 50) show similar records (Hist. MSS. Com. Rept., v. 218).—ED.

[1449] Sir William Johnson (N. Y. Col. Doc., vii. 686), writing to the Lords of Trade, Dec. 26, 1764, and having spoken with much severity of Bradstreet's bad management of his expedition, says: "On the other hand, Col. Bouquet, under all the disadvantages of a tedious and hazardous land march with an army little more than half that of the other, has penetrated into the heart of the country of the Delawares and Shawanese, obtained above two hundred English captives from amongst them, with fourteen hostages for their coming here [Johnson Hall] and entering into a peace before me in due form; and I daily expect their chiefs for that purpose." A touching account of the English captives, the reluctance of some of them to part from their captors and savage life, and the joy of others again to meet their relatives, is in Dr. Smith's Historical Account, pp. 75-80 (ed. 1868), and in Parkman, ii. 231-240. An engraving, after Benj. West, representing the delivery of the English captives at the forks of the Muskingum, is in some of the editions (p. 72) of the Historical Account, described in a following note.

[1450] Cf. a paper on the forks of the Muskingum in the Mag. of West. Hist., Feb., 1885, p. 283.

[1451] Pennsyl. Mag., iii. 134. An obituary notice of him appeared in the Pennsyl. Journal, Oct. 24, 1765. In the Haldimand Coll. (Canadian Archives), p. 21, appears: "June 5, 1765. Bouquet waiting for a vessel to Florida. Nov. 17. Gen. Gage appoints Lieut.-Col. Taylor to act as Brig.-Gen. in room of Brig. Bouquet, deceased." Among army promotions, in Gent. Mag., Jan., 1766, is "Aug. Provost, Esq., Lieut.-Col. of the 60th Reg., in room of H. Bouquet, deceased."

[1452] An Historical Account of the Expedition against the Ohio Indians in the Year 1764, under the command of Henry Bouquet, Esq., Colonel of Foot, and now Brigadier-General, appeared from the press of William Bradford, Philadelphia, in 1765 (Wallace's William Bradford, p. 85). The authorship has been ascribed by Rich, Allibone, and others to Thomas Hutchins, later geographer of the United States; but it is now known that the writer was Dr. William Smith, Provost of the College of Philadelphia. It is a quarto, pp. xiii+71, with three maps by Thomas Hutchins, Asst. Engineer, viz.: (1) "Map [of the route of Col. Bouquet's expedition of 1763, and] of the country on the Ohio and Muskingham Rivers; also, on the same sheet, separated by a line, a map of the country traversed in his expedition of 1764;" (2) plan of the Battle of Bushy Run; and (3) the order of march. The work has been several times reprinted: (I.) In London, 1766, 4^o, pp. xiii+71, with the plates named reëngraved, and two additional plates inserted, after designs by Benj. West, viz.: (4) conference of Indians with Col. Bouquet, engraved by Gregnion; and (5) Indians delivering up the English captives to Col. Bouquet, engraved by Canot (II.) At Amsterdam, 1769, 8^o, pp. xvi+147+ix, a French translation, with the same plates very neatly reëngraved, the two maps on the first plate being engraved separately, making in all six plates. (III.) At Dublin, 1769, by John Millikin, pp. xx+99, no plates. (IV.) In Olden Time, i. 203-221, 241-261, no plates. (V.) In the Ohio Valley Series, Cincinnati, 1868, with preface by Francis Parkman, and photo-lithographic copies of the plates in the London edition. The last two editions have translations (not the same, however) of C. G. F. Dumas's biographical sketch of Col. Bouquet, which is prefixed to the Amsterdam edition. The first two maps are prefixed to Hildreth's Western Pioneer, and extracts from the work are given (pp. 46-64). The map of the expedition of 1763 is in Parkman's Pontiac (ii. 199). (Cf. Thomson's Bibliog. of Ohio, nos. 1,065, etc.)

The Historical Account has an introduction giving a summary of Col. Bouquet's expedition of 1763, and supplementary matter, viz., Reflections on the War with the Savages in North America; and five appendixes: (I.) Construction of Forts in America; (II.) Account of the French Forts ceded to Great Britain in Louisiana; (III.) Route from Philadelphia to Fort Pitt; (IV.) Indian Towns on and near the Ohio River; (V.) Names of Indian tribes in North America. The supplementary matter, and doubtless some of the narrative, were furnished by Col. Bouquet himself, as Dr. Smith, in writing to Sir William Johnson, said: "I drew up [the work] from some papers he favored me with." Cf. on the expedition of 1764, Col. Whittlesey's Cleveland, p. 105; Darlington's ed. of Col. James Smith's Remarkable Occurrences, pp. 107, 177; Hildreth's Pioneer Hist. of Ohio Valley, p. 46; Western Reserve Hist. Soc. tracts, nos. 13, 14, 25.

[1453] M. D'Abbadie died in February, 1765. Pittman, p. 16.

[1454] The Pontiac War is treated in Doddridge's Notes (ed. 1876), p. 220; Kercheval (taken largely from Doddridge), p. 258; Monette, i. 326; Stone's Sir William Johnson, ii. 191; Perkins's Western Annals (ed. 1851), p. 66; Davidson and Struve's Illinois, p. 137; Silas Farmer's Detroit and Michigan (1884); Sheldon's Michigan; Blanchard's North West, 119, with a map; Schweinitz's Zeisberger, p. 274; and in an illustrated article by J. T. Headley, Harper's Mag., xxii. 437. Munsell published at Albany in 1860, as edited by F. B. Hough, and no. 4 of Munsell's "Historical Series", a Diary of the siege of Detroit in the war with Pontiac. Also a narrative of the principal events of the siege, by Major R. Rogers; a plan for conducting Indian affairs, by Col. Bradstreet; and other authentick documents, never before printed. Rogers MS. diary is noted in the Menzies Catal., no. 1,715. There was a Life of Pontiac published in N. Y. in 1860. See also Poole's Index for reviews of Parkman's admirable work.—ED.

[1455] Gage's despatch, May 27, 1764 (Haldimand Coll., p. 18). Major Loftus arrived at New Orleans from Mobile with the 22d regiment, Feb. 12, 1764. The French governor "gave him a very bad account of the disposition of the Indians towards us [the English], and assured him, unless he carried some presents to distribute amongst them, that he would not be able to get up the river" (Gage to Earl Halifax, N. Y. Col. Doc., vii. 619). The attack on the command of Major Loftus was made on the 20th of March, 1764, by the Tunicas Indians, a few miles above the mouth of the Red River: first from the west bank, and later from the east bank, of the Mississippi. The spot is indicated on Lieut. Ross's Map of the Mississippi, 1765 (pub. 1775), by the legend "Where the 22d regiment was drove back by the Tunicas, 1764;" and on Andrew Ellicott's Map of the Mississippi, 1814 (Journal, p. 25), by "Loftus's Heights", on the east bank. Pittman (p. 35) gives some particulars of the attack, and says, "They killed five men and wounded four."

[1456] Capt. Pittman was the author of The Present State of the European Settlements on the Mississippi, with a Geographical Description of that River; illustrated by [eight] plans and draughts (London, 1770, 4to). It is the earliest English account of those settlements, and, as an authority in early Western history, is of the highest importance. He was a military engineer, and for five years was employed in surveying the Mississippi River and exploring the Western country. The excellent plans which accompany the work, artistically engraved on copper, add greatly to its value. They are: (1) Plan of New Orleans; (2) Plan of Mobile; (3) Draught of River Ibbeville to Lake Ponchartrain; (4) Plan of Fort Rosalia; (5) Plan of Cascaskies [Kaskaskia]; (6, 7, 8) Draught of the Mississippi River from the Balisle to Fort Chartres (in three sheets). Cf. Vol. V. pp. 47, 71.—ED.

[1457] Sir William Johnson, hearing of the failure of the English troops to reach the Illinois country by way of the Mississippi, attributed the result to a conspiracy existing between eighteen tribes of Indians to prevent it, which he charged to the intrigue of the French residing in New Orleans and the Illinois (N. Y. Col. Doc., vii. 776).

[1458] Fraser, "being too zealous", as Sir William Johnson wrote in July, 1765, "set out before Mr. Croghan had effected the necessary points with the Indians;" and "with two or three attendants" (Stone's Life of Johnson, ii. 247) floated down the Ohio, and arrived at Fort Chartres without casualty. Here he was courteously received by the French commander; but he and his attendants were ill treated by drunken Indians, and their lives were saved by the interposition of Pontiac in their behalf. The story of Fraser's troubles came to Sir William in another form, and he wrote: "From late accounts from Detroit there is reason to think that Fraser has been put to death, together with those that accompanied him, by Pontiac's party" (N. Y. Col. Doc., vii. 746). Fraser, finding the Illinois country at that time an unsafe place of residence, took a passage in disguise down the Mississippi to New Orleans, and thence to Mobile.

[1459] N. Y. Col. Doc., vii. 746, 765. The Shawanese, in their treaty of July 7, stipulated to send ten deputies (Ibid. 752); and the Delawares, in their treaty of May 8, agreed "to send with Mr. Croghan proper persons to accompany and assist him" (Ibid. 739).

[1460] Then called Post Vincent, and later simply "The Post" and "O'post." It was often erroneously written "St. Vincent."

[1461] The savages apologized, saying they supposed the Indians of the party were Cherokees.

[1462] Now Lafayette, Indiana.

