APPENDIX II
SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR THE FORT DEARBORN MASSACRE
The history of lost manuscripts, even in so new a country as the United States, contains not only much of interest to the curious, but much of profit to the serious, who are genuinely interested in the work of preserving the records of the past. Various have the fortunes of these precious documents been. Some have been used by frugal housewives to cover jelly glasses or pack eggs, others have gone to feed the paper mill or the furnace; while all the time our libraries and historical societies are longing for the opportunity to secure such materials for preservation for the use of future generations. At times, however, the very measure of placing manuscripts within the protecting walls of an institution has been responsible for their oblivion. Either the document has been mislaid and its resting-place forgotten, or actual destruction has come upon it.
The history of manuscripts pertaining to the Fort Dearborn tragedy furnishes numerous illustrations of these various contingencies. One of the most important of them, a document of several hundred pages, disappeared, apparently for all time, from the home of the Heald family a half-century ago. Another, Lieutenant Helm's massacre narrative, after being lost to sight for three-quarters of a century, was discovered a few years since in the Detroit Public Library. A third, the fatal order of Hull to Captain Heald for the evacuation of the fort, long supposed to have been destroyed, has been for over forty years, unknown to historical workers, a part of the Draper Collection, now the property of the Wisconsin State Historical Society. Still other documents gathered with loving care within the walls of the local Historical Society by citizens of Chicago, by reason of this fact were doomed to perish in one or other of the fires which have twice consumed the Society's archives. Such was the fate of the papers of Lieutenant Swearingen, destroyed in the great fire of 1871, a few years after he had presented them to the Society. Such was the fate, also, of John Kinzie's account books with their unique picture of early Chicago in the years from 1804 to 1824.
Fortunately in both these instances a remnant of the original has been preserved to us through the very fact of its retention in private hands. Swearingen retained part of his private papers, and some of these, including the original journal of the march of the troops from Detroit to Chicago in 1803 to establish the first Fort Dearborn, are still in the possession of his descendants.[931] Of Kinzie's account books a transcript of the names together with some additional data is all that remains.[932] Its preservation is due to the fortunate circumstance that ten years before the Chicago Fire the list was copied for the use of a historical worker, who carried it with him when he left Chicago to enter the Union army. More than forty years later, on the occasion of the centennial of the founding of Fort Dearborn, the original books having been destroyed, it was returned to the Historical Society.
[931] For the Journal see supra, Appendix I.
[932] The allusion is to the Barry Transcript, which has been cited in various footnotes.
A source of equal regret to the investigator is the fact that many of the documents pertaining to the massacre which actually remain to us are a disappointment in one respect or another. Captain Heald, who of all men was best qualified to speak with authority, left a report of only a page to cover the entire period from the preliminary massacre at Chicago in April until his arrival in Pittsburgh late in October. Lieutenant Helm, who should have been the best qualified witness after Heald, labored long and arduously upon a narrative which goes into minute detail with respect to the massacre itself; on examination, however, it becomes evident that much of the author's labor was directed to the end of misstating rather than revealing the facts. McAfee, one of the best historians of the War of 1812, deriving his information from Sergeant Griffith, a participant in the massacre, saw fit to devote but three pages to his account of the fall of Fort Dearborn. Finally, in Mrs. Kinzie, the author of Wau Bun, the youthful Chicago gained a writer of more than usual charm, who from her position in the Kinzie family and her proximity to the massacre in point of time enjoyed an opportunity now gone forever to gain from eye-witnesses of the events attending the massacre information for an authoritative narrative; yet her account is perhaps the most disappointing, from the historical point of view, of any with which we have to deal.
It is our immediate task, however, to estimate the sources of information that remain to us for what they are worth. First in order must be placed the report of Captain Heald to the government. His official rank, the concise yet inclusive manner of expression, the early date, October 23, 1812, all unite to give it priority of consideration. Hull's terse compliment, "Captain Heald is a judicious officer, and I shall confide much to his discretion," Heald's record in the service, the peculiar circumstances under which he took command at Fort Dearborn, and the few papers of his in existence, show him to have been an officer of merit and of judgment. In striking contrast with the narratives of some of his detractors, Heald's report is marked by an air of candor and plain common sense. He gives not the slightest intimation of any feeling of prejudice or hostility toward anyone in the garrison or settlement. Kinzie, the trader, who looms so large in the Wau Bun narrative, is not even mentioned. No statements calculated to challenge the reader's credulity are made. From any point of view the report must be ranked as historical material of a high order of excellence, our only ground for disappointment proceeding from its brevity.
Heald's official report is supplemented to some extent by his journal, which sketches the main events of his life until after his retirement from the army, and by a number of letters and papers in the Draper Collection and in the possession of his descendants. The second important source is the narrative of Lieutenant Helm, written in the summer of 1814. It is approximately three times as long as Heald's report, and describes the actual battle with much detail. Written by the officer second in command of the troops, it would be of inestimable value to the student in supplementing Heald's report, were it not for the fact that in this instance the author's candor is as conspicuous by its absence as it is by its presence in the former one.
Further consideration of Helm's narrative is reserved for the present. After these accounts of the two ranking officers, who were also the only ones to survive the battle, must be placed the narratives of their wives as recorded by their descendants. These are the relation of Rebekah Heald as told to her son, Darius Heald, and his family, and the Helm-Kinzie account embodied in Mrs. Juliette Kinzie's Wau Bun.
Rebekah Heald was the only one, apparently, of those concerned in the massacre who took the trouble to write a comprehensive account of her life in Chicago. Before her death in 1856 she dictated to a niece a large number of facts connected with her early life. The manuscript was foolscap and contained, according to her son's recollection of it, several hundred pages.[933] During the Civil War the Heald residence in St. Charles County, Missouri, was ransacked from cellar to garret by a band of Union soldiers. Among other things which were taken by the marauders was Captain Heald's sword, and Mrs. Heald's manuscript. The sword was recovered by a negro boy, but the manuscript has never since been seen, and was probably destroyed at the time.[934]
[933] For the history of this manuscript, together with Darius Heald's recital to Kirkland of his mother's story of the massacre, see Magazine of American History, XXVIII, 111-22.
