Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. 5 (of 8) / The English and French in North America 1689-1763

by Unknown

CHAPTER VIII.

THE STRUGGLE FOR THE GREAT VALLEYS OF NORTH AMERICA.

BY JUSTIN WINSOR,

The Editor.

THE death of Frontenac[1097] and the peace of Ryswick (September, 1697) found France in possession of the two great valleys of North America,—that of the St. Lawrence, with the lakes, and that of the Mississippi, with its affluents.[1098] In 1697 the Iroquois were steadfast in their adherence to Corlear, as they termed the English governor, while they refused to receive French missionaries. In negotiations which Bellomont was conducting (1698) with the Canadian governor, he tried ineffectually to induce a recognition of the Five Nations as subjects of the English king.[1099] Meanwhile, the French were omitting no opportunity to force conferences with these Indians, and Longueil was trying to brighten the chain of amity with them as far west as Detroit, where in July, 1701, La Motte Cadillac began a French post. Within a month the French ratified at Montreal (August 4, 1701) a treaty with the Iroquois just in time to secure their neutrality in the war which England declared against France and Spain the next year (1702). So when the outbreak came it was the New England frontiers which suffered (1703-4),[1100] for the Canadians were careful not to stir the blood of the Iroquois. The French jealously regarded the English glances at Niagara, and proposed (1706) to anticipate their rivals by occupying it. When, in 1709, it was determined to retaliate for the ravages of the New England borders, the Iroquois, at a conference in Albany[1101] (1709), were found ready to aid in the expedition which Francis Nicholson tried to organize, but which proved abortive. Already Spotswood, of Virginia, was urging the home government to push settlers across the Alleghanies into the valley of the Ohio.[1102] But attention was rather drawn to the petty successes in Acadia,[1103] and the spirit of conquest seethed again, when Sir Hovenden Walker appeared at Boston,[1104] and a naval expedition in the summer of 1711 was well under way to capture the great valley of the St. Lawrence. Stupidity and the elements sent the fleet of the English admiral reeling back to Boston, leaving Quebec and Canada once more safe. The next year (1712) the distant Foxes tried to wrest Detroit from the French; but its garrison was too enduring. France had maintained herself all along her Canadian lines, and she was in fair hopes of gaining the active sympathy of the Iroquois, when the treaty of Utrecht (1713) brought the war to a close.

FRENCH SOLDIER (1700).

After a water-color sketch in the Mass. Archives: Documents collected in France, v. p. 271. The coat is red, faced with brown.

The language of this treaty declared that the “Five Nations[1105] were subject to the dominion of England.” The interpretation of this clause was the occasion of diplomatic fence at once. The French claimed a distinction between the subjectivity of the Indians and domination over their lands. The English insisted that the allegiance of the Five Nations carried not only their own hereditary territory, but also the regions of Iroquois conquests, namely, all west of the Ottawa River and the Alleghany Mountains to the Mississippi River.[1106] The peace of Utrecht was but the prelude to a struggle for occupying the Ohio Valley, on the part of both French and English. Spotswood had opened a road over the Blue Ridge from Virginia in 1716, and he continued to urge the Board of Trade to establish a post on Lake Erie. Governor Keith, of Pennsylvania, reported to the board (1718) upon the advances of the French across the Ohio Valley, and the English moved effectually when, in 1721, they began to plant colonists on the Oswego River. By 1726 they had completed their fort on the lake, and Montreal found its Indian trade with the west intercepted. Meanwhile, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia strengthened their alliance with the Iroquois by a conference at Albany in September, 1722, and in 1726 the Indians confirmed the cession of their lands west and north of Lake Erie.

When Vaudreuil, in 1725, not long before his death (April 10) suggested to the ministry in Paris that Niagara should be fortified, since, with the Iroquois backing the English, he did not find himself in a position openly to attack them, the minister replied that the governor could at least craze the Indians by dosing them with brandy. Shortly afterwards the commission of his successor, Beauharnois, impressed on that governor the necessity of always having in view the forcible expulsion of the Oswego garrison. In 1727 the French governor tried the effect of a summons of the English post, with an expressed intention “to proceed against it, as may seem good to him,” in case of refusal; but it was mere gasconade, and the minister at home cautioned the governor to let things remain as they were.

BRITISH INFANTRY SOLDIER (1725).

Fac-simile of a cut in Grant’s British Battles, i. p. 564.

Note To Annexed Map.—In the N. Y. Col. Docs., ix. 1021, is a fac-simile of a map in the Archives of the Marine and Colonies, called Carte du lac Champlain avec les rivières depuis le fort de Chambly jusques à Orangeville [Albany] de la Nouvelle Angleterre, dressé sur divers mémoires. It is held to have been made about 1731. There is in the Doc. Hist. N. Y., vol. i. p. 557, a Carte du lac Champlain depuis le fort Chambly jusqu’au fort St. Frederic, levée par le Sr. Anger, arpenteur du Roy en 1732, fait à Quebec le 10 Oct., 1748,—Signé de Lery.

Nicolas Bellin made his Carte de la rivière de Richelieu et du lac Champlain in 1744, and it appeared in Charlevoix’s Nouvelle France, i. 144, reproduced in Shea’s ed., ii. 15. There is also a map of Lake Champlain in Bellin’s Petit Atlas Maritime, 1764.

There were surveys made of Lake Champlain, in 1762, by William Brassier, and of Lake George by Captain Jackson, in 1756. These were published by order of Amherst in 1762, and reproduced in 1776. (Cf. American Atlas, 1776.) The original drawings are noted in the Catal. of the King’s Maps (Brit. Mus.), i. 223. The Brassier map is also given in Dr. Hough’s edition of Rogers’s Journals. The same British Museum Catalogue (i. 489) gives a drawn Map of New Hampshire (1756), which shows the route from Albany by lakes George and Champlain to Quebec. Cf. the Map of New Hampshire, by Col. Joseph Blanchard and Rev. Samuel Langdon, engraved by Jefferys, and dated 21 Oct., 1761, which shows the road to Ticonderoga in 1759.

FROM POPPLE’S BRITISH EMPIRE IN AMERICA, 1732.

A few years later a sort of flank movement was made on Oswego, as well as on New England, by the French pushing up Lake Champlain, and establishing themselves in the neighborhood of Crown Point (1731), where they shortly after built Fort St. Frederick. The movement alarmed New England more than it did New York.

The French persisted in seeking conferences with the Six Nations,—as they had been called since the Tuscaroras joined them about 1713,—and in 1734 succeeded in obtaining a meeting with the Onondagas. They ventured in 1737 to ask the Senecas to let them establish a post at Irondequot, farther west on Lake Ontario than Oswego. The Iroquois would not permit, however, either side to possess that harbor. For some years Oswego was the burden of the French despatches, and the English seemed to take every possible occasion for new conferences with the fickle Indians.

The most important of these treaties was made at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in 1744, when an indefinite extent of territory beyond the mountains was ceded to the English in the form of a confirmation of earlier implied grants. A fresh war followed. The New Englanders took Louisbourg,[1107] but New York seemed supine, and let French marauding parties from Crown Point fall upon and destroy the fort at Saratoga without being aroused.[1108] Oswego was in danger, but still the New York assembly preferred to quarrel with the governor; and tardily at best it undertook to restore the post at Saratoga, while the Albanians were suspected of trading clandestinely through the Caughnawagas with the French in Canada. Both sides continued in their efforts to propitiate the Iroquois, while a parade of arming was made for an intended advance on Crown Point and Montreal. Governor Shirley, from Boston, had urged it, since a demonstration which had been intended by way of the St. Lawrence had to be given up, because the promised fleet did not arrive from England. To keep the land levies in spirits, Shirley had written to Albany that he would send them to join in an expedition by the Lakes, and had even despatched a 13-inch mortar by water to New York.[1109] Before the time came, however, the rumors of D’Anville’s fleet frightened the New Englanders, and they thought they had need of their troops at home.[1110] It was some time before Governor Clinton knew of this at Albany, and preparations went on. Efforts to enlist the Iroquois in the enterprise halted, for the inaction of the past year had had its effect upon them, and it needed all the influence of William Johnson, who now first appears as Indian commissioner, to induce them to send a sufficient delegation to a conference at Albany.

VIEW OF QUEBEC, 1732.

From Popple’s British Empire in America. It is repeated in fac-simile in Cassell’s United States, p. 372; and in Gay’s Pop. Hist. U. S., iii. 307. Cf. The view from La Potherie in Vol. IV. p. 320; also reproduced in Shea’s Charlevoix, vol. v. Kalm described the town in 1749 (Travels, London, 1771, ii. p. 258). See views under date of 1760 and 1761, noted in the Cat. of the King’s Maps (Brit. Mus.), ii. 220. Cf. De Lery’s report on the fortifications of Quebec in 1716, in N. Y. Col. Docs., ix. 872.

The business still further dragged; the withdrawal of New England became in the end known, and by September 16 Clinton had determined to abandon the project, and the French governor had good occasion to twit old Hendrick, the Mohawk chief, when he ventured with more purpose than prudence to Montreal in November.[1111]

BRITISH FOOTGUARD, 1745.

This sketch of a footguard, with grenade and match, is taken from Grant’s British Battles, ii. 60. Cf. Mag. of Amer. Hist., i. 462; and the uniform of the forty-third regiment of foot (raised in America), represented from a drawing in the British Museum, in The Century, xxix. 891.

FRENCH SOLDIER, 1745.

After a water-color sketch in the Mass. Archives: Documents collected in France, viii. p. 129. The coat is red, faced with blue; the breeches are blue.

Early the next summer (June, 1747) the French had some experience of a foray upon their own borders, when a party of English and Indians raided upon the island of Montreal,—a little burst of activity conspicuous amid the paralysis that the quarrels of Clinton and De Lancey had engendered. Shirley had formed the plan of a winter attack upon Crown Point, intending to send forces up the Connecticut, and from Oswego towards Frontenac, by way of distracting the enemy’s councils; but the New York assembly refused to respond.

The next year (1748) the French, acting through Father Picquet, made renewed efforts to enlist Iroquois converts, while Galissonière was urging the home government to send over colonists to occupy the Ohio Valley. A number of Virginians, on the other hand, formed themselves into the Ohio Company, and began to send explorers into the disputed valley. In order to anticipate the English, the French governor had already despatched Céloron de Bienville to take formal possession by burying lead plates, with inscriptions, at the mouths of the streams.[1112]

For the present, there was truce. The treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, entered upon in May, and signed in October (1748), had given each side time to manœuvre for an advantage. Picquet established a new barrier against the English at La Presentation, where Ogdensburg now is;[1113] and in 1749 Fort Rouillé was built at the present Toronto.[1114]

The Virginians, meanwhile, began to push their traders farther and farther beyond the mountains. The Pennsylvanians also sent thither a shrewd barterer and wily agent in George Croghan, and the French emissaries whom he encountered found themselves outwitted.[1115] The Ohio Company kept out Christopher Gist on his explorations. Thus it was that the poor Ohio Indians were distracted. The ominous plates of Céloron meant to them the loss of their territory; and they appealed to the Iroquois, who in turn looked to the government of New York. That province, however, was apathetic, while Picquet and Jean Cœur, another Romish priest, who believed in rousing the Indian blood, urged the tribes to maraud across the disputed territory and to attack the Catawbas. William Johnson, on the one side, and Joncaire, on the other, were busy with their conferences, each trying to checkmate the other (1750); while the English legislative assemblies haggled about the money it cost and the expense of the forts. The Iroquois did not fail to observe this; nor did it escape them that the French were building vessels on Ontario and strengthening the Niagara fort (1751).

While Charles Townshend was urging the English home government (1752) to seize the Ohio region forcibly, the French were attacking the English traders and overcoming the allied Indians, on the Miamis. Virginia, by a treaty with the Indians at Logstown, June 13, 1752, got permission to erect a fort at the forks of the Ohio; but the undertaking was delayed.

In the spring of 1753 Duquesne, the governor of Canada, sent an expedition[1116] to possess by occupation the Ohio Valley, and the party approached it by a new route.[1117] They landed at Presquisle, built a log fort,[1118] carried their munitions across to the present French Creek, and built there another defence called Fort Le Bœuf.[1119] This put them during high water in easy communication by boat with the Alleghany River. French tact conciliated the Indians, and where that failed arrogance was sufficient, and the expedition would have pushed on to found new forts, but sickness weakened the men, and Marin, the commander now dying, saw it was all he could do to hold the two forts, while he sent the rest of his force back to Montreal to recuperate. Late in the autumn Legardeur de Saint-Pierre arrived at Le Bœuf, as the successor of Marin. He had not been long there, when on the 11th of December a messenger from Governor Dinwiddie, of Virginia, with a small escort, presented himself at the fort. The guide of the party was Christopher Gist; the messenger was George Washington, then adjutant-general of the Virginia militia.[1120] Their business was to inform the French commander that he was building forts on English territory, and that he would do well to depart peaceably. Washington had been made conscious of the aggressive character of the French occupation, as he passed through the Indian town of Venango, at the confluence of French Creek and the Alleghany River, for he there had seen the French flag floating over the house of an English trader, Fraser, which the French had seized for an outpost of Le Bœuf, and there he had found Joncaire in command.[1121] Washington had been received by Joncaire hospitably, and over his wine the Frenchman had disclosed the unmistakable purpose of his government. At Le Bœuf Washington tarried three days, during which Saint-Pierre framed his reply, which was in effect that he must hold his post, while Dinwiddie’s letter was sent to the French commander at Quebec. It was the middle of January, 1754, when Washington reached Williamsburg on his return, and made his report to Dinwiddie.

The result was that Dinwiddie drafted two hundred men from the Virginia militia, and despatched them under Washington to build a fort at the forks of the Ohio. The Virginia assembly, forgetting for the moment its quarrel with the governor, voted £10,000 to be expended, but only under the direction of a committee of its own. Dinwiddie found difficulty in getting the other colonies to assist, and the Quaker element in Pennsylvania prevented that colony from being the immediate helper, which it might from its position have become.

Meanwhile, some backwoodsmen had been pushed over the mountains and had set to work on a fort at the forks. A much larger French force under Contrecœur soon summoned them,[1122] and the English retired. The French immediately began the erection of Fort Duquesne.

While this was doing, Dinwiddie was toiling with tardy assemblies and their agents to organize a regiment to support the backwoodsmen. Joshua Fry was to be its colonel, with Washington as second in command. The latter, with a portion of the men, had already pushed forward to Will’s Creek, the present Cumberland. Later he advanced with 150 men to Great Meadows, where he learned that the French, who had been reinforced, had sent out a party from their new fort, marching towards him. Again he got word from an Indian—who, from his tributary character towards the Iroquois, was called Half-King, and who had been Washington’s companion on his trip to Le Bœuf—that this chieftain with some followers had tracked two men to a dark glen, where he believed the French party were lurking. Washington started with forty men to join Half-King, and under his guidance they approached the glen and found the French. Shots were exchanged. The French leader, Jumonville, was killed, and all but one of his followers were taken or slain.

The mission of Jumonville was to scour for English, by order of Contrecœur, now in command of Duquesne, and to bear a summons to any he could find, warning them to retire from French territory. The precipitancy of Washington’s attack gave the French the chance to impute to Washington the crime of assassination; but it seems to have been a pretence on the part of the French to cover a purpose which Jumonville had of summoning aid from Duquesne, while his concealment was intended to shield him till its arrival. Rash or otherwise, this onset of the youthful Washington began the war.

The English returned to Great Meadows, and while waiting for reinforcements from Fry, Washington threw up some entrenchments, which he called Fort Necessity. The men from Fry came without their leader, who had sickened and died, and Washington, succeeding to the command of the regiment, found himself at the head of three hundred men, increased soon by an independent company from South Carolina.

Washington again advanced toward Gist’s settlement, when, fearing an attack, he sent back for Mackay, whom he had left with a company of regulars at Fort Necessity. Rumors thickening of an advance of the French, the English leader again fell back to Great Meadows, resolved to fight there. It was now the first of July, 1754. Coulon de Villiers, a brother of Jumonville, was now advancing from Duquesne. The attack was made on a rainy day, and for much of the time a thick mist hung between the combatants. After dark a parley resulted in Washington’s accepting terms offered by the French, and the English marched out with the honors of war.[1123]

The young Virginian now led his weary followers back to Will’s Creek. It was a dismal march. The Indian allies of the French, who were only with difficulty prevented from massacring the wounded English, had been allowed to kill the cattle and horses of the little army; and Washington’s men had to struggle along under the burdens of their own disabled companions. Thus they turned their backs upon the great valley, in which not an English flag now waved.

Appearances were not grateful to Dinwiddie. His house of burgesses preferred to fight him on some domestic differences rather than to listen to his appeals to resist the French. He got little sympathy from the other colonies. The Quakers and Germans of Pennsylvania cared little for boundaries. New York and Maryland seemed slothful.[1124] Only Shirley, far away in Massachusetts, was alive, but he was busy at home.[1125] The Lords of Trade in London looked to William Johnson to appease and attach the Indians; but lest he could not accomplish everything, they directed a congress of the colonial representatives to be assembled at Albany, which talked, but to the liking neither of their constituents nor of the government in England.[1126]

Dinwiddie, despairing of any organized onset, appealed to the home government. The French king was diligently watching for the English ministry’s response. So when Major-General Braddock and his two regiments sailed from England for Virginia, and the Baron Dieskau and an army, with the Marquis of Vaudreuil[1127] to succeed Duquesne as governor, sailed for Quebec, the diplomates of the two crowns bowed across the Channel, and protested to each other it all meant nothing.

The English thought that with their superiority on the sea they could intercept the French armament, and Admiral Boscawen was sent to hover about the Gulf of St. Lawrence. He got only three ships of them,—the rest eluding him.

The two armies were to enter the great valleys, one of the St. Lawrence, the other of the Ohio, but not in direct opposition. Dieskau was hurled back at Lake George; Braddock on the Monongahela. We must follow their fortunes.

In February, 1755, Braddock landed at Hampton, Virginia, and presently he and Dinwiddie were living “in great harmony.” A son of Shirley of Massachusetts was serving Braddock as secretary, and he was telling a correspondent how “disqualified his general was for the service he was employed in, in almost every respect.” This was after the young man had seen his father, for Braddock had gone up to Alexandria[1128] in April, and had there summoned for a conference all the governors of the colonies, Shirley among the rest, the most active of them all, ambitious of military renown, and full of plans to drive the French from the continent. The council readily agreed to the main points of an aggressive campaign. Braddock was to reduce Fort Duquesne; Shirley was to capture Niagara. An army of provincials under William Johnson was to seize Crown Point. These three movements we are now to consider; a fourth, an attack by New Englanders upon the Acadian peninsula, and the only one which succeeded, is chronicled in another chapter.[1129]

Braddock’s first mistake was in moving by the Potomac, instead of across Pennsylvania, where a settled country would have helped him; but this error is said to have been due to the Quaker merchant John Hanbury. He cajoled the Duke of Newcastle into ordering this way, because Hanbury, as a proprietor in the Ohio Company, would profit by the trade which the Virginia route would bring to that corporation. Dinwiddie’s desire to develop the Virginia route to the Ohio had doubtless quite as much to do with the choice. While plagued with impeded supplies and the want of conveyance as he proceeded, Braddock chafed at the Pennsylvanian indifference which looked on, and helped him not. He wished New England was nearer. The way Pennsylvania finally aided the doomed general was through Benjamin Franklin, whom she had borrowed of New England. He urged the Pennsylvania farmers to supply wagons, and they did, and Braddock began his march. On the 10th of May he was at Will’s Creek,[1130] with 2,200 men, and as his aids he had about him Captains Robert Orme and Roger Morris, and Colonel George Washington. Braddock invested the camp with an atmosphere little seductive to Indian allies. There were fifty of them present at one time, but they dwindled to eight in the end.[1131] Braddock’s disregard had also driven off a notorious ranger, Captain Jack, who would have been serviceable if he had been wanted.

On the 10th of June the march was resumed,—a long, thin line, struggling with every kind of difficulty in the way, and making perhaps three or four miles a day. By Washington’s advice, Braddock took his lighter troops and pushed ahead, leaving Colonel Dunbar to follow more deliberately. On the 7th of July this advance body was at Turtle Creek, about eight miles from Fort Duquesne.

FRENCH SOLDIER, 1755.

After a water-color sketch in the Mass. Archives: Documents collected in France, vol. ix. p. 425. The coat is blue, faced with red.

Parkman (vol. i. 368), speaking of the troops which came with Dieskau and Montcalm, says that their uniform was white, faced with blue, red, yellow, or violet, and refers to the plates of the regimental uniforms accompanying Susane’s Ancienne Infanterie Française. Parkman (i. p. 370) also says that the troupes de la marine, the permanent military establishment of Canada, wore a white uniform faced with black. He gives (p. 370, note) various references.

FORT DUQUESNE AND VICINITY.

From Father Abraham’s Almanac, 1761. Key: 1, Monongahela River; 2, Fort Du Quesne, or Pittsburgh; 3, the small fort; 4, Alleghany River; 5, Alleghany Indian town; 6, Shanapins; 7, Yauyaugany River; 8, Ohio, or Alleghany, River; 9, Logs Town; 10, Beaver Creek; 11, Kuskaskies, the chief town of the Six Nations; 12, Shingoes Town; 13, Alleguippes; 14, Sennakaas; 15, Tuttle Creek; 16, Pine Creek. The arrows show the course of the river.

A “Plan of Fort le Quesne, built by the French at the fork of the Ohio and Monongahela in 1754,” was published by Jefferys, and is included in his General Topography of North America and the West Indies, London, 1768. I suppose this to be based upon the MS. plan noted in the Catal. of the King’s Maps (Brit. Mus.), ii. 184. Cf. the plan (1754) in the Memoirs of Robert Stobo, Pittsburgh, 1854, which is repeated in Sargent’s Braddock’s Exped., p. 182, who refers to a plan published in London in 1755, mentioned in the Gentleman’s Mag., xxv. P. 383. Stobo’s plan is also engraved in Penna. Archives, ii. 147, and the letters of Stobo and Croghan respecting it are in Penna. Col. Rec., vi. 141, 161. Parkman refers (i. 208) to a plan in the Public Record Office, London, and (p. 207) describes the fort as does Sargent (p. 182). See the plan in Bancroft, orig. ed., iv. 189, and Gay’s Pop. Hist. U. S., iii. 260.

Duquesne was finished in May, 1755. Cf. Duquesne’s Memoir on the Ohio and its dependencies, addressed to Vaudreuil, dated Quebec, July 6, 1755, and given in English in Penna. Archives, 2d ser., vi. 253. M’Kinney’s Description of Fort Duquesne (1756) is in Hazard’s Penna. Reg., viii. 318; and letters of Robert Stobo, who was a hostage there after the surrender of Fort Necessity, are in Col. Rec. of Penna., vi. 141, 161. Cf. notice of Stobo by L. C. Draper in Olden Time, i. 369. Parkman also refers to a letter of Captain Hazlet in Olden Time, i. 184.

Sargent says (p. 184) that in 1854 the magazine was unearthed, which at that time was all remaining visible of the old fort. (Hazard’s Penna. Register, v. 191; viii. 192.) There is a view of the magazine in John Frost’s Book of the Colonies, N. Y., 1846.

The enemy occupying the fort consisted of a few companies of French regulars, a force of Canadians, and about 800 Indians,—all under Contrecœur, with Beaujeu, Dumas, and Ligneres as lieutenants. They knew from scouts that Braddock was approaching, and Beaujeu was sent out with over 600 Indians and 300 French, to ambush the adventurous Briton.

As Braddock reached the ford, which was to put him on the land-side of the fort, Colonel Thomas Gage, some years later known in the opening scenes of the American Revolution,[1132] crossed in advance, without the opposition that was anticipated. Beaujeu had intended to contest the passage, but his Indians, being refractory, delayed him in his march.

Gage, with the advance, was pushing on, when his engineer, laying out the road ahead, saw a man, apparently an officer, wave his cap to his followers, who were unseen in the woods. From every vantage ground of knoll and bole, and on three sides of the column, the concealed muskets were levelled upon the English, who returned the fire. Beaujeu soon fell.[1133] Dumas, who succeeded in command, thought the steady front of the redcoats was going to carry the day, when he saw his Canadians fly, followed by the Indians, after Gage had wheeled his cannon upon the woods. A little time, however, changed all. The Indians rallied and poured their bullets into the massed, and very soon confused, British troops.

Braddock, when he spurred up, found everybody demoralized except the Virginians, who were firing from the tree-trunks, as the enemy did. The British general was shocked at such an unmilitary habit, and ordered them back into line. No one under such orders could find cover, and every puff from a concealed Indian was followed by a soldier’s fall. No exertion of Braddock, or of Washington, or of anybody, prevailed.[1134] The general had four horses shot under him; Washington had two. Still the hillsides and the depths of the wood were spotted with puffs of smoke, and the slaughter-pen was in a turmoil. Young Shirley fell, with a bullet in his brain.[1135] Horatio Gates and Thomas Gage were both wounded. Scarce one Englishman in three escaped the bullets. The general had given the sign to retreat, and was wildly endeavoring to restore order, when a ball struck him from his horse. The flight of the survivors became precipitous, and when the last who succeeded in fording the river stopped to breathe on the other side, there were thirty Indians and twenty Frenchmen almost upon them. The French, however, pursued no farther. They had enough to do to gather their plunder, while the Indians unchecked their murderous instincts as they searched for the wounded and dying Britons. The next morning a large number of the Indians left Contrecœur for their distant homes, laden with their booty. The French general feared for a while that Braddock, reinforced by Dunbar, would return to the attack. He little knew the condition of his enemy. The British army had become bewildered fugitives. Scarce a guard could be kept for the wounded general, as he was borne along on a horse or in a litter. When they met Dunbar the fright increased. Wagons and munitions were destroyed, for no good reason, and the mass surged eastward. The sinking Braddock at last died, and they buried him in the road, that the tramp of the men might obliterate his grave.[1136] Nobody stopped till they reached Fort Cumberland, which was speedily turned into a disordered hospital. The campaign ended with gloomy forebodings. Dunbar, the surviving regular colonel, instead of staying at Cumberland and guarding the frontier, retreated to Philadelphia, leaving the Virginians to hold Cumberland and its hospitals as best they could.