[1463] George Croghan's journals (for there are several) of his journey to the Illinois country in 1765 are important documents in the history of the West. "This journal", says Parkman (ii. 296), "has been twice published,—in the appendix to Butler's History of Kentucky, and in the Pioneer History of Dr. S. P. Hildreth",—implying that they were publications of the same journal. Dr. Hildreth, in a note appended to his version (p. 85), makes a statement from which it is evident that he supposed they were the same journal: "The above journal was copied from an original MS. among Col. [George] Morgan's papers, and not copied from Butler's History of Kentucky, which had not been seen by the writer at that time." It is an important fact that these journals are not the same, no paragraph in one being the same as a paragraph in the other. Their subject matter is different, and yet they are in no instance contradictory. The one printed by Dr. Hildreth may be regarded as an official report, and the one printed by Butler as a descriptive account. The former gives the details of the official business which he was sent to transact; the latter is such a journal as any traveller would keep, giving from day to day the incidents of the journey, describing the scenery and topography of the country, the fertility of the soil, the game, and omitting wholly to speak of public business, or what was done at councils with the Indians. He describes his being wounded and captured by the Indians, near the Wabash, as a personal misfortune, but makes no mention of conferences with the Indians at Ouatanon, or of his meeting Pontiac and making peace with him. Butler (p. 365, ed. 1834; p. 459, ed. 1836) states that "the following journal, so curious and little known, is extracted from the Monthly American Journal of Geology and Natural Science, December, 1831, by G. W. Featherstonhaugh, Esq., Philadelphia, and purports to be from the original, in possession of the editor." This text was reprinted at Burlington, New Jersey, 1875, in a tract of 38 pages (Thomson's Bibliog. of Ohio, no. 285). A third version of Croghan's journal is in the letters of Sir William Johnson to the Lords of Trade (N. Y. Col. Doc., vii. 779-788). With some variations it is the same as that printed by Dr. Hildreth. Each contains passages and paragraphs which are not in the other. In the Johnson text, words and passages are omitted, as illegible, which are given in the Pioneer History. Sir William, writing Nov. 16, 1765, says: "A few days ago [Oct. 21] Mr. Croghan arrived here, and delivered me his journal and transactions with the Indians, from which I have selected the principal parts, which I now inclose to your lordships. The whole of his journal is long and not yet collected; because after he was made prisoner and lost his baggage, etc., he was necessitated to write it on scraps of paper procured with difficulty at Post Vincent [Vincennes], and that in a disguised character, to prevent its being understood by the French, in case through any disaster he might again be plundered" (Ibid. 775). Sir William, from May 8 to Sept. 28, 1765, frequently reports that he has heard from Croghan, and mentions incidents and details which are not contained in either of the three versions named (Ibid. 746, 749, 765). Being at Post Ouatanon on the 12th of July, Croghan said: "I wrote to Gen. Gage and Sir William Johnson, to Col. Campbell at Detroit, Major Murray at Fort Pitt, and Major Farmar at Mobile, or on his way up the Mississippi, and acquainted them with everything that had happened since my departure from Fort Pitt" (Hildreth's Pioneer History, p. 71; N. Y. Col. Doc., vii. 781). In the Butler journal, writing from the same place, July 15, he said: "From this post the Indians permitted me to write to the commander at Fort Chartres [St. Ange]; but would not suffer me to write to anybody else (this, I apprehend, was a precaution of the French, lest their villainy should be perceived too soon), although the Indians had given me permission to write to Sir William Johnson and to Fort Pitt on our march, before we arrived at this place." In the summary of his report to Sir William, he said: "In the situation I was in at Ouatanon, with great numbers of Indians about me, and no necessaries, such as paper and ink, I had it not in my power to take down all the speeches made by the Indian nations, nor what I said to them, in so particular a manner as I could wish." It is evident that Croghan wrote many accounts of his journey, and only three of them, as now appears, are accessible. A biographical sketch of George Croghan, by Dr. O'Callaghan, is in N. Y. Col. Doc., vii. 982, 983. For earlier traces of Croghan see Vol. V. 10, 596, 610.—ED.

[1464] N. Y. Col. Doc., vii. 783; Hildreth's Pioneer History, p. 75. Pontiac kept his promise, visited Sir William Johnson in the spring, concluded a peace, and departed laden with presents. He returned to his village on the Maumee, and little is known of him for the next three years. He then reappeared in the Illinois country, and visited his old friend M. St. Ange, who was in command of the post of St. Louis, then under Spanish rule. Like other Indians, Pontiac indulged at times in the excessive use of intoxicating liquors. Against the advice of his friend, St. Ange, he attended an Indian drinking carousal, at which he was waylaid and brained with a hatchet by a Kaskaskia Indian, who had been paid a barrel of rum by an English trader, named Williamson, to commit the deed. St. Ange claimed the body, and buried it with the honors of war, in an unknown grave near the fort of St. Louis. J. N. Nicollet, in his sketch of St. Louis (p. 82), says: "This murder, which roused the vengeance of all the Indian tribes friendly to Pontiac, brought about the successive wars and almost total extermination of the Illinois nation. Pontiac was a remarkably well-looking man, nice in his person, and full of taste in his dress and in the arrangement of his exterior ornaments. His complexion is said to have approached that of the whites. His origin is still uncertain, for some have supposed him to belong to the Ottawas, others to the Miamis, etc.; but Col. P. Chouteau, senior, who knew him well, is of the opinion that he was a Nipissing." (Reprinted in Olden Time, i. 322.)

[1465] N. Y. Col. Doc., vii. 808.

[1466] The account of St. Ange's "Surrender of Fort Chartres to M. Stirling on the 10th of Oct., 1765", with a detailed description of the fort, from the French archives, is in N. Y. Col. Doc., x. 1161-1165. See also Stone's Life of Sir Wm. Johnson, ii. 252. [There are documents about Fort Chartres referred to in the Hist. MSS. Com. Report, v. 216. Cf. Hist. Mag., viii. 257, and H. R. Stiles's Affairs at Fort Chartres, 1768-1781 (Albany, 1864), being letters of an English officer at the close of the war.—ED.]

[1467] Nicollet (p. 81) states that "Capt. Stirling, at the head of a company of Scots, arrived unexpectedly in the summer of 1765;" and Parkman (ii. 298), that "Capt. Stirling arrived at Fort Chartres just as the snows of early winter began to whiten the naked forests." The articles of surrender are conclusive as to the fact that the English troops arrived and took possession of the Illinois country, October 10. Capt. Stirling was relieved by Major Robert Farmar, of the 34th regiment, about the time of which Parkman speaks. Sir William, writing March 22, 1766, says: "Just now I have heard that Major Farmar, who proceeded by the Mississippi, arrived there [the Illinois] the 4th of December, and relieved Capt. Stirling" (N. Y. Col. Doc., vii. 816; Stone's Johnson, ii. 251). Monette (i. 411) states that "Capt. Stirling died in December; that St. Ange returned to Fort Chartres, and not long afterward Major Frazer, from Fort Pitt, arrived as commandant." These errors have been repeated scores of times, and the last repetition I have seen is in F. L. Billon's Annals of St. Louis in early Days, 1886, p. 26. Capt. Stirling lived until 1808: served in the Revolutionary War, became colonel in 1779, and later brigadier, major-general, lieut.-general, general, and was created a baronet. For a biographical sketch of him, by Dr. O'Callaghan, see N. Y. Col. Doc., vii. 786; and for one of Major Farmar, Ibid. 775. F. S. Drake (Biog. Dict.) records Capt. Stirling's extraordinary feat of marching his company of Highlanders overland 3,000 miles, from Fort Chartres to Philadelphia, without losing a man. The facts were that Capt. Stirling floated his company in boats down the Mississippi to New Orleans; thence they sailed to Pensacola, and later to New York, where they arrived June 15, 1766. Gen. Gage, in a letter of that date, wrote to Gov. Penn announcing their arrival, stating that they would march on the 17th for Philadelphia, and asking that quarters be assigned them (Penna. Col. Rec., ix. 318). No officer of the name of Frazer was ever in command at Fort Chartres. Fort Chartres, built by the French in 1720, was in its time the strongest fortress in America. Its ruins are on the left bank of the Mississippi, now a mile from the river, in Randolph County, Ill., 50 miles south of St. Louis, and 16 miles northeast of Kaskaskia. It was abandoned in 1772, in consequence of a portion of it being undermined by a Mississippi flood. See Edw. G. Mason's Old Fort Chartres, in Fergus's Historical Series, no. 12; Pittman, p. 45; Reynolds, My own Time, p. 26, ed. 1879; also his Pioneer History, p. 46, ed. 1887, with plan, from Beck's Gazetteer of Illinois and Missouri. For a plan of the fort, see Vol. V. p.54; and Mr. Davis's collation of authorities regarding its position, p. 55.—ED.

[1468] N. Y. Col. Doc., vii. 775.

[1469] The Six Nations claimed by conquest the supremacy of all the tribes west of the Alleghanies and as far south as the Cherokees, with whom the Northern tribes were in perpetual warfare. See Monette, i. 323; and Huske's map in Vol. V. p. 84.—ED.

[1470] A fac-simile of this map is in N. Y. Col. Doc., viii. 31; and of the map as the treaty was finally made, Ibid. 136. See ante, p. 610.—ED.

[1471] Ibid. ii. 2.

[1472] Haldimand Col., p. 103.

[1473] Stone's Life of Johnson, ii. 306. "I was much concerned", Sir William wrote, "by reason of the great consumption of provisions and the heavy expenses attending the maintenance of those Indians, each of whom consume daily more than two ordinary men amongst us, and would be extremely dissatisfied if stinted when convened for business" (N. Y. Col. Doc., viii. 105).

[1474] Sir William's full report of the council at Fort Stanwix, with the treaty, which he transmitted to Lord Hillsborough, is in N. Y. Col. Doc., viii. 111-137. In the appendix to Mann Butler's History of Kentucky, 1834, p. 378-394, is an abstract of the proceedings of the council, with the treaty, for which the author expresses his obligations to Hon. Richard M. Johnson. The treaty and map are also in N. Y. Doc. History, i. 587.

[1475] In this interval between 1765 and 1774 there was a revival of the purpose of settlements in the country watered by the Ohio and its tributaries. The breaking up by the war of the earlier enterprise of the Ohio Company (see Vol. V., ante; Sparks in his Washington, ii. 483, says its papers were entrusted to him fifty years ago by Charles Fenton Mercer, of Virginia) had led to a plan to buy out the French settlers in Illinois (Sparks's Franklin, vii. 356; Bigelow's Franklin, i. 537, 547; ii. 112); and this being abandoned, the earlier project had been merged in the scheme known at first as Walpole's Grant, and subsequently as the Colony of Vandalia, which had derived some impetus immediately after the conclusion of peace in 1763 by the publication in London of The Advantages of a Settlement upon the Ohio (now rare; copies in Harvard College library; in Carter-Brown Catal., iii. 1363; Thomson's Bibliog. of Ohio, no. 7), and in Edinburgh of The Expediency of securing our American Colonies by settling the Country adjoining the Mississippi River and the Country upon the Ohio Considered (Harvard College library, 6373. 33). The scheme had the countenance of Lord Shelburne, and the Shelburne MSS., as calendared in the Hist. MSS. Com. Report, v. p. 218 (vol. 50), show various papers appertaining. Professor H. B. Adams, in the Maryland Fund Publications, no. xi. p. 27, has marked the growth of the perception of the importance of these lands.

The grant was not secured till 1770, nor ratified till 1772 (account in Sparks's Franklin, iv. 233, and Washington, ii. 483). Franklin had interested himself in securing the grant against the opposition of Hillsborough. See Franklin's letters in Works, iv. 233; the adverse report of the Lords of Trade (p. 303), and Franklin's reply to it (p. 324). These last papers are also included in Biog. lit. and polit. Anecdotes of several of the most Eminent persons of the present Age (London, 1797), vol. ii. Provision was made for securing out of this grant the lands promised to the Virginia soldiers, in which Washington was so much interested. The coming on of the Revolution jeopardized the interests of the grantees, and in 1774 they petitioned the king that the establishment of a government for Vandalia be no longer delayed. Walpole, in May, 1775, was anxious at the turn of affairs (Hist. Mag., i. 86), and in 1776 the plan was abandoned. A memorial of Franklin and Samuel Wharton, dated at Passy, Feb. 26, 1780, tracing the history of these lands, is in the Sparks MSS., no. xvii.

On the early settlers of Ohio at this time, see S. P. Hildreth's Biog. and Hist. Memoirs of the Early Pioneer Settlers of Ohio (Cinn., 1852); James W. Taylor's Hist. of Ohio, 1650-1787 (Sandusky, 1854); and a paper by Isaac Smucker on the first pioneers, in Mag. of Amer. Hist., Aug., 1885, p. 326. The position of the Delawares in this region during the war is discussed by S. D. Peet in the American Antiquarian, ii. 132.