[934] Curiously enough, if Darius Heald's impression is correct, it was a Chicago regiment which perpetrated the act of destruction (ibid., 122).
Fortunately we have an indication of the character of its contents in the recital by Darius Heald of his mother's story as he remembered it from hearing her tell it "a hundred times." His narrative has been recorded in two forms, with an interval of many years between them. In 1868 he was interviewed by Lyman Draper, the famous collector in the field of western history, who at the time was on one of his tours in search of historical information. Draper's record of the interview was, however, buried away among his papers, and has until the present time been unknown to workers in the field of Chicago history.[935] In ignorance, therefore, of the Draper interview, Darius Heald was again interviewed, almost a quarter of a century later, by Joseph Kirkland, and the story which he obtained was considered by him sufficiently important to lead him to write his book. The Chicago Massacre.[936] A comparison of the two versions affords in some degree a test of the reliability of the Darius Heald narrative. It reveals, as might be expected, discrepancies in matters of detail, but the final impression left by the comparison is that neither Darius Heald nor his mother was animated by any conscious purpose to deceive. Produced under such circumstances as have already been described, the limitations of the narrative are obvious, and proper caution must be preserved and due allowance for error made in the use of it. Subject to these limitations it may be regarded as a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the massacre.
[935] The narrative is printed for the first time as Appendix V.
[936] The entire narrative is printed in the Magazine of American History, XXVIII, 111-22. For the use which Kirkland made of it see his book, The Chicago Massacre.
We may now direct our attention to the Kinzie family narrative of the tragedy as told by Mrs. Juliette A. Kinzie, the daughter-in-law of John Kinzie, the trader. Like the narrative of Rebekah Heald, as told by her son Darius, it comes down to us in two forms. Put forth at first anonymously in pamphlet form in 1844,[937] it appeared twelve years later as a part of the author's book Wau Bun, or The Early Day in the Northwest. It was published at a time when the consciousness of Chicago's future destiny was already dawning on its citizens. To a developing popular interest in the city's past was joined a general lack of information concerning her greatest tragedy. Mrs. Kinzie's narrative, claiming to be based on the testimony of eye-witnesses, spoke with assurance and precision on a subject about which all others were ignorant. Its statements have commonly been accepted without question or criticism, and have constituted the foundation, and usually the superstructure as well, of almost all that has been written upon the Fort Dearborn massacre. Sober historians and fanciful novelists alike have made it the quarry from which to draw the material for their narratives. Says Moses in his Illinois, published in 1889: "Without exception, historians have relied for their facts in regard to the massacre upon the account given of the event by Mrs. Juliette A. Kinzie ...."; and although he points out the possibility of an undue criticism of Captain Heald, he concludes that its statements "bear upon their face the appearance of truth and fairness."[938] While it is true that some dissent from the general chorus of confidence in Mrs. Kinzie's narrative has been voiced,[939] the statement made by Thwaites in 1901 that it "has been accepted by the historians of Illinois as substantially accurate, and other existing accounts are generally based upon this,"[940] still stands as entirely correct.
[937] Narrative of the Massacre at Chicago, August 15, 1812, and of Some Preceding Events (Chicago, 1844).
[938] Moses, Illinois, Historical and Statistical, I, 251-52.
[939] Notably by Hurlbut, Chicago Antiquities, and Kirkland, Chicago Massacre. Carl Dilg and William R. Head, two recent workers in the local antiquarian and historical field, both repudiated it. Both men were unscientific in their methods and animated by violent prejudices, however. Dilg's papers are now owned by the Chicago Historical Society, while most of Head's were destroyed a few months after his death in 1910. A few fragments are in the Chicago Historical Society library, while a considerably larger number are still in the possession of the widow, Mrs. William R. Head, of Chicago.
[940] Kinzie, Wau Bun, Caxton Club edition, p. xix.
A critical examination of Mrs. Kinzie's narrative is, then, essential to any study of the Fort Dearborn massacre. The author was born at Middletown, Conn., in September, 1806, and seems to have enjoyed educational advantages unusual for girls in her generation. Her uncle. Doctor Alexander Wolcott, was for almost a dozen years prior to his death in 1830 government Indian agent at Chicago. Through the circumstance of his having married the daughter of John Kinzie, the niece became acquainted with her brother, John Harris Kinzie, and in August, 1830, the young couple were married.[941] Shortly afterward the bride was brought by her husband to Wisconsin, where he held the position of sub-Indian agent at Fort Winnebago. Here they resided until 1834, when Chicago became their permanent home. Mrs. Kinzie, therefore, possessed no contemporary or personal knowledge of the Fort Dearborn massacre, her information being derived from members of her husband's family subsequent to her marriage. Of these the ones best qualified to give her first-hand information were her mother-in-law and her husband's half-sister, Mrs. Helm. Since the older woman did not witness the actual conflict, for this part of her narrative Mrs. Kinzie purports to quote directly the words of Mrs. Helm, though it is evident that not all that passes for direct quotation from the latter was actually derived from her.
[941] A sketch of the early life of Mrs. Kinzie by her daughter is appended to the Rand-McNally 1903 edition of Wau Bun.