By the death of Braddock Shirley became the ranking officer on the continent, and we must turn to see how the tidings of his new responsibilities found him.

The Massachusetts governor was at Albany when the bad news reached him, and Johnson being taken into the secret, the two leaders tried to keep it from the army. Shirley immediately pushed on the force destined for Fort Niagara, at the other end of Lake Ontario; while Johnson as speedily turned the faces of his men towards Lake George. Shirley’s army found the path to Oswego, much of the way through swamp and forest; and the young provincials sorrowfully begrimed their regulation bedizenments, assumed under the king’s orders, as with the Jersey Blues they struggled along the trail and tugged through the watercourses. It was easier to get the men to their destination than to transport the supplies, and many stores that were on the way were abandoned at the portages when the wagoners heard the fearful details from the Monongahela. Short rations and discouragements harried the men sorely. The axe and spade were put in requisition, and additional forts were planned and constructed as the army pursued its way. Across the lake at Fort Frontenac the enemy held a force ready to be sent against Oswego if Shirley went on, for the capture of Braddock’s papers had revealed all the English plans. Shirley put on a brave face, with all his bereavement, for the death of his son, with Braddock, was a heavy blow. A council of war, on the 18th of September, determined him to take to the lake with his bateaux as soon as provisions arrived. He had now got word of Dieskau’s defeat,[1137] and he tried to use it to inspirit the braves at his camp. It seemed to another council, on the 27th, that the attempt to trust their river bateaux on the lake was foolhardy, and so the purpose of the campaign was abandoned. At the end of October he left the garrison to strengthen the forts, and returned to Albany. He did not get much comfort there. Johnson showed no signs of following up the victory of Lake George, and as late as November Shirley was still at Albany, where he had received his new commission, advising a movement on Crown Point for the winter;[1138] and in December he was exciting the indignant jealousy of Johnson[1139] by daring to instruct him about his Indian management, for Johnson had now been made Indian superintendent.[1140] Shirley had despatched these orders from New York, where he was laying before a congress of governors his schemes for a new campaign.

We need now to see how Dieskau’s defeat had been the result of the third of the expeditions of the campaign just brought to a close.

Before the arrival of Braddock, Shirley had begun (January, 1755) arrangements for an attack on Crown Point,—a project confirmed, as we have seen, by the council at Alexandria, where William Johnson, whom Shirley had already named, was approved as the commander. Johnson, as a young Irishman of no military experience, had been sent over twenty years before by his uncle, Sir Peter Warren, the admiral, to look after some lands of his in the Mohawk Valley. Settling here and building a house, about ten years earlier than this, he had called it first Mount Johnson, though when it was fortified, at a later day, it was usually called Fort Johnson.[1141] It was the seat of numerous conferences with the Indians, over whom Johnson gained an ascendency, which he constantly turned to the advantage of the English.

The provincials who assembled, first at Albany and then at the carrying place between the Hudson and Lake George, were mostly New Englanders, and a Connecticut man, General Phineas Lyman, was placed second in command. The French were not without intelligence of their enemy’s purpose, derived, as already said, from the captured papers of Braddock. So Dieskau, who had come over, as we have seen, with reinforcements, was ordered to Lake Champlain instead of Oswego, as had been the original intention.

SIR WILLIAM JOHNSON.

From a plate in the London Mag., Sept., 1756; which is also the original of prints in the Doc. Hist. N. Y., ii. 545, and in Hough’s Pouchot, i. 181. Cf. also Stone’s Life of Johnson; Simms’s Trappers of N. Y.; Perry’s Amer. Episc. Church, i. 331; Entick’s General Hist. of the Late War (London, 1765); J. C. Smith’s Brit. Mezzotint Portraits, iii. 1342 (by Adams, engraved by Spooner).

Johnson found among those who joined his camp some who knew much better what war was than he did: such were Colonel Moses Titcomb and Lieutenant-Colonel Seth Pomeroy, of Massachusetts; and Colonel Ephraim Williams, who had just made his will, by which the school was founded which became Williams College. He also was a Massachusetts man, as was Israel Putnam by birth, though now a Connecticut private. The later famous John Stark was a lieutenant of the New Hampshire forces. There were also others in command who knew scarce more of war than Johnson himself, and such was Colonel Timothy Ruggles, of a Massachusetts regiment, who was a college-bred lawyer and an innkeeper, destined to be president of the Stamp Act congress.

At the carrying place Lyman began a fort, which was named after him, but all preparations for the campaign proceeded very leisurely, the fault rather of the loosely banded union and hesitating purpose that existed among the colonies which had undertaken the movement; and matters were not mended by a certain incompatibility of temper existing between Johnson and Shirley, now commander-in-chief.

Leaving a garrison at Fort Lyman, the main body marched to the lake, to which Johnson had, out of compliment to the king, given the name of George. Meanwhile Dieskau had pushed up in his canoes to the very head of Lake Champlain, and had started through the wilderness to attack Fort Lyman. An Indian brought the news to Johnson, and Ephraim Williams and Hendrick, the Mohawk chief, were sent out to intercept the enemy. Dieskau, gaining information by capturing a messenger bound to Fort Lyman, and finding his Indians indisposed to assail a fort armed with cannon, turned towards the lake. Scouts informed him of the approach of the party under Williams, and an ambush was quickly planned. The English scout was badly managed, and fell into the trap. The commander and Hendrick were both killed. Nathan Whiting, of Connecticut, extricated the force skilfully, and a reinforcement from Johnson rendered it possible to hold the French somewhat in check. Could Dieskau have controlled his savages, however, he might have followed close enough to enter the English camp with the fugitives. As he did not, Johnson was given time to form a defence of his wagons and bateaux, mixed with tree-trunks, and when the French came on the English fought vigorously behind their barricade. Johnson was wounded and was borne to his tent. Lyman brought the day to a successful issue, and at its end his men leaped over the breastworks and converted the defeat of the French into a rout.

Meanwhile, a part of Dieskau’s Canadians and Indians had broken away from him, and had returned to the field where Williams had been killed, in order to strip the slain. There, near a pond, known still as Bloody Pond,[1142] a scouting party from Fort Lyman attacked them and put them to flight.[1143]

The French, routed by Lyman, were not followed far, and in gathering the wounded on the field Dieskau was discovered. He was borne to Johnson’s tent, and the English commander found it no easy task to protect him from the vengeance of the Mohawks. He was, however, in the end taken to New York, whence he sailed for England, and eventually reached France, but so shattered from his wounds that he died, though not till several years afterwards.

The defeat of the French had taken place on the 8th of September, and an active general would have despatched a force to intercept the fugitives before they reached their canoes, at the head of Lake Champlain; but timidity, the fear of a fresh onset, or a dread of a further tension of the weakening power of the army induced Johnson to tarry where he was, and to erect a fort, which in compliment to the royal family he named Fort William Henry, while in a similar spirit he changed the name of the post at the carrying place from Fort Lyman to Fort Edward. Of Lyman he seems to have been jealous, and in writing his report on the fight he makes no mention of the man to whose leadership the success was largely due. In this way Lyman’s name failed to obtain recognition in England, while the commander received a gift of £5,000 from Parliament and became Sir William Johnson, Baronet.

If Lyman’s advice had been followed, Ticonderoga might have been seized; but the French who reached it had so strongly entrenched themselves in a fortnight that attack was out of the question, and though Shirley, writing from Oswego, urged an advance, nothing was done. A council of war finally declared it inexpedient to proceed, and on the 27th of November Johnson marched the main part of his army southerly to their winter quarters.

British and French diplomates finally ceased bowing to each other, while their ships and armies fought together, and in May and June (1756), respectively, the two governments declared a war which was now nearly two years old.[1144] The French at once sent the Marquis de Montcalm, now about forty-four years of age, to succeed Dieskau. With him went the Chevalier de Lévis and the Chevalier de Bourlamaque as the second and third in command, and Bougainville as his principal aide-de-camp. By the middle of May the French general was in Quebec, and soon proceeded to Montreal to meet Vaudreuil, who was not at all pleased to share the responsibility of the coming campaign with another. The French troops were now divided, being mainly placed at Carillon (Ticonderoga), Fort Frontenac, and Niagara, and these posts had been during the winter severally strengthened,—Lotbinière[1145] superintending at Ticonderoga, Pouchot at Niagara, and two French engineers at Frontenac.

Already in February the French, by sending a scouting party, had captured and destroyed Fort Bull, a station of supplies at the carrying place on the way from Albany to Oswego; but the intervening time till June was spent in preparation. Word now coming of an English advance on Ticonderoga, Montcalm proceeded thither, and found the fort of Carillon, as the French termed it, which was now completed, much as he would wish it.

LOUDON.

This follows a painting by Ramsay, engraved by Spooner, which is reproduced in J. C. Smith’s Brit. Mezzotint Portraits, p. 1343.

Shirley, on his part, was preparing to carry out such of the lordly plans which he had suggested at New York as proved practicable. He would repeat the Niagara movement himself, with a hope of better success. For the command in the campaign on Lake Champlain he named Gen. John Winslow, and the New England colonies eagerly furnished the troops.

LORD LOUDON.

From a print in the London Magazine, Oct., 1757. Cf. the full-length portrait in Shannon’s N.Y. City Manual, 1869, p. 767, given as a fac-simile of an old print.

The eastern colonies and the Massachusetts governor were not fully aware how the cabal of Johnson and De Lancey, the lieutenant-governor of New York, against Shirley was making head with the home government, and so were not well prepared for the tidings which came in June, while Shirley was in New York, that Colonel Webb, Major-General Abercrombie, and the Earl of Loudon were to be sent over successively to relieve Shirley of the chief command.[1146]

ALBANY.

From A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual surveys, 1763, published in London. (Copy in Harvard College library,—5325.67.) A map of the region about Albany and Schenectady, from Sauthier’s map (1779), is given in Pearson’s Schenectady Patent (1883), p. 290. Cf. Mag. of Amer. Hist. Feb., 1886.

While Winslow was employed in pushing forward from Albany his men and supplies, French scouting parties constantly harassed him. Col. Jonathan Bagley was making ready sloops and whale-boats at Lake George; and the English were soon as active as the French in their scouting forays, Capt. Robert Rogers particularly distinguishing himself.

FORT FREDERICK AT ALBANY.

From A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual surveys, 1763, published in London. An old view of the fort is given in Holden’s Queensbury, p. 313. There is an early plan of Albany and its fort (1695) in Miller’s Description of the Province and City of New York, of which a fac-simile is given in Weise’s Albany, pp. 257-8. The Catal. of the King’s Maps, i. 13 (Brit. Mus.), shows a MS. plan of Albany of the 18th century. There is a plan dated 1765 in the Annals of Albany, vol. iv. 2d ed.

Mrs. Grant’s Memoirs of an American Lady gives a picture of Albany and its life at this time, which may be compared with the description in Kalm’s Travels. (London, 1771, vol. ii. p. 98; also in Annals of Albany, vol. i. 2d ed., 1869.) Parkman (i. p. 319), who sketches the community from these sources, speaks of Mrs. Grant’s book as “a charming book, though far from being historically trustworthy;” while it affords a “genuine picture of colonial life.” Grahame (United States, ii. 256) considers the picture of manners “entirely fanciful and erroneous.”

Mrs. Grant herself says “I certainly have no intention to relate anything that is not true;” yet it must be remembered that she wrote in 1808, forty years after she, a girl of thirteen, had left the country. The book was published at Edinburgh in 1808; again in 1809, also in New York and in Boston the same year; in London in 1817, and again in New York in 1836 and 1846. The last edition is one printed at Albany in 1876, with notes by Joel Munsell and a memoir by Gen. J. G. Wilson. Cf. Munsell’s Bibliog. of Albany; Lossing’s Schuyler (1872), i. 34; Tuckerman’s America and her Commentators, p. 171.

The most extensive repository of historical data respecting Albany is in Joel Munsell’s Annals of Albany (1850-59), 10 vols. Vol. i. to iv. were issued in a second edition, 1869-71. (See Vol. IV. p. 435.)

Johnson, who had now got his commission as sole Indian superintendent, was busily engaged in conferences with the Six Nations, whom he secured somewhat against their will to the side of the English. He extended his persuasions even to the Delawares and Shawanoes. Some of these tribes were coquetting, however, with Vaudreuil at Montreal, and it was too apparent that nothing but an English success would confirm any Indian alliance.

Shirley also carried out a plan of his own in organizing a body of New England whalemen and boatmen for the transportation service, who, being armed, could dispense with an escort. These were placed under the command of Lieut.-Col. John Bradstreet. In May, before Montcalm’s arrival, a party had been sent by Vaudreuil to cut off the communications of Oswego, and Bradstreet encountered and beat them.

This was the state of affairs in June, 1756, when Abercrombie and Webb arrived with reinforcements, and Pitt was writing in England, “I dread to hear from America.”[1147] Shirley went to New York and received them as well as Loudon, who followed the others on the 23d of July. The new governor proceeded to Albany, and countermanded the orders for the Niagara expedition, and stirred up the New Englanders by promulgating a royal direction which in effect made a provincial major-general subordinate to a regular major.[1148]

Affairs were stagnating in the confusion consequent upon the change of command, and Albany was telling other towns what it was to have foreign officers billeted upon its people. Not till August did some fresh troops set off for Oswego, when apprehension began to be felt for the safety of that post. It was too late. The reinforcement had only reached the carrying place when they heard of the capture of the forts.

Montcalm had suddenly returned from Ticonderoga to Montreal, and had hastened to Niaouré Bay (Sackett’s Harbor), where Villiers was with the force which had escaped Bradstreet’s attack. Here Montcalm gathered about three thousand men, and then appeared without warning before the entrenchments at Oswego. Fort Ontario was soon abandoned by its defenders, and gave Montcalm a place to plant his cannon against the other fort, while he sent a strong force by a ford for an attack on the other bank. Colonel Mercer, the commander, was soon killed by a cannon-shot from Ontario. The enemy’s approach in the rear discouraged the garrison, and they surrendered. Montcalm did what he could to prevent a slaughter of the prisoners, which was threatened when his Indian allies became infuriated by the rum among the plunder.[1149]

While the French were destroying what they could not remove, and were later retiring to Montreal, Webb, who commanded the relief which never came, fell back to German Flats, and orders were sent to Fort William Henry to suspend preparations for a movement down the lake.[1150]

THE FORTS AT OSWEGO.

After a plan in the contemporary Mémoires sur le Canada, 1749-1763, as published in 1838 by the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec, and (réimpression) 1873, p. 77. It is also reproduced in Dr. Hough’s transl. of Pouchot, i. 65, and in Doc. Hist. of N. York, i. 482.

There was a contemporary English draft of the forts “Ontario and Oswego,” published in the Gentleman’s Mag., 1757, which is reproduced in Dr. Hough’s Pouchot, i. 64, and in the Doc. Hist. N. York, i. 447, 483, where will be found various papers relating to the first settlement and capture of Oswego, 1727-1756.

The Catal. of the King’s Maps (Brit. Mus.), ii. 118, shows a plan made in 1756 for Gov. Pownall, and others of dates 1759, 1760, 1762, 1763, with a view in 1761.

In the New York Col. Docs., ix. p. 996, is what is called a plan of the mouth of the Chouaguen, showing the English redoubt,—an outline sketch found by Brodhead in the Archives de la Marine at Paris. Martin, De Montcalm en Canada, p. 35, gives a plan, “D’après un MS. du dépôt des Colonies” in Paris.

Parkman speaks (Montcalm and Wolfe, i. 416) of the published plans and drawings of Oswego at this time as very inexact. There is a French description of the country between Oswego and Albany, 1757, in Doc. Hist. N. Y., vol. i.; cf. also N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 674. Another map showing the communication between Albany and Oswego is given in Mante’s Hist. of the Late War, London, 1772, p. 60.

A view of Oswego, looking towards the lake between the high banks, appeared in the London Magazine (1760), p. 232. It has been reproduced on different scales in Smith’s Hist. of N. York, 4^o, Lond. 1767; Doc. Hist. New York, i. 495; Hough’s transl. of Pouchot, i. 68, Gay’s Pop. Hist. U. S., iii. 49; Clark’s Onondaga, P. 353; The Century, xxviii. 240.

FORT EDWARD.

From Mante’s Hist. of the Late War, London, 1772. The Catalogue of the King’s Maps (Brit. Museum), i. 336, shows various drawn plans of the fort, dated 1755; and another of the same date, marked no. 15,535, is among the Brit. Mus. MSS. John Montresor’s Journal at Fort Edward, in 1757, is in N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., 1881, p. 148. He gives a profile of the work (Ibid., p. 36).

Montcalm was soon back at Carillon, watching Winslow’s force at Fort William Henry, while the rest of Loudon’s army was divided between Fort Edward and Albany. Neither opponent moved, and, leaving garrisons at their respective advanced posts, they retired to winter quarters. The regulars were withdrawn to Boston, Philadelphia, and New York; and not a little bad blood was produced by Loudon’s demand for free quarters for the officers.[1151]

The French had the advantage in Indian allies; and during the autumn and winter the forays of the prowling savage and the adventurous scout over the territory neighboring to Lake George and Lake Champlain were checked by the English as best they could. Foremost among their partisans was the New Hampshire ranger, Robert Rogers, whose exploits and those of the Connecticut captain, Israel Putnam, fill a large space in the records of this savage warfare.

FORT EDWARD.

From A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual surveys, 1763, published in London. Cf. the plan in Lossing’s Field-Book of the Revolution, i. p. 95.

The campaign of the next year (1757) opened in March with an attempt to surprise Fort William Henry. The French under Rigaud came up on the ice, 1,600 strong, by night. The surprise failed. They burned, however, two sloops and some bateaux. The next day they summoned Major Eyre, the English commander, but he felt that his four hundred men were enough to hold the fort, and declined to surrender. Rigaud now made a feint of storming the work, but it was only to approach the storehouses, saw-mill, and other buildings outside the entrenchments, which he succeeded in firing, and then withdrew.

Montcalm, when he heard the details, was not over-pleased; and if he had had his way, De Lévis or Bougainville would have led the attack. As it was, Rigaud was a brother of the governor, and Vaudreuil was tenacious of his superiority. The news broke in upon a round of festivities at Montreal, stayed only by Lent. At this season Montcalm prayed, as he had before feasted, with no full recognition of the feelings which Vaudreuil entertained for him. But the minister in France knew it, and he was not, perhaps, so ready to doubt the numbers of the English, exaggerated in Vaudreuil’s report, as he was the prowess of the Canadians in comparison with the timidity of Montcalm and his regulars, which was also reported to him. In Montreal, however, the mutual distrust and dislike of the governor and the general were cloaked with a politeness that was not always successful, when they were apart, in keeping their feelings from their neighbors.

ENVIRONS OF FORT EDWARD.

From A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual surveys, 1763, published in London.

Loudon had resolved on attacking Louisbourg, with the aid of a fleet from England.[1152] Withdrawing a large part of the force on the northern frontier, he departed for Halifax, where everything miscarried. But before he returned to New York, crestfallen, the French had profited by his absence.

The English general had left the line of the approach by the lakes from Canada to be watched by Webb, who was at Fort Edward, while Col. Munro, with a small force, held Fort William Henry, at the head of Lake George. This was the most advanced post of the English, and the opportunity for Montcalm had come.

FORT ST. JEAN.

After a plan in the contemporary Mémoires sur le Canada, 1749-1760, as published by the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec (réimpression), 1873, p. 95. Kalm describes the fort in 1749. Travels, London, 1771, ii. 216.

At Montreal the French general was gathering his Indian allies from points as distant as Acadia and Lake Superior. He pushed forward his commingled forces, and they rallied at Fort St. John on the Sorel. On again they swept in a fleet of bateaux and canoes to Ticonderoga. They were prepared for quick work, and Montcalm set an example by discarding the luxuries of personal equipments.

FORT WILLIAM HENRY.

From A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual surveys, 1763, published in London. A plan of this fort is in the Brit. Mus. MSS., no. 15,355, and various plans of 1756 and 1757 are noted in the King’s Maps (Brit. Mus.), ii. 475. Plans are also given in Martin’s Montcalm et les dernières années de la colonie Française au Canada, and in Hough’s ed. of Pouchot, p. 48.

A sketch of the fort preserved on a powderhorn is engraved in Stone’s Life of Johnson, i. p. 553, and in Holden’s Queensbury, 306.

At the portage, and before launching his flotilla on Lake George, Montcalm held a grand council, and bound his Indian allies by a mighty belt of wampum. Up the smaller lake the main body now went by boat, but some Iroquois allies led De Lévis, with 2,500 men, along its westerly bank. The force on the lake disembarked under cover of a point of land, which hid them from the English.

THE SITE OF FORT WILLIAM HENRY, 1851.

From a sketch made in 1851. The fort was on the bluff at the left, now the position of the Fort William Henry hotel. Montcalm’s trenches were where the modern village of Caldwell is built, seen beyond the water. The way to the entrenched camp started along the gravelly beach in the foreground, towards the spectator.

The extent of the demonstration was first made known to Munro when the savages spread out across the lake in their bark canoes. Montcalm soon pushed forward La Corne and De Lévis till they cut the communications of the English with Fort Edward, and then the French general began his approaches from his own encampment. When he advanced his lines to within gun-shot of the ramparts, he summoned the fort. Munro declined to surrender, hoping for relief from Webb; but the timid commander at Fort Edward only despatched a note of advice to make terms. This letter was intercepted by Montcalm, who sent it into the fort, and it induced Munro to agree to a capitulation.

On the 9th of August the English retired to the entrenched camp, and the French entered the fort. Munro’s men were to be escorted to Fort Edward, being allowed their private effects, and were not to serve against the French for eighteen months. Montcalm took the precaution to explain the terms to his Indian allies, and received their seeming assent; but the savages got at the English rum, and, with passions roused, they fell the next day upon the prisoners. Despite all exertions of Montcalm and the more honorable of his officers, many were massacred or carried off, so that the line of march became a disorderly rout, beyond all control of the escort, and lost itself in the woods. Not more than six hundred in a body reached Fort Edward, but many others later straggled in. Another portion, which Montcalm rescued from the clutch of the Indians, was subsequently sent in under a strong escort.

ATTACK ON FORT WILLIAM HENRY.

From A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual surveys, 1763, published in London.

Key.—A, dock. B, garden. C, Fort William Henry. D, morass. E, French first battery of nine guns and two mortars. F, French second battery of ten guns and three mortars. G, French approaches. H, two intended batteries. I, landing-place of French artillery. K, Montcalm’s camp, with main body. L, De Lévis’ camp, with regulars and Canadians. M, De la Corne, with Canadians and Indians. N, where the English first encamped. O, bridge over morass. P, English entrenchments, where Fort George later stood.

Cf. the plans in Parkman’s Montcalm and Wolfe, i. 494, and in Palmer’s Lake Champlain, p. 73, based on this, and the reproduction of it in Bancroft’s United States, orig. ed., iv. p. 263. There is a rough contemporary sketch given in J. A. Stoughton’s Windsor Farms, 1884, showing the lines of the attacking force, and endorsed, “Taken Oct. 22, 1757, by John Stoughton.” There is another large plan of the attack preserved in the New York State Library, and this is given in the N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 602. Martin, De Montcalm en Canada, p. 81, gives a “Plan du siège de Fort George [William Henry was often so called by the French] dressé par Fernesic de Vesour le 12 Septembre, 1757,” preserved in the Dépôt des Fortifications des Colonies, no. 516, at Paris.

The French destroyed the fort, throwing the bodies of the slain on the fire which was made of its timber, and, lading their boats with the munitions and plunder, they followed the savages, who had already started on their way to Montreal.

FORT AT GERMAN FLATS.

After a plan in the Doc. Hist. New York, ii. 732. In Benton’s Herkimer County, p. 53, is also a “plan and profile of the entrenched works round Harkemer’s house at y^e German Flats, 1756.” Cf. Set of Plans, etc., no. 13.

Loudon reached New York on the last of August,[1153] but he had already heard of the Lake George disaster from a despatch-boat which met him on the way. On landing he learned from Albany that Montcalm had retired. Webb, who was much perplexed with the hordes of militia which all too late began to pour in upon him, was now bold enough to think there was no use of retreating to the passes of the Hudson. The necessity of allowing the Canadians to gather their crops, as well as Montcalm’s inability to transport his cannon, had influenced that general to retreat. At Montreal he learned the stories of the fiendish cruelty practised upon their prisoners by the Indians who had preceded him, and who had not been restrained by Vaudreuil,—so Bougainville said; for the governor’s policy of buying some of the captives with brandy led to the infuriation which wreaked itself on the rest.

The campaign closed in November with an attack on the post at German Flats, a settlement of Palatine Germans, by a scouting body of French and Indians under one of Vaudreuil’s Canadians, Belêtre. Everything disappeared in the havoc, which a detachment sent by Colonel Townshend from Fort Herkimer, not far off, was powerless to check. Before Lord Howe, with a larger force from Schenectady,[1154] could reach the scene, the French had departed.

The winter of 1757-58 at Montreal and Quebec passed with the usual official gayety and bureaucratic peculation. The passions of war were only aroused as occasional stories of rapine and scalps came in from the borders. Good hearty rejoicing took place, however, in March, over the report that a scouting party from Ticonderoga had encountered Rogers, and that the dreaded partisan had been killed and his followers annihilated. The last part of the story was too true, but Rogers had escaped, leaving behind his coat, which he had thrown off in the fray, and in its pocket was his commission, the capture of which had given rise to the belief in his death. Meanwhile, on the English side a new spirit of control was preparing to give unaccustomed vigor to the coming campaign. In England’s darkest hour William Pitt had come to power, thrown up by circumstances. He was trusted in the country’s desperation, and proved himself capable of imparting a momentum that all British movements had lacked since the war began. He developed his plans for America, and made his soldiers and sailors spring to their work. Loudon was recalled. The provincial officer was made the equal of the regular, by conferring upon him the same right of seniority by commission. The whole colonial service felt that they were thereby made equal sharers of the honors as well as of the burdens of the times. Pitt put his finger upon the three vulnerable gaps in the French panoply. He would reach Quebec by taking Louisbourg; and singling out a stubborn colonel who had shown his mettle in Germany, he made him Major-General Amherst, and sent him with a fleet to take Louisbourg, as we may see in another chapter.[1155] Circumstances, or a mischance in judgment, made him retain Abercrombie for the Crown Point campaign, but a better decision named Brigadier John Forbes to attack Fort Duquesne. It belongs to this place to tell the story of these last two campaigns.