The Filson Club of Louisville has published (1886) Thomas Speed's Wilderness road, a description of the route of travel by which the pioneers and early settlers first came to Kentucky, their previous publication having been Reuben T. Durrett's Life and Writings of John Filson, the first historian of Kentucky (1884), which gives in fac-simile the earliest special map of Kentucky, after a copy in Harvard College library,—most copies of the book being without it,—for while the Discovery, Settlement, and Present State of Kentucke was printed in 1784, at Wilmington, Del., the map was printed in Philadelphia, and was an improvement upon the general maps of Charlevoix, Evans, Hutchins, Pownall, and others. Filson's book was issued in French, at Paris, in 1785, and reprinted in English in Imlay's Topog. Description of North America (London, 1793 and 1797), in conjunction with Imlay; again by Campbell in New York, in 1793. Filson first presented to the world the story of the adventures of Daniel Boone in the appendix of his book, and from that it has been copied and assigned to Boone himself, in the Amer. Museum, Philadelphia, Oct. 1787, and in Samuel L. Metcalfe's Collection of some of the most interesting narratives of Indian Warfare in the West (Lexington, Ky., 1821,—Thomson's Bibliog. of Ohio, no. 818). The life of Boone embodies much of the history of the pioneer days of Kentucky. His subsequent biographers, J. M. Peck (in Sparks's Amer. Biog.), E. S. Ellis, G. C. Hill, H. T. Tuckerman (in his Biog. Essays), C. W. Webber (in Hist. and Rev. Incidents, Phil., 1861), Lossing (in Harper's Mag., xix.), and others, have depended upon Filson. E. C. Coleman has told the story as it is centred about Simon Kenton (Ibid. xxviii.), and J. H. Perkins has given it more general bearings in his "Pioneers of Kentucky", in No. Amer. Rev., Jan., 1846, included in his Memoir and Writings, ii. 243. Cf. Marshall Smith's Legends of the War of Independence and of the Earlier settlements in the West (Louisville, 1855), and the old fort at Lexington, Ky., in Mag. Amer. Hist., Aug., 1887, p. 123.

What is now Tennessee was known after 1769 as the Settlements of the Watauga Association, and so continued till 1777, when, during the rest of the Revolutionary War, it was a part of North Carolina (J. E. M. Ramsey's Annals of Tennessee, Charleston, 1853; Philad., 1853, 1860; Sabin, xvi. no. 67, 729).

There are documents on the Illinois country during this quiet interval among the Shelburne Papers, as noted in the Hist. MSS. Com. Report, v. pp. 216, 218 (vols. 48 and 50). Cf. John Reynolds, Pioneer Hist. of Illinois (1852); Breese's Early Hist. of Illinois, and the other later histories (see Vol. V., ante, p. 198). Cf. Arthur Young's Observations on the present State of the waste lands of Great Britain, published on occasion of the establishment of a new Colony on the Ohio (London, 1773).

Several journals of voyages and explorations along the Ohio and its tributary streams, which were made during this period, are preserved to us, such as that of Capt. Harry Gordon, from Fort Pitt to the Illinois in 1766, which is printed in Pownall's Topog. Description (London, 1776), and of which the original or early copy seems to be noted in the English Hist. MSS. Com. Report, v. p. 216; that of Washington, who visited the Ohio region in 1770 to select lands for the soldiers of the late wars, and which is printed in Sparks's Washington (vol. ii. 516, beside letters in Ibid. 387, etc. Cf. Irving's Washington, i. 330, and some letters in Read's George Read, p. 124); and those of Matthew Phelps, who was twice in this Western country between 1773 and 1780, and whose account is given in the Memoirs and adventures, particularly in two voyages from Connecticut to the river Mississippi, 1773-80. Compiled from the original journal and minutes kept by Mr. Phelps. By Anthony Haswell (Bennington, Vt., 1802).

The diary of Rufus Putnam, who explored the lower regions of the Mississippi Valley between Dec. 10, 1772, and Aug. 13, 1773, is preserved in the library of Marietta College. (Cf. Mag. Amer. Hist., vii. 230.)—ED.

[1476] Connolly was arrested as a Tory in November, 1775, and held as a prisoner until exchanged in the winter of 1780-81. He then planned a scheme with Tories and Indians to capture Fort Pitt. See Olden Time, i. 520; ii. 93, 105, 348; Craig's Pittsburg, 112, 124; Perkins's West. Annals, 140, 148; Jacob's Cresap, 75-91; Am. Archives, 4th ser., i. 774.

[1477] Botta's Am. War, i. 250; Doddridge's Notes, (ed. 1876), 238; Olden Time, ii. 43.

[1478] Concerning this controversy, see Craig's Pittsburg, 111-128. The right of Pennsylvania to land beyond the Alleghanies is examined in a paper (1772) entitled "Thoughts on the situation of the inhabitants on the frontier", by James Tilghman, printed in the Penna. Mag. of Hist., x. 316. Cf. also Daniel Agnew's History of the Region of Pennsylvania north of the Ohio and west of the Allegheny River, of the Indian purchases, and of the running of the southern, northern, and western State boundaries; also, an account of the division of the territory for public purposes, and of the lands, laws, titles, settlements, controversies, and litigation within this region (Philadelphia, 1887).—ED.

[1479] No Indian tribes had their homes in Kentucky. The territory was the common hunting and fighting ground of the Ohio Indians on the north and the Cherokees and Chickasaws on the south. See Butler's Kentucky, p. 8.

[1480] Brantz Meyer's Logan and Cresap, 1867, p. 149. Clark's letter is also printed in The Hesperian (Columbus, Ohio), 1839, ii. 309; Jacob's Life of Cresap, pp. 154-158, and portions of it in Perkins's Western Annals, 143-146.

[1481] Capt. Cresap was then thirty-two years of age, was a trader, and had had no experience in a former war. His father, however,—Col. Thomas Cresap,—was a noted Indian fighter. Clark and his party evidently supposed it was the father, and not the son, they were sending for. The Cresaps were a Maryland family, and the party who wanted a leader were Virginians.

[1482] A few days before, a canoe from Pittsburg, coming down the river, was fired on by Indians, near Baker's Bottom, two white men killed and one wounded. Baker's family had been warned, and were preparing to leave for one of the forts. Baker kept tavern, sold rum, and the Indians across the river were his habitual customers. Fearing an attack, he called in his neighbors. Twenty-one of them responded, but kept out of sight. A party of Indians appeared, and all with the exception of Logan's brother became very drunk. Logan's brother was drunk enough to be insolent, and he attempted to strike one of the white men. As he was leaving the house with a coat and hat which he had stolen, the white man whom he had abused shot him. The neighbors rushed from their concealment and killed the whole Indian party, except a half-breed child whose father was Gen. John Gibson. The Indians on the opposite shore, hearing the firing, came over in canoes. They were also fired on, and twelve of them were killed. (See the statements of John Sappington and others in Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, App. iv., 1800, and later editions; and Withers's Border Warfare, p. 113.)

[1483] This comment Jefferson cancelled in his edition of 1800.

[1484] "I appeal to any white man to say if ever he entered Logan's cabin hungry and he gave him not meat; if ever he came cold and naked and he clothed him not.... Col. Cresap, the last spring, in cold blood and unprovoked, murdered all the relations of Logan, not sparing even my women and children. There runs not a drop of my blood in the veins of any living creature", etc.

Col. Thomas Cresap, well known in the West as an Indian fighter, was the father of Capt. Michael Cresap, and it is not strange that the rank of the father should have been given to the son. Public attention was not directed to Logan's speech, or the comments of Jefferson on the character of Capt. Cresap, until 1797, when Luther Martin, an ardent Federalist and the Attorney-General of Maryland (who had married a daughter of Capt. Cresap), addressed a public letter to an elocutionist, objecting to his reciting "Logan's Speech", on the ground that it was a slander on a noble man and patriot. The speech itself, he stated, was probably never made by Logan; and the letter had sneering allusions to the claim that Jefferson was a philosopher. Martin's letter is in Olden Time, ii. 51. Jefferson's letter to Gov. Henry of Maryland, of Dec. 31, 1797 (Writings, viii. 309), shows that he attributed Martin's attack to political motives, and that his feelings were greatly disturbed. He immediately set about collecting testimony (1) to prove the genuineness of Logan's speech, and (2) to justify the charges he had made against Cresap. On the first point, it was easy for him to show that he had not invented the speech; that it was common talk in Dunmore's camp; that he took it, as he printed it, from the lips of some person in Williamsburg in 1774, and that it was printed at the time in the Virginia Gazette. It appears that the speech was printed in the Gazette at Williamsburg, Feb. 4, 1775, and that twelve days later the speech, with important variations, was sent by Madison to his friend William Bradford, and was printed in a New York newspaper. Both versions are in Amer. Archives, 4th series, i. 1020. (See also Rives's Madison, i. 63, and Mayer's Logan and Cresap, p. 177.) The fact that the speech as printed was actually delivered was more difficult to prove, as it depended wholly on the statement of Gen. John Gibson, the interpreter. It will never be known what part of it was Logan's and how much of it was Gibson's. Jefferson was not successful in justifying the charges he had made against Cresap. Such of the collected evidence as answered his purpose he printed in Appendix iv. in the edition of his Notes of 1800 (Philadelphia). Some copies of the appendix were printed separately, and it was first mentioned on the title-page in the edition printed at Trenton, 1803. (See Writings, viii. 457-476.) Such of the testimony as did not answer his purpose he suppressed. One of these suppressed statements is the letter of George Rogers Clark to Dr. Samuel Brown, already quoted. It was found among his papers purchased by the United States in 1848, and is now in the State Department at Washington. Brantz Mayer vindicated Cresap in a paper read before the Maryland Historical Society in 1851, on Logan the Indian and Cresap the Pioneer, and more fully in Tah-Gah-Jute, or Logan and Cresap (Albany, 1867); Thomson, Bibliog. of Ohio, nos. 805, 806. Dr. Joseph Doddridge, in his Notes, 1824 (reprinted 1876, and used by Kercheval, Winchester, Va., 1833), made severe strictures on Cresap, but did not charge him with killing Logan's family. An extract from Doddridge, with other matter, called Logan, Chief of the Cayuga Nation, was published in Cincinnati by Wm. Dodge in 1868. Doddridge's attack on Capt. Cresap caused the Rev. John J. Jacob, who in youth had been Cresap's clerk, and had accompanied him in his Western expeditions, to write his Life (Cumberland, Md., 1826; reprinted, with notes and appendix, for Wm. Dodge, Cincinnati, 1866; Field's Ind. Bibliog., nos. 769, 770; Thomson, Bibliog. of Ohio, nos. 640-1). With slight claim to literary merit, and much inaccuracy as to dates, it contains some important documents, and is an earnest vindication of Cresap's character. Charges of baseness and cruelty against Cresap were older than any publication of Logan's speech. The early accounts which came to Sir William Johnson charged the origin of the war upon him. Writing June 20, 1774, Sir William says: "I received the very disagreeable and unexpected intelligence that a certain Mr. Cressop [sic] had trepanned and murdered forty Indians on the Ohio, ... and that the unworthy author of this wanton act is fled.... Since the news of the murders committed by Cressop and his banditti, the Six Nations have sent me two messages", etc., and much more of the same character (N. Y. Col. Doc., viii. 459, 460, 461, 463, 471, 477; a biographical sketch of Cresap by Dr. O'Callaghan is on p. 459). The subject is treated in Olden Time, ii. 44, 49-67; Potter's Amer. Monthly, xi. 187; Old and New, x. 436; New Eclectic, 169; Annual Report, 1879, of the Sec. of State, Ohio, Columbus, 1880; Stone's Sir William Johnson, ii. 370; Dillon's Indiana (1859), p. 97; Atwater's Ohio, p. 116; Monette, i. 384; Jacob's Cresap (1866), 92-125; Amer. Jour. Science, xxxi. 11; Withers's Border Warfare, p. 118; Amer. Pioneer, i. 7-24, 64, 188, 331. The Amer. Pioneer, 1842-43, was the organ of the "Logan Historical Society", the object of the society being to erect a monument to Logan, on which "his speech as given by Thomas Jefferson shall be fully engraved in gilt letters." The title is a full-page woodcut, representing Logan and Gen. Gibson sitting on a log, the former making his "speech" and the latter taking it down.