In the preface to the pamphlet narrative of 1844 Mrs. Kinzie explained that the record had been taken many years since from the lips of eye-witnesses of the events described, and written down simply for the purpose of preserving to her children "a faithful picture of the perilous scenes through which those near and dear to them had been called to pass." Her record of the massacre is thus on a footing of equality with that of Darius Heald, in that each is based on information derived from participants in the events attending the massacre. From the point of view of the historian, however, it possesses at least one marked advantage over the latter. The Heald narrative was reduced to writing for the first time in 1868, over half a century after the occurrence of the events described. The pamphlet edition of the Kinzie narrative was published in 1844, almost a quarter of a century-earlier. Aside from this priority in point of time, its author possessed, at the time she received her information, the conscious purpose of preserving it in written form, if not, indeed, of publishing it. Unfortunately, however, these obvious advantages possessed by Mrs. Kinzie are offset by qualities in her narrative which destroy, in large part, the historical value it might otherwise have possessed. The evident inability of the author to state the facts correctly is manifest throughout the work. It abounds in details that could not possibly have been remembered by Mrs. Kinzie's supposed informants; in others that could not have been known to them; and in still others that could never have occurred. Undaunted by the absence of records, Mrs. Kinzie repeats speeches and dialogues verbatim, as she, apparently, conceived they should have been recited. Thus the warning speech of Black Partridge, the order of Hull for the evacuation, and the speech of the Miami chieftain at the beginning of the fight are given with all the precision of stenographic reports. The Black Partridge incident is undoubtedly founded on fact, but Mrs. Kinzie's version of his speech is just as certainly the product of her own literary imagination.[942] That Hull sent an order for the evacuation was, of course, a matter of common knowledge; that Mrs. Kinzie possessed a copy of it or could pretend to report it literally is so improbable that even though the original order had never been recovered, we might reasonably regard her version of it as unreliable. Concerning the speech of the Miami chief, if delivered at all, it could not have been in the form which Mrs. Kinzie has recorded; nor could Mrs. Helm, from whom it purports to be reported, possibly have heard it uttered.
[942] Mrs. Kinzie's version of this speech, which has frequently been quoted, affords a typical illustration of her practice of embellishing the narrative with details wholly imaginary. The two source accounts of the incident both agree that Black Partridge sought out the interpreter in order to deliver his warning. According to Helm the two waited upon Heald, to whom "the Indian gave up his medal & told Heald to beware of the next day that the Indians would destroy him & his men." Thus Helm, writing within two years of the event, did not attempt to do more than give the substance of Black Partridge's speech. Nor could he possibly have done otherwise, if there is any truth in his further statement that the warning was concealed from the other officers by Heald and that Wells alone knew of it. Despite this handicap and the equally serious one that the warning was uttered by Black Partridge in his native tongue, Mrs. Kinzie was able, over thirty years later, to report it as follows: "Father, I come to deliver up to you the medal I wear. It was given me by the Americans, and I have long worn it in token of our mutual friendship. But our young men are resolved to imbrue their hands in the blood of the whites. I cannot restrain them and I will not wear a token of peace while I am compelled to act as an enemy."
But a graver fault than the foregoing vitiates the narrative. The account of the events attending the massacre is highly partisan, manifesting throughout a bitter antipathy to Captain Heald and a corresponding idealization of Kinzie. Probably the author is herself responsible for the latter feature; the responsibility for the former must be shared with her informants. Their representations concerning the massacre, and the role played by Captain Heald therein, would obviously be similar to those of Lieutenant Helm. The extent of his antipathy for, and misrepresentations of, his commander will be set forth presently. It is probable that the younger Mrs. Kinzie never saw his narrative of the massacre, although her own account repeats many of the statements contained in it. The fact of their occurrence in the earlier narrative, however, does not of itself establish their reliability. It merely shifts the responsibility for them to Helm and compels an inquiry as to the character of his narrative; and the result of such an inquiry is to dispel all confidence in its reliability and in the candor of its author.
Finally the historical value of Mrs. Kinzie's book is lessened by the author's fondness for romance and for dramatic effect, which too often overshadow her zeal for the simple truth. It was this characteristic of the book, apparently, which led Kirkland to conclude that the author intended it to be regarded as a romance rather than as sober history. Whatever the truth may be as to her intention, there can be no gainsaying Kirkland's verdict that the book reads like a romance. In capacity for adventure its characters rival the traditional medieval knight; while over it all the author has thrown a glamor of romance which was strikingly absent from the crass materialism of life on the northwestern frontier a century ago.
It had been arranged by Kinzie that Mrs. Kinzie and her children should be taken across the lake to St. Joseph in a boat in charge of the servants and some friendly Indians. Kinzie himself went with the troops. The boat was detained at the mouth of the river, however, and here Mrs. Kinzie spent the time during the battle and massacre. Mrs. Helm had ridden out with her husband, and thus was actually present in the battle. She soon became separated from her husband and apparently was with the rear division around the wagons during the fighting there. According to her own story as told in Wau Bun, at the height of the fighting she drew aside and with philosophic calmness began to compose herself to meet her end. While thus engaged the surgeon, Van Voorhis, came up, wounded and panic-stricken, "every muscle of his face quivering with the agony of terror." Oblivious of the helplessness and inexperience of the young woman, he frantically sought some assurance of safety from her. While the battle raged around she strove to discourage his hope and to arouse him to meet his fate with manly firmness. She even pointed out the soldierly behavior of Ronan, who, though mortally wounded and nearly down, was fighting with desperation on one knee. This appeal to the example set by Ronan was, however, in vain, eliciting from the surgeon only the astonishing rejoinder "with a convulsive shudder," that he had "no terrors of the future—he is an unbeliever."
The remarkable dialogue was interrupted at this point by a young Indian who attempted to tomahawk Mrs. Helm. She dodged the blow, and closing with the warrior struggled to secure his knife. From this predicament she was suddenly snatched by Black Partridge, who bore her to the lake and plunged her into the water. Instead of drowning her as she expected, he held her in a position which permitted her to breathe, and she soon discovered that he had taken this way of saving her from the tomahawk. When the firing died down he bore her to the shore and up the sand bank, whence she was conducted back to the Pottawatomie camp west of the fort on the south side of the river.