In June, Abercrombie had assembled at the head of Lake George a force of 15,000 men, of whom 6,000 were regulars. Montcalm was at Ticonderoga with scarce a quarter as many; but Vaudreuil was tardily sending forward some scant reinforcements under De Lévis. The French general got tidings early in July of the embarkation in England, but had done nothing up to that time to protect his army, which was lying on the peninsula of Ticonderoga, mainly outside the fort. In fact, he was at a loss what to do; no help had reached him, and the approaching army was too numerous to hope for success. He thought of retreating to Crown Point, but some of his principal officers opposed it. He now began a breastwork of logs on the high ground before the fort, and, felling the trees within musket range, he covered the ground with a dense barrier.

All the while, the English were in a heydey of assurance. Pitt was waiting anxiously in London for the first tidings. Abercrombie, now a man of fifty-two years, did not altogether inspire confidence. His heavy build and lethargic temperament made lookers-on call him “aged.” There was, however, a proud expectation of success from the vigorous, companionable Earl Howe, the brigadier next in command, whom Pitt hoped to prove the real commander, because of the trust which Abercrombie put in him. On the 5th of July the immense flotilla, which bore the English army and its train, started down Lake George. To a spectator it completely deadened the glare of the water for miles away. The next morning at daybreak the army was passing Rogers’ Slide, whence a French party under Langy watched them. By noon it had disembarked at the extreme north end of Lake George, and near the river conducting to Ticonderoga they built an entrenchment, to protect their bateaux. Rogers, with his rangers, was sent into the woods to lead the way, while the army followed; but the denseness of the forest soon brought the column into confusion. Meanwhile, the French party under Langy, finding the English had got between them and their main body, endeavored to pass around the head of the English column, and, in doing so, got equally confused in the thickness of the wood, and suddenly encountered that part of the English force where Lord Howe and Major Putnam were. A skirmish ensued, Howe fell,[1156] and the army was practically without a head. Rogers, who was in advance, turned back upon Langy, and few of the Frenchmen escaped.

LORD HOWE.

From an engraving in Entick’s Hist. of the Late War, 3d ed., 1765, vol. iii. p. 209. For the impression made by Howe’s character on the colonists, see Mrs. Grant’s American Lady, Wilson’s ed., p. 222.

In the morning Abercrombie withdrew the army to the landing. Bradstreet, with his watermen, having rebuilt the bridges destroyed by the French, the original intention of skirting the river on the west was abandoned, and the army now started to follow the ordinary portage across the loop of the river, which held the rapids. The French had already deserted their positions at either end of this portage. At the northerly end, near a saw-mill, the English general halted his army. He was at one base-corner of the triangular peninsula of which Ticonderoga was the apex. He had now to encounter, not far from the fort, the entrenchment which Montcalm was busily constructing out of the forest-trees which had been laid along its front as by a hurricane. Scorning all measures which might have spared his army great losses, and thoughtless of movements which could have intercepted Montcalm’s reinforcements,[1157] the English general undertook, from the distant mill, to direct repeated assaults in front. His soldiers made a deadly push through the entanglements of the levelled trees and against the barricade, behind which the defenders were almost wholly protected. He could have done nothing to help Montcalm so much. The stores of the French were sufficient for eight days only, and the chief dread of the French general was that Abercrombie would cut his communications with Crown Point.

TICONDEROGA, 1851.

After a sketch made in 1851. The ruins of Ticonderoga and the landing-wharf are seen on the right. The high hill on the left is Mount Defiance, on whose side Johnson and his Indians were posted during Abercrombie’s attack. At its base is the outlet leading to Lake George. The ruins in the foreground are a part of Fort Independence.

As it was, De Lévis, with a considerable force, arrived in the night. Sir William Johnson and some Indians opened fire in the morning across the river from the sides of Mount Defiance; but accomplished nothing, and took no further part in the day’s work. About noon the attack began in front, and all day long—now here, now there—the French repelled assaults which showed prodigies of valor and brought no reward. Some rafts, with cannon sent by Abercrombie to enfilade the French line, were driven back by the guns of the fort. At twilight the cruel work ceased. Abercrombie had lost nearly 2,000 men, and Montcalm short of 400.

ABERCROMBIE’S ATTACK ON TICONDEROGA, 1758.

From Almon’s Remembrancer, London, 1778, where it is called “Sketch of Cheonderoga or Ticonderoga, taken on the spot by an English officer, in 1759.”

A plan of the approaches and attack by Lieut. Meyer, of the 60th regt., is given in Parkman, ii. p. 94. Cf. other plans in Bancroft, orig. ed. iv.; Palmer’s Lake Champlain, p. 79, etc.

Montcalm was still anxious. He knew that Abercrombie had cannon, and had not used them. The most natural thing in the world for the English general would be to occupy the night in bringing the cannon up. In the morning Montcalm sent out to reconnoitre, and it was found that the English, still 13,000 strong, had reëmbarked, and all the signs showed the great precipitancy of their flight.

The French general could well rejoice, but he exaggerated his enemy’s strength to 25,000 and their losses to 5,000, which last was considerably more than the victor’s whole force.

FORT FRONTENAC.

From A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual surveys, 1763, published in London. The fort was at the modern Kingston, Canada. There is a view or plan of it in Mémoires sur les affaires du Canada, 1749-60, p. 115.

Note.—The annexed map is from Mante’s Hist. of the Late War, Lond., 1772. A map of the lake, from surveys made in 1762, is given in Parkman, i. 285. It is also reproduced in De Peyster’s Wilson’s Orderly Book.

Holden (Hist. Queensbury, 302, 303) mentions several MS. maps of Lake George of this period, preserved in the State Library at Albany. A map of the military roads (1759) from the Hudson to Lake George is given in Ibid., p. 341.

There is in the N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 721, a sketch map copied from an original in the Archives de la Guerre at Paris, called Frontiers du lac St. Sacrement, 1758, 8 Juillet. It shows Lake Champlain from below Crown Point, together with Lake George and the country towards Albany, marking the routes, forts, etc.

Cf. the section giving Lake George in Jefferys’ Map of the most inhabited part of New England, published November 29, 1755, and contained in his General Topography of North America and the West Indies, Lond., 1768, no. 37; and the separate map of Lake George, 1756, in Sayer and Bennet’s American Military Pocket Atlas, 1776. This I suppose to be the survey made in 1756 by Captain Jackson, of which a tracing is given in F. B. Hough’s ed. of Rogers’s journals, Albany, 1883. The map in Gay’s Pop. Hist. U. S., iii. 284, is a modern one.

Views of historic interest on Lake George, by T. A. Richards, are given in Harper’s Mag., vii. 161.

Abercrombie apparently magnified beyond belief an enemy whom he had not seen, and went up the lake in trepidation, lest he should be pursued. Safe on his old camping-ground at the head of the lake, he made haste to entrench himself, while Montcalm, lucky to escape as he did, prepared for a new campaign by rebuilding his lines. So the two armies still watched each other at a safe distance.[1158]

Montcalm for a while tried to harass the English communications with Fort Edward, by sending out his leading partisan, Marin; but Rogers was more than his match, and gave the English general some grains of comfort by his successes. Putnam, however, was captured and carried to Canada. Meanwhile, much greater relief came to the army’s spirits in September when the news of Bradstreet’s success at Fort Frontenac reached them.

A council of war had forced Abercrombie to give Bradstreet 3,000 men, and with these he made his way to Oswego, whence, towards the end of August, his whale-boats and bateaux pushed out upon the lake, and in three days he was before Frontenac. The fort quickly surrendered. Bradstreet levelled it, ruined seven armed vessels, put as much of the plunder as he could carry on two others, and returned to Oswego unmolested. Here he landed his booty, destroyed the vessels, and the French naval power on Ontario was at an end. He began his march for Albany, and, passing the great carrying place where Brigadier Stanwix was building a fort for the protection of the valley, left there a thousand men for its garrison. In October Amherst came overland from Boston, with some of his victorious regiments from Louisbourg. It was too late for further campaigning; and each side left garrisons at their camps, and retired to winter quarters.

FORT STANWIX.

From A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual surveys, 1763, published in London. The Catal. of the King’s Maps (Brit. Mus.), ii. 354-55, shows drawn plans (1758, 1759, 1764) of Fort Stanwix, built by I. Williams, engineer.

A large map of the neighborhood of Fort Stanwix is in the Doc. Hist. New York (iv. p. 324), with a plan of the fort itself (p. 327), accompanied by a paper on the history of the fort. A map of the siege of the fort, presented to Col. Gansevoort by L. Flury, is given with a plan of the modern city of Rome superposed, in Dr. Hough’s ed. of Pouchot, i. 207. Cf. the chapter on Fort Schuyler (Stanwix) in Bogg’s Pioneers of Utica, 1877. The fort was originally called Fort Williams. It was begun on July 23, 1758, by Brig.-Gen. John Stanwix. Cf. note on Stanwix in N. Y. Col. Docs., vii. 280.

There is in Harvard College library a copy of a MS. journal of Ensign Moses Dorr, from May 25 to Oct. 28, 1758, including an account of the building of Fort Stanwix. The original MS. was in 1848 in the possession of Lyman Watkins, of Walpole, N. H.]

The destruction of Frontenac and the French fleet on Ontario had cut off Fort Duquesne from its sources of supply, and to the substantial, if not brilliant, success of Brigadier John Forbes[1159] we must now turn. It is a story of a stubborn Scotch purpose. Forbes had no dash, and purposely dallied with the forming and marching of his army to weary the Indian allies of the French, and to secure time to gain over all of the savages that he could. The English general got upon his route by June, but soon fell sick, and was carried through the marches in a litter; but he breasted every discomfort and harassing complexity of the details, which he had to manage almost in every particular, with a courage that might have done credit to a man in vigor. He had made up his mind to open a new road over the mountains more direct than Braddock’s. Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Bouquet, a Swiss officer of the Royal Americans, sustained him in this purpose; but Washington argued for the older route,—not without inciting some distrust, for Forbes was not blind to the rival interests of Pennsylvania and Virginia, and suspected that Washington was influenced by a greater loyalty for his colony than for the common cause.

Forbes did not fail, however, to recognize the young Virginian’s merit in the kind of warfare which was before them; and there exists in Washington’s hand a plan of a line of march for forces in a forest, with diagrams for throwing the line into order of battle, which Forbes had requested him to make.[1160] Braddock’s defeat was not lost on Forbes, and in his marches and preparations he availed himself of all the arts of woodcraft and partisanship which Washington could teach him. He did not, nevertheless, have a very high opinion of the provincials in his train, and, with the exception of some of their higher officers, they were, no doubt, a sorry set. As he pushed on he established fortified posts for supplies; but all the help he ought to have got from his quartermaster-general, Sir John Sinclair, stood him in poor stead, for that officer was “a very odd man,” and only added to his general’s perplexities. The advice of Washington about taking the other route had so far unsettled Forbes’s faith in him, that, though he told his subordinates among the advance to consult with the Virginia colonel, it might not be best, he suggested, to follow his advice. While the march went on he had little success in attaching some Cherokees and Catawbas, for they stayed no longer than the gifts held out. An occasional scout brought him intelligence of the enemy, and he felt that their numbers were not great, and that the weariness of delays would drive the Indian allies of the French into desertion,—as it did.

At Raystown he built Fort Bedford, to protect his supplies, and pushed on to Loyalhannon[1161] Creek, and there founded his last depot, fifty miles away from Duquesne.

In August Forbes was planning for a general convention with the Indians at Easton. The treaty of the previous year had secured the Delawares and Shawanoes, and a further conference had been held with them in April.[1162] Sir William Johnson was bullied, as Forbes says, into bringing into the compact the eastern tribes of the Six Nations, while other influences induced the Senecas and the western tribes also to join, despite the labors of Joncaire to retain them in the French interests. The chief difficulty was to inspire the Ohio Indians with a distrust of the French; while the failure of French presents, thanks to British cruisers on the ocean, was beginning to dispose them for a change. A Moravian brother, Christian Frederick Post, was sent to the tribes on a hazardous mission, and his confidence and fearlessness carried him through it alive; for he had to confront French officers at the conferences, one of which was held close by Fort Duquesne. As a result of his mission, the convention of the allied tribes which met the English at Easton in October decided confidently to send a wampum belt, in the name of both the whites and the red men, to the Ohio Indians, and Post, with an escort, was commissioned to bear it, the party setting out from Loyalhannon. It became a struggle for persuasion between the English messenger and a French officer, who again confronted Post and offered the Indians a belt of wampum of his own. The French won the young warriors; but Post impressed the sages of the Indian councils, and the old men carried the day. The overtures of peace from the English were accepted, and this happened notwithstanding that the garrison of Duquesne had but just badly used a reconnoitring party of the English under Major Grant, of the Scotch Highlanders.

It was a success of forest diplomacy that encouraged and rendered despondent the respective sides. The French scouting parties were hanging about Loyalhannon, while the little army at Duquesne kept dwindling under the prospect of famine, now that Bradstreet’s raid on Frontenac had checked their supplies. A rough and weltering October made the bringing up of provisions very difficult for the English, and their weakening general found his time, on his litter, disagreeably spent, as he says, “between business and medicine;” but in early November he himself reached Loyalhannon. He would have stopped here for winter quarters, but scouts brought in word that the French were defenceless; so a force was hurriedly pushed forward in light order, which, when it reached Turkey Creek, heard a heavy boom to the west. It was the explosion of the French mines, as the garrison of Duquesne blew up the fort and fled.

Forbes hutted a portion of his troops within a stockade, which he called Pittsburg, and early in December began his march eastward. The debilitated general reached Philadelphia, but died in March. Few campaigns were ever conducted so successfully from a litter of pain.

The winter of 1758-59 was an unquiet one in Canada. Vaudreuil and Montcalm disputed over the results of the last campaign, and the governor was doing all he could to make the home government believe that Montcalm neither deserved, nor could profit by, success. All his intrigue to induce the general’s recall only resulted in the ministry sending him orders to defer to Montcalm in all matters affecting the war.

GENERAL AMHERST.

From an engraving in John Knox’s Historical Journal of the Campaigns in North America (1757-60). London, 1769. There is also an engraving in Entick’s Hist. of the Late War, iv. 129.

Reynolds painted three likenesses of Amherst, and sketched a fourth one, begun May, 1765, and finished February, 1768, which gave his army in the background, passing the rapids of the St. Lawrence. This was engraved in mezzotint by James Watson. (Hamilton’s Engraved Works of Reynolds, pp. 1, 163; J. C. Smith’s Brit. Mezzotint Portraits, London, 1878-83, iii. 1008, and iv. 1488; Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., vii. 101; Catal. Cab. M. H. Soc., p. 45.) Amherst was born in 1717, and died in 1797.

There was never more need of strong counsel in Canada. The gasconade of Vaudreuil had reached the limit of its purpose. The plunder by officials, both of the people and of the king, was an enormity that could not last much longer. It seemed to the wisest that food and reinforcements, and those in no small amounts, could alone save Canada, unless, indeed, some kind of a peace could be settled upon in Europe. To claim help and to learn, Bougainville and Doreil were sent to France. Nothing they said could gain much but what was easily given,—promotion in rank to Montcalm and the rest. They represented that the single purpose which now animated the English colonies was quite a different thing from the old dissensions among them, the existence of which had favored the French in the past. The demand in Europe was, however, inexorable; and all that France could promise was a few hundred men and a campaign’s supplies of munitions.

FORT PITT OR PITTSBOURG.

From Mante’s Hist. of the Late War, London, 1772, p. 158. Cf. also the plan in Egle’s Pennsylvania, p. 98; and the corner sketch of the plate in Bancroft, United States (orig. ed.), iv. 189.

In the spring of 1759 Bougainville came back with the little which was precious to those who had nothing, as Montcalm said. But the returning soldier brought word of the great fleet which England was fitting out to attack Quebec, and that fifty thousand men would constitute the army with which Canada was to be invaded. Vaudreuil could hardly count twenty thousand men to meet it, and to do this he had to reckon the militia, coureurs de bois, and Indians. If the worst came, Montcalm thought he could concentrate what force he had, and retreat by way of the Ohio to the Mississippi, and hold out in Louisiana.[1163]

NEW FORT AT PITTSBURGH.

From A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual surveys, 1763, published in London.

On the English side matters looked encouraging. Amherst, a sure and safe soldier, without any dash, was made commander-in-chief, and was to direct in person the advance over the old route from Lake George,[1164] while at the same time he took measures to reëstablish Oswego and reinforce Duquesne. To the latter point General Stanwix was sent, where in the course of the summer he laid out and strengthened a new fort, called after the prime minister. Fort Pitt was not, however, wholly secure till success had followed Brigadier Prideaux’s expedition to Niagara, the reduction of which was also a part of Amherst’s plans. Prideaux seated Haldimand at Oswego, and made good its communications with the Mohawk Valley. It was an open challenge to the French, and after Prideaux had proceeded to Niagara, Saint-Lac de la Corne came down with a force from the head of the St. Lawrence rapids to attack Haldimand, but the English cannon sent the French scampering to their boats, and the danger was over.

FORT NIAGARA.

From A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual surveys, 1763, published in London. This same plan is given in Doc. Hist. N. Y., ii, p. 868, and in Hough’s edition of Pouchot’s History of the Late War, ii. p. 153. There is another plan on a large scale, showing less of the neighboring ground, in the latter book, i. p. 161, and in N. Y. Col. Docs., x. p. 976.

A plan of Fort Niagara, 1759, is noted among the Brit. Mus. MSS., no. 15,535; and in the King’s Maps, ii. 92, are plans of the fort dated 1766, 1768, 1769, 1773, and a view of the falls in 1765.

O’Callaghan, in the Doc. Hist. of New York, ii. 793, gives a map of the Niagara River, 1759, showing the landing place of Prideaux and the path around the cataract. For the track of the Niagara portage, see O. H. Marshall’s “Niagara Frontier,” in Buffalo Hist. Soc. Publ., ii. 412-13.

At Niagara, in the angle formed by the lake and the Niagara River, stood the strong fort which Pouchot had rebuilt. It had a dependency[1165] some distance above the cataract, commanded by Joncaire; but that officer withdrew from this outwork on the approach of Prideaux, and reinforced the main work. It was the same Joncaire who had formerly resisted successfully, but of late less so, the efforts of Johnson to secure the alliance to the English of the Senecas and the more westerly tribes of the Six Nations; and now Johnson with a body of braves was in Prideaux’s camp. The English general advanced his siege lines, and had begun to make breaches in the walls of the fort, when new succor for the French approached. Their partisan leaders at the west had gathered such bushrangers and Indians as they could from Detroit and the Illinois country, and were assembling at Presquisle and along the route to the Monongahela for a raid on the English there, in the hopes of recapturing the post. They got word from Pouchot of his danger, and immediately marched to his assistance, under Aubry and Ligneris.

FORT GEORGE.

From A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual surveys, 1763, published in London. This plan is reproduced in De Costa’s Hist. of Fort George. For the ruins of the fort and the view from them, see the cuts in Lossing’s Field-Book of the Rev., i. 112; and Scribnner’s Monthly, Mar., 1879, p. 620.

LAKE GEORGE.

Early in the siege, Prideaux had been killed by the bursting of one of his own shells, and the command fell on Johnson, who now went with a part of his force to meet the new-comers, already showing themselves up the river. He beat them, and captured some of their principal officers, while those who survived led the panic-stricken remainder to their boats above the cataract. Thence they fled to Presquisle, which they burned. Here the garrisons of LeBœuf and Venango joined them, and the fugitives continued on to Detroit, leaving the Upper Ohio without a fighting Frenchman to confront the English.

On the same day of the defeat, negotiations for a surrender of Fort Niagara began, and Pouchot, being convinced of the reverses which his intending succorers had experienced, finally capitulated. Johnson succeeded in preventing any revengeful onset of his Indians, who had not forgotten the massacre of William Henry.

The extreme west of Canada was now cut off from the central region, which was threatened, as we shall see, by Amherst and Wolfe, and Vaudreuil could have little hope of preserving it. To press this centre on another side, Amherst now sent General Thomas Gage to succeed Johnson in the command of the Ontario region, and, gathering such troops as could be spared from the garrisons, to descend the St. Lawrence and capture the French post at the head of the rapids. Gage had little enterprise, and was not inclined to undertake a movement in which dash must make up for the lack of men, and he reported back to Amherst that the movement was impossible.

When this disappointment came to the commander-in-chief he was at Crown Point,—but we must track his progress from the beginning.

At the end of June, Amherst had at Lake George about 11,000 men, one half regulars. He set about the campaign cautiously. He had fortified new posts in his rear, and began the erection of Fort George at the head of the lake, of which only one bastion was ever finished. On the 21st of July he embarked his army on the lake, and, landing at the outlet, he followed the route of Abercrombie’s approach to Ticonderoga during the previous year. The disparity of the opposing armies was much like that when Montcalm so successfully defended that post; but Bourlamaque, who now commanded, had orders to retire, and was making his arrangements. Amherst brought up his cannon, and protected his men behind the outer line of entrenchments, which Bourlamaque had abandoned. On the night of the 23d, Bourlamaque escaped down the lake, but a small force under Hebecourt still held the fort, which kept up a show of resistance till the evening of the 26th, when the remaining French, leaving a match in the magazine, also fled. In the night one bastion was hurled to the sky, and the barracks were set on fire.

TICONDEROGA.

From A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual surveys, 1763, published in London. Various plans and views are noted in the Catal. of the King’s Maps (Brit. Mus.), ii. 395. Cf. plans in Palmer’s Lake Champlain, 85; Lossing’s Field-Book of the Rev., i. 118, and views and descriptions of the ruins in Lossing, i. 127, 131; Watson’s County of Essex, 112. Lieut. Brehm’s description of the fort after its capture is in the N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg., 1883, p. 21.

CROWN POINT.

From a small vignette on a map by Kitchin of the Province of New York, in the London Magazine, Sept., 1756. There is a similar map in the Gentleman’s Mag., vol. xxv. p. 525.

Various MS. plans and views of Crown Point are noted in the Catal. of the King’s Maps (Brit. Mus.), i. 277, under date of 1759. The Brinley Catal., ii. 2,939, shows a MS. “Plan of Crown Point Fort, March, 1763,” on a scale of 90 feet to the inch.

There was published in Boston in 1762 a Plan of a part of Lake Champlain and the large new fort at Crown Point, mounting 108 cannon, built by Gen. Amherst. (Haven’s Bibliog., in Thomas, ii. p. 560.) Cf. the plans, nos. 24, 25, in Set of plans, etc. (London, 1763).

For the ruins of Crown Point, see Lossing, Field-Book of the Revolution, i. 150-152; Watson’s County of Essex, pp. 104, 112. These are a part, however, of the fort built by Amherst. Kalm describes the previous fort (Travels, London, 1771, ii. 207), and it is delineated in Mémoires sur les affaires du Canada, p. 53.

Amherst began to repair the works, with his army now succumbing somewhat to the weather,[1166] and was about advancing down the lake, when scouts brought in word that Bourlamaque had also abandoned Crown Point. So Amherst again advanced. He knew nothing of the progress Wolfe was making in his attack on Quebec by water, but he did know that it was a part of Pitt’s plan that success on Lake Champlain should inure to Wolfe’s advantage, and this could only be brought about by an active pursuit of the enemy down the lake. Amherst was, however, not a general of the impetuous kind, and believed beyond all else in securing his rear. So he began to build at Crown Point the new fort, whose massive ruins are still to be seen, and sent out parties to open communication with the Upper Hudson on the west and with the Connecticut River on the east.

The French, as he knew, were strongly posted at Isle-aux-Noix, in the river below the lake, and they had four armed vessels, which would render dangerous any advance on his part by boat. So Captain Loring, the English naval commander, was ordered to put an equal armament afloat for an escort to his flotilla.

Bourlamaque, meanwhile, was confident in his position, for he knew that, in addition to his own strength, Lévis had been sent up to Montreal with 800 men to succor him, if necessary, and all the militia about Montreal was alert.

Amherst, on his part, was anxious to know how the campaign was going with Wolfe. In August he sent a messenger with a letter by the circuitous route of the Kennebec, which Wolfe received in about a month, but it helped that general little to know of the building going on at Crown Point. Amherst then tried to pass messengers through the Abenaki region, but they were seized. Upon this, Major Rogers was sent with his rangers to destroy the Indian village of St. Francis, which he did, and then, to elude parties endeavoring to cut him off, he retreated by Lake Memphremagog to Charlestown, on the Connecticut, enduring as he went the excruciating horrors of famine and exhaustion.

CROWN POINT, 1851.

From a sketch made in 1851, showing in the foreground a slope of the embankment, with part of the ruins of the barracks, the lake beyond, looking to the north.

ISLE-AUX-NOIX.

After a plan in the contemporary Mémoires sur le Canada, 1749-1760, as published by the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec (réimpression), 1873, p. 154. See the view in Lossing’s Field-Book of the Rev., i. 167.

It was near the middle of October when Loring pronounced the armed vessels ready, and Amherst embarked; but the autumn gales soon convinced him that the risks of the elements were too great to be added to those of the enemy, and after his demonstration had caused the destruction of three of the enemy’s vessels, and one had reached their post on the Richelieu River, the English general, still ignorant of Wolfe’s luck, withdrew to Crown Point, and gave himself to the completion of its fortress.

We must now turn to the most brilliant part of the year’s work. This was the task assigned to General Wolfe, who had already shown his quality in the attack on Louisbourg the previous year.[1167] Late in May he was at Louisbourg, with his army under three brigadiers, Monckton, Townshend, and Murray, and the fleet of Saunders, who had come direct from England, combined with that of Holmes, who had been first at New York to take troops on board. A third fleet under Durell was cruising in the gulf to intercept supplies for Quebec, but that officer largely failed in his mission, for all but three of the French supply ships eluded him, and by the 6th of June, when the last of Wolfe’s fleet sailed out of Louisbourg, Quebec had received all the succor that was expected.