Capt. Cresap, in June, 1775, enlisted a company of one hundred and thirty riflemen in Maryland, twenty-two of whom were his old companions-in-arms from the country west of the Alleghanies, and marched them to Boston in twenty-two days. Here his health gave way, and he was compelled to return. He reached New York, and there died, Oct. 18, 1775, at the age of thirty-three. His gravestone is in Trinity churchyard, New York city, opposite the door of the north transept. An accurate woodcut of his gravestone is in Mayer's Logan and Cresap, p. 144, and in Harper's Mag., Nov., 1876, p. 808. A view of his house is in Harper's Mag., xiv. 599.

[1485] See Withers's Border Warfare; Monette, i. 374; Dillon's Indiana, 93; Amer. Archives, 4th series, i. 722.

[1486] Accounts of Cornstalk by W. H. Foote are in the Southern Literary Messenger, xvi. 533, and by M. M. Jones in Potter's Amer. Monthly, v. 583. See Withers, pp. 129, 136, 156. Cornstalk's tragical death is described in Doddridge, p. 239, and Kercheval, p. 267; also in J. P. Hale's Trans-Allegheny Pioneers, p. 328.

[1487] See Amer. Archives, 4th series, i. 1016; Olden Time, ii. 33; Monette, i. 376-380; Perkins's Annals, p. 149; Amer. Pioneers, i. 381, by L. C. Draper; Virginia Hist. Reg., i. 30; v. 181; narrative of Capt. John Stuart in Mag. of Amer. Hist., i. 668, in Virginia Hist. Coll., vol. i., and separately as Memoirs of Indian Wars (Richmond, 1833); John P. Hale's Trans-Allegheny Pioneers (Cincinnati, 1886), p. 174, and a paper by S. E. Lane in Mass. Mag., Nov., 1885, p. 277. What purports to be a contemporary account in J. L. Peyton's Adventures of my Grandfather (London, 1867), p. 142, is not without suspicion.—ED.

[1488] For particulars concerning the Dunmore War, see Amer. Archives, 4th ser., i. 345, 435, 468, 506, 774, 1013-1020; ii. 170, 301; N. Y. Col. Doc., viii. 459, 461; St. Clair Papers, i. 296, etc.; C. W. Butterfield's Washington-Crawford letters (Cinn., 1877), pp. 47, 86; Morgan's autobiographic letter in Hist. Mag., xix. 379; De Haas's West. Virginia, 142; Doddridge, pp. 229-239; Kercheval, p. 148; Withers, 104-138; Perkins's Annals, pp. 140-151; Hildreth's Pioneer History, pp. 86-94; Monette, i. pp. 368-385; Atwater's Ohio, pp. 110-119; Walker's Athens Co., Ohio, p. 8; Dillon's Indiana, p. 91; and Schweinitz's Zeisberger, p. 399. Col. Charles Whittlesey has treated the subject in his Discourse relating to the expedition of Dunmore (Cleveland, 1842); in the Olden Time, ii. 8, 37; and in his Fugitive Essays (Hudson, Ohio, 1852).—ED.

[1489] For references to the proceedings in Parliament, see ante, chapter i., notes.

[1490] Declaration of Rights, Oct. 14, 1774 (Jour. of Old Cong., i. 22). In similar terms it was complained of in the Articles of Association, Oct. 20, 1774 (Ibid. 23), and again, without naming the act, in the Declaration of Independence, as follows: "For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies" (Ibid. 395).

[1491] "The Quebec act was one of the multiplied causes of our opposition, and finally of the Revolution." (Madison's report, January 17, 1782; Thomson Papers, N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., 1878, p. 134: Secret Journals of Cong., iii. 155, 192.)

[1492] Butler's Kentucky, pp. 26, 27. Just before this, in May, 1775, the few settlers of the Kentucky towns had met and organized for defence, and had called their country Transylvania. For Boone's defence of his fort in Aug., 1778, with references, see Dawson's Battles of the U. S., i. 445.—ED.

[1493] Butler, p. 35; Perkins's Annals, p. 171.

[1494] Butler, p. 40; Dillon's Indiana, 115-118.

[1495] [Dawson gives (Battles of the U. S., i. 221) an account, with references, of the attack on Fort Logan in May, 1777, and (Ibid. i. 269) of the assault on Fort Henry (the modern Wheeling, named after Patrick Henry), Sept. 1, 1777. Cf. the account of Elizabeth Zane in Mrs. Eliot's Women of the Rev., ii. 275. There is a view of Fort Henry in Newton's History of the Pan-Handle, West Virginia (1879), p. 102.—ED.]

[1496] In Clark's account of Nov., 1779 (Campaign in Illinois, Cincin., 1869, p. 21), he says: "I set out for Williamsburg in Aug. 1777 in order to settle my accounts." In his later and fuller account (Dillon's Indiana, 1843, p. 132; 1859, p. 119) he says: "When I left Kentucky October 1, 1777."

[1497] See Clark's Campaign, 95, 96; Butler's Kentucky, 394; Monette, i. 415; Brown's Illinois, 239; Hist. Mag., iii. 362.

[1498] Washington had trouble from the same cause in raising troops at Pittsburg for the Eastern service (Writings, v. 244).

[1499] Governor Henry, in a letter to Virginia delegates in Congress, gives the number as "170 or 180" (Butler's Kentucky, 2d ed., p. 533); Capt. Bowman, in letter of July 30, 1778, to Col. John Hite, gives the number as "170 or 180" (Almon's Remembrancer, 1779, p. 82).

[1500] Amer. Pioneer, ii. 345.

[1501] George Rogers Clark's own narratives furnish the most authentic information concerning his Illinois campaigns, three of which are accessible in print, as follow in the order of their dates: (1) Letter to the governor of Virginia, dated Kaskaskia, April 29, 1779, concerning his capture of Vincennes (in Jefferson's Writings, i. 222-226). (2) Letter to George Mason, dated Louisville, Falls of Ohio, November 19, 1779, which covers the period from setting out on his second visit to Virginia, in the autumn of 1777, to the end of his Vincennes campaign. It is printed from the original MS. in the Collections of the Hist. Soc. of Kentucky, with an introduction by Henry Pirtle; a biographical sketch of Clark; and the journal of Capt. (later Major) Joseph Bowman in the expedition against Vincennes. It is one of the Ohio Valley Series, Cincinnati, 1869, and is here quoted as Clark's Campaign. (3) "Memoirs composed by himself at the united desire of Presidents Jefferson and Madison", printed (with omissions and interpolations) in Dillon's Indiana (1843, pp. 127-184; and 2d ed., 1859, pp. 114-170). The second edition is here quoted. H. W. Beckwith used extracts from the same in his Historic Notes on the Northwest, pp. 245-259. It is the most extended of the three narratives. The original, with a large mass of other MSS. of, and relating to, Geo. Rogers Clark, is in the possession of Dr. Lyman C. Draper, of Madison, Wis. The date when it was written is not given; but it must have been written more than twelve years after the events occurred which it describes. Jefferson, writing March 7, 1791, to Col. James Innes, concerning Col. Clark, said: "We are made to hope he is engaged in writing the accounts of his expeditions north of the Ohio. They will be valuable morsels of history, and will justify to the world those who have told them how great he was" (Writings, iii. 218). Mann Butler's account of Clark's exploits (Hist. of Kentucky, pp. 35-88) is highly seasoned with popular traditions, and with incidents which are not consistent with Clark's own statements; and yet Butler has been more frequently quoted than the narratives of Clark. (4) The Canadian Archives, at Ottawa, has a journal of Clark, dated Vincennes, Feb. 24, 1779, the day of the surrender, which has never been printed nor quoted. (See report of Douglas Brymner, archivist, for 1882, p. 27, where an abstract of the report is given.) This is Clark's original report on his Vincennes campaign to the governor of Virginia. Three days after the surrender, a messenger arrived at Vincennes with despatches from the governor. On the 14th of March this messenger (whom Clark calls William Myres; Bowman, Mires; the Canadian Calendar, Moires; and Jefferson, Morris) was sent back to Williamsburg with letters to the governor. Near the Falls of the Ohio he was killed by the Indians, and the report of Clark, with nine other letters captured upon him, appear in the Haldimand Collection in the Canadian Archives. Clark, writing to Jefferson April 29th, mentions that he had heard of the killing of his messenger, "news very disagreeable to me, as I fear many of my letters will fall into the hands of the enemy at Detroit, although some of them, as I learn, were found in the woods, torn to pieces" (Jefferson's Writings, i. 222; see also Dillon, p. 159). Copies of these captured documents I have received from Ottawa. Clark's report is very interesting, and gives details of his interviews with Gov. Hamilton, while negotiating the surrender, which are omitted in his later narratives, and show that he treated Hamilton as if he believed he was responsible for the Indian barbarities inflicted upon the frontier settlers. (5) The report of Gov. Hamilton to Gen. Haldimand, July 6, 1781, which is an extended and detailed narrative of his expedition from Detroit to Vincennes in the autumn and early winter of 1778, of his capture by Clark, and of his long imprisonment in Virginia. He gives many facts and incidents which have not before appeared. He earnestly defends himself against the charges of cruelty made by Clark and the Virginia Assembly; and while admitting that, under instructions of his government, he sent out parties of Indians against the white settlements, he claims that he always gave the savages special instructions to be merciful, and that they obeyed him! This document, which has not been used by any writer, or been accessible until recently, is important, and is about the only statement we have giving the British view of the Vincennes campaign. With sixty other early manuscripts relating to the Northwest, it was kindly furnished to me by Mr. B. F. Stevens, of London, who copied it from the family papers of Lord George Germain. It now appears that it is also in the Haldimand Collection in the British Museum and in the Canadian Archives. It has lately been printed in the Michigan Pioneer Collections, ix. 489-516.