Such is Mrs. Helm's narrative of her experience in the massacre itself, as reported by Mrs. Kinzie. It is evident that only a portion of the tragedy came under her own personal observation, although in Wau Bun all the remainder of the narrative, many pages in length, is represented as being quoted directly from her. If any portion of the Wau Bun account of the massacre is worthy of credence it should be this which recites Mrs. Helm's personal experience. Unfortunately the credibility of even this portion is dubious. That the actor should emphasize her own part in the affair is, of course, only natural. That the dialogue with Van Voorhis occurred as represented is, under all the circumstances, simply incredible. Unfortunately we have no other record of how Van Voorhis met his fate, and so for nearly three-quarters of a century his memory has been blackened by this cruel tale, thoughtlessly taken up and repeated in the numerous accounts of the massacre based on that contained in Wau Bun. The little we know of Van Voorhis tends to the belief that he was a young man of more than usual spirit and breadth of vision. His friend and college classmate, Surgeon Cooper, testified to his personal worth and bravery, and to the end of his life protested that the Wau Bun version of his death was a cruel slander.[943] More significant is the testimony of the fragment of a single letter of Van Voorhis, of which a copy has been preserved. Writing from his lonely station in October, 1811, he thus foretold the future destiny of this region: "In my solitary walks I contemplate what a great and powerful republic will yet arise in this new world. Here, I say, will be the seat of millions yet unborn; here the asylum of oppressed millions yet to come. How composedly would I die could I be resuscitated at that bright era of American greatness—an era which I hope will announce the tidings of death to fell superstition and dread tyranny."[944] The man who at the age of twenty-two could pen these lines is the only one of the whites present on the day of massacre who is represented as having behaved like a poltroon and a coward.
[943] Wilson, Chicago from 1803 to 1812.
[944] Van Voorhis, Ancestry of Wm. Roe Van Voorhis, 144.
The story of the rescue of Mrs. Helm by Black Partridge has come to be regarded as a classic in the early history of Chicago. It has been made the dominant theme of the massacre monument, and has been accepted without question by practically all who have written upon the massacre. Yet it may well be doubted whether the event as described by Mrs. Kinzie in Wau Bun ever actually occurred. That Black Partridge saved Mrs. Helm is probably true, but that the affair possessed the romantic aspect which it has come to assume in the popular mind, or that Mrs. Helm distinguished herself by her heroism seems unlikely.
The evidence in support of this conclusion is largely negative. Lieutenant Helm's labored narrative, written in 1814, contains no mention of the Black Partridge rescue, or of any heroism displayed by his wife. Concerning her deportment in the massacre he simply records that, having believed her slain, he was astonished on coming to the Indian camp to see her "sitting among the squaws crying." In 1820 the careful and scholarly Schoolcraft passed through Chicago. He gives us an account of the massacre which he derived chiefly from John Kinzie, whose guest he was for several days.[945] He describes, among other things, the duel to the death between Sergeant Hayes and an Indian. The story is curious and interesting enough to justify him in recording and commenting upon it. But it is not more curious and thrilling than that of the Black Partridge rescue of Mrs. Helm, Kinzie's stepdaughter. Why did Kinzie relate the one and omit to relate the other to Schoolcraft? Or if Schoolcraft, who is always careful to make note of anything curious or unusual, was told of the rescue story, why did he fail to record it? Was there in fact no such rescue, or is the omission due to its commonplaceness?
[945] Schoolcraft, Narrative Journal of Travels from Detroit ... to the Sources of the Mississippi River in the Year 1820, 390-93.
We may now consider the narrative of Lieutenant Helm, sent to Augustus B. Woodward, of Detroit, in November, 1815.[946] Unfortunately it adds but little to our knowledge of the massacre—why will be apparent upon analysis. It is a partisan document for which the writer expects court martial. Its purpose is evidently to discredit Captain Heald. Helm's letter to Woodward shows that he had spent some time in preparing it. Yet the manuscript contains many erasures and alterations. It is strangely inaccurate with respect to dates, and as strangely precise in certain details not likely to be noticed or remembered on a battle field. It makes Hull's order arrive one day too early, the eighth of August. It also makes Winnemac advise Heald, through Kinzie's agency, to evacuate at once, the next day if possible, and urge him to change the usual route to Fort Wayne. Wells is represented as arriving on the twelfth with the report that the Indians about Fort Wayne are hostile and will probably interrupt the troops on the march.
[946] For the narrative, together with Helm's letter to Woodward, June 6, 1814, announcing it, see [Appendix VI].
On the day of his arrival Wells held a council with the Indians to the amount of "500 warriors 179 women and children," as a result of which he gave the opinion that they also were hostile and would attack the garrison on the march. On this date, August 12, Helm asserts that the fort had two hundred stand of arms, six thousand pounds of powder, four pieces of artillery, an adequate supply of shot and lead, and three months' supply of Indian corn, besides two hundred head of homed cattle and twenty-seven barrels of salt. In addition, three months' provisions had been expended between August seventh and twelfth, how or why the writer does not say. After the survey had been made, Kinzie (here Kinzie is erased in the manuscript and Wells substituted)—Wells demanded of Heald if he intended to evacuate, and received an affirmative reply. Helm and Kinzie now urged Wells to ask Heald to destroy the ammunition and liquor. Wells declined, but offered to accompany Kinzie and Helm. To their representations Heald replied that he had received positive orders to deliver to the Indians "all the Public Property of whatsoever nature," that it was bad policy to tell a lie to an Indian, and that such a crime might irritate the natives and result in the destruction of his men. Kinzie thereupon offered to assume the responsibility by fabricating an order from Hull; to this scheme Heald assented; Kinzie wrote an order "as if from genl. Hull" and gave it to Heald, and the arms and ammunition were destroyed.
The account of the battle and massacre then follows. It contains some information of value, but unfortunately it is mingled with much that is evidently untrue. The attack began at ten o'clock in the morning, at a distance of a mile and a half from the fort. In a few minutes all but ten of the men were killed or wounded. Helm called upon his men to follow him to the prairie, then moved forward under heavy fire one hundred and five paces, when he wheeled to the left to "avoid being shot in the back." This careful enumeration, while under heavy fire, of the exact number of paces taken by the troops can hardly convince the student of the writer's sincerity. Waiving this point, however, it is apparent that the Indians on Helm's flank were gaining his rear and he wheeled to the south to intercept them. The Indians now stopped firing "and nevour more renewed it." Helm at once ordered the men to reload their guns. He now discovered Captain Heald, "for the first time to my knowledge during the battle. He was coming from towards the Indians and to my great surprise they nevour offered to fire on him." The inference which the writer wishes to convey is plain, but it is also evident that Heald had been engaged in battle farther south, and that he had already taken steps to stop further slaughter by bargaining for surrender. A futile attempt on the part of the soldiers to charge was followed by more parleying on Heald's part. Passing over the details, Helm represents that while Heald was agreeing with Black Bird upon the terms of surrender he himself with the men who were left fell back to an elevation near at hand. For a reason hinted at but not explained the men now regarded Helm as their commander. Heald repeatedly inquires of his subordinate what he intends to do. The men on the other hand beg him not to surrender. He urges them not to be uneasy for he has already done his best for them and will not surrender unless they are willing.