The French had done their best to be prepared for the blow. Their entire force at Quebec was congregated in the town defences and in a fortified camp, which had been constructed along the St. Lawrence, beginning at the St. Charles, opposite Quebec, and extending to the Montmorenci, and on this line about 14,000 men, beside Indians, manned the entrenchments. A bridge connected the camp with Quebec, and a boom across the St. Charles at its mouth was intended to stop any approaches to the bridge by boats; while earthworks along the St. Charles formed a camp to fall back upon in case the more advanced one was forced. Beside the 106 cannon mounted on the defences of the city, there were gun-boats and fire-ships prepared for the moment of need. In the town the Chevalier de Ramezay commanded a garrison of one or two thousand men. Montcalm had his headquarters[1168] in the rear of the centre of the entrenched line along the St. Lawrence, and Vaudreuil’s flag was flying nearer the St. Charles.

On the 21st of June the masts of the advanced ships of the English were first seen, and one of the fire-ships was ineffectually sent against them. There was a difficult passage between the north shore of the river and the lower end of the Island of Orleans; but the English fleet managed to pass it without loss, much to the disappointment of the French, who had failed to plant a battery on the side of Cape Tourmente, whence they could have plunged shot into the passing vessels. Past the dangers of the stream, the English landed their army on the island,[1169] less than 9,000 in all, for Wolfe could count little on the sailors who were needed for the management of the fleet.[1170]

GENERAL JAMES WOLFE.

From an engraving in John Knox’s Hist. Journal of the Campaigns in North America (1757-1760), London, 1769. An engraving from Entick is given in the preceding chapter. There is a head of Wolfe in London Mag. (1759), p. 584.

J. C. Smith, in his Brit. Mezzotint Portraits, notes four different prints (vol. ii. 783; iii. 1027, 1345, the last by H. Smith, engraved by Spooner; and iv. 1750), but he does not reproduce either.

Parkman (Montcalm and Wolfe, ii.) gives a picture of Wolfe in early youth—weak enough in aspect—which follows a photograph from an original portrait owned by Admiral Warde.

Wright, in his Life of Wolfe, gives a photograph of the same. See Ibid., p. 604, for an account of various portraits and memorials.

The common picture representing him standing and in profile is engraved in Parkman’s Historical Handbook of the Northern Tour; in the Eng. ed. of Warburton’s Conquest of Canada, etc.

SIEGE OF QUEBEC, 1759.

Reproduced from the map in Miles’s Canada, called “Plan of the St. Lawrence River from Sillery to the Fall of Montmorency, with the operations of the siege of Quebec, 1759,” which has a corner “View of the action gained by the English, Sept. 13, 1759, near Quebec.” This map is a reduction of one engraved by Jefferys, and dedicated to Pitt, entitled “Authentic plan of the River St. Lawrence from Sillery to the Fall of Montmorenci, with the operations of the siege of Quebec, under the command of Vice-Admiral Saunders and Major-General Wolfe, down to the fifth of September, 1759, drawn by a captain in his Majesty’s navy.” The sideplan is called “View of the action gained by the English Sept. 13, 1759, near Quebec, brought from thence by an officer of distinction.” This was also inserted by Jefferys in his History of the French Dominion in America, London, 1760, p. 131. The same map is given in Entick’s General Hist. of the Late War, London, 1770 (3d ed.), iv. 107; and a similar one is in the American Atlas. Jefferys repeats this map in his General Topography of North America and the West Indies, London, 1768 (no. 18), and adds another (no. 21), called “A correct plan of the environs of Quebec and the battle fought 13 Sept., 1759,” which is accompanied by a superposed “second plate,” showing the disposition of the forces on the Plains of Abraham. This plan had already appeared separately in Journal of the siege of Quebec, to which is annexed a correct plan of the environs of Quebec, and of the battle fought on the 13th September, 1759, together with a particular detail of the French lines and batteries, and also of the encampments, batteries, and attacks of the British army, etc. Engraved from original survey by Thomas Jefferys [London, 1760], 16 pp. (Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,276.)

The maps given in James Grant’s British Battles, ii. 91, and in Cassell’s United States, are seemingly based on Jefferys’.

The London Magazine for 1759 has a plan of Quebec (Apr.) and of the siege (Nov.), with a map of the river (Sept.); and for 1760, a view of the taking of Quebec (p. 280), and a view of the town from the basin (p. 392).

There is a large folding plan, showing the fleet and the landing of the boats, in Mante’s Hist. of the Late War, 1772, p. 233. Alfred Hawkins published at London, in 1842, A Plan of the Naval and Military Operations before Quebec, accompanied by an engraving of West’s “Death of Wolfe.” (H. J. Morgan, Bibliotheca Canadensis, no. 179.)

In the Atlantic Neptune (Additional Plates, no. 1) is a plan of three sheets, called “A plan of Quebec and environs, with its defences and the occasional entrenched camps of the French, commanded by the Marquis of Montcalm, showing likewise the principal works and operations of the British forces under the command of Maj.-Gen. Wolfe, during the siege of that place, 1759.” It is accompanied by a key. In the same, Part ii. no. 16, there is a map of the St. Lawrence from Quebec to the gulf, which shows the region of Quebec on a large scale.

Among existing MS. plans of Wolfe’s attack may be noted one in the Faden Collection of maps in the library of Congress (E. E. Hale’s Catal. of the Faden Maps); others in the Catal. of the King’s Maps (Brit. Mus.), ii. 220, under date of 1755, 1759, 1760; also Brit. Mus. MSS., no. 15,535; and Additional MSS., no. 31,357; this last is a large plan in four sheets. Parkman (ii. 440) refers to a large MS. plan, 800 feet to an inch, belonging to the Royal Engineers, which was made by three engineers of Wolfe’s army, and of which he says that he possesses a fac-simile. In his Montcalm and Wolfe (ii. 200) he gives an eclectic plan; and other plans are in Lemoine’s Picturesque Quebec, p. 301 (being Jefferys’ on a small scale); Bancroft’s United States, orig. ed., iv. 315, etc., repeated in vol. i. of his Hist. of the Amer. Revolution (English edition).

A plan was published at Amsterdam in 1766.

Dussieux, in Le Canada sous la domination Française, gives a map of the siege, “D’après un manuscrit Anglais du Dépôt de la Guerre.”

PLAN OF THE CITY OF QUEBEC.

From Father Abraham’s Almanac (by Abraham Weatherwise, Gent.), 1761. Key: A, the west part of the Island of Orleans, on which General Wolfe landed. B, Point Leveé, on which one grand battery was erected. C, Wolfe’s camp to the east of Montmorency Falls. D, the river St. Charles. E E E, the river St. Lawrence, with some of the English ships going up. F, the lower town, to the right of which is a cross (in the middle of the passage to the upper town), and a man kneeling before it, saying his Ave Maria. G, the upper town and passage to the castle. H, Montcalm’s camp and entrenchments, to the west of Montmorency Falls, from whence he marched when Wolfe recrossed the river to Point Leveé, in order to get above the city, where they luckily met, and fought it out bravely. I, Montmorency Falls and Saunders’ ships playing upon the town.

This cut has interest as a contemporary sketch for popular instruction.

He knew also that he must place little reliance on the cannon of the ships, for the high rocks and bluffs of the defences were above the elevation which could be given to the guns, and a broad stretch of mud-flats kept the vessels from a near approach to that portion of the French camp which was low and lay nearest the St. Charles. Cape Diamond, the promontory of Quebec, so jutted out that Wolfe could not inspect at present the banks of the river above the town.

Montcalm had determined on a policy of wearing out his assailants,—and he came very near doing it,—and when a gale sprang up he hoped that its power of devastation would be his best ally. When he saw that fail, he tried his fire-ships; but the British sailors grappled them and towed them aground, where they were harmless.

Wolfe’s next movement was to occupy Point Levi, opposite the city,[1171] whence he showered shot and shell into the town, and drove the non-combatants out. The French tried to dislodge him, but failed. The English army was now divided by the river, and ran some risk of attack in detail. Montcalm, however, was not tempted; nor was he later, when Wolfe next landed a force below him, beyond the Montmorenci, and began to entrench himself, though the English general was interrupted in the beginning of this movement by an attack of Canadians, who had crossed the Montmorenci by an upper ford. The attack was not persisted in, however, and Wolfe was soon well entrenched. The cannonading was incessant. Night after night the sky was streaked with the shells from the vessels, and from each of Wolfe’s three camps.

The dilatory policy of Montcalm soon began to tell on his force, and then weariness and ominous news from Bourlamaque and Pouchot hastened the desertion of his Canadians. Wolfe tried to affect the neighboring peasantry by proclamations more and more threatening, and felt himself obliged at last to enforce his authority by the destruction of crops and villages.

On the 18th of July, in the night, the “Sutherland” and some smaller vessels pushed up the river beyond the town, while a fleet of boats was dragged overland back of Point Levi and launched above, out of gun-shot from the town. A force was sent by a détour to operate with them. Thus Wolfe, in defiance of the French general, had made a fourth division of his troops, each liable to separate attack. The English vessels above the town made descents along the north shore, and took some prisoners, but did little else. The French made their final attempt with a huge fire-raft, but it was as unsuccessful as the earlier ones.

Wolfe now determined to provoke Montcalm to fight, and under cover of a cannonade from Point Levi and from some of his ships[1172] he landed a force from boats beneath the precipice at the lower end of the French camp. An additional body at the same time crossed by a ford, in front of the falls of Montmorenci, which was traversable at low tide. The impetuosity of the grenadiers, who were in advance, not waiting for support, and a tempest which at the moment broke over them, convinced the quick eye of Wolfe that the attempt was to fail, and he recalled his men. The French let them retire in good order, and began to think their Fabian policy was to be crowned with success. Wolfe was correspondingly shaken and rebuked the grenadiers. He began to think, even, that the season might wear away with no better results, and that he should have to abandon the campaign.

There was one plan yet, which might succeed, and he sought to push more ships and march more troops above the town. Murray, who now took command at that point, began to raid upon the shore, but with poor success. Montcalm sent Bougainville with 1,500 men to patrol the shore, and incessant marching they had, as the English by water flitted up and down the river with the tides, threatening to land. The English restlessness was too oppressive, however, for the French camp at Beaufort, which felt that its supplies from Three Rivers and Montreal might be cut off at any moment by an English descent. Desertions increased, and rapidly increased when in August the French got decisive and unfavorable news from Lake Champlain and Ontario. The French fearing an approach of Amherst down the St. Lawrence, Quebec was further weakened by the despatch of Lévis to confront the English in that direction. By the end of August there were no signs of immediate danger at Montreal, and the French took heart.

Wolfe was now ill,—not so prostrate, however, but he could propose various new plans to a council of his brigadiers, but his suggestions were all rejected as too hazardous. They recommended, in the end, an attempt to gain the heights somewhere above the town, and force Montcalm to fight for his communications. Wolfe was ready to try it; but it was the first of September before he was able to undertake it.[1173] He saw no other hope, slight as this one was. The letter which Amherst had sent to him by the Kennebec route had just reached him, and he felt there was to be no assistance from that quarter. On the 3d of September he evacuated the camp at Montmorenci, Montcalm being prevented from molesting him by a feint which was made by boats in front of his Beaufort lines. Other troops were now marched above Quebec, and when Wolfe himself joined Admiral Holmes, who commanded that portion of the fleet which was above the town, he found he had almost 3,600 men, beside what he might draw from Point Levi, for his adventurous exploit. The French were deceived, and thought that the English were to go down the river, as indeed, if the scheme to scale the banks failed on the first attempt, they were. Bougainville’s corps of observation was increased, and it was its duty to patrol a long stretch of the river shore.

BOUGAINVILLE.

After a cut in Bonnechose’s Montcalm, 5th ed., 1882, p. 138.

Wolfe with a glass had discovered a ravine,[1174] up which it seemed possible for a forlorn hope to mount, and the number of tents at its top did not indicate that there was a numerous guard there to be overcome. Robert Stobo, who had been a prisoner in Quebec after the fall of Fort Necessity, had recently joined the camp, and his biographer says that his testimony confirmed Wolfe in the choice, or rather directed him to it.[1175] While the preparations were going on, the English ships perplexed Bougainville by threatening to land troops some distance up the river, near his headquarters; and by floating up and down with the tide, the English admiral kept the French on the constant march to be abreast of them.

The plan was now ripe. Wolfe was to drop down the river in boats with the turn of the tide, having with him his 3,600 men, and 1,200 were to join him by boat from Point Levi. As night came on, Admiral Saunders, who commanded the fleet in the basin below Quebec, made every disposition as if to attack the Beauport lines, and Montcalm thought the main force of the British was still before him.

As the ships opposite Bougainville began to swing downward with the tide, the French general took pity on his weary men, and failed to follow the moving vessels. This kept the main part of his troops well up the river. This French general had, as it happened, informed the shore guards and batteries towards the town that he should send down by water a convoy with provisions, that night, which was to creep along to Montcalm’s camp under the shadow of the precipice. Wolfe heard of this through some deserters, and he seized the opportunity to cast off his boats and get ahead of the convoy, in order that he might answer for it if hailed. He was hailed, and answered in the necessary deceitful French. This quieted the suspicion of the sentries as he rowed gently along in the gloom.

BRITISH SOLDIERS.

Reduced fac-simile of a cut in J. Luard’s Hist. of the Dress of the British Soldier, London, 1852, p. 95. This shows a heavy and light dragoon and two guardsmen of about the time of Wolfe’s attack, 1759. The cap of the guardsmen is of German origin, and was in general use by the English grenadiers of this period. The heavy dragoon is on the right. The one on the left is a light dragoon of the 15th regiment. The breeches are of leather; the coat is of scarlet.

As it happened, the Canadian officer, Colonel de Vergor, who commanded the guard at the top of the ravine, where Wolfe’s advanced party clambered up, was asleep in his tent, and many of his men had gone home, by his permission, to hoe their gardens. The English forlorn hope made, therefore, quick work, when they reached the top, as they rushed on the tents. Their shots and huzzas told Wolfe, waiting below, that a foothold was gained, and he led his army up the steeps with as much haste as possible. While the line of battle was forming, detachments were sent to attack the batteries up the river, which, alarmed by the noise, were beginning to fire on the last of the procession of boats. The celerity of the movement accomplished its end, and the French were driven off and the batteries taken.

Sheer good luck, quite as much as skill and courage, had at last placed Wolfe in an open field, where Montcalm must fight him, if he would save his communications and prevent the guns of Quebec, in the event of its capture,[1176] being turned upon his camp.

Not a mile from Quebec, and fronting its walls, Wolfe had formed his final line, but he had turned its direction on the left, and there the line faced the St. Charles. In the early morning he saw the French form on a ridge in front of him, when some skirmishing ensued, as also in his rear, where a detachment sent by Bougainville began to harass him. With a foe before and behind, quick and decisive work was necessary.

MONTCALM.

After a portrait, “une gravure du temps,” in Charles de Bonnechose’s Montcalm et le Canada Français, 5th ed., Paris, 1882. Cf. the likeness in Daniel, Nos Gloires, ii. 273, and in Martin, De Montcalm en Canada.

The portrait given in Parkman (Montcalm and Wolfe, vol. i.) is after a photograph from an original picture, representing him at 29, now in the possession of the present Marquis de Montcalm. Cf. the likeness in Higginson’s Larger Hist. of the United States, p. 190.

Montcalm, whom Admiral Saunders had been deceiving all night, hurried over to Vaudreuil’s headquarters in the morning to learn what the firing above the town meant. From this position he saw the seriousness of the situation at once. The red coats of the British line were in full view beyond the St. Charles. He hastened across the bridge, and was soon on the ground, bringing the regiments into line as they came up. But all the help he had a right to expect did not come. Ramezay made excuses for not sending cannon. Vaudreuil kept back the left wing at Beaufort, for fear that Saunders meant something, after all.

Montcalm’s impetuosity, now that it was unshackled, could not brook delay. It would take time to concert with Bougainville an attack on the front and rear of the British simultaneously, and that time would give Wolfe the chance to entrench and bring up reinforcements, if he had any. So the decision in Montcalm’s council was for an instant onset.

It was ten o’clock when Wolfe saw it coming. He advanced his line to meet it, and when the French were close upon them the fire burst from the English ranks. Another volley followed; and as the smoke passed away, Wolfe saw the opportunity and gave the word to charge. As he led the Louisbourg grenadiers he was hit twice before a shot in the breast bore him to the ground. He was carried to the rear, and as he was sinking he heard those around him cry that the enemy was flying. He turned, praised God, and died.[1177]

QUEBEC AS IT SURRENDERED, 1759.

After a plan in Miles’s Hist. of Canada, p. 363, which is mainly the same as the large folding map by Jefferys, published Jan. 15, 1760, which also makes part of the Hist. of the French Dominion in America, London, 1760, and of his General Topog. of North America and the West Indies, London, 1768, no. 19. There is another plan in the Nouvelle Carte de la Province de Québec selon l’edit du Roi d’Angleterre du 8 Sep^bre, 1763, par le Capitaine Carver et autres, traduites de l’Anglois, à Paris, 1777. One is annexed to Joseph Hazard’s Conquest of Quebec, a poem, London, 1769; and another to Lemoine’s Picturesque Quebec, 1882. Cf. Mag. of Amer. Hist., Apr., 1884, p. 280.

Richard Short made some drawings of the condition of Quebec after the bombardment, which were engraved and published in 1761.

The French plans of Quebec of this period, to be noted, are those of Bellin in Charlevoix, viz.: Plan du bassin de Québec et de les environs, 1744 (vol. iii. p. 70); Plan de la ville de Québec, 1744 (Ibid., p. 72); and Carte de l’isle d’Orléans, et du passage de la traverse dans le Fleuve St. Laurent, 1744 (Ibid., p. 65); beside the plan of Quebec in Bellin’s Petit Atlas Maritime, vol. i., 1764.

In vol. lxiv. of the Shelburne MSS. there are various plans of the fortifications and citadel, made after the surrender. Edw. Fitzmaurice reported on these in the Hist. MSS. Commission’s Fifth Report, p. 231.

Such books as Hawkins’s Picturesque Quebec and Lossing’s paper in Harper’s Magazine, xviii. 176, give pictures of most of the points of historical interest in and about the town. Cf. J. M. Lemoine’s “Rues de Québec,” in the Revue Canadienne, xii. 269.

Various views connected with the siege of Quebec are given in Picturesque Canada, Toronto, 1884, showing the present condition of Wolfe’s Cove and the ascent from it (pp. 25, 47), the martello towers (p. 27), as well as the monuments to commemorate Wolfe and Montcalm (pp. 27, 46).

Montcalm, mounted, borne on by the panic, was shot through the breast just before he entered the town, and was taken within to die.

Part of the fugitives got into Quebec with their wounded general; part fled down the declivity towards the St. Charles, and, under cover of a stand which some Canadian bushrangers made in a thicket, succeeded in getting across the river to the camp, where everything was in the confusion which so easily befalls an army without a head. It was necessary for the English to cease from the pursuit, for Townshend,[1178] who had come to the command (Monckton being wounded), feared Bougainville was upon his rear, as indeed he was. When that general, however, found that the English commander had recalled his troops, and was forming to receive him, he withdrew, for he had only 2,000 men,—probably all he could collect from their scattered posts,—and seeing the English were twice as many, he did not dare attack. So Townshend turned to entrenching, and working briskly he soon formed a line of protection, and had a battery in position confronting the horn-work beyond the St. Charles, which commanded the bridge.

Vaudreuil was trying to get some decision, meanwhile, out of a council of war at Beaufort. They sent to Quebec for Montcalm’s advice, and the dying man told them to fight, retreat, or surrender. The counsel was broad enough, and the choice was promptly made. It was retreat. That night it began. Guns, ammunition, provisions,—everything was left. The troops by a circuitous route flocked along like a rabble, and on the 15th they went into camp on the hill of Jacques Cartier, thirty miles up the St. Lawrence.

The morning after the fight, the tents still standing along the Beaufort lines were a mockery; for Ramezay knew that Vaudreuil had gone, since he had received word from him to surrender the town when his provisions failed.

Bougainville was still at Cap Rouge, and undertook to send provisions into Quebec. Lévis had joined Vaudreuil at Jacques Cartier,[1179] and inspired the governor with hope enough to order a return to his old camp. On the evening of the 18th the returning army had reached St. Augustine, when they learned that Ramezay had surrendered and the British flag waved over Quebec.

Preparations for the departure of the fleet were soon made, and munitions and provisions for the winter were landed for the garrison, which under Murray was to hold the town during the winter. The middle of October had passed, when Admiral Saunders, one of his ships bearing the embalmed body of Wolfe, sailed down the river. Montcalm lay in a grave, which, before the altar of the Ursulines, had been completed out of a cavity made by an English shell.[1180]

The winter passed with as much comfort as the severe climate and a shattered town would permit. There were sick and wounded to comfort, and the sisters of the hospitals devoted themselves to French and English alike. A certain rugged honesty in Murray won the citizens who remained, and the hours were beguiled in part by the spirits of the French ladies. There was an excitement in November, when a fleet of French ships from up the river tried to run the batteries, and seven or eight of them which did so carried the first despatches to France which Vaudreuil had succeeded in transmitting. There was rough work in December, in getting their winter’s wood from the forest of Sainte-Foy, for they had no horses, and the merriment of companionship, checkered with the danger of the skulking enemy, was the only lightening of the severities of the task. Deserters occasionally brought in word that Lévis was gathering and exercising his forces for an attack, so vigilance was incessant. Both sides preserved the wariness of war in onsets and repulses at the outposts, and the English usually got the better of their enemies. Captain Hazen and some New England rangers merited the applause which the regular officers gave them when they buffeted and outwitted the enemy in a series of skirmishes.

By April it became apparent that Lévis was only waiting for the ice in the river to break up, when he could get water carriage for his advance. Murray knew that the enemy could bring much greater numbers against him, for his 7,000 men of the autumn, by sickness and death, had been reduced to about 3,000 effectives, and the spies of Lévis kept the French general well informed of the constant weakening of the English forces.

CAMPAIGN OF LÉVIS AND MURRAY.

This follows a map in Miles’s Hist. of Canada, p. 427; also in Lemoine’s Picturesque Quebec, p. 419.

The French placed their cannon and stores on the frigates and smaller vessels which had escaped up the river in the autumn, and with their army in bateaux they started on the 21st April for the descent from Montreal. With the accessions gained on the way, by picking up the scattered garrisons, Lévis landed between eight and nine thousand men at Cap Rouge, and advanced on Sainte-Foy. The English at the outposts fell back, and the delay on the part of the French was sufficient for Murray to learn of their approach. He resolved to meet them outside the walls. It must be an open-field fight for Murray, since the frozen soil still rendered entrenching impossible in the time which he had. He led out about three thousand men, and at first posted himself on the ridge, where Montcalm had drawn up his lines the year before. He pushed forward till he occupied Wolfe’s ground of the same morning, when, with his great superiority of cannon, he found a position that gave him additional advantage, which he ought to have kept. The fire of the English guns, however, induced Lévis to withdraw his men to the cover of a wood, a movement which Murray took for a retreat, and, emulous of Wolfe’s success in seizing an opportune moment, he ordered a general advance. His cannon were soon stuck in some low ground, and no longer helped him. The fight was fierce and stubborn; but after a two hours’ struggle, the greater length of the enemy’s line began to envelop the English, and Murray ordered a retreat. It was rapid, but not so disordered that Lévis dared long to follow.

QUEBEC, 1763.

From A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual surveys, 1763, published in London.

The English had lost a third of their force; the French loss was probably less. Murray got safely again within the walls, and could muster about 2,400 men for their defence.[1181] There was sharp work, and little time left further to strengthen the walls and gates. Officer and man worked like cattle. A hundred and fifty cannon were soon belching upon the increasing trenches of Lévis, who finally dragged some artillery up the defile where Wolfe had mounted, and was thus enabled to return the fire.

Both sides were anxiously waiting expected reinforcements from the mother country. On the 9th of May a frigate beat up the basin, and to the red flag which was run up at Cape Diamond she responded with similar colors. It was ominous to Lévis, for he felt she was the advanced ship of a British squadron, as she proved to be. It was a week before others arrived, when some of the heavier vessels passed up the river and destroyed the French fleet. As soon as the naval result was certain, Lévis deserted his trenches, left his guns and much else, with his wounded, and hastily fled. This was in the night; in the morning the French were beyond Murray’s reach.

VIEW OF MONTREAL.

A sample of the popular graphic aids of the day, which is taken from Father Abraham’s Almanac, 1761 (Philadelphia). “Key: A, river St. Lawrence; B, the governor’s house and parade; C, arsenal and yard for canoes and battoes; D, Jesuits’ Church and Convent; E, the fort, a cavalier, without a parapet; F, the Parish Church; G, the nunnery hospital and gardens; H, Sisters of the Congregation, and gardens; I, Recollects’ convents and gardens; K, the Seminary; L, the wharf.”

Cf. view and plan published in London Mag., Oct., 1760. Parkman (ii. 371) refers, as among the king’s maps in the Brit. Mus., to an east view of Montreal, drawn on the spot by Thomas Patten. Cf. Lossing’s Field-Book of the Revolution, i. 179.

Their loss of cannon and munitions was a serious one, and the stores from France which might have replaced them were already intercepted by the English cruisers. Vaudreuil and Lévis made their dispositions to defend Montreal, their last hope; yet it was not a place in itself capable of successful defence, for its lines were too weak. It soon became evident that it was to be attacked on three sides; and the French had hopes that so dangerous a combination of armies, converging without intercommunication, would enable them to crush the enemy in detail.

Amherst was directing the general advance on the English side. He kept the largest force with him, and passed from Oswego, across Ontario, and down the St. Lawrence. If Lévis sought to escape westward and hold out at Detroit, Amherst intended to be sure to intercept him. He had about 11,000 men, including a body of Indians under Johnson. Near the head of the rapids he stopped long enough to capture Fort Lévis, now under Pouchot, and because they could not kill the prisoners, three fourths of Johnson’s Indians mutinied and went home. Amherst now shot the rapids with his flotilla, not without some loss, and on September 6th he reached Lachine, nine miles above Montreal.

MONTREAL.

From A set of plans and forts in America, reduced from actual surveys, 1763, published in London. There is a plan of Montreal, and of Isle Montreal in a Carte de la Province de Quebec ... par le Capitaine Carver, etc., traduites de l’Anglois, à Paris, 1777. The isle of Montreal as surveyed by the French engineers is mapped in the London Mag., Jan., 1761.

