FOOTNOTES:
[1] Entick, History of the Late War, vol. i., p. 110.
[2] Entick, History of the Late War, vol. i., p. 124.
[3] Apology for the Life of George Anne Bellamy, vol. iii., p. 55.
[4] Letters of Walpole, (edited by Cunningham, London 1877), vol. ii., p. 461.
[5] Entick History of the Late War, vol. i., p. 142.
[6] History of the Late War, vol. i., p. 142.
[7] Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. 75, p. 389 (1755); also A Review of the Military Operations in North America, London, 1757, p. 35.
[8] A letter relating to the Ohio Defeat, p. 14.
[9] Walpole’s Memoirs of George II, vol. ii., p. 29.
[10] Walpole’s Memoirs of George II, vol. ii., p. 29; also London Evening Post, September 9-11, 1755.
[11] Walpole’s Memoirs of George II, vol. i., p. 397; Sargent’s History of Braddock’s Expedition, p. 153, note.
[12] Minutes taken “At a Council at the Camp at Alexandria in Virginia, April 14, 1755.” Public Records Office, London: America and West Indies, No. 82.
[13] Braddock’s MS. Letters, Public Records Office, London: America and West Indies, No. 82.
[14] For these early routes through Pennsylvania, partially opened in 1755, see Historic Highways of America, vol. v., chap. I.
[15] Maryland Archives; Correspondence of Governor Sharpe, vol. i., pp. 77 and 97.
[16] Preserved at the Congressional Library, Washington.
[17] Eight miles from Alexandria. See Note 26.
[18] Arguments pro and con have been interestingly summed up by Dr. Marcus Benjamin of the U. S. National Museum, in a paper read before the Society of Colonial Dames in the District of Columbia April 12, 1899, and by Hugh T. Taggart in the Washington Star, May 16, 1896. For a description of routes converging on Braddock’s Road at Fort Cumberland see Gen. Wm. P. Craighill’s article in the West Virginia Historical Magazine, vol. ii, no. 3 (July, 1902), p. 31. Cf. pp. 179-181.
[19] London, Groombridge & Sons, 1854. Mr. Morris, in footnotes, gave what he considered any important variations of the original manuscript from the expanded version he was editing; Mr. Sargent reproduced these notes, without having seen the original.
[20] History of Braddock’s Expedition, p. 359, note.
[21] History of Braddock’s Expedition, p. 359, note.
[22] Mr. Gordon evidently used the word “self” in his entry of June 3 to throw any too curious reader off the track.
[23] History of Braddock’s Expedition, p. 387.
[24] History of Braddock’s Expedition, p. 365.
[25] In the Gordon Journal, under the date of June 10, there are two entries. One seems to have been Gordon’s and reads: “The Director of the Hospital came to see me in Camp, and found me so ill.... I went into the Hospital, & the Army marched with the Train &c., and as I was in hopes of being able to follow them in a few days, I sent all my baggage with the Army.” Without doubt this was Gordon’s entry, as no sailor could have had sufficient baggage to warrant such a reference as this, while an engineer’s “kit” was an important item. Then follow two entries (June 24 and 26) evidently recorded by one who remained at Fort Cumberland, and a second entry under the date of June 10, which is practically the first sentence of the entry under the same date in the original manuscript, and which has the appearance of being the genuine record made by the sailor detained at Fort Cumberland. The confusion of these entries in the Gordon Journal makes it very evident that one author did not compose them. The two entries for June 10 are typical of “Mr Engineer Gordon” and an unknown sailor.
[26] This form of the name of the modern Rock Creek is significant and is not given in the expanded form of this journal. “Rock’s Creek” suggests that the great bowlder known as “Braddock’s Rock” was a landmark in 1755 and had given the name to the stream which entered the Potomac near it.
[27] The use of full names in this journal is strong evidence that it is the original.
[28] The Gordon Journal assiduously reverses every such particular as this; it reads here: “there are about 200 houses and 2 churches, one English, one Dutch.”
[29] Though in almost every instance the Gordon Journal gives a more wordy account of each day’s happenings, it never gives a record for a day that is omitted by this journal, as April 22, 23, and 28; at times, however, a day is omitted in that journal that is accounted for in this; see entries for May 9 and May 25—neither of which did Mr. Morris give in his footnotes, though the latter was of utmost significance.
[30] The words “from the French” are omitted in the Gordon Journal, which makes the entry utterly devoid of any meaning—unless that Cresap had been ordered to retire by the Ohio Company! Cresap in that document is called “a vile Rascal”; cf. Pennsylvania Colonial Records, vol. vi., p. 400. For eulogy of Cresap see Ohio State Archæological and Historical Publications, vol. xi.
[31] This is given for the 13th in the Gordon Journal.