Even the hostile savages now became aware of the quiet usurpation of the command by Helm during the heat of the battle. The half-breed interpreter who had conducted the negotiations between Captain Heald and Black Bird came running to warn Helm not to surrender until a general council of the Indians had agreed to the terms. Helm replied that he "had no Ideah of surrender." The interpreter now collected the Indians and after haranguing them returned with the promise that they would spare the lives of Helm and his men if they would surrender. He also informed them that the lives of Kinzie and some of the women and children had already been spared. This last news enlivened Helm and his men, for they "well knew Mr. Kinzie stood higher than anny man in that country" among the Indians, and that "he might be the means of saving us from utter destruction, which afterwards proved to be the case."
There follows a description of the scene of the massacre at the wagons which filled Helm with horror. There are a number of other details that need not be noticed here. The document is of great interest and of considerable value, but its partisan character is evident throughout. In his desire to cast discredit upon Captain Heald, Helm played fast and loose with the facts of the situation. The length to which he was billing to go in the effort to impugn Heald's judgment is perhaps sufficiently indicated by the story of the forged order for the destruction of the arms and ammunition. Even in the absence of positive evidence, the inherent improbability of the tale is such as to arouse grave suspicion of its validity. The discovery of Hull's order for the evacuation changes this suspicion to certainty. Since Heald was expressly enjoined to destroy the surplus arms and ammunition the whole tale concerning the forged order is obviously a sheer invention. Further misstatements occur in connection with the account of the supplies on hand at the time of the evacuation. Instead of two hundred stand of arms, the last Fort Dearborn inspection return shows that there were approximately one-third this number;[947] and the number of surplus muskets destroyed did not exceed half a dozen. Instead of twenty-seven barrels of salt there were, according to a letter of Heald, written six weeks after the massacre, but seventeen barrels.[948] That there were seventy muskets instead of two hundred, and seventeen barrels of salt in place of twenty-seven, is of no particular consequence, for in each case the supply was more than sufficient. But the inaccuracy of Helm's statements is of some significance, as affording evidence of the untrustworthiness of his narrative, even in matters concerning which no adequate motive for misrepresentation is apparent. The connection between Helm's narrative of the massacre and that of Mrs. Kinzie in the pages of Wau Bun has already been pointed out. The two proceed from a common source, and have a common bias against Captain Heald. Helm was the original traducer of Heald. Almost a hundred years elapsed before his narrative appeared in print, and Mrs. Kinzie was probably unaware of its existence. Notwithstanding this its spirit is faithfully reflected in the latter's account, and through its agency passed into the literature of the Fort Dearborn massacre. Thus the partisan statements of a bitter enemy, who did not hesitate to pervert the truth in order to discredit his commander, taken up and reproduced by others, have been potent to blast the reputation of Heald to the present time, a century after the massacre.[949]
[947] Heald Papers, Draper Collection, U, Vol. VIII.
[948] Heald to Augustus Porter, contractor for the western posts, September 26, 1812. MS owned by the author.
[949] The issues raised by Helm's account of the massacre render it a matter of regret that but little authentic information is extant concerning him. Judge Woodward, in his letter to Proctor concerning the Chicago captives, speaks highly of Helm (Appendix VII): there is evidence, however, which tends to invalidate Woodward's estimate of Helm's character. The following sheds some light upon the characters respectively of Heald and his detractor. Heald was twice wounded in the battle of August 15, receiving a bullet in the hip and another through the arm. The former wound never ceased to trouble him (Physician's certificates, Heald Papers, in Draper Collection), and he carried the bullet which caused it to his grave. Helm received a slight flesh wound in the heel, from which he recovered so quickly that within six weeks Forsyth reported him "in good health and spirits" (letter of Thomas Forsyth to John Kinzie, September 24, 1812, printed in Magazine of History, XV, 89; see also, infra, letter of Heald to B. Roberts, December 1, 1825). Heald refrained from applying for a pension, and when one was procured for him by two of his friends without his knowledge, the latter, in breaking the news to him, thought it worth while to urge him not to decline it, and to suggest that he bestow it upon his children in case he felt any delicacy about accepting it himself (supra, note 620). It is apparent from the letter of Heald to B. Roberts, December 1, 1825 (printed below), that when Helm came to apply for a pension he not only made what he might of his wound, but also preferred a claim against the government for money advanced by him from his own funds to purchase articles for the troops at Chicago. This claim Heald denominated "entirely false & without the least foundation imaginable"; and further that any vouchers which Helm might submit in support of his claim were fraudulent. Heald's emphatic condemnation of Helm's assertions and claim find support in what we know of Helm's financial situation at the time. See on this supra, p. 365. In view of this it seems unlikely, without regard to Heald's testimony, that he was in a position to advance money to buy articles for the soldiers.
[Letter of Heald to B. Roberts]
St. Charles Missouri
1 December 1825.
Dear Sir, I have reed, your Letter from Russellsville on the subject of Capt Helms claims on the Government. As to his wound reed, at Chicago I know nothing that can be of service to him in order that he may procure a pension, all that I can say of my own knowledge is that I discovered he walked a little lame, soon after the action was over, but I had no opportunity to find out the cause of it, before we were seperated. I was told about 10 days after the action by Mr. Kinzie, the stepfather of Mrs. Helm, that Capt. Helm's wound was very trifling & could not injure him. I have since seen Mr. Thos. Forsyth with whom Capt. Helm resided for several mo[n]ths immediately after the action and he told me that Capt. Helms wound was of no consequence, & that it appeared to be nothing more than a small flesh wound in one of his heals & did not disable him in the least.
The statement he made to you respecting the articles he says he purchased for the troops & advanced the money out of his own funds to pay for them is entirely false & without the least foundation imaginable. And If he has any vouchers to support the claim, depend upon it Sir, they are fraudulent.