Meanwhile, the other commanders had already approached the city so near as to open communication with each other. Murray had sailed up the river with about 2,500 men, but was soon reinforced by Lord Rollo with 1,300 others from Louisbourg. The English had some skirmishes along the banks, but Bourlamaque, who was opposing them, fell back with a constantly diminishing force, as the Canadians, despite all threats and blandishments, deserted him. Murray was ahead of the others, when he stopped just before reaching Montreal, and encamped on an island in the river. He was not without apprehension that he might have to bear the brunt of an attack alone.

Bougainville, meanwhile, was trying to resist Haviland’s advance at the Isle-aux-Noix, for this English general now commanded on the Champlain route. The two sides were not ill-matched as to numbers; but the English advance was skilfully conducted, and the French found themselves obliged to retreat down the river and unite with Bourlamaque. It was now that Haviland, pushing on, opened communication by his right with Murray, and both stood on the defensive, waiting to hear of Amherst’s approach above the town.

MONTREAL, 1758.

Follows a plan in Miles’s Hist. of Canada, p. 297. It is mainly the same as the large folding map by Thomas Jefferys, published Jan. 30, 1758, and making part of the Hist. of the French Dominion in America, London, 1760, p. 12. This last is in the F. North Collection in Harvard College Library, vol. iii. no. 22; and was again used by Jefferys in his General Topog. of No. America and the West Indies, London, 1768, no. 22.

These other plans belonging to the 18th century may be noted:—

MS. plans of 1717 and 1721 recorded in the Catalogue of the Library of Parliament, Toronto, 1858, p. 1618, nos. 58 and 59.

Map of 1729, made by Chaussegros de Léry, in the Paris Archives.

Carte de l’isle de Montreal et de ses environs, par N. Bellin, 1744, in Charlevoix, i. p. 227, and reproduced in Dr. Shea’s edition of Charlevoix; as well as the plan of the town, in Charlevoix, ii. 170.

A MS. plan of 1752, giving details not elsewhere found, is noted in the Library of Parliament Catal., p. 1620, no. 81.

A plan of 1756, and one of 1762 by Patten, engraved by Canot, are marked in the Catal. of the King’s Maps (Brit. Mus.), ii. 54.

A plan of Montreal and its neighborhood by Bellin, in his Petit Atlas Maritime, 1764.

The delay was brief. Amherst, advancing from Lachine, encamped before Montreal, above it, while Murray ferried his men from the island and encamped below. What there was left of the force which opposed Haviland withdrew across the river into the town, and Haviland’s tents dotted the shore which the French had left. The combined French army now numbered scarce 2,500; Amherst held them easily with a force of 17,000.

ROUTES TO CANADA, 1755-1763.

Follows map in Miles’s Hist. of Canada, p. 293.

Other contemporary maps showing the country, brought within the campaigns about Lakes Champlain and Ontario, are the following:—

A chorographical map of the country between Albany, Oswego, Fort Frontenac, and Les Trois Rivières, exhibiting all the grants by the French on Lake Champlain, which was included by Jefferys in his General Topog. of North America and the West Indies, London, 1768. It is, in fact, the northerly sheet of Jefferys’ Provinces of New York and New Jersey, with part of Pensilvania, drawn by Capt. Holland. The same General Topography, no. 32, etc., contains also in Blanchard and Langdon’s Map of New Hampshire (Oct. 21, 1761) a corner map, showing “The River St. Lawrence above Montreal to Lake Ontario, with the adjacent country on the west from Albany and Lake Champlain.”

Vaudreuil saw there was no time for delays, and at once submitted a plan of capitulation. A few notes were exchanged to induce less onerous conditions; but Amherst was not to be moved. On September 8th the paper was signed, and all Canada passed to the English king; the whole garrison to be sent as prisoners to France in British ships.

ROBERT ROGERS.

From the Geschichte der Kriege in und ausser Europa, Elfter Theil, Nürnberg, 1777. This follows a print published in London, Oct. 1, 1776, described in Smith’s Brit. Mezzotint Portraits, and in Parkman’s Pontiac, i. p. 164.

This stipulation was adhered to, and during the autumn the principal French officers were on their way to France. The season for good weather on the ocean was passed, and the transportation was not accomplished without some wrecks, accompanied by suffering and death. Vaudreuil, Bigot, Cadet, and others found a dubious welcome in France after they had weathered the November storms. The government was not disposed that the loss of Canada should be laid wholly to its account, and the ministry had heard stories enough of the peculations of its agents in the colony to give a chance of shifting a large part of the responsibility upon those whose bureaucratic thefts had sapped the vitals of the colony. Trials ensued, the records of which yield much to enable us to depict the rotten life of the time; and though Vaudreuil escaped, the hand of the law fell crushingly on Bigot and Cadet, and banishment, restitution, and confiscation showed them the shades of a stern retribution. They were not alone to suffer, but they were the chief ones.

The war was over, and a new life began in Canada. The surrender of the western posts was necessary to perfect the English occupancy, and to receive these Major Rogers was despatched by Amherst on the 13th of September. On the way, somewhere on the southern shore of Lake Erie,[1182] he met (November 7) Pontiac, and, informing him of the capitulation at Montreal, the politic chief was ready to smoke the calumet with him. Rogers pushed on towards Detroit.[1183] There was some apprehension that Belêtre, who commanded there, would rouse his Indians to resist, but the French leader only blustered, and when (November 29) the white flag came down and the red went up, his 700 Indians hailed the change of masters with a yell; and it was with open-eyed wonder that the savages saw so many succumb to so few, and submit to be taken down the lake as prisoners. An officer was sent along the route from Lake Erie to the Ohio to take possession of the forts at Miami and Ouatanon; but it was not till the next season that a detachment of the Royal Americans pushed still farther on to Michillimachinac and the extreme posts.[1184]

English power was now confirmed throughout all the region embraced in the surrender of Vaudreuil.

[CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION].

THE ninth volume of the N. Y. Col. Docs. richly illustrates the French movements near the beginning of the century to secure Indian alliances.[1185]

A number of papers from the archives of the Marine, respecting the founding of Detroit (1701), is given by Margry (Découvertes, etc.) in his fifth volume (pp. 135-250), as well as records of the conferences held by La Motte Cadillac with the neighboring Indians (p. 253, etc.). These papers come down to 1706.[1186]

The contracts made at Quebec in 1701 and later, respecting the right to trade at the straits, are given in Mrs. Sheldon’s Early Hist. of Michigan (N. Y., 1856, pp. 93, 138). In Shea’s Relation des affaires du Canada, 1696-1702 (N. Y., 1865), there is a “Relation du Destroit,” and other papers touching these Western parts.[1187]

Mrs. Sheldon’s Early History of Michigan contains various documents on the condition of the colony at Detroit and Michilimackinac.[1188]

On the attack on Detroit in 1712, made by the Foxes, in which, as confederates of the Iroquois, they acted in the English interest, we find documents in the N. Y. Col. Docs., ix. pp. 857, 866; and the Report of Du Buisson, the French commander, is in W. R. Smith’s Hist. of Wisconsin, iii. 316.[1189]

The report of Tonti, on affairs at Detroit in 1717, is given by Mrs. Sheldon (p. 316).

In Margry’s Découvertes et Établissements des Français dans l’Amérique Septentrionale (vol. v. p. 73) is a “Relation du Sieur de Lamothe Cadillac, capitaine en pied, ci-devant commandant de Missilimakinak et autres postes dans les pays élorgnés, où il a été pendant trois années” (dated July 31, 1718).

In the third volume of the Wisconsin Historical Collections there are other documents among the Cass papers.[1190]

There is in another chapter some account of preparations at Boston for the fatal expedition of 1711, under Admiral Sir Hovenden Walker, with its contingent of Marlborough’s veterans.[1191] An enumeration of the forces employed was printed in the Boston Newsletter, no. 379 (July 16-23, 1711), and is reprinted in what is the authoritative narrative, the Journal or full account of the late expedition to Canada, which Walker printed in London in 1720,[1192] partly in vindication of himself against charges of peculation and incompetency. The failure of the expedition was charged by constant reports in England to the dilatoriness of Massachusetts in preparing the outfit. Walker does not wholly share this conviction, it is just to him to say; but Jeremiah Dummer, then the agent of the province in London, thought it worth while to defend the provincial government by printing in London, 1712 (reprinted, Boston, 1746), a Letter to a noble lord concerning the late expedition to Canada,[1193] in which he contended that this expedition was wisely planned, and that its failure was not the fault of New England. There is another tract of Dummer’s to a similar purpose: A letter to a friend in the country, on the late expedition to Canada, London, 1712.[1194] Palfrey[1195] says that he found various letters and documents among the British Colonial Papers, including a “Journal of the expedition, by Col. Richard King.”[1196]

FRENCH SOLDIER, 1710.

After a water-color sketch in the Mass. Archives: Documents collected in France, vi. p. 1. The coat is red, faced with blue.

FRENCH SOLDIER, 1710.

After a water-color sketch in the Mass. Archives: Documents collected in France, viii. p. 1. The coat is blue, faced with red. Cf. sketches in Gay’s Pop. Hist. United States, ii. 545.

——————————————————

We have the French side in Charlevoix (Shea’s),[1197] with annotations and references by that editor. Walker, in his Journal, gives a rough draft in English of a manifesto intended to be distributed in Canada. Charlevoix gives the French into which it was translated for that use.[1198]

The recurrent interest taken, during Alexander Spotswood’s term of office (1710-1722) as governor of Virginia, in schemes for occupying the region beyond the mountains is traceable through his Official Letters, published by the Virginia Historical Society in 1882-5.[1199]

The journey of Spotswood over the mountains in 1716 is sometimes called the “Tramontane Expedition;” it was accomplished between Aug. 20 and Sept. 17.[1200]

At the time when Spotswood was urging, in 1718, that steps should be taken to seize upon the Ohio Valley,[1201] James Logan was furnishing to Gov. Keith, to be used as material for a memorial to the Board of Trade, a report on the French settlements in the valley (dated Dec., 1718).[1202]

Previous to 1700 the Iroquois had scoured bare of their enemies a portion, at least, of the Ohio country; but during the first half of the last century, the old hunting grounds were reoccupied in part by the Wyandots, while the Delawares centred upon the Muskingum River, and the Shawanoes, or Shawnees, coming from the south, scattered along the Scioto and Miami valleys,[1203] and allied themselves with the French. The Ottawas were grouped about the Sandusky and Maumee rivers in the north.[1204]

Respecting the Indians of the Ohio Valley we have records of the eighteenth century, in a Mémoire on those between Lake Erie and the Mississippi, made in 1718.[1205]

Among the Cass MSS. is a paper on the life and customs of the Indians of Canada[1206] in 1723, which has been translated by Col. Whittlesey.[1207]

A report (1736) supposed to be by Joncaire, dated at Missilimakinac, is called, as translated, “Enumeration of the Indian tribes connected with the government of Canada.”[1208]

Conrad Weiser’s notes on the Iroquois and the Delawares (Dec., 1746) have been also translated.[1209]

An account of the Miami confederacy makes part of a book published at Cincinnati in 1871, Journal of Capt. William Trent from Logstown to Pickawillany in 1752, edited by Alfred T. Goodman, secretary of the Western Reserve Hist. Soc. It includes papers from the English archives, secured by John Lothrop Motley.[1210] In 1759 Capt. George Croghan made “a list of the Indian nations, their places of abode and chief hunting.”[1211]

The subject of the dispersion and migrations of the Indians of the Ohio Valley has engaged the attention of several of the Western antiquaries.[1212] The most exhaustive collation of the older statements regarding these tribal movements is in Manning F. Force’s lecture before the Historical and Philosophical Soc. of Ohio, which was printed at Cincinnati in 1879 as Some Early Notices of the Indians of Ohio. “In the latter half of the seventeenth century, after the destruction of the Eries in 1656 by the Five Nations,” he says, “the great basin, bounded north by Lake Erie, the Miamis, and the Illinois, west by the Mississippi, east by the Alleghanies, and south by the headwaters of the streams that flow into the Gulf of Mexico, seems to have been uninhabited except by bands of Shawnees, and scarcely visited except by war parties of the Five Nations.” He then confines himself to tracing the history of the Eries and Shawnees. He tells the story of the destruction of the Eries, or “Nation du Chat,” in 1656; and examines various theories about remnants of the tribe surviving under other names. The Chaouanons of the French, or Shawanoes of the English (Shawnees), did not appear in Ohio till after 1750. Parkman[1213] says: “Their eccentric wanderings, their sudden appearances and disappearances, perplex the antiquary and defy research.” Mr. Force adds to the investigations of their history, but still leaves, as he says, the problem unsolved. The earliest certain knowledge places them in the second half of the seventeenth century on the upper waters of the Cumberland, whence they migrated northwest and northeast, as he points out in tracking different bands.

The claim of the English to the Ohio Valley and the “Illinois country,” as for a long series of years the region east of the upper Mississippi and north of the Ohio was called,[1214] was based on a supposed conquest of the tribes of that territory by the Iroquois in 1672 or thereabouts. No treaty exists by which the Iroquois transferred this conquered country to the English, but the transaction was claimed to have some sort of a registry,[1215] as expressed, for instance, in a legend on Evans’ map[1216] (1755), which reads: “The Confederates [Five Nations], July 19, 1701, at Albany surrendered their beaver-hunting country to the English, to be defended by them for the said Confederates, their heirs and successors forever, and the same was confirmed, Sept. 14, 1728 [1726], when the Senecas, Cayugaes, and Onondagoes surrendered their habitations from Cayahoga to Oswego and six miles inland to the same for the same use.” The same claim is made on Mitchell’s map[1217] of the same year (1755), referring to the treaty with the Iroquois at Albany, Sept., 1726, by which the region west of Lake Erie and north of Erie and Ontario, as well as the belt of land from Oswego westward, was confirmed to the English.[1218]

Not much is known of the Indian occupation of the Ohio Valley before 1750,[1219] and any right by conquest which the Iroquois might have obtained, though supported at the time of the struggle by Colden,[1220] Pownall,[1221] and others,[1222] was first seriously questioned, when Gen. W. H. Harrison delivered his address on the Aborigines of the Ohio Valley.[1223] He does not allow that the Iroquois pushed their conquests beyond the Scioto.

The uncertainty of the English pretensions is shown by their efforts for further confirmation, which was brought about as regards westerly and northwesterly indefinite extensions of Virginia and Pennsylvania by the treaty of Lancaster in 1744 (June 22-July 4).[1224]

In 1748 Bollan in a petition to the Duke of Bedford on the French encroachments, complains that recent English maps had prejudiced the claims of Great Britain.[1225] Since Popple’s map in 1732, of which there had been a later edition, maps defining the frontiers had appeared in Keith’s Virginia (1738), in Oldmixon’s British Empire (1741) by Moll, and in Bowen’s Geography (1747).

There is in the Penna. Archives (2d series, vi. 93) a paper dated Dec., 1750, on the English pretensions from the French point of view. On the English side the claims of the French are examined in the State of the British and French Colonies in North America, London, 1755.[1226]

J. H. Perkins, in the North American Review, July, 1839, gave an excellent sketch of the English effort at occupation in the Ohio Valley from 1744 to 1774, which later appeared in his Memoir and Writings (Boston, 1852, vol. ii.) as “English discoveries in the Ohio Valley.” His sketch is of course deficient in points, where the publication of original material since made would have helped him.

The rivalry in the possession of Oswego and Niagara, beginning in 1725, is traced in the N. Y. Col. Docs. (ix. 949, 954, 958, 974), and in a convenient form an abstract of the French despatches for 1725-27 is found in Ibid., ix. 976, with a French view (p. 982) of the respective rights of the rivals.[1227]

There had been a stockade at Niagara under De Nonville’s rule, and the fort bore his name; but it was soon abandoned.[1228] The place was reoccupied in 1725-26, and the fort rebuilt of stone.[1229]

In 1731 the French first occupied permanently the valley of Lake Champlain,[1230] but not till 1737 did they begin to control its water with an armed sloop, and to build Fort St. Frederick.[1231]

Beauharnois’ activity in seeking the Indian favor is shown in his conference with the Onondagas in 1734 and in his communications with the Western tribes in 1741.[1232] The condition of the French power at this time is set forth in a Mémoire sur le Canada, ascribed to the Intendant Gilles Hocquart (1736).[1233]

In 1737 Conrad Weiser was sent to the Six Nations to get them to agree to a truce with the Cherokees and Catawbas, and to arrange for a conference between them and these tribes.[1234]

The expedition to the northwest, which resulted in Vérendrye’s discovery of the Rocky Mountains in Jan., 1743, is followed with more or less detail in several papers by recent writers.[1235]

The first settlement in Wisconsin took place in 1744-46 under Charles de Langlade.[1236]

The Five Years’ War (1744-48) so far as it affected the respective positions of the combatants in the two great valleys was without result. The declaration of war was in March, 1744, on both sides.[1237]

In 1744 the Governor of Canada sent an embassy to the Six Nations, assuring them that the French would soon beat the English.[1238]

In 1744 Clinton proposed the erection of a fort near Crown Point, and of another near Irondequot “to secure the fidelity of the Senecas, the strongest and most wavering of all the six confederated tribes.”[1239]

The scalping parties of the French are tracked in the N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 32, etc., with the expedition against Fort Clinton in 1747 (p. 78) and a retaliating incursion upon Montreal Island by the English (p. 81).

In 1745 both sides tried by conferences to secure the Six Nations. In July, August, and September. Beauharnois met them.[1240] Delegates from Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania convened under the New York jurisdiction at Albany, in October, 1745, and did what they could by treaty to disabuse the Indian mind of an apprehension which the French are charged with having raised, that the English had proposed to them to dispossess the Iroquois of their lands.[1241]

Upon the abortive Crown Point expedition of 1746,[1242] as well as the other military events of the war, we have Memoirs of the Principal Transactions of the last War between the English and French in North America, London, 1757 (102 pp.).[1243] It is attributed sometimes to Shirley, who had a chief hand in instigating the preparations of the expedition. This will be seen in the letters of Shirley and Warren, in the R. I. Col. Rec., v. 183, etc.; and in Penna. Archives, i. 689, 711, as in an Account of the French settlements in North America ... and the two last unsuccessful expeditions against Canada and the present on foot. By a gentleman. Boston, 1746.[1244]

A letter of Col. John Stoddard, May 13, 1747, to Governor Shirley, showing how the Six Nations had been enlisted in the proposed expedition to Canada, and deprecating its abandonment, is in Penna. Archives, i. 740; as well as a letter of Shirley, June 1, 1747 (p. 746).

A letter of Governor Shirley (June 29, 1747) respecting a congress of the colonies to be held in New York in September is in Penna. Archives, i. 754; and a letter of Conrad Weiser, doubting any success in enlisting the Six Nations in the English favor, is in Ibid., p. 161.

Clinton (November 6, 1747) complains to the Duke of Bedford of De Lancey’s efforts to thwart the government’s aims to secure the assistance of the Six Nations for the invasion of Canada.[1245]

BONNECAMP’S MAP, AFTER THE KOHL COPY.

In February, 1749-50, a long report was made to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury on the expenses incurred by the colonies during the war for the attempts to invade Canada. It is printed in the New Jersey Archives, 1st ser., vii. 383-400. The annual summaries on the French side, 1745-48, are in N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 38, 89, 137.

A stubborn fight in 1748 with some marauding Indians near Schenectady is chronicled in Pearson’s Schenectady Patent, p. 298.

In 1749 came Céloron’s expedition to forestall the English by burying his plates at the mouths of the streams flowing into the Ohio. A fac-simile of the inscription on one of these plates has been given already (ante, p. 9).[1246]

While Céloron was burying his plates, and La Galissonière was urging the home government to settle 10,000 French peasants on the Ohio, the kinsmen of Washington and others were forming in 1748 the Ohio Company, which received a royal grant of half a million acres between the Monongahela and the Kenawha rivers, on condition of settling the territory;[1247] “which lands,” wrote Dinwiddie,[1248] “are his Majesty’s undoubted right by the treaty of Lancaster and subsequent treaties at Logstown[1249] on the Ohio.” Colonel Thomas Cresap was employed to survey the road over the mountains,—the same later followed by Braddock.

Of the subsequent exploration by Christopher Gist, in behalf of the Ohio Company, and of George Croghan and Montour for the governor of Pennsylvania, note has been taken on an earlier page.[1250] A paper on Croghan’s transactions with the Indians previous to the outbreak of hostilities has been printed.[1251] Referring to the Ohio region in 1749, Croghan wrote: “No people carry on the Indian trade in so regular a manner as the French.”[1252]

Reference has already been made (ante, pp. 3, 4) to the movement in 1749 of Father Piquet to influence the Iroquois through a missionary station near the head of the rapids of the St. Lawrence, on the New York side, at the site of the present Ogdensburg. The author of the Mémoires sur le Canada, whence the plan of La Présentation (ante, p. 3)[1253] is taken, gives an unfavorable account of Piquet.[1254]

The new French governor, Jonquière, had arrived in Quebec in August, 1749. Kalm[1255] describes his reception, and it was not long before he was having a conference with the Cayugas,[1256] followed the next year (1751) by another meeting with the whole body of the Iroquois.[1257] His predecessor, La Galissonière,[1258] was busying himself on a memoir, dated December, 1750,[1259] in which he shows the great importance of endeavoring to sustain the posts connecting Canada with Louisiana, and the danger of English interference in case of a war.

William Johnson, meanwhile, was counteracting the French negotiation with the Indians as best he could;[1260] and both French and English were filing their remonstrances about reciprocal encroachments on the Ohio.[1261] Cadwallader Colden was telling Governor Clinton how to secure (1751) the Indian trade and fidelity,[1262] the Privy Council was reporting (April 2, 1751) on the condition of affairs in New York province,[1263] and the French government was registering ministerial minutes on the English encroachments on the Ohio.[1264]

What instructions Duquesne had for his treatment of the Indians on the Ohio and for driving out the English may be seen in the N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 242.

Edward Livingston, in 1754, writing of the French intrigues with the Indians, says, “They persuade these people that the Virgin Mary was born in Paris, and that our Saviour was crucified at London by the English.”[1265]

The English trading-post of Picktown, or Pickawillany, at the junction of the Great Miami River and Loramie’s Creek, was destroyed by the French in 1752.[1266] This English post and the condition of the country are described in the “Journal of Christopher Gist’s journey ... down the Ohio, 1750, ... thence to the Roanoke, 1751, undertaken on account of the Ohio Company,” which was published in Pownall’s Topographical Description of North America, app. (London, 1776). Gist explored the Great Miami River.[1267]

Parkman[1268] tells graphically the story of the incidents, in which Washington was a central figure, down to the retreat from Fort Necessity.[1269] The journal of Gist, who accompanied Washington to Le Bœuf,[1270] is printed in the Mass. Hist. Coll., xxv. 101.[1271]

The Dinwiddie Papers (vol. i. pp. 40-250) throw full light on the political purposes and other views during this interval. Parkman had copies of them, and partial use had been made of them by Chalmers. Sparks copied some of them in 1829, when they were in the possession of J. Hamilton, Cumberland Place, London, and these extracts appear among the Sparks MSS. in Harvard College library as “Operations in Virginia, 1754-57,” accompanied by other copies from the office of the Board of Trade, “Operations on the Frontier of Virginia, 1754-55.”[1272]

The Dinwiddie papers later passed into the hands of Henry Stevens, and are described at length in his Hist. Collections, i. no. 1,055; and when they were sold, in 1881, they were bought by Mr. W. W. Corcoran, of Washington, and were given by him to the Virginia Historical Society, under whose auspices they were printed in 1883-4, in two volumes, edited, with an introduction and notes, by R. A. Brock.[1273]

Very soon after Washington’s return to Williamsburgh from Le Bœuf, his journal of that mission was put to press under the following title: The Journal of Major George Washington, sent by the Hon. Robert Dinwiddie, Esq., his Majesty’s Lieutenant-Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Virginia, to the Commandant of the French forces in Ohio; to which are added the Governor’s letter and a translation of the French Officer’s answer, Williamsburgh, 1754. This original edition is so rare that I have noted but two copies.[1274] It has been used by all the historians,—Sparks, Irving, Parkman, and the rest.

Sparks[1275] says he found the original sworn statement of Ensign Ward, who surrendered to Contrecœur, in the Plantation Office in London, which had been sent to the government by Dinwiddie. The French officer’s summons is in De Hass’s West. Virginia, p. 60, etc.

There is another journal of Washington, of use in this study of what a contemporary synopsis of events, 1752-54, calls the “weak and small efforts” of the English.[1276] It no longer exists as Washington wrote it. It fell into the hands of the French at Braddock’s defeat the next year (1755), and, translated into French, it was included in a Mémoire contenant le précis des faits, avec leurs pièces justificatives pour servir de réponse aux Observations envoyées par les ministres d’Angleterre dans les cours de l’Europe.[1277] There were quarto and duodecimo editions of this book published at Paris in 1756;[1278] and the next year (1757) appeared a re-impression of the duodecimo edition[1279] and an English translation, which was called The Conduct of the late ministry, or memorial containing a summary of facts, with their vouchers, in answer to the observations sent by the English ministry to the Courts of Europe, London, 1757.[1280] Sparks says that the edition appearing with two different New York imprints (Gaine; Parker & Weyman), as Memorial, containing a summary of the facts, with their authorities, in answer to the observations sent by the English ministry to the Courts of Europe, was translated from a copy of the original French brought by a prize ship into New York. He calls the version “worthy of little credit, being equally uncouth in its style and faulty in its attempts to convey the sense of the original.”[1281] Two years later (1759) the English version again appeared in London, under the title of The Mystery revealed, or Truth brought to Light, being a discovery of some facts, in relation to the conduct of the late ministry.... By a patriot.[1282]

This missing journal of Washington, and other of these papers, are given in their re-Englished form in the second Dublin edition (1757) of a tract ascribed to William Livingston: Review of the military operations in North America from the commencement of the French hostilities on the frontiers of Virginia in 1753 to the surrender of Oswego, 1756 ... to which are added Col. Washington’s journal of his expedition to the Ohio in 1754, and several letters and other papers of consequence found in the cabinet of General Braddock after his defeat.[1283]

There is also in this same volume, Précis des Faits, a “Journal de compagne de M. de Villiers (en 1754),” which Parkman[1284] says is not complete, and that historian used a perfected copy taken from the original MS. in the Archives of the Marine.[1285] The summons which Jumonville was to use, together with his instructions, are in this same Précis des Faits. The French view of the skirmish, of the responsibility for it, and of the sequel, was industriously circulated.[1286] On the English side, the London Magazine (1754) has the current reports, and the contemporary chronicles of the war, like Dobson’s Chronological Annals of the War (1763) and Mante’s Hist. of the Late War (1772), give the common impressions then prevailing. Sparks, in his Washington (i. p. 46; ii. pp. 25-48, 447), was the first to work up the authorities. Irving, Life of Washington, follows the most available sources.[1287]

The Indian side of the story was given at a council held at Philadelphia in December, 1754.[1288] The transaction, in its international bearings, is considered as Case xxiv. by J. F. Maurice, in his Hostilities without Declaration of War, 1700-1870, London, 1883.