[1502] Butler (p. 52) says "two divisions crossed the river, while Clark with the third division took possession of the fort on this [the east] side of the river, in point-blank shot of the town." It is now the popular belief of the residents in the vicinity, and it has been the positive statement of all writers on the subject, that the fort in which Col. Clark captured Rocheblave was on the high bluff opposite the town, where there is still abundant evidence that a fort once existed, and now is known by the name of "Fort Gage." The spot is daily pointed out to visitors as perhaps the most noted locality in the Western country. During the past year a historical painting (40×20 feet), illustrating Col. Clark's capture of Kaskaskia, has been placed on the walls of the State House at Springfield, Ill. In the centre of the picture is the site of the old fort on the bluff, and near it stands the Jesuit church. In the foreground is Col. Clark addressing a council of Indians. There are three historical infelicities in this picture. The council of Indians which is here represented, was not held at Kaskaskia, but at Cahokia, sixty miles distant. The Jesuit church, and the actual fort which Clark captured, were on the other, the western, side of the river. Only a few points in justification of this statement can be mentioned:—

(1.) The fort on the bluff opposite the town "was burnt down in October, 1766", says Pittman (p. 43), who visited Kaskaskia about that time, or soon after, and whose book was published in London in 1770. He gives a description and detailed drawing of the town, the river, and site of the old fort. "It [the old fort] was", he says, "an oblongular quadrangle, 290 by 251 feet; it was built of very thick squared timber", etc.,—using in every instance the past tense. "An officer and 20 soldiers are quartered in the village." The evidence that the old fort was ever rebuilt is wanting.

(2.) No incident appears in the contemporary narratives that Clark occupied, or even visited, the site of the old fort; and there are many allusions to his occupying quarters in the town. On one occasion, expecting an attack from the enemy, he resolved to burn the houses around the fort. "I was necessitated", he says, "to set fire to some of the houses in town, to clear them out of the way." The people came to him in distress, fearing he would burn up their town. He took an occasion for doing this when there was snow on the roofs, and only such houses were burned as were set on fire (Campaign, p. 59). The site of the old fort was 500 yards from the river, and the river was 150 yards wide. A fire there would not have endangered the town; and Pittman's plan shows no houses on the eastern bank, around the old fort.

(3.) Setting out for Vincennes on the 5th of February, 1779, Clark says: "We crossed the Kaskaskia River with 170 men" (Dillon, p. 139). Major Bowman, in his journal of the same date, wrote: "About three o'clock we crossed the Kaskaskia with our baggage, and marched about a league from town" (p. 100). Crossing the Kaskaskia would have been unnecessary if they had been quartered on the site of the old fort.

(4.) Clark had heard from the hunters who joined him on the way, and had been in the town eight days before, that the fort was kept in good order, and that the garrison was on the alert. He was too good a soldier, on such information, to divide his scanty force of less than two hundred men into three divisions, and with one of them attack an isolated fort on the opposite side of the river, where he could have no support from his other divisions. Bowman, in a letter to Col. Hite, said: "This town was sufficiently fortified to have resisted a thousand men." That Clark passed the site of the old fort without approaching or even mentioning it, and threw his men across the river a mile north of the town, is evidence that the site of the old fort was then unoccupied.

(5.) M. Rocheblave, writing from Kaskaskia, "Fort Gage, Feb. 8, 1778", to Gen. Carleton at Montreal, shows conclusively where the fort was situated in which he was taken prisoner by Clark five months later. The MS. is in the Canadian Archives (Brymner's Report of 1882, p. 12). Rocheblave reports that "the roof of the mansion of the fort is of shingles and very leaky, notwithstanding my efforts to patch it; and unless a new roof be provided very soon, the building, which was constructed twenty-five years ago and cost the Jesuits 40,000 piastres, will be ruined." By a decree of the king, the Jesuits were suppressed in France and its colonies in 1763, and their property was confiscated to the crown. The Jesuits had a valuable estate at Kaskaskia which was taken possession of by the French commandant, and the priests were expelled. Father Watrin, Jesuit, in his Memoir of the Missions of Louisiana, 1764 or 1765 (Mag. of West. Hist. i. 265), says "When the Jesuits of the Illinois, recalled by the decree against them, passed this post [Point Coupée, on the Mississippi], Father Irenæus [a Capuchin] received and treated them as though they had been brothers." Such of the property as was needed for public use was retained, and the remainder was sold. "The Jesuits' plantation", says Pittman (p. 43), "consisted of 240 arpens [200 acres] of cultivated land, a very good stock of cattle, and a brewery, which was sold by the French commandant, after the country was ceded to the English, for the [French] crown, in consequence of the suppression of the order." This sale must have taken place before the English occupation, in 1765. Pittman mentions the church and the "Jesuits' house" as "the principal buildings, which are built of stone, and, considering this part of the world, make a very good appearance." The Jesuits' house was doubtless the one mentioned by Rocheblave, the fort being adjacent to it. On his plan of Kaskaskia Pittman locates the church in the centre of the town, and the Jesuits' property at the southeast corner, near the river. Pittman returned to Pensacola from Illinois in the spring of 1767, "with the plan of a fort", which, Haldimand reports to Gage, will "cost a good deal of money" (Haldimand Coll., p. 25). In 1772 Fort Chartres was abandoned in consequence of being undermined during an inundation of the Mississippi. Gen. Gage gave the order March 16, 1772, and directed that the troops be stationed at Kaskaskia. After the capture of the fort in 1778, the name was changed to "Fort Clark" (Bowman, p. 110; Canad. Arch., 1882, p. 36). I have found no instance where the old fort on the bluff, burned in 1766, and now known as "Fort Gage", had that name during the period when it existed as a fort.

(6.) Lieut. Ross's Map of the Mississippi from the Balise to Fort Chartres, made late in 1765, improved from the French surveys, and published in London in 1775, places "Ft. Caskaskias" at the southeast corner of the town, on the west bank of the river,—the spot indicated in Rocheblave's letter. It shows no fort on the eastern bank.

(7.) Major De Peyster, writing June 27, 1779, from Michilimacinac to Gen. Haldimand, reports concerning affairs at Kaskaskia, and fixes without question the location of the fort. He says: "The Kaskaskias no ways fortified; the fort being still a sorry pinchetted [picketted?] enclosure round the Jesuits' college." (Mich. Pion. Coll. ix. 388.)

It is remarkable that Gov. Reynolds, who resided at Kaskaskia in 1800, should not have known the location of "Fort Gage"; or, rather, that the local remembrances of the real spot should have faded out in twenty-one years. He says (in My Own Times, p. 31, ed. 1879): "The English government [in 1772] abandoned Fort Chartres and established its authority at Fort Gage, on the bluff east of Kaskaskia." Again, he says (Pioneer History, p. 81, ed. 1887): "The British garrison occupied Fort Gage, which stood on the Kaskaskia river bluffs opposite the village." This, in his mind, was the location of the fort which Clark captured. He says (Ibid. p. 94): "Two parties crossed the river; the other party remained with Col. Clark to attack the fort."

Capt. Bowman, in letter to Col. Hite of July 30, 1778 (Almon's Remembrancer, 1779, p. 82), describes the march and capture as follows: "Marched for Kaskaskia with four days' provisions, and in six days arrived at the place in the night of the 4th instant, having marched two days without any sustenance, in which hungry condition we unanimously determined to take the town, or die in the attempt. About midnight we marched into the town without being discovered. Our object was the fort, which we soon got possession of; the commanding officer (Philip Rocheblave) we made prisoner, and he is now on his way to Williamsburg under a strong guard, with all his instructions from time to time, from the several governors at Detroit, Quebec, etc., to set the Indians upon us, with great rewards for our scalps, for which he has a salary of £200 per year." This statement shows that the fort was in the town, and controverts the assertion of Butler (p. 53) that the public papers in the fort were not captured, out of delicacy to the wife of the commander, she "presuming a good deal on the gallantry of our countrymen by imposing upon their delicacy towards herself." ... "Better, ten thousand times better", Butler adds, "were it so, than that the ancient fame of the sons of Virginia should have been tarnished by insult to a female!"

[1503] Campaign, p. 31.

[1504] For the details of the conquest of Kaskaskia, see Clark's narrative of 1779 in Campaign (1869), pp. 24-36; and of his narrative of 1791 (?) in J. B. Dillon's Indiana (1843), pp. 127-150; (2d edition, 1859), pp. 114-136. See also Butler's Kentucky, p. 49, Withers's Border Warfare, p. 185; Perkins's Annals, p. 192; Beckwith's Historic Notes, p. 245; Davidson's Illinois, p. 173; Brown's Illinois, p. 230; Monette, i. 414.

[1505] The letter which Gov. Henry addressed to the Virginia delegates in Congress, Nov. 14, 1778, on receiving intelligence of Clark's capture of Kaskaskia, is in Butler's Kentucky, 2d. ed., p. 532; and is reprinted from the MS. in the new and excellent life of Patrick Henry (Boston, 1887), by Professor Moses Coit Tyler (p. 230).—ED.

[1506] Of M. Rocheblave very little is known. His full name, Philippe François de Rastel, Chevalier de Rocheblave, with his nativity, appears in the parish records of Kaskaskia for April 11, 1763, in the third publication of the banns of his marriage to Michel Marie Dufresne (E. G. Mason's Kaskaskia, p. 17). He is mentioned in 1756 (N. Y. Col. Doc., x. 435) as a cadet at Fort Duquesne; in July, 1757, on the Potomac (Ibid. 581); and in July, 1759, at Niagara (Ibid. 992). Many of his letters [in French] are in the Canadian Archives. Several of them which I have, show him to have been a man of sensibility and refinement. He said he was a British subject because he had been abandoned by France at the peace. One of them is a long and interesting letter dated at "Fort Gage, July 4, 1778", which was probably sent off by boat a few hours before he was captured by Col. Clark. He was a prisoner in Virginia until the autumn of 1780, when he broke his parole and went to New York (Jefferson's Writings, i. 258). His family were left at Kaskaskia; and Gov. Henry of Virginia, in his instructions to Col. John Todd, Dec. 12, 1778, says: "Mr. Rocheblave's wife and family must not suffer for want of that property of which they were bereft by our troops. It is to be restored to them, if possible. If this cannot be done, the public must support them." (Calendar of Va. Papers, i. 314). His wife, signing her name "Marie Michel de Rocheblave", wrote from Kaskaskia, March 27, 1780, to Gen. Haldimand, appealing to his humanity for pecuniary help, as the rebels had taken everything from her but her debts. (MS. letter furnished to me by Mr. B. F. Stevens.)

[1507] The only garrison left in the fort when Gov. Hamilton and his troops appeared was Capt. Helm and his one soldier, whose name was Moses Henry. The latter placed a loaded cannon at the open gate, and Capt. Helm, standing by with a lighted match, commanded the British troops to halt. Hamilton demanded the surrender of the garrison. Helm refused, and asked for terms. Hamilton replied that they should have the honors of war, and the terms were accepted. The comical aspect of the garrison, consisting of one officer and one soldier, marching out of the fort between lines of disgusted Indians on one side and British soldiers on the other, is happily illustrated in Gay's Hist. of U. S., iii. 612. See note in Clark's Campaign, p. 52; Butler's Hist. of Kentucky, p. 80; Monette, i. 425; Perkins's Annals, p. 207. Gov. Hamilton describes the surrender without mentioning this humorous incident, thus: "The officer who commanded in the fort, Capt. Helm, being deserted by the [resident French] officers and men, who to the number of seventy had formed his garrison, and were in pay of the Congress, surrendered his wretched fort on the very day of our arrival, being the 17th day of December, 1778." (Report of July 6, 1781.)