Should you wish for my deposition stating my own knowledge of Capt. Helms
Should you wish for my deposition to support Capt. Helms claim for a Pension, I am perfectly willing to give it, but I can say nothing more than I have said in this letter of my own knowledge.
The Honbl. B. Roberts
Member of Congress.
The original manuscript from which the foregoing is taken is the copy of the letter retained by Heald, and is owned by his granddaughter, Mrs. Wright Johnson, of Rutherford, N.J.
After the sources of information derived from the two surviving officers and their wives follow a number of reports of distinctly lesser importance which found their way into the newspapers of the time. Several of these were preserved from oblivion by being reprinted during the few weeks following the massacre in that general repository of information, Niles' Register. The number of such reports which require consideration here is small. The news of the fall of Fort Dearborn was borne to the nearest American settlements more rapidly than might, in view of all the circumstances, have been expected. As early as August 28 a report of it was published in the Western Courier, of Louisville.[950] It consisted of an extract from a letter received at Louisville from an officer of the army who apparently was at or in the vicinity of Fort Wayne. It stated correctly enough the leading facts that the fort had been evacuated, the garrison attacked after marching "about one mile," and that Heald had surrendered on receiving assurances of mercy for the garrison. It erred, however, in reporting Heald and his wife among the slain, as well as all but three of Wells's Miamis. From these three survivors, it was stated, the information had been gained.
[950] A copy of this paper is owned by the Chicago Historical Society.
In similar fashion the news of the massacre was carried to Detroit, now in the hands of the British, about the first of September. The first printed account from this source is found in Niles' Register for October 3, copied from an earlier number of the Buffalo Gazette. Considering the source of the information, the brief narrative corresponds more closely to the facts as we know them than might be expected. A Pottawatomie chief had brought the news to Detroit, from which place it had been carried eastward by the British warship, the "Queen Charlotte"; a flag of truce sent ashore at Fort Erie conveyed the news to the Americans there, from which place, presumably, it was carried to Buffalo. The account places the number of survivors at ten or twelve, and, like the Louisville report, includes Captain Heald among the slain.[951]
[951] For other early newspaper reports of the massacre see Hurlbut, Chicago Antiquities, 175-77.
More important than either of the foregoing is the report which appeared in the Missouri Gazette of September 19, 1812. It represents[952] Captain Wells as bringing the order from Hull for the distribution of the stores among the Indians and the evacuation of the fort. Heald prepared to comply with the order, but thought prudent to destroy all the powder and whisky before distributing the goods. The Indians suspected this, overheard the staving-in of the powder kegs, and charged Wells with the fact. He denied it, however, and the goods were distributed to about eight hundred Indians. Signs of discontent were already manifest among the Indians when on the fourteenth an Indian runner arrived with a large red belt. He had been sent by Main Poc, the inveterate enemy of the Americans, who lived on the Kankakee but who was now fighting with Tecumseh's forces near Maiden. The message the runner bore acquainted the Indians around Fort Dearborn with the British successes and Hull's predicament on the Detroit frontier; it added that a vessel would be dispatched in a few days for Chicago with goods and ammunition for the Indians, and urged them to strike the Americans immediately.
[952] I have not had access to the paper itself, but have made use of the copy of the article made by Lyman C. Draper, in the Draper Collection, S, XXVI, 76.
This message, added to the discontent over the destruction of the powder and whisky, precipitated the attack. The next day, about ten o'clock, the troops, fifty-four in number, with ten citizens, nine women, and eighteen children, evacuated the fort. After they had gone about a mile they were attacked by about four hundred Indians, and a general slaughter ensued. Thirty soldiers, including the doctor and the ensign, all of the citizens, two women, and twelve children were torn to pieces. The heart of Wells was torn out and divided among the different bands. In the midst of the carnage Mrs. Heald had sunk on the ground and an Indian had a war club raised to drive into her head, when she was rescued by a young Frenchman who purchased her with a mule. Heald's captors gave him his liberty, contrary to the wishes of the other savages. The commander and his wife were given protection in the house of a trader, where their wounds were dressed, and at the time of the report they were in process of recovery.
This early report is worthy of notice for several reasons. It is notably accurate in some respects, and as notably incorrect in others. The figures given for the participants in the massacre and for the slain are surprisingly accurate for so early an unofficial report. On the other hand, while the order for the evacuation is given with a fair degree of accuracy, the account of its transmission to Fort Dearborn and the date of its arrival is entirely wrong. It is to be noted that thus early to the destruction of the ammunition and liquor is ascribed a large degree of responsibility for the massacre, and that a version of the ransoming of Mrs. Heald with a mule appears. It is evident that this report must have come from someone familiar with the facts concerning the massacre. Although it is not susceptible of proof, the opinion may be hazarded that this person was Thomas Forsyth, of Peoria, Kinzie's half-brother. He came to Chicago the day after the massacre, and started to return to Peoria a few days later.[953] He was active and enterprising, and not long afterwards was acting as an agent of the government among the Illinois River Indians. He was well known at St. Louis, and it seems not unlikely that he would have forwarded thither at the earliest opportunity an account of what had occurred at Chicago.
[953] Letter of Forsyth to Heald, January 2, 1813, supra, note 632.