For the battle of Great Meadows and surrender at Fort Necessity,[1289] the same authorities suffice us in part, particularly Sparks;[1290] and Parkman points out the dependence he puts upon a letter of Colonel Innes in the Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, vi. 50, and a letter of Adam Stephen in the Pennsylvania Gazette (no. 1,339), 1754, part of which he prints in his Appendix C.[1291] The provincial interpreter,[1292] Conrad Weiser, kept a journal, which is printed in the Col. Rec. of Penna., vi. 150; and Parkman found in the Public Record Office in London a Journal of Thomas Forbes, lately a private soldier in the French service, who was with Villiers.[1293] That the French acted like cowards and the English like fools is given as the Half-King’s opinion, by Charles Thomson, then an usher in a Quaker grammar-school in Philadelphia, and later the secretary of Congress, in his Enquiry into the Causes of the Alienation of the Delaware and Shawanese Indians, London, 1759,—a volume of greater rarity than of value, in Sargent’s opinion.[1294]

A map of the most inhabited part of Virginia, drawn by Joshua Fry and Peter Jefferson in 1751, as published later by Jefferys, and included by him in his General Topography of North America and the West Indies, 1768 (no. 53), shows the route of Washington in this campaign of 1754.

In Pittsburgh, 1854, was published Memoirs of Major Robert Stobo of the Virginia Regiment,[1295] with an introduction by Neville B. Craig, following a copy of a MS., procured by James McHenry from the British Museum. The publication also included, from the Pennsylvania Archives, copies of letters (July 28, 1754), with a plan of Duquesne which Stobo sent to Washington while himself confined in that fort as a hostage, after the capitulation at Fort Necessity, as well as a copy of the articles of surrender.[1296] These letters of Stobo were published by the French government in their Précis des Faits, where his plan of the fort is called “exact.”

The most extensive account of the battle of Monongahela and of the events which led to it is contained in a volume published in 1855, by the Pennsylvania Historical Society, as no. 5 of their Memoirs, though some copies appeared independently. It is ordinarily quoted as Winthrop Sargent’s Braddock’s Expedition.[1297] The introductory memoir goes over the ground of the rival territorial claims of France and England, and the whole narrative, including that of the battle itself (p. 112, etc.), is given with care and judgment. Then follow some papers procured in England for the Penna. Historical Society by Mr. J. R. Ingersoll. The first of these is a journal of Robert Orme, one of Braddock’s aids, which is no. 212 of the King’s MSS., in the British Museum.[1298] It begins at Hampton on Braddock’s arrival, and ends with his death, July 13. It was not unknown before, for Bancroft quotes it. Parkman later uses it, and calls it “copious and excellent.” It is accompanied by plans, mentioned elsewhere. There is also a letter of Orme, which Parkman quotes from the Public Record Office, London, in a volume marked America and West Indies, lxxiv.[1299]

It will be remembered that Admiral Keppel,[1300] who commanded the fleet which brought Braddock over, had furnished four cannon and a party of sailors to drag them. An officer of this party seems to have been left at Fort Cumberland during the advance, and to have kept a journal, which begins April 10, 1755, when he was first under marching orders. What he says of the fight is given as “related by some of the principal officers that day in the field.” The diary ends August 18, when the writer reëmbarked at Hampton. It is this journal which is the second of the papers given by Sargent. The third is Braddock’s instructions.[1301]

The Duke of Cumberland, as commander-in-chief, directed through Colonel Napier a letter (November 25, 1754) to Braddock, of which we have fragments in the Gent. Mag., xxvi. 269, but the whole of it is to be found only in the French version, as published by the French government in the Précis des Faits. Sargent also gives a translation of this, collated with the fragments referred to.

FORT CUMBERLAND AND VICINITY.

Reduced—but not in fac-simile—from a sketch among the Sparks maps in the library of Cornell University, kindly submitted to the editor by the librarian. The original is on a sheet 14 × 12 inches, and is endorsed on the back in Washington’s handwriting, apparently at a later date, “Sketch of the situation of Fort Cumberland.”

Parkman had already told the story of the Braddock campaign in his Conspiracy of Pontiac,[1302] but, with the aid of some material not accessible to Sargent, he retold it with greater fulness in his Montcalm and Wolfe (vol. i. ch. 7), and his story must now stand as the ripest result of investigations in which Bancroft[1303] and Sparks[1304] had been, as well as Sargent, his most fortunate predecessors, for Irving[1305] has done scarcely more than to avail himself gracefully of previous labors. The story as it first reached England[1306] will be found in the Gentleman’s Mag., and, after it began to take historic proportions, is given in Mante’s Hist. of the Late War in North America, London, 1772, and in Entick’s General History of the Late War, London, 1772-79.[1307] Braddock himself was not a man of mark to be drawn by his contemporaries, yet we get glimpses of his rather unenviable town reputation through the gossipy pen of Horace Walpole[1308] and the confessions of the actress, George Anne Bellamy,[1309] which Parkman and Sargent have used to heighten the color of his portraiture. He did not, moreover, escape in his London notoriety the theatrical satire of Fielding.[1310] His rise in military rank can be traced in Daniel MacKinnon’s Origin and Hist. of the Coldstream Guards, London, 1833. His correspondence in America is preserved in the Public Record Office; and some of it is printed in the Colonial Records of Penna., vi., and in Olden Time, vol. ii.[1311] His plan of the campaign is illustrated in N. Y. Col. Docs., vi. 942, 954.[1312] Of the council which he held at Alexandria with Shirley and others, the minutes are given in the Doc. Hist. New York, ii. 648.[1313]

From Braddock’s officers we have letters and memoranda of use in the history of the movement. The Braddock orderly books in the library of Congress (Feb. 26-June 17, 1755) are printed in the App. of Lowdermilk’s Cumberland, p. 495. The originals are a part of the Peter Force Collection, and bear memoranda in Washington’s handwriting. His quartermaster-general, Sir John St. Clair, had arrived as early as January 10, 1755, to make preliminary arrangements for the march, and to inspect Fort Cumberland,[1314] which the provincials had been building as the base of operations.[1315]

From Braddock’s secretary, Shirley the younger, we have a letter dated May 23, 1755, which, with others, is in the Col. Rec. of Penna., vi. 404, etc. Of Washington, there is a letter used by Parkman in the Public Record Office.[1316] Of Gage, there is a letter to Albemarle in Keppel’s Life of Keppel, i. 213, and in the Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., xxxiv., p. 367, is a statement which Gage prepared for the use of Chalmers. A letter of William Johnston, commissary, dated Philadelphia, Sept. 23, 1755, is in the Eng. Hist. Review (Jan., 1886), vol. i. p. 150. A letter of Leslie (July 30, 1755), a lieutenant in the 44th regiment, is printed in Hazard’s Penna. Reg., v. 191; and Ibid., vi. 104, is Dr. Walker’s account of Braddock’s advance in the field. Livingston, in his Rev. of Military Operations, 1753-56, gives a contemporary estimate.[1317] Other letters and traditions are noted in Ibid., iv. pp. 389, 390, 416.[1318] The depositions of some of the wagoners, who led in the flight from the field, are given in Col. Rec. of Penna., vi. 482.[1319]

The progress of events during the preparation for the march and the final retreat can be gleaned from the Dinwiddie Papers. Sargent found of use the Shippen MSS., in the cabinet of the Penna. Hist. Society. A somewhat famous sermon, preached by Samuel Davies, Aug. 17, 1755, before an independent troop in Hanover County, Va., prophesying the future career of “that heroic youth Col. Washington,”[1320] shows what an impression the stories of Washington’s intrepidity on the field were making upon observers. The list of the officers present, killed, and wounded, upon which Parkman depends, is in the Public Record Office.[1321]

The news of the defeat, with such particulars as were first transmitted north, will be found in the New Hampshire Provincial Papers, vi. 413, and in Akins’ Pub. Doc. of Nova Scotia, 409, etc. The shock was unexpected. Seth Pomeroy, at Albany, July 15, 1755, had written that the latest news from Braddock had come in twenty-five days, by an Indian a few days before, and it was such that, in the judgment of Shirley and Johnson, Braddock was at that time in the possession of Duquesne. (Israel Williams MSS., i. p. 154.) Governor Belcher announced Braddock’s defeat July 19, 1755. New Jersey Archives, viii., Part 2d, 117. In a letter to his assembly, Aug. 1 (Ibid., p. 119), he says: “The accounts of this matter have been very various, but the most authentic is a letter from Mr. Orme wrote to Gov. Morris, of Pennsylvania.”

Governor Sharp’s letters to Lord Baltimore and Charles Calvert are in Scharf’s Maryland (i. pp. 465, 466).

The Rev. Charles Chauncy, of Boston, embodied the reports as they reached him (and he might have had excellent opportunity of learning from the executive office of Governor Shirley) in a pamphlet printed at Boston shortly after (1755), Letter to a friend, giving a concise but just account, according to the advices hitherto received, of the Ohio defeat.[1322]

Two other printed brochures are of less value. One is The life, adventures, and surprising deliverances of Duncan Cameron, private soldier in the regiment of foot, late Sir Peter Halket’s. 3d ed., Phila., 1756 (16 pp.).[1323] The other is what Sargent calls “a mere catch-penny production, made up perhaps of the reports of some ignorant camp follower.” The Monthly Review at the time exposed its untrustworthiness. It is called The expedition of Maj.-Gen’l Braddock to Virginia, ... being extracts of letters from an officer, ... describing the march and engagement in the woods. London, 1755.[1324]

Walpole[1325] chronicles the current English view of the time.

There was a young Pennsylvanian, who was a captive in the fort, and became a witness of the preparation for Beaujeu’s going out and of the jubilation over the return of the victors. What he saw and heard is told in An Account of the Remarkable Occurrences in the life and travels of Col. James Smith during his captivity with the Indians, 1755-59.[1326]

Let us turn now to the French accounts. The reports which Sparks used, and which are among his MSS. in Harvard College library, were first printed by Sargent in his fourth appendix.[1327] These and other French documents relating to the campaign have been edited by Dr. Shea in a collection[1328] called Relations diverses sur la bataille du Malangueulé [Monangahela] gagné le 9 juillet 1755, par les François sous M. de Beaujeu, sur les Anglois sous M. Braddock. Recueillies par Jean Marie Shea. Nouvelle York, 1860 (xv. 51 pp.).[1329]

Pouchot[1330] makes it clear that the French had no expectation of doing more than check the advance of Braddock.

The peculiar difficulties which beset the politics of Pennsylvania and Virginia at this time are concisely set forth by Sargent in the introduction of his Braddock’s Expedition (p. 61), and by Parkman in his Montcalm and Wolfe (vol. i. p. 329). Dulany’s letter gives a contemporary view of these dissensions.[1331]

The apathy of New Jersey drew forth rebuke from the Lords of Trade.[1332] Scharf[1333] describes the futile attempts of the governor of Maryland to induce his assembly to furnish supplies to the army.

The belief was not altogether unpopular in Pennsylvania, as well as in Virginia, that the story of French encroachments was simply circulated to make the government support the Ohio Company in their settlement of the country, and Washington complains that his report of the 1753 expedition failed to eradicate this notion in some quarters.[1334] In Pennsylvania there were among the Quaker population unreconcilable views of Indian management and French trespassing, and similar beliefs obtained among the German and Scotch-Irish settlers on the frontiers of the province, while the English churchmen and the Catholic Irish added not a little to the incongruousness of sentiment. The rum of the traders among the Indians further complicated matters.[1335] This contrariety of views, as well as a dispute with the proprietary governor over questions of taxation, paralyzed the power of Pennsylvania to protect its own frontiers, when, following upon the defeat of Braddock, the French commander thrust upon the settlements all along the exposed western limits party after party of French and Indian depredators.[1336] Dumas, now in command, issued orders enough to restrain the barbarities of his packs, but the injunctions availed nothing.[1337] Washington, who was put in command of a regiment of borderers at Winchester, found it impossible to exercise much control in directing them to the defence of the frontiers thereabouts.[1338] Fears of slave insurrection and a hesitating house of burgesses were quite as paralyzing in Virginia as other conditions were in Pennsylvania, and the Dinwiddie Papers explain the gloom of the hour.

For the Pennsylvania confusion, the views of the anti-proprietary party found expression in the Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania, a “hotly partisan and sometimes sophistical and unfair”[1339] statement, inspired and partly written by Franklin, the leader in the assembly against the Penns.[1340] While the quarrel went on, and the assembly was neglecting the petitions of the borderers for the organization of a militia to protect them, the two parties indulged in crimination and recrimination, and launched various party pamphlets at each other.[1341] The Col. Records of Penna. (vol. vi.) chronicle the progress of this conflict. We get the current comment in Franklin’s letters,[1342] in the histories of Pennsylvania, and in such monographs as Edmund de Schweinitz’s Life and Times of David Zeisberger (Philad., 1870),—for the massacre at Gnadenhütten brought the Moravians within the vortex, while the histories[1343] of the missions of that sect reiterate the stories of rapine and murder.

Patience ceased to be a virtue, and a “Representation”[1344] to the House was finally couched in the language of a demand for protection. The assembly mocked and shirked; but the end came. A compromise was reached by the proprietaries furnishing as a free gift the money which they denied as a tax on their estates, and Franklin undertook to manage the defence of the frontiers, with such force and munitions as were now under command.[1345]

Any history of the acquisition of lands by the English, particularly by Pennsylvania, shows why the Indians of the Ohio were induced at this time to side with the French.[1346]

Pownall, in his treatise[1347] on the colonies, classified the Indian tribes by their allegiance respectively to the English and French interests.[1348] It is claimed that the Iroquois were first allured by the Dutch, through the latter’s policy of strict compensation for lands, and that the retention of the Iroquois to the English interests arose from the inheritance of that policy by their successors at Albany and New York.[1349]

Braddock’s instructions to Shirley for the conduct of the Niagara expedition are printed in A. H. Hoyt’s Pepperrell Papers (1874), p. 20. This abortive campaign does not occupy much space in the general histories, and Parkman offers the best account. The Massachusetts Archives and the legislative Journal of that province, as well as Shirley’s letters, give the best traces of the governor’s efforts to organize the campaign.[1350] Some descriptive letters of the general’s son, John Shirley, will be found in the Penna. Archives, vol. ii.[1351] The best contemporary narratives in print are found in The Conduct of Shirley briefly stated, and in Livingston’s Review of Military Operations.[1352]

The main dependence in the giving of the story of the Lake George campaign of 1755 is, on the English side, upon the papers of Johnson himself, and they are the basis of the Life and Times of Sir William Johnson,[1353] which, being begun by William L. Stone, was completed by a son of the same name, and published in Albany in 1865, in two volumes.[1354] The preface states that Sir William’s papers, as consulted by the elder Stone, consist of more than 7,000 letters and documents, which were collected from various sources, but are in good part made up of documents procured from the Johnson family in England, and of the Johnson MSS. presented to the N. Y. State library by Gen. John T. Cooper.[1355] An account of Johnson’s preparatory conferences with the Indians (June to Aug., 1755) is printed in N. Y. Col. Docs., vi. 964, etc., and in Penna. Archives, 2d ser., vi. 267-99.[1356] On the 22d of August Johnson held a council of war at the great carrying place,[1357] whence on the 24th he wrote a letter,[1358] while Col. Blanchard, of the New Hampshire regiment, a few days later (Aug. 28-30) chronicled the progress of events.[1359]

The account of the fight (Sept. 8), which Johnson addressed to the governors of the assisting colonies, was printed in the Lond. Mag., 1755, p. 544.[1360]

The sixth volume of the New York Col. Docs. (London documents, 1734-1755) contains the great mass of papers preserved in the archives of the State;[1361] but reference may also be made to vols. ii. 402, and x. 355. The Mass. Archives supplement them, and show many letters of Shirley and Johnson about the campaign.[1362] In the Provincial Papers of New Hampshire, vol. vi., there are various papers indicating the progress of the campaign, particularly (p. 439) a descriptive letter by Secretary Atkinson, dated Portsmouth, December 9, 1755, and addressed to the colony’s agent in London. It embodies the current reports, and is copied from a draft in the Belknap papers.[1363]

The jealousy between Massachusetts and New York is explained in part by Hutchinson.[1364] The Massachusetts assembly complained that Johnson’s chief communication was with New York, and, as was most convenient, he sent his chief prisoners to the seaport of that province, while they should have been sent, as the assembly said, to Boston, since Massachusetts bore the chief burden of the expedition.[1365] It was also complained that the £5,000 given by Parliament to Johnson was simply deducted from the appropriation for the colonies.[1366]

The jealousy of the two provinces was largely intensified in their chief men. Shirley did not hide his official eminence, and had a feeling that by naming Johnson to the command of the Crown Point expedition he had been the making of him. Johnson was not very grateful, and gained over the sympathy of De Lancey, the lieutenant-governor of New York.[1367]

DIESKAU’S CAMPAIGN.

Fac-simile of the map in the Gentleman’s Mag., xxv. 525 (Nov., 1755), which is thus explained: “The French imagined the English army would have crossed the carrying place from Fort Nicholson at G [B in southeast corner?] to Fort Anne at F, and accordingly had staked Wood Creek at C to prevent their navigation; but Gen. Johnson, being informed of it, continued his route on Hudson’s River to H. The French marched from C to attack his advanced detachments near the lake. The dotted lines show their march. A, Lake George, or Sacrament. B, Hudson’s River. C, Wood Creek. D, Otter Creek. E, Lake Champlain. F, Fort Anne. G, Fort Nicholson. H, the place where Gen. Johnson beat the French. H C, the route of the French.”

A copy of the map used by Dieskau on his advance, and found among his baggage, as well as plans of the fort at Crown Point, are among the Peter Force maps in the Library of Congress. A MS. “Draught of Lake George and part of Hudson’s river taken Sept. 1756 by Joshua Loring” is also among the Faden maps (no. 19); as is also Samuel Langdon’s MS. Map of New Hampshire and the Adjacent Country (MS.), with a corner map of the St. Lawrence above Montreal, including observations of Lieut. John Stark.

Parkman received copies of the journal of Seth Pomeroy from a descendant, and Bancroft had also made use of it. A letter of Pomeroy, written to headquarters in Boston, is preserved in the Massachusetts Archives, “Letters,” iv. 109. He supposed himself at that time the only field-officer of his regiment left alive. The papers of Col. Israel Williams are in the Mass. Hist. Soc. library,[1368] and give considerable help. The campaign letters of Surgeon Thomas Williams, of Deerfield, addressed chiefly to his wife (1755 and 1756), are in the possession of William L. Stone, and are printed in the Historical Magazine, xvii. 209, etc. (Apr., 1870).[1369] The French found in the pocket of a captured English officer a diary of the campaign, of which Parkman discovered a French version in the Archives of the Marine.

The Rev. Samuel Chandler, who joined the camp at Lake George in October as chaplain of a Massachusetts regiment, kept a diary, in which he records some details of the previous fights, as he picked them up in camp, giving a little diagram of the ambush into which Williams was led.[1370] In it are enumerated (p. 354) the various reasons, as he understood them, on account of which the further pursuit of the campaign was abandoned. Johnson’s chief of ordnance, William Eyre, advised him that his cannon were not sufficient to attack Ticonderoga.[1371] Parkman speaks of the text accompanying Blodget’s print[1372] and the Second Letter to a Friend as “excellent for information as to the condition of the ground and the position of the combatants.” Some months later, and making use of Blodget, Timothy Clement also published in Boston another print, which likewise shows the positions of the regiments after the battle and during the building of Fort William Henry.[1373]

There are three contemporary printed comments on the campaign. The first is a sequel to the letter written by Charles Chauncy on Braddock’s defeat, which was printed at Boston, signed T. W., dated Sept. 29, 1755, and called A second Letter to a Friend; giving a more particular narrative of the defeat of the French army at Lake George by the New England troops, than has yet been published, ... to which is added an account of what the New England governments have done to carry into effect the design against Crown Point, as will show the necessity of their being helped by Great Britain, in point of money.[1374] This and the previous letter were also published together under the title Two letters to a friend on the present critical conjuncture of affairs in North America; with an account of the action at Lake George, Boston, 1755.[1375]

NOTE.

The sketch on the other side of this leaf follows an engraving, unique so far as the editor knows, which is preserved in the library of the American Antiquarian Society. It is too defective to give good photographic results. The print was “engraved and printed by Thomas Johnston, Boston, New England, April, 1756.”

The key at the top reads thus: “(1.) The place where the brave Coll. Williams was ambush^’d & killed, his men fighting in a retreat to the main body of our army. Also where Cap^t. McGennes of York, and Cap^t. Fulsom of New Hampshire bravely attack’d y^e enemy, killing many. The rest fled, leaving their packs and prisoners, and also (2.) shews the place where the valiant Col. Titcomb was killed, it being the westerly corner of the land defended in y^e general engagement, which is circumscribed with a double line, westerly and southerly; (3.) with the s^d double line, in y^e form of our army’s entrenchments, which shows the Gen. and each Col. apartment. (4.) A Hill from which the enemy did us much harm and during the engagement the enemy had great advantage, they laying behind trees we had fell within gun-shot of our front. (W.) The place where the waggoners were killed.”

On the lower map is: “The prick^’d line from South bay shews where Gen. Dieskau landed & y^e way he march^’d to attack our forces.”

The two forts are described: “Fort Edward was built, 1755, of timber and earth, 16 feet high and 22 feet thick & has six cannon on its rampart.”

“This fort [William Henry] is built of timber and earth, 22 feet high and 25 feet thick and part of it 32. Mounts 14 cannon, 33 & 18 pounders.”

The dedication in the upper left-hand corner reads: “To his Excellency William Shirley, esq., Captain general and Gov^r-in-chief in and over his Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, Major General and Commander-in-chief of all his Majesty’s land forces in North America; and to the legislators of the several provinces concerned in the expeditions to Crown Point,—this plan of Hudson River from Albany to Fort Edward (and the road from thence to Lake George as surveyed), Lake George, the Narrows, Crown Point, part of Lake Champlain, with its South bay and Wood Creek, according to the best accounts from the French general’s plan and other observations (by scale No. 1) & an exact plan of Fort Edward & William Henry (by scale No. 2) and the west end of Lake George and of the land defended on the 8^th of Sept. last, and of the Army’s Intrenchments afterward (by scale 3) and sundry particulars respecting y^e late Engagement with the distance and bearing of Crown Point and Wood Creek from No. 4, by your most devoted, humble servant, Tim^o. Clement, Surv^r. Have^l. Feb. 10, 1756.”

The second is William Livingston’s Review of the military operations in North America from ... 1753 to ... 1756, interspersed with various observations, characters, and anecdotes, necessary to give light into the conduct of American transactions in general, and more especially into the political management of affairs in New York. In a letter to a nobleman, London, 1757.[1376]

The third is, like the tract last named, a defence of the commanding general of all the British forces in America, and is said to have been written by Shirley himself, and is called The Conduct of Major-General Shirley, late General and Commander-in-Chief of his Majesty’s forces in North America, briefly stated, London, 1758.[1377]

Dwight, in his Travels in New England and New York (vol. iii. 361), and Hoyt, in his Antiquarian Researches on the Indian Wars (p. 279), wrote when some of the combatants were still living. Dwight was the earliest to do General Lyman justice. Stone claims that the official accounts discredit the story told by Dwight, that Dieskau was finally shot, after his army’s flight, by a soldier, who thought the wounded general was feeling for a pistol, when he was searching for his watch.[1378]

Daniel Dulany, in a MS. Newsletter after the fashion of the day, gives the current accounts of the fight.[1379]

The story of the fight had been early told (1851) by Parkman in his Pontiac, revised in his second edition;[1380] and was again recast by him in the Atlantic Monthly (Oct., 1884), before the narrative finally appeared in ch. ix. of the first volume of his Montcalm and Wolfe.[1381]

FORT GEORGE AND TICONDEROGA.

After an inaccurate plan in the contemporary Mémoires sur le Canada, 1749-1760, as published by the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec (réimpression), 1873, p. 98. The French accounts often call Fort William Henry Fort George. Cf. the map in Moore’s Diary of the Amer. Revolution, i. p. 79.

The Catal. of the King’s Maps (Brit. Mus.), i. 424, shows a drawn map of the fort at the head of Lake George, under date of 1759, and (p. 425) another of the lake itself.

On the French side, the official report of Dieskau[1382] was used by Parkman in a copy belonging to Sparks, obtained from the French war archives, and this with other letters of Dieskau—one to D’Argenson, Sept. 14; another to Vaudreuil, Sept. 15—can be found in the N. Y. Col. Docs., vol. x. pp. 316, 318 (Paris Documents, 1745-78),[1383] as can the reports of Dieskau’s adjutant, Montreuil (p. 335), particularly those of Aug. 31 and Oct. 1, which, with other papers, are also preserved in the Mass. Archives, documents collected in France (MSS.), ix. 241, 265.[1384] The report made by Vaudreuil,[1385] as well as his strictures on Dieskau, is preserved in the Archives de la Marine, as is a long account by Bigot (Oct. 4, 1755),—both of which are used by Parkman. Cf. also the French narratives in the Penna. Archives, 2d ser., vi. 320, 324, 330. There is also in this same collection (p. 316) a Journal of occurrences, July 23 to Sept. 30, 1755, which is also in the N. Y. Col. Docs., x. p. 337, where are other contemporary accounts, like the letter of Doreil to D’Argenson (p. 360) and those of Lotbinière (pp. 365, 369). The Mémoires of Pouchot is the main early printed French source; though there was a contemporary Gazette, printed in Paris, which will be found in the N. Y. Col. Docs., x. p. 383.