[1508] Gov. Reynolds (Pioneer History, p. 101, ed. 1887) says Col. Vigo was sent to Vincennes by Clark as a spy; that he was captured by the Indians and taken to Hamilton, who suspected the character of his mission; and that he was released on the ground of his being a Spanish subject, and having influential friends among the French residents. Hamilton in his report makes no mention of Vigo by name, but says that men were stationed at the mouth of the Wabash to intercept boats on the Ohio; and that they at different times brought in prisoners and prevented intelligence being carried from Vincennes to the Illinois, "till the desertion of a corporal and six men from La Mothe's company, in the latter end of January, who gave the first intelligence to Col. Clark of our arrival." In Reynolds's Pion. Hist. p. 423, is a biographical sketch of Col. Vigo, by H. W. Beckwith, and a portrait. See also Law's History of Vincennes, pp. 28-30. Vigo helped Clark by cashing his drafts, and the story of a consequent suit for recovery of the money, which did not end till 1876 in the U. S. Supreme Court, is told by C. C. Baldwin in the Mag. of West. Hist., Jan., 1885, p. 230.—ED.

[1509] Clark, in his letter to George Mason, scarcely alludes to the sufferings endured on this march. He says: "If I was sensible that you would let no person see this relation, I would give you a detail of our sufferings for four days in crossing these waters, and the manner it was done, as I am sure you would credit it; but it is too incredible for any person to believe except those that are as well acquainted with me as you are, or had experienced something similar to it. I hope you will excuse me until I have the pleasure of seeing you personally" (Campaign, p. 66). In his later narrative he spoke on the subject more freely (Dillon, 139-146), and his account is confirmed by Bowman's journal.

[1510] She arrived on the 27th, three days after the surrender, "to the great mortification of all on board that they had not the honor to assist us", says Bowman. Clark, in his captured report, writing on the same day, says: "The Willing arrived at 3 o'clock. She was detained by the strong current on the Wabash and Ohio; two Lieutenants and 48 men, with two iron four-pounders and five swivels on board."

[1511] An allusion to Gov. Hamilton's practice of paying the Indians for scalps, and not for prisoners. The proclamation is in Dillon, p. 146; Bowman's Journal, p. 104. [See ante, p. 683.—ED.]

[1512] Bowman gives (p. 105-108) the correspondence with Hamilton, the articles of capitulation, etc., some of which are omitted in Clark's narratives. Hamilton in his Report describes Clark's demand on him to surrender thus: "About eight o'clock a flag of truce from the rebels appeared, carried by Nicolas Cardinal, a captain of the militia of St. Vincennes, who delivered me a letter from Col. Clark requiring me to surrender at discretion; adding, with an oath, that if I destroyed any stores or papers, I should be treated as a murtherer." Hamilton asserts that Clark was supplied with gunpowder by the inhabitants of Vincennes, "his own, to the last ounce, being damaged [by water] on the march;" and that "Clark has since told me he knew to a man those of my little garrison who would do their duty, and those who would shrink from it. There is no doubt he was well informed."

[1513] Hamilton in his Report enlarges on the barbarity of this transaction. The indignation and resentment felt by Clark and his men towards Hamilton, and the occasion for it, appear in a conversation concerning the terms of surrender, which Clark gives in his captured despatch: "Hamilton. 'Col. Clark, why will you force me to dishonor myself when you cannot acquire more honor by it?' Clark. 'Could I look on you as a gentleman, I would do the utmost in my power; but on you, who have imbrued your hands in the blood of our women and children—honor, my country, everything, calls aloud for vengeance.' Hamilton. 'I know, sir, my character has been stained, but not deservedly; for I have always endeavored to instill humanity, as much as in my power, in the Indians, whom the orders of my superiors obliged me to employ.' Clark. 'Sir, speak no more on this subject; my blood glows within my veins to think on the cruelties your Indian parties have committed; therefore, repair to your fort, and prepare for battle'—on which I turned off."

The following incidents illustrate the sort of humanity which Hamilton, and other British commandants at Detroit, instilled in the Indian mind: At a council, on July 3, 1778, Gov. Hamilton presented an axe to the chief, saying: "It is the king's command that I put this axe into your hands to act against his majesty's enemies. I pray the Lord of life to give you success, as also your warriors, wherever you go with your father's axe." The item "60 gross scalping-knives" are among the official "estimates of merchandise wanted for Indian presents at Detroit from Aug. 21, 1782, to Aug. 20, 1783", signed by A. S. De Peyster, Lieut.-Gov. (Farmer's Hist. of Detroit, p. 247). The same writer (p. 246) states that he has seen the original entry of sale, on June 6, 1783, of "16 gross red-handled scalping-knives, £80;" and on July 22d, of 24 dozen more to the same parties.

[1514] Among Hamilton's reasons, in the articles of capitulation, for surrender were: "The honorable terms allowed, and lastly, the confidence in a generous enemy." For this compliment to Clark he apologized in his Report as follows: "If it be considered that we were to leave our wounded men at the mercy of a man who had shown such instances of ferocity, as Col. Clark had lately done, a compliment bespeaking his generosity and humanity may possibly find excuse with some, as I know it has censure from others."

[1515] Hamilton states that Capt. Helm was the officer in command of the expedition,—a fact which Clark omitted to mention.

[1516] Hamilton says: "The day before Capt. Helm, who commanded the party sent to take the convoy, arrived at Ouattanon, Mr. Dejean heard that we had fallen into the hands of the rebels; but he had not sufficient presence of mind to destroy the papers which, with everything else, was seized by the rebels. Besides the provision, clothing, and stores belonging to the king, all the private baggage of the officers fell into the possession of Col. Clark."

[1517] Dillon, p. 158.

[1518] On March 7th, "Capt. Williams and Lieut. Rogers, with twenty-five men, set off for the Falls of Ohio to conduct the following prisoners, viz.: Lieut.-Gov. Hamilton, Major Hays [Hay], Capt. La Mothe [La Mothe], Mons. Dejean, grand judge of Detroit, Lieut. Shiflin [Scheifflin], Doct. M'Beth [McBeath], Francis M'Ville [Maisonville], Mr. Bell Fenilb [Bellefeuille], with eighteen privates" (Bowman, p. 109). Hamilton does not give a list of his fellow-prisoners, but the above names, as he gives them elsewhere in his Report, are inserted in brackets. He says: "On the 8th of March we were put into a heavy oak boat, being 27 in number, with our provision of flour and pork at common ration, and 14 gallons of spirits for us and our guard, which consisted of 23 persons, including two officers. We had before us 360 miles of water carriage and 840 to march to our place of destination, Williamsburg, Va." (Mich. Pion. Col., p. 506). "On the 16th, most of the prisoners took the oath of neutrality, and got permission to set out for Detroit" (Ibid. 110). Gov. Hamilton and his associates were sent to Williamsburg, and by sentence of the executive council were placed in close imprisonment in irons, for their treatment of captives and for permitting and instigating the Indians to practise every species of cruelty and barbarism upon American citizens, without distinction of age, sex, or condition (see Journals of Congress, ii. 340; Jefferson's Writings, i. 226-237, 258, 267; Sparks's Washington, vi. 315, 407; Corresp. of the Rev., ii. 323; Hamilton's narrative from the Royal Gazette, July 15, 1780, in Mag. Amer. Hist., i. 186; Monette, i. 431; Farmer's Hist. of Detroit, p. 252). In October, 1780, Hamilton was sent to New York on parole, in order to procure the release of some American officers (Sparks MSS., no. lxvi.).

For details of the Vincennes expedition, see Clark's Campaign (1869), p. 62-87; Dillon's Indiana (1843), pp. 151-184; 2d edition, pp. 137-167; Butler's Kentucky, p. 79; Beckwith's Hist. Notes, pp. 250-259; Davidson's Illinois, p. 193; Brown's Illinois, p. 241; Perkins's Annals, p. 208; Withers's Border Warfare, p. 188; Monette, i. 427; Hall's Sketches of the West, ii., 117; Marshall's Washington, iii. 562; Mag. of West. Hist., by Mary Cone, ii. 133; Hist. Mag., i. 168, by John Reynolds; Judge Law's address (1839), in Va. Hist. Reg., vi. 61; Ninian W. Edwards's Hist. of Illinois (1778-1833). There is a map of the campaign in Blanchard's North-West.

[1519] The enactment is in Hening's Virginia Statutes, ix. 552, and in Legal Adviser (Chicago, 1886), vii. 284. Cf. "Virginia's Conquest—the Northwest Territory", by J. C. Wells, in the Mag. of Amer. Hist., Nov., 1886.

[1520] Clark's Campaign, p. 84. "I am glad to hear of Col. Todd's appointment", he wrote to Jefferson (i. 225).

[1521] His proclamation of June 15, 1779, is in Dillon, p. 168; Davidson's Illinois, p. 202.

[1522] See lists of the officials in Edward G. Mason's Col. John Todd's Record-Book (no. 12 Fergus's Historical Series, 1882), p. 54. Mr. Mason's paper is an interesting account of Col. Todd's administration, and of the state of the Illinois county at that time. Col. Todd was killed in battle with the Indians at Blue Licks, Ky., Aug. 18, 1782. See Col. Logan's account of the battle, Col. Va. State Papers, iii. 280, 300; Perkins's Annals, p. 270.

[1523] Butler's Kentucky, p. 108; Withers's Border Warfare, p. 197.

[1524] An autograph letter of Jefferson to Washington, Feb. 10, 1780, urging reinforcements for Clark, is in the Sparks MSS., xlix. vol. iii. Various intercepted letters of Clark, including one of Sept. 23, 1779, to Jefferson, about fortifying the mouth of the Ohio, are among the Carleton Papers, in the London Institution, and are copied in the Sparks MSS., xiii. On May 26, 1780, St. Louis had been attacked by the English with Indian allies (Mag. Western Hist., Feb., 1785, p. 271, by Oscar W. Collet). It was through Vigo that Clark established intimate relations with the Spanish lieutenant-governor De Leyba, and Clark is said to have offered assistance in the defence of that Spanish post.—ED.

[1525] Withers's Border Warfare, p. 213; Perkins's Annals, p. 235; Butler's Kentucky, p. 110.

[1526] [See ante, p. 681.—ED.]

[1527] Writings, i. 259. The letter abridged is in Sparks's Corresp. of the Am. Rev., iii. 98.

[1528] Writings, i. 280; Sparks's Corresp., etc., iii. 175.

[1529] Gen. Washington instructed Col. Brodhead to see that no Continental officer outranked Col. Clark. "I do not think", he wrote, "that the charge of the enterprise could have been committed to better hands. I have not the pleasure of knowing the gentleman personally; but independently of the proofs he has given of his activity and address, the unbounded confidence which, I am told, the Western people repose in him is a matter of vast importance.... In general, give every countenance and assistance to this enterprise. I shall expect a punctual compliance with this order. Col. Clark will probably be the bearer of this himself" (Writings, vii. 343-345).

[1530] Sparks's Corresp., etc., iii. 244.

[1531] [See ante, pp. 495, 546.—ED.]