Another report of the massacre, published in Niles' Register May 8, 1813, requires more extended consideration. It purports to be an extract from a letter of Walter Jordan, "a non-commissioned officer of the Regulars at Fort Wayne," to his wife, October 19, 1812. The writer claims to have been a member of Wells's relief expedition, and thus to have been a participant in the Fort Dearborn massacre. According to the letter Wells left Fort Wayne August 1, accompanied by Jordan and one hundred "Confute" Indians to escort Heald on his retreat from Chicago to Fort Wayne, "a distance of 150 miles." Wells reached Chicago August 10, and on the fifteenth all was in readiness for an immediate march, all the property that could not be removed having been burned. The force which evacuated the fort consisted of "Capt. Wells, myself and 100 Confute Indians, Capt. Heald's 100 men, 10 women, and 20 children—in all 232." After a ten-minute conflict, in the course of which the "Confute" allies deserted to the enemy, all but fifteen of the whites were killed. But "thanks be to God," Jordan was numbered among the survivors. If his escape was as miraculous as the narrative represents it to have been, his thankfulness was not inappropriate. First the feather was shot off his cap, then the epaulet from his shoulder, and finally the handle from his sword. Unwilling, apparently, to tempt Providence further, Jordan now surrendered to "four savage rascals." His good fortune did not desert him, however; the Confute chief, taking him by the hand, assured him his life would be spared, but invited him to "come and see what we will do with your Captain." Leading the way to Wells they cut off his head and put it on a pole, took out his heart, and, having divided it among the chiefs, "ate it up raw." After this the fifteen survivors were parceled out among the victors. The band to whom Jordan fell promised, if he would stay with them, to make a chief of him; if he tried to escape they would burn him alive. Despite this alternative, having gained their confidence with a "fine story," Jordan made his escape and reached Fort Wayne on August 26, two days before it was blockaded by the Indians.
If Jordan was in fact a member of Wells's party and this is an authentic account of the massacre by an eye-witness, it must be regarded as one of our most valuable sources of information. Its early date, the detailed description of events, and the precise enumeration of the forces engaged, combine with its first-hand character to give it this rank. If, on the other hand, the narrative is not to be accorded this high estimate, it must be dismissed as a mendacious and worthless fabrication. The circumstances of the case render the assumption of any middle ground between these positions impossible.
Turning to Jordan's letter, even a casual inspection compels the adoption of the latter position. Waiving the question whether such a person as Walter Jordan ever in fact existed, the complete silence of all other sources as to his presence in Wells's party and at the Chicago massacre is enough to rouse grave suspicion concerning the truth of his story. His misstatements concerning the expedition of Wells and the massacre itself change this suspicion into certainty. Neither lapse of time nor second-hand information can be urged in extenuation of his false statements about the number of Wells's followers and of Heald's party. Aside from this consideration, the misstatements as to the time of Wells's trip, the tribe to which his followers belonged, and the distance from Fort Wayne to Chicago can hardly be explained on any other hypothesis than that of deliberate fabrication. Surely "a non-commissioned officer of the Regulars at Fort Wayne" would not substitute for the Miamis a purely imaginary tribe of Indians, having no existence outside the pages of his letter. A more Falstaffian tale than that of Jordan's miraculous escape from death, or a more improbable one than that detailing the circumstances attending the death of Wells would be difficult to imagine. Further refutation of the narrative is unnecessary, nor would it deserve the space that has already been devoted to it but for the fact that some have been misled into a belief in its reliability.
The correspondence of Judge Woodward of Detroit with General Proctor relative to the survivors of the massacre constitutes a source of information of the highest quality.[954]' With the massacre itself, however, it deals only incidentally, being limited to a consideration of the survivors and the means of rescuing them from captivity. Woodward was perhaps the most prominent citizen of Detroit and Michigan Territory, noted for his eccentricity and his ability. On the arrival of Captain Heald and his wife and Sergeant Griffith at Detroit early in October, Woodward set himself the task of gaining all the information they could give him concerning the losses in the battle and the survivors of the massacre, and this information he incorporated a few days later in a vigorous letter to Proctor, the British commander at Detroit, appealing to him to take all the measures in his power to recover the unfortunate captives. It is probable that Heald and Griffith could not speak with entire accuracy concerning the losses sustained and the number of these survivors, but they were of course able to give Woodward valuable information on the subject; and his letter to Proctor constitutes one of our most valuable sources of information concerning it.
[954] For Woodward's letter to Proctor, October 7, 1812, see [Appendix VII].
An account of the massacre drawn in large part from the same source as Woodward's information, but written a few years later, is contained in McAfee's History of the Late War, published in 1816. McAfee was a Kentuckian and himself a soldier in the war, having served as an officer in the regiment of Colonel Richard M. Johnson. Because of this, and because his information was largely gathered from participants in the events described, his history possesses much of the flavor of a first-hand narrative. McAfee gives a short account of the destruction of Fort Dearborn, based on information received from Sergeant Griffith, who was also a member of Johnson's regiment. The narrative, being thus second-hand, is open to criticism in certain respects, but the chief occasion for regret is that McAfee's purpose was satisfied with so brief an account; for the source of his information, the early date of the history, and the character of McAfee as a historian all tend to the belief that had it suited his purpose to enter more fully into the account of Fort Dearborn, a narrative of great value would have been produced.
We come, after these contemporary accounts, to the recollections and reminiscences told in old age by participants, or relatives or friends of participants, in the massacre. Some of these have proved to be of considerable value for the reconstruction of our story, but in most sources of this character the traces of time and of failing memory are plainly to be seen. Moreover, some of them are affected by the narrator's personal friendships or antipathies, and given in support or contradiction of some partisan account. Few of them are or pretend to be more than fragmentary accounts of the battle. Among such sources may be mentioned the testimony of Black Hawk,[955] of Shabbona,[956] of Joseph Bourassa,[957] and of Paul De Garmo.[958]
[955] Black Hawk, Life, 42.
[956] Wisconsin Historical Collections, VII, 416-18.
[957] Draper Collection, S, XXIII, 165 ff.
[958] De Garmo's story is contained in a letter of Charles A. Lamb, August 24, 1803, MS in the Chicago Historical Society library.
Logically belonging in the same class as the foregoing, but requiring in each case more extended consideration, are the narratives of Alexander Robinson, of Moses Morgan, and of Susan Simmons Winans. Robinson was one of the chiefs in the massacre who was friendly to the whites and did what he might to save them. He it was who piloted the Healds and Sergeant Griffith in their three-hundred-mile canoe voyage from the St. Joseph River to Mackinac. He was one of the last survivors of the massacre, living in the immediate vicinity of Chicago until 1872, and well known to the generation of Chicagoans before the great fire. For some reason the first generation of writers upon early Chicago history did not take the trouble to secure from Robinson his version of the massacre. A manuscript which purports to contain his story of the affair is, however, in the possession of the Chicago Historical Society. The information contained in it purports to have been secured by Carl A. Dilg in a series of interviews with the daughter of Robinson some time after the chief's death. Dilg considered it of great importance, but a careful study of it compels the conclusion that it possesses practically no historical value. It was not put in writing until three-quarters of a century had elapsed; more important, Robinson himself was illiterate, and the story, third-hand at best, was elicited from his daughter in a series of interviews extending over several years, by a man whose prejudices were so violent and methods of work so unscientific as to render confidence in its reliability impossible.