A paper in the Archives de la Guerre is thought by Parkman to have been inspired by Dieskau himself, and, in spite of its fanciful form, to be a sober statement of the events of the campaign. It is called Dialogue entre le Maréchal de Saxe et le Baron de Dieskau aux Champs Elysées.[1386] Some of the events subsequently related by Dieskau to Diderot are noticed in the latter’s Mémoires (1830 ed.), i. 402.

Henry Stevens, of London, offered for sale in 1872, in his Bibliotheca Geographica, no. 553, a manuscript record of events between 1755 and 1760, which came from the family of the Chevalier de Lévis. It purports to be the annual record of the French commanders in the field, beginning with Dieskau, for six successive campaigns. Stevens, comparing this record of Dieskau with such of the papers as are printed in the N. Y. Col. Docs., where they were copied from the documents as they reached the government in France, says that the latter are shown by the collection to have been “cooked up for the home eye in France,” and that “we lose all sympathy for the unfortunate Dieskau.” Stevens refers particularly to two long letters of Dieskau, Sept. 1 and 4, sent to Vaudreuil.[1387]

The feeling was rapidly growing that the next campaign should be a vigorous one. Gov. Belcher (Sept. 3, 1755) enforces his opinion to Sir John St. Clair, that “Canada must be rooted out.”[1388] The Gentleman’s Magazine printed papers of similar import.

In November, 1755, Belcher had written to Shirley, “Things look to me as if the coming year will be the criterion whereby we shall be able to conclude whether the French shall drive us into the sea, or whether King George shall be emperour of North America.”[1389] In December, Shirley assembled a congress of governors at New York, and laid his plans before them.[1390] When Shirley returned to Boston in Jan., 1756, the Journal of the Mass. House of Representatives discloses how active he was in preparing for his projects.[1391] Stone[1392] portrays the arrangements.

To Stone,[1393] too, we must turn to learn the efforts of Johnson to propitiate the Indians,[1394] in which he was perplexed by the movements in Pennsylvania and Virginia against the tribes in that region.[1395] The printed contemporary source, showing Johnson’s endeavors with the Indians, is the Account of Conferences, London, 1756, which may be complemented by much in the Doc. Hist. N. Y., vols. i. and iv. Thomas Pownall published in New York, in 1756, Proposals for securing the friendship of the Five Nations. As the campaign went on, Johnson held conferences at Fort Johnson, July 21 (of which, under date of Aug. 12, he prepared a journal), and attended later meetings at German Flats, Aug. 24-Sept. 3, and again at Fort Johnson. These will be found in the Penna. Archives, 2d ser., vi. 461-496;[1396] and in the same volume, pp. 365-376, will be found the conference of deputies of the Five Nations, July 28, 1756, with Vaudreuil, at Montreal.[1397]

CROWN POINT CURRENCY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.

From an original bill in an illustrated copy of Historical Sketches of the Paper Currency of the American Colonies, by Henry Phillips, Jr., Roxbury, 1865,—in Harvard College library.

The early events of the year, like the capture of Fort Bull,[1398] find illustrations in various papers in the Doc. Hist. N. Y., vol. i. 509, and N. Y. Col. Docs. x. 403, with some local associations in Benton’s Herkimer County.

The centre of preparation for the campaign during the winter was in Boston, and Parkman[1399] shows the methods of military organization which the New England colonies, with some detriment to efficiency employed. He finds his material for the sketch in the manuscripts of the Mass. Archives (“Military”), vols. lxxv. and lxxvi., and in equivalent printed papers in R. I. Colonial Records, v., and N. H. Provincial Papers, vi. The latter colony issued bills this year, as they had the previous season, called Crown Point currency, in aid of the expedition, a fac-simile of one of which is annexed.[1400]

Another main source for these preliminaries, as well as for the routine of the campaign later in Albany and at Lake George is the Journal of General John Winslow, who, after some coquetting with Pepperrell on Shirley’s part, was finally selected for the command of the expedition against Crown Point.[1401] The second volume of this journal, which is in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society, covers Feb.-Aug., and the third, Aug.-Dec., 1756. They consist of transcripts of letters, orders, etc., chronologically arranged.

The volumes labelled “Letters” in the Massachusetts Archives (MSS.) contain various letters, which depict the condition of the camps and the progress of the campaign. Parkman[1402] refers to them, as well as to a report of Lieut.-Col. Burton to Loudon on the condition of the camps,[1403] and to the journal of John Graham, a chaplain in Lyman’s Connecticut regiment.[1404]

Shirley rightfully understood the value of Oswego to the colonies. As Parkman[1405] says, “No English settlement on the continent was of such ill omen to the French. It not only robbed them of the fur-trade, but threatened them with military and political, no less than commercial ruin.” The previous French governor, Jonquière, had been particularly instructed to compass its destruction, above all by inciting the Iroquois to do it, if possible, for the post was a menace in the eyes of the Indians. Shirley hoped to redeem the failure of last year, and he had the satisfaction of hearing of Bradstreet’s success in the midst of the personal detraction which assailed him.[1406] The military interest of the year, however, centres in the siege and fall of Oswego (Aug. 14), introducing Montcalm on the scene.[1407] Capt. John Vicars, a British officer who was with Bradstreet, gives an account of the fortifications, which Parkman[1408] uses. The correspondence of Loudon and Shirley in the English archives marks the progress of events.[1409] Respecting the siege itself there is a letter, from an officer present, in the Boston Evening Post, May 16, 1757. Stone[1410] uses MS. depositions of two of the English prisoners who escaped from the French.[1411] A declaration by soldiers of Shirley’s regiment is printed in the N. Y. Col. Docs., vii. 126.

Of the contemporary printed sources, note must be made of the “State of facts” in the Lond. Mag., 1757, p. 14; of the Conduct of General Shirley, etc., p. 110; of Livingston’s Review; of The military history of Great Britain for 1756-57. Containing a letter from an English officer at Canada, taken prisoner at Oswego, exhibiting the cruelty of the French. Also a journal of the Siege of Oswego, London, 1757.[1412]

Of somewhat less authority is a popular book, French and Indian cruelty exemplified in the life of Peter Wilkinson, with “accurate detail of the operations of the French and English forces at the siege of Oswego.”[1413] Of a more general character are the accounts in Mante,[1414] Smith,[1415] and Hutchinson.[1416]

Parkman, who sketches the early career of Montcalm,[1417] surveys the chief French authorities on the siege, as gathered mainly from the Archives of the Marine and those of War, at Paris;[1418] the Livre des Ordres; Vaudreuil’s instructions to Montcalm, July 21; the journal of Bougainville; the letters of Vaudreuil, Bigot, and Montcalm. The N. Y. Col. Docs. (vol. x.) contain various translations of these,[1419] including (p. 440) a journal of the siege transmitted by Montcalm; other versions are in the Doc. Hist. N. Y., vol. i.

There was printed at Grenoble, in 1756, a Relation de la prise des forts de Choueguen, ou Oswego, & de ce qui s’est passée cette année en Canada. A small edition was privately reprinted in 1882, from a copy belonging to Mr. S. L. M. Barlow, of New York.[1420] Martin, in his De Montcalm en Canada, ch. iii., presents the modern French view, as also does Garneau, Hist. du Canada, 4th ed., vol. ii. 251. Maurault, in his Hist. des Abénakis (1866), tells the part of the Indians in the siege.

Of the partisan warfare conducted by Rogers and Putnam, we have the best accounts in the reports which the former made to his commanding officer.[1421] These various reports constitute the volume which was published in London in 1765 “for the author,” called Journals of Major Robert Rogers, containing an account of the several excursions he made under the generals who commanded, during the late war.[1422] Rogers’ Journals are written in a direct way, apparently without exaggeration, but sometimes veil the atrocities which he had not screened in the original reports.[1423] Parkman points out that the account of his scout of Jan. 19, 1756, is much abridged in the composite Journals.

The exploits of Rogers are frequently chronicled in Winslow’s Journal, and there are other notes in the Mass. Archives, vol. lxxvi. Parkman cites Bougainville’s Journal as giving the French record.[1424] There is a contemporary account of one of Rogers’ principal actions, in what Trumbull[1425] calls “perhaps the rarest of all narratives of Indian captivities.” The edition which is mentioned is a second one, published at Boston in 1760, and Sabin[1426] does not record the first. It is called A plain narrative of the uncommon sufferings and remarkable deliverance of Thomas Brown, of Charlestown in New England, who returned to his father’s house the beginning of Jan., 1760, after having been absent three years and about eight months; containing an account of the engagement, Jan., 1757, in which Captain Spikeman was killed and the author left for dead.

Of Putnam’s exploits there is a report (Oct. 9, 1755) in the Doc. Hist. N. Y., iv. p. 172. The Life of Putnam by Humphreys chronicles his partisan career, while that by Tarbox passes it over hurriedly. Hollister’s and other histories of Connecticut give it in outline.

The circulars of Pitt to the colonies, asking that assistance be rendered to Loudon, and (Feb. 4, 1757) urging the raising of additional troops, is in New Jersey Archives, viii. Pt. ii. pp. 209, 241. There are in the Israel Williams MSS. (Mass. Hist. Soc.) letters of Loudon, dated Boston, Jan. 29 and Feb., 1757, respecting the organization of the next campaign.

For the attack on Fort William Henry (1757) conducted by Rigaud, Parkman[1427] cites, as usual, his MS. French documents,[1428] but gives for the English side a letter from the fort (Mar. 26, 1757), in the Boston Gazette, no. 106, and in the Boston Evening Post, no. 1,128; with notes of other letters in the Boston News-Letter, no. 2,860.

The best account yet published of Montcalm’s later campaign against Fort William Henry (the Fort George of the French) is contained in the last chapter of the first volume of Parkman’s Montcalm and Wolfe.[1429]

On the French side there is the work of Pouchot, and Dr. Hough’s translation of it (i. 101). The Rough List of Mr. Barlow’s library (no. 941) shows, as the only copy known, a Relation de la prise du Fort Georges, ou Guillaume Henry, situé sur le lac Saint-Sacrement, et de ce qui s’est passé cette année en Canada (12 pp.), Paris, 1757.

Of the documentary evidence of the time Parkman makes full use. He secured from the Public Record Office in London the correspondence of Webb and a letter and journal of Colonel Frye, who commanded the Massachusetts troops, and from these he gives extracts in his Appendix F.[1430]

In the Paris documents as gathered (copies) in the archives at Albany,[1431] and in the copies of other documents from France, supplementing these, and contained in the series of MSS. given by Mr. Parkman to the Mass. Historical Society, there are the Journal of Bougainville, “a document,” says Parkman, “hardly to be commended too much,” the diary of Malartic, the correspondence of Montcalm, Lévis, Vaudreuil, and Bigot. In adding to the graphic details of the theme, there is a long letter of the Jesuit Roubaud, which is printed in the Lettres Edifiantes et Curieuses.[1432]

Jonathan Carver, who was a looker-on, has given an account in his Travels, which Parkman thinks is trustworthy so far as events came under Carver’s eye.[1433]

The journals of the Montresors, father and son, Colonels James and John, during their stay in 1757-59 in the neighborhood of Forts William Henry and Edward, throw light upon the spirit of the time.[1434] They are preserved in the family in England, and, edited by G. D. Scull, have been printed in the N. Y. Hist. Coll., 1881, accompanied by heliotypes of portraits of the two engineers.[1435]

Living at the time, and enjoying good advantages for acquiring knowledge, Hutchinson, in his Massachusetts (vol. iii. p. 60), might have given us more than he does, but his purpose was mainly to show the effect of the campaign upon that colony. It is noticeable, however, that he says the victims of the massacre were not many in number. Most later writers on the English side add little or nothing not elsewhere obtainable.[1436]

Bancroft[1437] made use of a considerable part of the material available to Parkman; but his latest revision does not add to his earlier account.

Dwight, in his Travels in New England and New York,[1438] who remembered the event as a child, expresses the view which long prevailed in New England, that Montcalm made no reasonable effort to check the Indians, and emphasizes the timidity and imbecility of Webb, who lay at Fort Edward with 6,000 men, doing nothing. Dwight narrates as from Captain Noble, who was present, that when Sir William Johnson would gather volunteers from Webb’s garrison to proceed to Munro’s assistance Webb forbade it.[1439]

Respecting the attack in the autumn (Nov. 28, 1757) on German Flats, there are the despatches of Vaudreuil, the Journal of Bougainville, and papers in Doc. Hist. N. Y., i. 520, and N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 672, the latter being a French summary of M. de Belêtre’s campaign. Loudon’s despatch to Pitt, Feb. 14, 1758, is the main English source.[1440]

While Webb held the chief command at Albany, Stanwix was organizing, with the help of Washington, the defence along the Pennsylvania and Virginia borders, and Bouquet further south.[1441] The lives of Washington and the histories of those provinces trace out the events of the summer in that direction. The main thread of this history is the precarious relation of the provinces with the Indians, and much illustrative of this connection is found in the Penna. Col. Rec., vol. vii. Dr. Schweinitz’s Life of Zeisberger and the various Moravian chronicles show how that people strove to act as intermediaries.

The Delawares had not forgotten the deceit practised upon them at Albany in 1754, in inveigling them into giving a deed of lands, and Sir William Johnson was known to be in favor of revoking that fraudulent purchase. Conferences with the Indians were numerous, even after the spring opened.[1442] Johnson received the deputies of the Shawanese and Delawares at Fort Johnson in April, and concluded a treaty with them.[1443]

It boded no good that the Six Nations also, in April, had sent deputies to Vaudreuil, and all through the spring the region north of the Mohawk was the scene of rapine.[1444] The truth was, the successes of the French had driven the westerly tribes of the Six Nations into a neutrality, which might turn easily into enmity, and to confirm them in their passiveness, and to incite the Mohawks and the easterly tribes into active alliance, Johnson, who knew his life to be in danger, summoned the deputies of the confederacy to meet him at Johnson Hall on the 10th of June. His journal for some time previous to the meeting is printed by Stone.[1445] Johnson accomplished all he could hope for. His answer to the Senecas of June 16 is in the Penna. Archives, vi. 511. Under his counsel, the final conclusion with the Indians farther south was reached in a conference at Easton, in Pennsylvania, in July and August.[1446]

Of the defeat of Rogers in March, which opened the campaign of 1758, his own report after he got into Fort Edward, printed at the time in the newspapers, is mainly given in his Journals, together with a long letter of two British regular officers who accompanied him, and who in the fight escaped capture, but wandered off in the woods, till hunger compelled them to seek the French fort, whence by a flag of truce they despatched (Mar. 28) their narrative. The French accounts are derived from the usual documentary sources as indicated by Parkman (ii. p. 16).

The English historians of the war in Europe all describe the change in political feeling which brought Pitt once more into power, with popular sympathy to sustain him.[1447] The public had aroused to the incompetency of the English military rule in America, and upon the importance of making head there against the French, as a vantage for any satisfactory peace in Europe.[1448] This revulsion is best described in Parkman[1449] and in Bancroft.[1450] The letter of Pitt recalling Loudon (who was not without his defenders[1451]), as addressed to the governor of Connecticut, is in the Trumbull MSS., vol. i. p. 127.

The condition of the camp at Lake George in the spring and early summer is to be studied in the official papers, as well as in letters printed in the Boston News-Letter and in the Boston Evening Post.[1452] Parkman describes from the best sources the fort and the outer entrenchments.[1453]

The official reports on the English side of the fight on July 8th are in the Public Record Office. The letter which Abercrombie addressed to Pitt from Lake George, July 12, as it appeared in the London Gazette Extraordinary, Aug. 22, is printed in the N.Y. Col. Docs., x. 728. Dwight represents the opinions of Abercrombie’s generalship as current in the colonies,[1454] and we read in Smith’s New York, vol. ii. p. 264, that the difficulty “appeared to be more in the head than the body.” The diary of William Parkman, a youth of seventeen, who was in a Massachusetts regiment, reflects the charitable criticism of his troops, when the diarist calls their commander “an aged gentleman, infirm in body and mind.”[1455] We have various other descriptions and diaries from officers engaged.[1456]

Parkman[1457] collates the different authorities as respects the losses on the two sides,[1458] and his details are the best of all the later historians.[1459] Of the French contemporary accounts, which are numerous, there are several from the Paris Archives in the Parkman MSS., which have been used for the first time in his Montcalm and Wolfe. Some of the more important ones are printed in the N. Y. Col. Docs. x.[1460]

There is an account in Pouchot, and Chevalier Johnstone’s “Dialogue in Hades” is in the Transactions of the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec, and summarized accounts in Martin’s De Montcalm en Canada, ch. vii., and in Garneau’s Canada, p. 279.[1461] For the life of the camp later established at the head of Lake George, there are items to be drawn, not only from the official reports, but from the Israel Williams MSS. Parkman (ii. 117) uses a diary of Chaplain Cleaveland. An orderly book of Col. Jonathan Bagley, of a Connecticut regiment, covering Aug. 20-Sept. 11, 1758, is in the library of the American Antiq. Society.[1462] It indicates that the celebration at Lake George of the victory at Louisbourg took place Aug. 28, as does an orderly book of Rogers’ Rangers, covering Aug.-Nov., 1758, at Lake George and Fort Edward.[1463]

Of the autumn scouting, there are letters in the Boston Weekly Advertiser, the centre of interest being the fight between Rogers and Morin.[1464]

Of the Frontenac expedition, Bradstreet’s own report to Abercrombie is in the Public Record Office. Parkman uses it, as well as letters in the Boston Gazette, no. 182; Boston Evening Post, no. 1,203; Boston News-Letter, no. 2,932; N. H. Gazette, no. 104. The articles of capitulation are in the N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 826. Smith (New York, ii. 266), speaking of Bradstreet’s expedition, says he “rather flew than marched.”[1465]

On the French side, there are the official documents, the Mémoire sur la Canada, 1749-60 (published by the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec), and Pouchot, i. 162.

The loss of Frontenac gave rise to a disagreement between Vaudreuil and Montcalm as to the dispositions to be made upon Lake Ontario, and the papers which passed between them are in the N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 866, etc., as well as others on the conflict of their opinions respecting the defence of Ticonderoga (Ibid., p. 873, etc.).

The main sources for the Duquesne expedition of 1758 are in the Public Record Office, America and West Indies, including the correspondence of Forbes.[1466] There are also papers in the Col. Records of Penna. and Pennsylvania Archives. The letters of Washington in Sparks’ Washington (vol. ii.) may be supplemented by the fuller text of the same, and by others, in Bouquet and Haldimand Papers, in the British Museum. Washington’s letters to Bouquet are in Additional MSS., vol. 21, 641, of the British Museum, and there is a copy of them among the Parkman MSS.[1467] There is a letter of a British officer in the Gent. Mag., xxix. 171. For the new route made by Forbes, see Lowdermilk’s Cumberland, p. 238. The routes of Braddock and Forbes are marked on the map given in Sparks’ Washington, ii. 38, and Washington’s opinion of their respective advantages is in Ibid., ii. 302.

Of Grant’s defeat, the principal fight of the campaign, there are contemporary accounts in the Penna. Gazette,[1468] Boston Evening Post, Boston Weekly Advertiser, Boston News-Letter, etc.; in Hazard’s Penna. Reg., viii. 141; in Olden Time, i. p. 179. Grant’s imprudence met with little consideration in England. (Grenville Correspondence, i. 274.)

The account of Post’s embassy, July 15 to Sept., 1758, appeared in London in 1759, as the Second Journal of Christian Frederick Post.[1469]

Parkman,[1470] Bancroft,[1471] and Irving,[1472] of course, tell the story of Forbes’s campaign,—the first with the best help to sources.[1473]

The concomitants of the winter of 1758-59 in Canada must be studied in order to comprehend the inequality of the two sides in the signal campaign which was to follow. Parkman finds the material of this study in the documents of the Archives de la Marine et de la Guerre in Paris; in the correspondence of Montcalm, of which he procured copies from the present representative of his family, including the letters of Bougainville[1474] and Doreil[1475] on their Paris mission; and in the letters of Vaudreuil, in the Archives Nationales.[1476] Much throwing light on the strained relations between the general and the governor will be found in the N. Y. Col. Docs., vol. x.[1477] French representations of the situation in Canada are given in the Considérations sur l’État présent du Canada, published by the Literary and Historical Society of Quebec in 1840, sometimes cited as Faribault’s Collection de Mémoires, no. 3. Further use may be made of Mémoire sur le Canada, 1749-1760, en trois parties, Quebec, 1838.[1478]

The comparative inequality of the two combatants was a fruitful subject of inquiry then, especially upon the French side. There is in the Penna. Archives, 2d series, vi. 554, a French Mémoire, setting forth their respective positions, needs, and resources, dated January, 1759, and similar documents are given in the N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 897, 925, 930.

Later writers, with the advantage of remoteness, have found much for comment in the several characteristics, experiences, aims, and abilities of the two warring forces. These are contrasted in Warburton’s Conquest of Canada.[1479] Judge Haliburton[1480] points out the great military advantages of the paternal and despotic government of Canada. Viscount Bury, in his Exodus of the Western Nations,[1481] compares the outcome of their opposing systems. Parkman gives the last chapter of his Old Régime in Canada to a vigorous exposition of the subject. The institutional character of the English colonists, developed from the circumstances of their life, is compared with the purpose of the French colonists to reproduce France, in E. G. Scott’s Development of Constitutional Liberty in the English Colonies of America.[1482]

Among the later French authors, Rameau, in his France aux Colonies (Paris, 1859), writes in full consciousness of the limitations and errors of policy which deprived France of her American colonies.[1483] The efforts which were made to propitiate the Indians before the campaign opened are explained in Stone’s Life of Johnson, ii. ch. v., and in the N. Y. Col. Docs., vii. 378.

Upon the movement to render secure the new fort at Pittsburgh, Parkman found in the Public Record Office, in London, letters of Col. Hugh Mercer (who commanded), January-June, 1759; letters of Brigadier Stanwix, May-July;[1484] and a narrative of John Ormsby, beside a letter in the Boston News-Letter, no. 3,023. In the Wilkes Papers, in the Historical MSS. Commission Report, No. IV., p. 400, are long and interesting accounts of affairs at this time in Pennsylvania, written from Philadelphia to Wilkes by Thomas Barrow (May 1, 1759).

The Niagara expedition was a mistake, in the judgment of some military critics, since the troops diverted to accomplish it had been used more effectually in Amherst’s direct march to Montreal. More expedition on that general’s part in completing his direct march would have rendered the fall of Niagara a necessity without attack. Perhaps the risk of leaving French forces still west of Niagara, ready for a siege of Fort Pitt, is not sufficiently considered in this view.[1485]

The Public Record Office yields Amherst’s instructions and letters to Prideaux, and the letters of Johnson to Amherst. Stone[1486] prints Johnson’s diary of the expedition, and the Haldimand Papers in the British Museum throw much light.[1487] Letters of Amherst are in the N. Y. State Library at Albany.

On the French side, the account in Pouchot’s Mémoires sur la dernière guerre[1488] is that of the builder and defender of the fort.[1489] His narrative is given in English in N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 977, etc., as well as in Hough’s ed. of Pouchot. The letters of Vaudreuil from the French Archives are in the Parkman MSS. The English found in the fort a French journal (July 6-July 24, 1759), of which an English version was printed in the N. Y. Mercury, Aug. 20, 1759. It is also given in English in the Hist. Mag. (March, 1869), xv. p. 199.

For the Oswego episode, beside Pouchot,[1490] see Mémoire sur le Canada, 1749-60, and a letter in the Boston Evening Post, no. 1,248.

The best recent accounts are in Parkman’s Montcalm and Wolfe, ii. ch. 26; Warburton’s Conquest of Canada, ii. ch. 9, and Stone’s Life of Johnson, vol. ii.

Johnson’s diary, as given by Stone,[1491] shows how undecided, under Amherst’s instructions, Gage was about attacking the French at La Galette, on the St. Lawrence.

Gage, who, in August and September, 1759, was at Oswego, was much perplexed with the commissary and transportation service, but got relief when Bradstreet undertook to regulate matters at Albany.[1492]

While the expeditions of Stanwix and Prideaux constituted the left wing of the grand forward movement, that conducted by Amherst himself was the centre.

The letters of Amherst to Pitt and Wolfe are in the Public Record Office in London,[1493] as well as a journal of Colonel Amherst, a brother of the general. Mante and Knox afford good contemporary narratives.[1494]

The best general historians are Parkman (ii. 235, etc.), Bancroft (orig. ed., iv. 322; final revision, ii. 498); Warburton’s Conquest of Canada, ii. ch. 8. For local associations, see Holden’s Hist. of Queensbury, p. 343.[1495]

Bourlamaque’s account of his retreat is in N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 1,054. Pitt’s letter, when he learned that Amherst had abandoned the pursuit, is in Ibid., vii. 417.

Rogers sent to Amherst a letter about his raid upon the St. Francis village, which was written the day after he reached the settlements on the Upper Connecticut, and it makes part of his Journals. The story was the subject of recitals at the time in the provincial newspapers, like the New Hampshire Gazette and the Boston Evening Post. Hoyt, in his Antiquarian Researches (p. 302), adds a few particulars from the recollections of survivors.[1496]

In coming to the great victory which virtually closed the war on the Heights of Abraham, we can but be conscious of the domination which the character of Wolfe holds over all the recitals of its events, and the best source of that influence is in the letters which Wright has introduced into his life of Wolfe.[1497]

To the store of letters in Wright, Parkman sought to add others from the Public Record Office, beside the secret instructions given by the king to Wolfe and Saunders. The despatches of Wolfe, as well as those of Saunders, Monckton, and Townshend, are found, of course, in the contemporary magazines. A few letters of Wolfe, not before known, preserved among the Sackville Papers, have recently been printed in the Ninth Report of the Hist. MSS. Commission, Part iii. pp. 74-78. (Brit. Doc. Reports, 1883, vol. xxxvii.)[1498]

There is a printed volume which is known as Wolfe’s instructions to young officers (2d ed., London, 1780), which contains his orders during the time of his service in Canada. Manuscript copies of it, seemingly of contemporary date, are occasionally met with, and usually begin with orders in Scotland in 1748, and close with his last order on the “Sutherland,” Sept. 12, 1759.[1499] The general orders of the Quebec campaign, given at greater length than in these Instructions, have been printed in the Hist. Docs., 4th ser., published by the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec. Various orders are given in the Address of Lorenzo Sabine, on the centennial of the battle.[1500]

A large number of contemporary journals and narratives of the siege of Quebec, both on the English and French sides, have been preserved, most of which have now been printed.[1501]

The letters of Montcalm in the Archives de la Marine mostly pertain to events antecedent to the investment of Quebec. The letters of Vaudreuil are in the Archives Nationales,[1502] while those of Bigot, Lévis, and Montreuil are in the Archives de la Marine et de la Guerre.[1503]

Parkman has a note[1504] on the contemporary accounts of Montcalm’s death[1505] and burial, and in the Mercure Français is an éloge on the French general, which is attributed to Doreil. Some recollections of Montcalm in his last hours are given in a story credited to Joseph Trahan, as told in the Revue Canadienne, vol. iv. (1867, p. 850) by J. M. Lemoine, in a paper called “Le régiment des montagnards écossais devant Quebec, en 1759,” which in an English form, as “Fraser’s Highlanders before Quebec,” is given in Lemoine’s Maple Leaves, new series, p. 141.