[32] The Gordon Journal: “Mr Spendlow and self surveyed 22 casks of beef, and condemned it, which we reported to the General.”
[33] Two chaplains accompanied the two Regiments Philip Hughes was chaplain of the 44th and Lieut. John Hamilton of the 48th. The latter was wounded in the defeat.
[34] The entry of Gordon Journal reads: “Col. Burton, Capt. Orme, Mr. Spendlowe and self....”
[35] The Gordon Journal: “This morning an Engineer and 100 men....”
[36] The only hint given in the Gordon Journal as to the author of the original document is under this date. The Gordon Journal reads, “Mr. Spendlowe and self with 20 of our men went to the place where the new road comes into the old one....” “Self” here seems to refer to “Midshipman”; but Mr. Gordon often refers to himself as an engineer and never once inserts his own name, though he was a most important official. Gordon probably accompanied or followed Spendlowe.
[37] Entries written by one while detained at Fort Cumberland. If written by Gordon he hastened immediately to the front, for he was with Braddock’s advance on July 9.
[38] The Gordon Journal: “One of our Engineers, who was in front of the Carpenters marking the road, saw the Enemy first.” Who but Gordon would have omitted his name under these circumstances?
[39] This last paragraph is evidently an additional memorandum of British loss. The contents of the chest was undoubtedly £10,000.
[40] British Newspaper Accounts of Braddock’s Defeat, p. 10. Pennsylvania Colonial Records, vol. vi., p. 482.
[41] This view of Braddock’s defeat is given in the late John Fiske’s recent volume, New France and New England.
[42] London Public Advertiser, November 3, 1755.
[43] London Public Advertiser, November 3, 1755.
[44] Cf. British Newspaper Accounts of Braddock’s Defeat, p. 9. Pennsylvania Colonial Records, vol. vi., p. 482. London Public Advertiser, November 3, 1755.
[45] Cf. British Newspaper Accounts of Braddock’s Defeat, p. 9; London Public Advertiser, November 3, 1755.
[46] This chapter is from Neville B. Craig’s The Olden Time, vol. ii., pp. 465-468, 539-544.
[47] See Historic Highways of America, vol. v.
[48] Preserved in the library of Harvard University.
[49] “Many misstatements are prevalent in the country adjacent to the line of march, especially east of Cumberland, the traditionary name of Braddock’s route being often applied to routes we know he did not pursue. It is probable the ground of the application consists in their having been used by the Quarter Master’s men in bringing on those Pennsylvania wagons and pack horses procured by Dr. Franklin, with so much trouble and at so great expense of truth. Sir John Sinclair wore a Hussar’s cap, and Franklin made use of the circumstance to terrify the German settlers with the belief that he was a Hussar who would administer to them the tyrannical treatment they had experienced in their own country if they did not comply with his wishes. It is singular that a small brook and an obscure country road in Berkley County, Virginia, bear the name of Sir John’s Run, and Sir John’s Road, supposed to be taken from the name of this officer.
[50] “The original name of Cumberland was Cucucbetuc, and from its favorable position on the Potomac, was most probably the site of a Shawnee village, like Old Town; moreover, it was marked by an Indian name, a rare occurrence in this vicinity, if any judgment may be drawn from the few that have been preserved.
[51] “This interesting locality lies at the west foot of the Meadow Mountain, which is one of the most important of the Alleghany Ridges, in Pennsylvania especially, where it constitutes the dividing ridge between the eastern and western waters. A rude entrenchment, about half a mile north of the Inn on the National Road, kept by Mr. Huddleson, marks the site of this fort. This is most probably the field of a skirmish spoken of in frontier history, between a Mr. Parris, with a scouting party from Fort Cumberland, and the Sieur Donville, commanding some French and Indians, in which the French officer was slain. The tradition is distinctly preserved in the vicinity, with a misapprehension of Washington’s participation in it, arising probably from the partial resemblance between the names of Donville and Jumonville. From the positiveness of the information, in regard to the battle ground, conflicting with what we know of Jumonville’s death, it seems probable enough that this was the scene of this Indian skirmish; and as such, it possesses a classic interest, valuable in proportion to the scarcity of such places.
[52] Historic Highways of America, vol. v., ch. 4.
[53] Bouquet Papers, MSS. Preserved in British Museum: Forbes to Pitt, July 10; Forbes to Bouquet, August 2; Bouquet au Forbes, July 26, 1758.
[54] Speed’s The Wilderness Road, pp. 56-57.
[55] Speed’s The Wilderness Road, p. 60.
[56] Lowdermilk’s History of Cumberland, p. 275.
[57] Land Records of Allegheny County, Md. Liber E, fol. 191.
[58] Id., Liber G. fol. 251.
[59] Id., Liber I and J, fol. 105.