The account of Susan Simmons Winans, of great value from one point of view, must, for the actual affair of the massacre, be classed with the story of Robinson. Mrs. Winans, the infant daughter of John Simmons, was saved by her mother from the slaughter at the wagons. Both mother and child appeared as if from the dead in April, 1813, after a series of adventures which recall the age of miracles and providential protection. Mrs. Simmons lived until 1857, and her daughter, Mrs. Winans, until 1900, being the last known survivor of the massacre. Both mother and daughter frequently narrated to their relatives the story of their captivity, the daughter's knowledge having been derived, of course, from her mother. A relative. Doctor N. Simmons, the son of a brother of John Simmons, moved by family pride in the narrative and possessed of some slight literary ability, published in 1896 a small volume which contained, in addition to the story of his kinsfolk, a sketch of the massacre and of the Pottawatomie tribe of Indians.[959] The account of the massacre is a reprint of Edward G. Mason's narrative in his Chapters from Illinois History, and the volume is of value solely for the account it gives of the captivity and later life of Mrs. Simmons and her daughter.
[959] Simmons, N., Heroes and Heroines of the Fort Dearborn Massacre.
Finally, we may consider the massacre narrative of Moses Morgan as preserved by William R. Head. Among the workmen who helped to build the second Fort Dearborn in 1816 was Moses Morgan, foreman of a gang of carpenters. He had served as a volunteer in Hull's army in 1812, and after his exchange from the captivity consequent upon the surrender of Detroit, had re-entered the service as a carpenter. He soon became a foreman, and in this capacity assisted in the building of Commodore Perry's fleet on Lake Erie. In 1816 he was ordered to accompany the troops sent to rebuild the fort at Chicago. In later life he became the neighbor at Carlinville, Ill., of William R. Head, who for many years before his death in 1910 was a resident of Chicago. Head early became interested in local history, and for a period of forty years was a tireless collector of data pertaining to early Chicago and Illinois. Among other things, he recorded the story told him by Moses Morgan. It contains many details not found elsewhere, and if it were of such a character that these could be relied upon, it would constitute an exceedingly valuable source of information.
Unfortunately, however, it exhibits many defects. The account was written out by Head late in life from notes taken and from recollections of his various conversations with Morgan many years before. Head, like Dilg, was lacking in historical training, while he held a number of theories concerning the massacre and possessed a violent antipathy for everything connected with the Kinzie family. In his old age he undertook a revision of his manuscript, which further militated against its reliability; finally, to complete the tale of defects, after his death the mass of notes and other material which he had accumulated, and by which the correctness of his statements might to some extent have been tested, was burned as rubbish by his family. Because of the unreliable character of the narrative but little dependence can be placed upon it, particularly in those portions which involve Head's theories or his prejudices. Yet it seems possible to trust some of its statements and accordingly some use has been made of it in the present work. There is no reason to question the character and integrity of either Morgan or Head, or to suppose that either consciously misrepresented the facts. The more reliable portion of the narrative has been utilized in the chapter on the fate of the survivors of the massacre. The part which deals with the tragedy itself is given here because of its human interest, in spite of a lack of confidence in its historical worth.
When the garrison came, in the summer of 1816, to rebuild the fort, many evidences of the massacre were still to be seen. Many attempts were made by the officers to get an exact account of the destruction of the first fort from the Indians and the half-breeds who knew the facts. No dependence, however, could be placed upon their statements. Previous to the coming of the troops some of these residents had boasted of the part they had taken in the slaughter. For obvious reasons their denials were now as strenuous as their former boasting had been loud. It was found that tales of the fight were being manufactured by the interpreters, and some of them were dismissed, but without any favorable results in the form of desired information.
One account was obtained by a soldier's wife from Okra, Ouilmette's wife, and a half-breed French woman. These women had, they said, watched the departure of the troops from the fort. From a favorable vantage point on the north side of the river where Ouilmette's hut stood they had watched the troops march out, the Captain and his wife being the last to leave. There were two army wagons, one containing the women and children and the personal baggage, drawn by Lee's horses; to the other, laden with ammunition and provisions, three pairs of steers were yoked. Soon the women heard the sound of firing and smelled the powder smoke, but from their position on the north side of the river they were unable to see the fight.
Another and fuller story was obtained from a wounded soldier of Heald's command who was found, under circumstances already described,[960] living a few miles up the North Branch. In presenting the details, it should be noted that they bear throughout the imprint of Head's theories and prejudices. There were not provisions enough for a long siege. The garrison should not have left so soon. Kinzie was not faithful in his interpretations. Lieutenant Helm was so drunk on the morning of August 15 that he was not able to retain his place in line. There were two wagons, one of which was guarded by the militia and the soldiers who had children. The troops marched out close to the water's edge, and when the wagons had gone a short distance beyond the mouth of the river two half-grown Pottawatomie boys began shooting at the animals hitched to the wagons, wounding one of the horses and causing it to lie down. The steers attached to the army wagon turned quickly around, breaking the wagon-pole, and half overturning the wagon. For a time the men about the wagons stood patiently in line surrounded by a group of friendly Indians. Then the strange Indians, not finding the ammunition and provisions in the fort, came rushing down upon the wagons. As they came on the men gave three volleys, killing many of them. The surrender was made by the Captain to Black Bird, and the valuables and money were given under a promise of protection for the men. The Captain and a sergeant were turned over to Robinson to be saved for their money. The general opinion when Morgan left Chicago was that the delay caused by the Indian boys' attack upon the teams was the chief reason why the party did not escape; that the attack upon the wagons took place beyond the mouth of the river; and that the ensign made a mistake in commanding his men to fire so quickly.
[960] Supra, pp. 260-61.