[1532] Writings, i. 288. See Steuben's report to Washington, Sparks's Corresp., etc., iii. 204. At the time of Arnold's descent on Virginia, a scheme was devised by Jefferson and Baron Steuben to capture the arch-traitor alive, and hang him. The scheme is set forth in a letter of Jefferson, with no address (Writings, i. 289), dated Richmond, Jan. 21, 1781; and it immediately follows the one describing Col. Clark's ambuscade. The purpose of the letter is to enlist the services of the person addressed in this hazardous enterprise. The writer says he has "peculiar confidence in the men from the western side of the mountains, whose courage and fidelity would be above all doubt. Your perfect knowledge of those men personally, and my confidence in your discretion, induces me to ask you to pick from among them proper characters, in such numbers as you think best, and engage them to undertake to seize and bring off this greatest of all traitors. Whether this may be best effected by their going in as friends and awaiting their opportunity, or otherwise, is left to themselves. The smaller the number the better, so that they be sufficient to manage him." He offers them a reward of five thousand guineas for bringing him off alive, and says "their names will be recorded with glory in history with those of Vanwert, Paulding, and Williams." The editor states in a note that the person addressed "was probably Gen. [John Peter Gabriel] Mühlenberg." Gen. Mühlenberg was a Pennsylvanian, and never resided west of the mountains. The person was doubtless George Rogers Clark, who was then in Virginia, and was too deeply interested in his Detroit expedition to engage in the scheme.

[1533] Sparks's Corresp., etc., iii. 323.

[1534] Ibid. iii. 455. "I think", Gen. Irvine adds, "there is too much reason to fear that Gen. Clark's and Col. Gibson's expeditions falling through will greatly encourage the savages to fall on the country with double fury, or perhaps the British from Detroit to visit this post [Fort Pitt], which, instead of being in a tolerable state of defence, is, in fact, nothing but a heap of ruins." The relations of Detroit to the war in the Northwest, as the centre of British intrigues among the Indians, and of British instigation of the savages to make forays on the region of the Ohio, is well set forth in Charles I. Walker's Northwest during the Revolution, the annual address before the Wisconsin Hist. Soc. in 1871 (Madison, 1871; also in Pioneer Soc. of Michigan Coll., iii., Lansing, 1881). A plan of the Detroit River at this time is given in Parkman's Pontiac, vol. i. Col. Arent Schuyler De Peyster, who commanded at Detroit, 1776-1785, gives something of his experiences in his Miscellanies by an Officer (Dumfries, 1813). The latest history of Detroit is Silas Farmer's Detroit and Michigan (Detroit, 1884), where, in ch. 39, the revolutionary story is told. He has retold it in the Mag. of Western Hist., Jan., 1886.

Brymner's Report on the Canadian Archives, 1882, p. 11, calendars the correspondence and papers relating to Detroit, 1772-1784, being in large part the correspondence of Gov. Hamilton and Carleton, including letters from Vincennes and intercepted letters of G. R. Clark. Much of the military correspondence with the commandants at Detroit and Quebec, during this period, are in the series "America and West Indies" of the Public Record Office, vols. cxxi., etc., which are calendared in Brymner's Report, 1883, p. 50, etc., as well as in the series "Canada and Quebec", vols. lv., etc. (Ibid. p. 73, etc.). There is also among the Haldimand Papers (Calendar, p. 204) a description of the route from Detroit to the Illinois and Mississippi country, 1774.—ED.

[1535] Virginia, later, made amends for this wrong. See Butler's Kentucky, 2d edition, p. 537.

[1536] See his report to Gov. Harrison, in Butler's Kentucky, 2d edition, p. 536; Almon's Remembrancer (1783), part 2, p. 93.

[1537] See Dillon, p. 179; Perkins's Annals, p. 278. In Jefferson's Writings, iii. 217, 218, and Cal. Va. State Papers, iv. 189, 202, will be found some sad incidents which throw light on the habits and subsequent record of Col. Clark. In 1793 he imprudently accepted from Genet, the French minister, a position in the service of France, with the rank of major-general and commander-in-chief of the French revolutionary legions on the Mississippi River. The purpose of this revolutionary scheme, which had many supporters in Kentucky and the West, was "to open the trade of the said river and give freedom to the inhabitants", by capturing and holding the Spanish settlements on the Mississippi. The troops were to receive pay as French soldiers, and donations of land in the conquered districts. Before the scheme could be put into execution, a counter-revolution occurred in France, Genet was recalled, and Clark's commission was cancelled. See Collins's Kentucky, i. 277; ii. 140; McMaster, Hist. of U. S., ii. 142; Washington's Message against Genet and his scheme is in Writings, xii. 96. For Clark's reputation and the achievements up to 1781, see Marshall's Washington, iii. 562; Rives's Madison, i. 193; Withers's Border Warfare, p. 190; Harper's Mag. (by R. F. Colman), xxii. 784; xxxiii. 52; xxviii. 302; Potter's Am. Monthly (by W. W. Henry), v. 908; vi. 308; vii. 140; Ibid. (by S. Evans), vi. 191, 451; Western Jour. (St. Louis, 1850), iii. 168, 216; John Reynolds in Hist. Mag., June, 1857; Collins's Kentucky. He was styled by John Randolph "the Hannibal of the West", and by Gov. John Reynolds "the Washington of the West." He was never married. He died February 13, 1818, and was buried at Locust Grove, near Louisville, Ky.

The only portrait of him extant was painted by John W. Jarvis, an English artist, who began business in New York in 1801, and painted the heads of many distinguished Americans. He made a trip West and South, during which he made many portraits. The picture of Clark represents him about sixty years of age. The best engraving of it is in the National Portrait Gallery, iv., with a biography. It is the frontispiece of Butler's Kentucky, 1834, of Dillon's Indiana, 1859, and in the Cincinnati edition of Clark's Campaign; and woodcuts are in Lossing's Field-Book, ii. 287; Mag. of Western Hist., ii. 133; Harper's Mag., xxviii. 302, etc. It has been many times reproduced, with a modification of details. There have been many rumors as to the existence of a portrait taken earlier in life. Every alleged portrait of an earlier date which I could hear of, I have looked up, and find that they are all copies or modifications of the Jarvis picture.

[1538] In 1772, the whole community of Moravian missionaries and their Indian converts at Friedenshütten, in Pennsylvania, where they had dwelt for seven years, removed to the valley of the Muskingum, on the cordial invitation of the Delawares. For many years, when living in the vicinity of the English settlements, they had suffered much from persecution; but now that they had their home among savages, it seemed to them that their trials were ended.

[1539] The Sandusky of that period was on the head-waters of the Sandusky River, about seventy-five miles east of south from the modern Sandusky City on Lake Erie. Its location was near what is now known as Upper Sandusky, in Wyandot County, Ohio. The region was a fertile plain, and the home of the Wyandots.

[1540] See "The Identity and History of the Shawanese Indians", by C. C. Royce, in the Mag. of Western Hist., ii. 38.

[1541] The fact that the Moravians had accompanied the Wyandots to the country of Sandusky was used as evidence against them.

[1542] It is to the credit of the British officers at Detroit that they befriended the Moravians, and assigned them a tract of land in Michigan.

[1543] See C. F. Post's first visit to the Western Indians by T. J. Chapman, in Mag. of Western Hist., iii. 123. For the general subject of the Moravian missions in Ohio, see Loskiel, Memoirs of the United Brethren, Part II.; Heckewelder, Narrative, pp. 213-328; Holmes, Missions of the United Brethren, p. 110; Schweinitz, Life of Zeisberger, pp. 368-590; Rondthaler, Life of Heckewelder, p. 66; Gnadenhütten, by W. D. Howells, in Atlantic Monthly, xxiii. 95; Withers, p. 230; Doddridge, p. 248; Monette, ii. 129; Amer. Pioneer, ii. 425; Perkins, Annals, p. 258. Cf. also the Diary of David Zeisberger, a Moravian missionary among the Indians of Ohio (1781-1798); translated from the original German manuscript and edited by E. F. Bliss, 2 vols. (Cincinnati, 1885).

[1544] Col. Crawford was a friend of Washington, and had been one of his surveyors. "It is with the greatest sorrow", wrote Washington, "that I have learned the melancholy tidings of Col. Crawford's death. He was known to me as an officer of much prudence, brave, experienced, and active. The manner of his death was shocking to me, and I have this day communicated to Congress such papers as I have regarding it." Cf. C. W. Butterfield's Washington-Crawford letters, 1767-1781 (Cincinnati, 1877,—Thomson's Bibliog. of Ohio, no. 147).

[1545] See Narratives of the perils and sufferings of Dr. Knight and John Slover, among the Indians, during the Revolutionary war; with short memoirs of Col. Crawford and John Slover, and a letter from H. Brackinridge, on the rights of the Indians, etc. (Cincinnati, 1867), pp. 12-31; (for earlier editions see Thomson's Bibliog. of Ohio, nos. 682-685;) Perkins's Annals, p. 262; Doddridge, p. 264; Withers, p. 242; "Crawford's Campaign", by N. N. Hill, Jr., in the Mag. of West. Hist., ii. 19; McClung's Sketches, p. 128. Schweinitz's Zeisberger, p. 564; Amer. Pioneer, ii. 177; Hist. Mag., xxi. 207; Isaac Smucker's "Ohio Pioneer History" in Ohio Sec. of State's Annual Report, 1879, pp. 7-28. Cf. also C. W. Butterfield's Hist. Acc. of the Exped. against Sandusky (Cincinnati, 1873,—Thomson's Bibliog. of Ohio, no. 146); and, on the general military transactions of this period in the West, the same editor's Washington-Irvine correspondence. The official letters which passed between Washington and William Irvine and between Irvine and others concerning military affairs in the West from 1781 to 1783. Arranged and annotated. With an introduction containing an outline of events occurring previously in the trans-Alleghany country (Madison, Wis., 1882). Cf. Penna. Mag. of Hist., vi. 371. Sparks made copies of many of these Irvine papers in 1847 (Sparks MSS., no. liv.).—ED.

[1546] For a summary of these discussions, see Perkins, Annals (Peck's ed., 1850), pp. 242-250. Judge Hall, Sketches of the West, i. 171, gives the date "May 6, 1778"; Wilson Primm, Historical Address, 1847 (reprinted in Western Journal, 1849, ii. 71), gives "May, 1779", as the date, and says 1779 is an era in the history of St. Louis, and is designated as "L'Année du coup." Nicollet, Early St. Louis, gives "May, 6, 1780", and Martin, Louisiana, "the fall of 1780." Stoddard, Sketches of Louisiana, without naming the month and day, gives the year and the main facts correctly; but errs in stating that "the expedition was not sanctioned by the English court, and the private property of the commandant was seized to pay the expenses of it." As to the casualties, Stoddard (p. 80) says, "60 killed and 30 prisoners;" Nicollet (p. 85), "60 killed and 13 prisoners;" Primm, "20 killed;" and Billon, Annals of St. Louis, 1886 (p. 196), "seven persons were killed", and he furnishes a list of their names. Sinclair, in report to Haldimand, July 8, 1780, says: "At Pencour [St. Louis], 68 were killed, and 18 blacks and white people taken prisoners; 43 scalps were brought in. The rebels lost an officer and three men killed at the Cahokias, and five prisoners" (Mich. Pion. Col., ix. 559). Martin (ii. 53) says "Clark released about 50 prisoners that had been made."

[1547] Brymner's Calendar of the Canadian Archives, including (1) the Haldimand collection; (2) the publication of some of the Haldimand papers in Michigan Pioneer Collec., ix.; and (3) the Calendar of Virginia State Papers, Richmond, v. i., vi.

[1548] In March, 1766, Ulloa, from Havana, landed at New Orleans, and in the name of Spain took possession of Louisiana; but found himself obliged to administer the government under the old French officers, and in 1768 the French set up for a while a republic independent of Spain. Cf. Gayarré's Louisiana, and Lieutenant John Thomas's account of Louisiana in 1768 in Hist. Mag., v. 65.

Congress maintained an agent, Oliver Pollock, at New Orleans during the war, who, with the aid of the Spanish authorities, sent powder and supplies at intervals up the river, to be landed on the Ohio (George Sumner's Boston Oration, 1859, p. 14). The correspondence of Pollock and Congress is in the archives of the State Department at Washington, and copies are in the Sparks MSS., no. xli. An account of an expedition under Col. David Rogers in 1778, to bring up stores to Fort Pitt, is in Hist Mag., iii. 267.

Various letters about and from New Orleans during the war are in the Sparks MSS. (no. xxiii.), copied from the Grantham correspondence. Intercepted letters between the Spanish governor at New Orleans and Patrick Henry (1778-1779), found among the Carleton papers, are in the Sparks MSS., no. xiii.—ED.

[1549] Gayarré, History of Louisiana, Spanish Domination, p. 121.

[1550] Brymner, 1885, p. 276.

[1551] "In compliance with my Lord George Germain's requisition in the circular letter sent from Detroit on 22d January, I sent a war party of Indians to the country of the Sioux to put that nation in motion under their own chief, Wabasha, a man of uncommon abilities.... They are directed to proceed with all despatch to the Natchez, and to act afterwards as circumstances may require. I shall send other bands of Indians from thence on the same service as soon as I can with safety disclose the object of their mission. I am at a loss to judge in point of time, and can only hazard an opinion that the Brigadier [Campbell] and his army will be at the place of their destination some time in May" (Michigan Pioneer Coll., ix. 544).

The same day, Sinclair wrote to Capt. Brehm, Haldimand's aide-de-camp: "I will use my utmost endeavors to send away as many as I can of the Indians to attack the Spanish settlements as low down [the Mississippi] as they possibly can, in order to procure the assistance of the others at home. I am so perfectly convinced of the general's [Haldimand's] geographical knowledge that I do not know where to look for the cause of a doubt about giving some aid to General Campbell from this quarter.... I am at a loss to know whether this preparation may not be too early, on account of want of secrecy in the people I have employed, and from their getting too near [New] Orleans before the arrival of the brigadier. I have confidence in and hopes of their leader, as Wabasha is allowed to be a very extraordinary Indian, and well attached to his majesty's interest" (Ibid. pp. 541-543).

February 17, he writes again to Haldimand, that the Minomines, Puants, Sacs, and Rhenards were to assemble at the portage of the Wisconsin and Fox rivers under a Mr. Hesse, a trader; and later to rendezvous at the confluence of the Mississippi and Wisconsin rivers, Prairie du Chien. "The reduction of Pencour [pain court (short bread), the common nickname of St. Louis] by surprise, from the easy admission of the Indians of that place, will be less difficult than holding it afterwards.... The Sioux shall go with all dispatch as low down as the Natchez, and as many intermediate attacks as possible shall be made" (Ibid. pp. 546, 547).

May 29, he again writes that seven hundred and fifty men, including traders, servants, and Indians, proceeded down the Mississippi on the second day of May, with the Indians engaged at the westward, for an attack on the Spanish and Illinois country. He mentions Prairie du Chien as the place of assembling. "Capt. Hesse will remain at Pencour; Wabasha will attack Misère [wretchedness, the popular nickname for Ste. Geneviève] and the rebels at Kacasia [Kaskaskia]. Two vessels leave this place on the 2d of June to attend Machigwawish, who returns by the Illinois River with prisoners. All the traders who will secure the posts on the Spanish side of the Mississippi during the next winter have my promise for the exclusive trade of the Missouri during that time, and that their canoes will be forwarded" (Ibid. 548, 549).

[1552] Brymner, Report, 1882, p. 34. He writes to Sinclair, March 12: "Your movements down the [Mississippi] shall be seconded from this place by my sending a part of the garrison with some small ordnance. Their route shall be to the Ohio, which they shall cross, and attack some of the forts which surround the Indian hunting-ground of Kentucky. I have had the Wabash Indians here by invitation; they have promised to keep Clark at the Falls" (Michigan Pioneer Coll., p. 580). His allusions are to Capt. Byrd's expedition. May 18, he again writes to Sinclair: "Capt. Byrd left this place (Detroit) with a detachment of about 150 whites and 1000 Indians. He must be by this time nigh the Ohio" (Ibid. P. 582).

[1553] Among his prisoners were Col. Dickson, in command of the British settlements on the Mississippi; 556 regulars, and many sailors.

[1554] Gayarré, Louisiana, Span. Dom., pp. 121-147. Galvez discovered, by intercepted letters from Natchez, the scheme of the English to attack the Spanish settlements as early as it was known by Sinclair (p. 122), and he was earnest to strike the first blow. Clark also heard of it very early. Sinclair, writing to Haldimand, says: "No doubt can remain, from the concurrent testimony of the prisoners, that the enemy received intelligence of the meditated attack on the Illinois about the time I received a copy of my Lord George Germain's circular letter" (Mich. Pion. Coll., ix. 559). In the same letter he gives some details of the raids on St. Louis and Cahokia, which do not appear elsewhere: "Twenty of the volunteer Canadians from this place and a very few of the traders and servants made their attack on Pencour and the Cahokias. The Winnipigoes and Sioux would have stormed the Spanish lines, if the Sacs and Outagamies, under their treacherous leader Mons. Calvé, had not fallen back so early. A Mons. Ducharme and others who traded in the country of the Sacs kept pace with Mons. Calvé in his perfidy. The attack, unsuccessful as it was, from misconduct, and unsupported, I believe, by any other against New Orleans, with the advances made by the enemy on the Mississippi, will still have its good consequences. The Winnepigoes had a chief and three men killed and four wounded. The traders who would not assist in extending their commerce cannot complain to its being confined to necessary bounds." Writing later to De Peyster (Ibid. 586), he says: "The attack upon the Illinois miscarried from the treachery of Calvé and Ducharme, traders, and from the information received by the enemy so early as March last." For statements that the expedition against St. Louis was organized and led by Jean Marie Ducharme, see Wis. Hist. Coll., iii. 232; vii. 176. It is evident that the objective point of the attack, in Sinclair's mind, was the Illinois country, rather than the Spanish settlements. Haldimand, writing to De Peyster, Feb. 12, 1779, said: "Sinclair should strike at the Illinois" (Brymner, 1882, p. 33). Sinclair, writing to Brehm, Feb. 17, 1780, concerning the attack on St. Louis, said: "Afterwards they can act against the rebels on this side [of the Mississippi], which I have pointed out to them" (Mich. Pion. Coll., ix. 543).

[1555] Sinclair seems not to have heard of the capture of Natchez by the Spaniards, which occurred Sept. 21, 1779, until July 30, 1780, when he wrote to De Peyster: "The report of the Natchez seems too well founded" (Ibid. 587).

[1556] Ibid. 547, 548.

[1557] Stoddard and Martin state that Clark was present; Nicollet denies the statement, on the ground that Clark was then at Kaskaskia, and "that gallant officer could not have had time to aid in that affair." Hall and Billon make no mention of Clark; and Primm and Peck (in Perkins) say that Clark tendered aid to Leyba in 1779, but not in 1780. It was a part of Clark's policy to be always on friendly terms with the Spanish commandant at St. Louis (Campaign, p. 35), and to give aid whenever he needed it. In so doing, as they were fighting a common enemy, he served his own interests. Mr. O. W. Collet, in Mag. of Western Hist., i. 271, has discussed the friendly relations between Clark and Leyba before the attack on St. Louis, but is unmindful of the significance given to it in the text. See also Scharff's Hist. of St. Louis, p. 217.

[1558] The expedition of Captain Byrd from Detroit.

[1559] Sinclair reported to Haldimand, July 8th, "Two hundred Illinois cavalry arrived at Chicago five days after the vessels left" (Mich. Pion. Coll., ix. 558).

[1560] Dr. Lyman C. Draper (Wisconsin Hist. Coll., ix. 291) says: "There was a party of Spanish allies sent out with Montgomery's expedition from Cahokia in the latter part of May, 1780, in the direction of Rock River." See also his note (Ibid. vii. 176). He thinks that the Spaniards and some of the Americans probably returned by way of Prairie du Chien, and that they were the party mentioned by Long in his Voyages, 1791.

[1561] Michigan Pioneer Col., ix. 541. Capt. Byrd, writing to De Peyster, May 21, 1780, reports that a Delaware Indian has come in from the Falls with this information: "Col. Clark says he will wait for us, instead of going to the Mississippi; his numbers do not exceed 200; his provisions and ammunition short" (Ibid. 584). Clark was on his way to St. Louis before this date, and was back to Kentucky in season to block Byrd's plans.

[1562] Perkins's Annals, p. 245.

[1563] It is noticeable that in these decisive campaigns efficient aid was furnished in the West by Spain, and in the East by France; and that both these powers, in the negotiations for a treaty of peace with Great Britain, threw their influence against the interests of the United States.

[1564] See Gayarré, Louisiana, Span. Dom., p. 134; Pitkin's United States, ii. 88, App. 512; Secret Jour. of Cong., ii. 326.

[1565] Sparks's Dipl. Corresp., viii. 156. The Spanish claims and the Western boundary question are very fully discussed in this eighth volume.

[1566] Mr. Jay (Sparks's Dipl. Corres., viii. 76-78) gives the main facts concerning the Spanish expedition to St. Joseph, which he translated from the Madrid Gazette of March 12, 1782. Mr. E. G. Mason (Mag. of Amer. Hist., xv. 457) has treated the subject more fully in a paper entitled "March of the Spaniards across Illinois in 1781." See also Reynolds's Illinois, ed. 1887, p. 126; Dillon's Indiana, ed. 1843, p. 190; Perkins's Annals, ed. 1851, p. 251.

Dr. Franklin, writing from Passy, April 12, 1782, to Secretary Livingston, said: "I see by the newspapers that the Spaniards, having taken a little post called St. Joseph, pretend to have made a conquest of the Illinois country. In what light does this proceeding appear to Congress? While they decline our offered friendship, are they to be suffered to encroach on our bounds, and shut us up within the Appalachian Mountains? I begin to fear they have some such project" (Works, Sparks, ix. 206).

[1567] The diplomacy of the war and the final negotiations for peace, form the subjects of the opening chapters of the succeeding volume of the present History.—ED.

[1568] Some of the copies bear other dates.

* * * * * *

Transcriber’s note:

—Obvious errors were corrected.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us