There is a story, told with some contradictions, that Montcalm entrusted some of his letters to the Jesuit Roubaud. Parkman, in referring to the matter, cites[1506] Verreau’s report on the Canadian Archives (1874, p. 183), and the “Deplorable Case of M. Roubaud,” in Hist. Mag., xviii. 283.[1507]

Referring to the principal English contemporary printed sources, Parkman (ii. 194) says that Knox, Mante, and Entick are the best. Knox’s account is reprinted by Sabine in an appendix. Using these and other sources then made public, Smollett has told the story very intelligently in his History of England, giving a commensurate narrative in a general way, and has indicated the military risks which the plan of the campaign implied. The summary of the Annual Register[1508] is well digested.

In the Public Documents of Nova Scotia there are papers useful to the understanding of the fitting out of the expedition.

Jefferys intercalated in 1760, in his French Dominions in North America, sundry pages, to include such a story of the siege as he could make at that time.[1509]

Of the later English writers on the siege, it is enough barely to mention some of them.[1510]

Parkman first told the story in his Pontiac (vol. i. 126), erring in some minor details, which he later corrected when he gave it more elaborate form in the Atlantic Monthly (1884), and engrafted it (1885) in final shape in his Montcalm and Wolfe (vol. ii.).

The recent histories of Canada, like Miles’, etc., and such general works as Beatson’s Naval and Mil. Memoirs (ii. 300-308), necessarily cover the story; and there is an essay on Montcalm by E. S. Creasy, which originally appeared in Bentley’s Magazine (vol. xxxii. 133).[1511] Carlyle repeats the tale briefly, but with characteristic touches, in his Friedrich II. (vol. v. p. 555).

On the French side the later writers of most significance, beside the general historian of Canada, Garneau,[1512] are Felix Martin in his De Montcalm en Canada (1867), ch. 10, which was called, in a second edition, Le Marquis de Montcalm et les dernières années de la colonie Française au Canada, 1756-1760 (3d ed., Paris, 1879); and Charles de Bonnechose in his Montcalm et le Canada Français, which appeared in a fifth edition in 1882.[1513]

As to the forces in the opposing armies, and the numbers which the respective generals brought into opposition on the Heights of Abraham, there are conflicting opinions. Parkman[1514] collates the varying sources. Cf. also Martin’s De Montcalm en Canada, p. 196; Miles’ Hist. of Canada, app., etc.; Collection de Manuscrits (Quebec), iv. 229, 230.

The record of the council of war (Sept. 15) which Ramezay held after he found he had been left to his fate by Vaudreuil is given in Martin’s De Montcalm en Canada (p. 317), and in the N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 1007. Ramezay prepared a defence against charges of too easily succumbing to the enemy, and this was printed in 1861 by the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec, as Mémoire du Sieur de Ramezay, Commandant à Quebec, au sujet de la reddition de cette ville, le 18 septembre, 1759, d’après un manuscrit aux Archives du Bureau de la Marine à Paris. The paper is accompanied by an appendix of documentary proofs, including the articles of capitulation, which are also to be found in the appendix of Warburton’s Conquest of Canada (vol. ii. p. 362), N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 1011, and in Martin (p. 317).

TOWNSHEND.

From Doyle’s Official Baronage, iii. 543.

It has been kept in controversy whether Vaudreuil really directed Ramezay to surrender,[1515] but the note sent by Vaudreuil to Ramezay at nine in the evening, Sept. 13, instructing him to hoist the white flag when his provisions failed, is in N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 1004.

General Townshend returned to England, and when he claimed more than his share of the honors[1516] a Letter to an Honourable Brigadier General (London, 1760) took him sharply to task for it, and rehearsed the story of the fight.[1517] This tract was charged by some upon Charles Lee, but when it was edited by N. W. Simons, in 1841, an attempt by parallelisms of language, etc., was made to prove the authorship of Junius in it. It was answered by A refutation of a letter to an Hon. Brigadier by an officer.[1518] Parkman calls it “angry, but not conclusive.” There were other replies in the Imperial Magazine, 1760. Sabine, in his address, epitomizes the statements of both sides.

On the 17th of January, 1760, Pitt addressed Amherst respecting the campaign of the following season,[1519] and on April 27th Amherst addressed the Indians in a paper dated Fort George, N. Y., April 27.[1520] Letters had passed between Amherst and Johnson in March, about the efforts which were making by a conference at Fort Pitt to quiet the Indians in that direction.[1521] Later there were movements to scour the country lying between Fort Pitt and Presqu’isle, as shown in the Aspinwall Papers,[1522] where[1523] there is a fac-simile of a sketch of the route from Fort Pitt, passing Venango and Le Bœuf, which Bouquet sent to Monckton in August, 1760.

The earliest description of this country after it came into English hands is in a journal (July 7-17, 1760) by Capt. Thomas Hutchins, of the Sixtieth Regiment, describing a march from Fort Pitt to Venango, and from thence to Presqu’isle, which is printed in the Penna. Mag. of Hist. (ii. 849).

Bourlamaque, in a Mémoire sur Canada, which he wrote in 1762, presents Quebec as the key to the military strength of the province.[1524]

The interest of the winter and spring lies in the vigorous efforts of Lévis to recover Quebec. The English commander, Murray, kept a journal from the 18th of September till the 25th of May. The original was in the London War Office, and Miles used a copy from that source. Parkman records it as now being in the Public Record Office,[1525] and says it ends May 17; and the reprint of the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec credits it to the same source, in their third series (1871).

Parkman[1526] refers to a plan among the King’s Maps (Brit. Mus.) of the battle and situation of the British and French on the Heights of Abraham, 28 April, 1760.

This engagement is sometimes called the battle of Sillery, though the more common designation is the battle of Ste. Foy.

Murray’s despatch to Amherst, April 30, is among the Parkman Papers, and that to Pitt, dated May 25, 1760, is in Hawkins’ Picture of Quebec, and in W. J. Anderson’s Military Operations at Quebec from Sept. 18, 1759, to May 18, 1760, published by the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec (1869-70), and also separately. It is a critical examination of the sources of information respecting the battle, particularly as to the forces engaged. Parkman (ii., app., p. 442) examines this aspect also.

We have on the English side the recitals of several eye-witnesses. Knox[1527] was such. So were Mante, Fraser, and Johnson; the journals of the last two are those mentioned on a preceding page. Parkman, who gives a list of authorities,[1528] refers to a letter of an officer of the Royal Americans at Quebec, May 24, 1760, printed in the London Magazine, and other contemporary accounts are in the Gentleman’s and English Magazine (1760). There is also a letter in the N. Y. Geneal. and Biog. Record, April, 1872, p. 94.

The principal French contemporary account is that of Lévis, Guerre du Canada, Relation de la seconde Bataille de Québec et du Siége de cette ville,—a manuscript which, according to Parkman, has different titles in different copies, and some variations in text. Vaudreuil’s instructions to Lévis are in the N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 1069. There is a journal of the battle annexed to Vaudreuil’s letter to Berryer, May 3, 1760, in N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 1075, 1077. The Parkman MSS. have also letters of Bourlamaque and Lévis, and there is something to be gleaned from Chevalier Johnston and the Relation of the hospital nun, already referred to.

Of the modern accounts by the Canadian historians, Lemoine[1529] calls that of Garneau[1530] the best, and speaks of it as collated from documents, many of which had never then (1876) seen the light. Smith takes a view quite opposite to Garneau’s, and Lemoine[1531] charges him with glossing over the subject “with striking levity.”[1532]

Col. John Montresor was in the force which Murray led up the river to Montreal, and we have his journal, July 14-Sept. 8, 1760, in the N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., 1881, p. 236.

For the progress of the converging armies of Amherst and Haviland, there are the histories of Mante and Knox and the journals of Rogers. Parkman adds a tract printed in Boston (1760), All Canada in the hands of the English. Beside the official documents of the Parkman MSS., he also cites a Diary of a sergeant in the army of Haviland, and a Journal of Colonel Nathaniel Woodhull.[1533] There is a glimpse of the condition of the country to be got from the Travels and Adventures of Alexander Henry in Canada and the Indian territory, 1760-1776 (New York, 1809).

Amherst’s letter to Monckton on the capture of Fort Lévis is in the Aspinwall Papers (Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., xxxix. 307), and reference may be made to Pouchot (ii. 264), Mante (303), and Knox (ii. 405).[1534]

Parkman uses the Procès verbal of the council of war which Vaudreuil held in Montreal; and the terms of the capitulation (Sept. 8, 1760) can be found in N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 1107; Miles’ Canada, 502; Bonnechose’s Montcalm et le Canada (app.); and Martin’s De Montcalm en Canada (p. 327), and his Marquis de Montcalm (p. 321).

The protest which Lévis uttered against the terms of the capitulation is in the N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 1106, with his reasons for it (p. 1123).

The circular letter about the capitulation which Amherst sent to the governors of the colonies is in the Aspinwall Papers.[1535]

Parkman’s[1536] is the best recent account of this campaign, though it is dwelt upon at some length by Smith and Warburton.

Gage was left in command at Montreal; Murray returned to Quebec with 4,000 men; while Amherst, by the last of September, was in New York.[1537]

Rogers’s own Journals make the best account of his expeditions westward[1538] to receive the surrender of Detroit and the extremer posts. Parkman, who tells the story in his Pontiac (ch. 6), speaks of the journals as showing “the incidents of each day, minuted down in a dry, unambitious style, bearing the clear impress of truth.” Rogers also describes the interview with Pontiac in his Concise Account of North America, Lond., 1765. Cf. Aspinwall Papers (Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., xxxix. 362) for Croghan’s journal[1539] and (Ibid., pp. 357, 387) for letters on the surrender of Detroit.[1540]

Later Lieutenant Brehm was sent as a scout from Montreal to Lake Huron, thence to Fort Pitt, and his report to Amherst, dated Feb. 23, 1761, is in the N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg., 1883, p. 22.

Philippe Aubert de Gaspé, in Les Anciens Canadiens (1863), attempts, as he says, to portray the misfortunes which the conquest brought on the greater portion of the Canadian noblesse.[1541] There is a sad story of the shipwreck on Cape Breton of the “Auguste,” which in 1761 was bearing a company of these expatriated Canadians to France, and one of them, M. de la Corne Saint-Luc, has left a Journal du Naufrage de l’Auguste, which has been printed in Quebec.[1542]

The trials of Bigot and the others in Paris elicited a large amount of details respecting the enormities which had characterized the commissary affairs of Canada during the war. Cf. “Observations on certain peculations in New France,” in N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 1129. There is in Harvard College library a series of the printed reports and judgments in the matter.[1543]

Mr. Parkman has published in The Nation (Apr. 15, 1886) an account of a MS. lately acquired by the national library at Paris, Voyage au Canada dans le Nord de l’Amérique Septentrionale fait depuis l’an 1751 à 1761 par T. C. B., who participated in some of the battles of the war; but the account seems to add little of consequence to existing knowledge, having been written (as he says, from notes) thirty or forty years after his return. It shows, however, how the army store-keepers of the French made large fortunes and lost them in the depreciation of the Canadian paper money.

[NOTES.]

A. Intercolonial Congresses and Plans of Union.—The confederacy which had been formed among the New England colonies in 1643 had lasted, with more or less effect, during the continuance of the colonial charter of Massachusetts.[1544] As early as 1682 Culpepper, of Virginia, had proposed that no colony should make war without the concurrence of Virginia, and Nicholson, eight or ten years later, had advocated a federation. In 1684 there had been a convention at Albany, at which representatives of Massachusetts, New York, Maryland, and Virginia had met the sachems of the Five Nations.[1545] In 1693 Governor Fletcher, by order of the king, had called at New York a meeting of commissioners of the colonies, which proved abortive. Those who came would not act, because others did not come. In 1694 commissioners met at Albany to frame a treaty with the Five Nations, and Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey were represented. A journal of Benjamin Wadsworth, who accompanied the Massachusetts delegates, is printed in the Mass. Hist. Collections, xxii. 102. This journal was used by Holmes in his Amer. Annals, 2d ed., i. p. 451.

Such were the practical efforts at consolidating power for the common defence, which the colonies had taken part in up to the end of the seventeenth century. We now begin to encounter various theoretical plans for more permanent unions.[1546] In 1698 William Penn devised a scheme which is printed in the New York Colonial Documents, iv. 296. In the same year Charles Davenant prepared a plan which is found in Davenant’s Political and Commercial Works, vol. ii. p. 11.[1547] In 1701 we find a plan, by a Virginian, set forth in an Essay upon the government of the English plantations;[1548] and one of the same year (May 13, 1701) by Robert Livingston, suggesting three different unions, is noted in the N. Y. Col. Docs., iv. 874.

In 1709 another temporary emergency revived the subject. Colonel Vetch convened the governors of New England at New London (Oct. 14) for a concert of action in a proposed expedition against Canada, but the failure of the fleet to arrive from England cut short all effort.[1549] Again in 1711 (June 21) the governors of New England assembled at the same place, to determine the quotas of their respective colonies for the Canada expedition, planned by Nicholson; and later in the year, the same New England governments invited New York to another conference, but it came to naught.

In 1721 there was a plan to place a captain-general over the colonies. (Cf. a Representation of the Lords of Trade to the King, in N. Y. Col. Docs., v. p. 591.)

On Sept. 10, 1722, Albany was the scene of another congress, at which Pennsylvania and New York joined to renew a league with the Five Nations; and a few days later (Sept. 14), Virginia having joined them, they renewed the conference. (Cf. N. Y. Col. Docs., v. 567.)

The same year, 1722, Daniel Coxe,[1550] in his Carolana, offered another theory of union.

In June, 1744, George Clinton, of New York, submitted to a convocation of deputies from Massachusetts a plan of union something like the early New England confederacy. The Six Nations sent their sachems.

On July 23, 1748, there was another conference for mutual support at Albany, at which the Six Nations met the deputies of New York and Massachusetts.

In 1751, Clinton, of New York, invited representatives of all the colonies from New Hampshire to South Carolina to meet the Six Nations for compacting a league. The journal of the commissioners is in the Mass. Archives, xxxviii. 160.[1551]

In 1751, Archibald Kennedy, in his tract The importance of gaining and preserving the friendship of the Indians to the British interest considered, N. Y., 1751, and London, 1752 (Carter-Brown, iii. 955, 975), developed a plan of his own.[1552]

In 1752 Governor Dinwiddie advocated distinct northern and southern confederacies.

In June, 1754, the most important of all these congresses convened at Albany,[1553] under an order from the home government. The chief instigator of a union was Shirley,[1554] and the most important personage in the congress was Benjamin Franklin, who was chiefly instrumental in framing the plan finally adopted, though it failed in the end of the royal sanction as too subversive of the royal prerogative, while it lost the support of the several assemblies in the colonies because too careful of the same prerogative. Franklin himself later thought it must have hit a happy and practicable mean, from this diversity of view in the crown and in the subject.

This plan, as it originally lay in Franklin’s mind, is embodied in his “Short Hints towards a Scheme for uniting the Northern Colonies,” which is printed in Franklin’s Works.[1555] This draft Franklin submitted to James Alexander and Cadwallader Colden, and their comments are given in Ibid., pp. 28, 30, as well as Franklin’s own incomplete paper (p. 32) in explanation.

It was Franklin’s plan, amended a little, which finally met with the approval of all the commissioners except those from Connecticut.

This final plan is printed, accompanied by “reasons and motives for each article,” in Sparks’s ed. of Franklin’s Works, i. 36.[1556]

An original MS. journal of the congress is noted in the Carter-Brown Catalogue, iii. no. 1,067. The proceedings have been printed in O’Callaghan’s Doc. Hist. N. Y., ii. 545; in the N. Y. Col. Docs., vi. 853; in Pennsylvania Col. Records, vi. 57; and in the Mass. Hist. Soc. Collections, xxv. p. 5, but this last lacks the last day’s proceedings. Cf. rough drafts of plans in Mass. Hist. Coll., vii. 203, and Penna. Archives, ii. 197; also see Penna. Col. Rec., v. 30-97. There are some contemporary extracts from the proceedings of the congress of 1754 in a volume of Letters and Papers, iv. (1721-1760), in Mass. Hist. Soc. Library.

We have four accounts of the congress from those who were members.[1557]

Pownall read (July 11, 1754) at the congress a paper embracing “Considerations towards a general plan of measures for the colonies,” which is printed in N. Y. Col. Docs., vi. 893, and in Penna. Archives, 2d ser., vi. 197.

At the same time William Johnson brought forward a paper suggesting “Measures necessary to be taken with the Six Nations for defeating the designs of the French.” It is printed in N. Y. Col. Docs., vi. 897; Penna. Archives, 2d ser., vi. 203.

Shirley (Oct. 21, 1754) wrote to Morris, of Pennsylvania, urging him to press acquiescence in the plan of union. (Penna. Archives, ii. 181.)

Shirley’s own comments on the Albany plan are found in his letter, dated Boston, Dec. 24, 1754, and directed to Sir Thos. Robinson, which is printed in the Penna. Archives, 2d ser., vi. 213, and in N. Y. Col. Docs., vi. 930. During this December Franklin was in Boston, and Shirley showed to him the plan, which the government had proposed, looking to taxing the colonies for the expense of maintaining the proposed union. Franklin met the scheme with some letters, afterwards brought into prominence when taxation without representation was practically enforced. These Franklin letters were printed in a London periodical in 1766, and again in Almon’s Remembrancer in 1776. They can best be found in Sparks’s ed. of Franklin’s Works, vol. iii. p. 56.[1558]

Livingston’s references to the congress are in his Review of Military Operations (Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., vii. 76, 77).

A list of the delegates to the congress is given in Franklin’s Works, iii. 28, in Foster’s Stephen Hopkins, ii. 226, and elsewhere.

The report of the commissioners on the part of Rhode Island is printed in the R. I. Col. Records, v. 393. The report of the commissioners of Connecticut, with the reasons for rejecting the plan of the congress, is in Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., vii. 207, 210.

There is much about the congress in the Doc. Hist. New York, i. 553-54; ii. 545, 564, 570-71, 589-91, 605, 611-15, 672.

Of the later accounts, that given by Richard Frothingham in his Rise of the Republic is the most extensive and most satisfactory.[1559]

After the Albany plan had been rejected by the Massachusetts assembly, another plan, the MS. of which in Hutchinson’s hand exists in the Mass. Archives, vi. 171,[1560] was brought forward in the legislature. It was intended to include all the colonies except Nova Scotia and Georgia. It failed of acceptance. It is printed in the appendix of Frothingham’s Rise of the Republic.

Pownall suggested, in his Administration of the Colonies, a plan for establishing barrier colonies beyond the Alleghanies, settling them with a population inured to danger, so that they could serve as protectors of the older colonies, in averting the enemy’s attacks. Franklin shared his views in this respect. (Cf. Franklin’s Works, iii. 69, and also Pennsylvania Archives, ii. 301, vi. 197.)

Among the Shelburne Papers (Hist. MSS. Commissioners’ Report, no. 5, p. 218) is a paper dated at Whitehall, Oct. 29, 1754, commenting upon the Albany congress, and called “A Representation[1561] to the King of the State of the Colonies,” and “A Plan for the Union of the Colonies,” signed August 9, 1754, by Halifax and others.[1562] This was the plan already referred to, presented by the ministry in lieu of the one proposed at Albany, which had been denied. Bancroft (United States, orig. ed., iv. 166) calls it “despotic, complicated, and impracticable.” It is named in the draft printed in the New Jersey Archives, 1st ser., viii., Part 2d, p. 1, as a “Plan by the Lords of Trade of general concert and mutual defence to be entered into by the colonies in America.”

In the interval before it became a serious question of combining against the mother country, two other plans for union were urged. John Mitchell (Contest in America) in 1757 proposed triple confederacies, and in 1760 a plan was brought forward by Samuel Johnson. (N. Y. Col. Docs., vii. 438.)

B. Cartography of the St. Lawrence and the Lakes in the Eighteenth Century.—Various extensive maps of the St. Lawrence River were made in the eighteenth century. Chief among them may be named the following:—

There is noted in the Catal. of the Lib. of Parliament (Toronto, 1858, p. 1619, no. 65) a MS. map of the St. Lawrence from below Montreal to Lake Erie, which is called “excellent à consulter,” and dated 1728.

Popple’s, in 1730, of which a reduction is given in Cassell’s United States, i. 420.

A “Carte des lacs du Canada, par N. Bellin, 1744,” is in Charlevoix, iii. 276.

A map of Lake Ontario by Labroguerie (1757) is noted in the Catal. of the King’s Maps (Brit. Mus.), ii. 112.

General Amherst caused sectional maps to be made by Captain Holland and others, which are noted in the Catal. of the King’s Maps (Brit. Mus.), i. 608.

Subsequent to the conquest of 1760, General Murray directed Montresor to make a map of the St. Lawrence from Montreal to St. Barnaby Island. This is preserved. (Trans. Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec, 1872-73, p. 99.)

Maps in Bellin’s Petit Atlas Maritime, 1764 (nos. 4 to 8).

Jefferys’ map of the river from Quebec down, added to a section above Quebec, based on D’Anville’s map of 1755, is in Jefferys’ Gen. Topog. of North America, etc., 1768, nos. 16, 17.

The edition of 1775 is called An exact Chart of the River St. Lawrence from Fort Frontenac to Anticosti (and Part of the Western Coast of the Gulf of St. Lawrence), showing the Soundings, Rocks, and Shoals, with all necessary Instructions for navigating the River, with Views of the Land, etc., by T. Jefferys. It measures 24 × 37 inches, and has particular Charts of the Seven Islands; St. Nicholas, or English Harbor; the Road of Tadoussac; Traverse, or Passage from Cape Torment.

A map engraved by T. Kitchen, in Mante’s Hist. of the Late War, London, 1772, p. 30, shows the river from Lake Ontario to its mouth, defining on the lake the positions of Forts Niagara, Oswego, and Frontenac; and (p. 333) is one giving the course of the river below Montreal.

In the Atlantic Neptune of Des Barres, 1781, Part ii. no. 1, is the St. Lawrence in three sheets, from Quebec to the gulf; Part ii., no. 16, has the same extent, on a larger scale, in four sheets; Part ii., Additional Charts, no. 8, gives the river from the Chaudière to Lake St. Francis, in six sheets, as surveyed by Samuel Holland.

Moll made a survey of the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1729. The most elaborate map is that of Jefferys (1775), which measures 20 × 24 inches, and is called Chart of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, composed from a great number of Actual Surveys and other Materials, regulated and connected by Astronomical Observations.

There is a chart of Chaleur Bay in the North American Pilot (1760), nos. 14, 15; and of the Saguenay River, by N. Bellin, in Charlevoix, iii. 64.

C. The Peace of 1763.—The events in Europe which led to the downfall of Pitt and to the negotiations for peace are best portrayed among American historians in Parkman[1563] and Bancroft.[1564]

The leading English historians (Stanhope, etc.) can be supplemented by the Bedford Correspondence, vol. iii. Various claims and concessions, made respectively by the English and French governments, are printed from the official records in Mills’ Boundaries of Ontario (App., p. 209, etc.). See also the Mémoire historique sur la négociation de la France et de l’Angleterre depuis le 26 Mars, 1761, jusqu’au 20 septembre de la même année, avec les pièces justificatives, Paris, 1761.[1565]

As soon as Quebec had surrendered there grew a party in England who put Canada as a light weight in the scales, in comparison with Guadaloupe, in balancing the territorial claims to be settled in defining the terms of a peace. The controversy which followed produced numerous pamphlets, some of which may be mentioned.[1566]

The surrender of Canada was insisted upon in 1760 in a Letter addressed to two great men on the prospect of peace, and on the terms necessary to be insisted upon in the negotiation (London); and the arguments were largely sustained in William Burke’s Remarks on the Letter addressed to two great men (London, 1760), both of which pamphlets passed to later editions.[1567]

Franklin, then in London, complimented the writers of these tracts on the unusual “decency and politeness” which they exhibited amid the party rancor of the time. This was in a voluminous tract, which he then issued, called Interest of Great Britain considered with regard to her colonies and the acquisition of Canada and Guadaloupe, London, 1760.[1568] In this he repelled the intimation that there was any disposition on the part of the Americans to combine to throw off their allegiance to the crown, though such views were not wholly unrife in England or in the colonies.[1569] He also advocated, in a way that Burke called “the ablest, the most ingenious, the most dexterous on that side,” for the retention of Canada, insisting that peace in North America, if not in Europe, could only be made secure by British occupancy of that region.[1570]

The preliminaries of peace having been agreed upon in November, 1762, and laid before Parliament, the discussion was revived.[1571] The ratification, however, came in due course,[1572] and the royal proclamation was made Oct. 7, 1763.[1573]

D. The General Contemporary Sources Of the War, 1754-1760.—During the war and immediately following it, there were a number of English reviews of its progress and estimates of its effects, which either reflect the current opinions or give contemporary record of its events.

Such are the following:—

John Mitchell’s Contest in America between Great Britain and France, with its consequences and importance, London, 1757.[1574] It was published as by “an impartial hand.”

W. H. Dilworth’s History of the present War to the conclusion of the year 1759, London, 1760.[1575]

Peter Williamson’s Brief account of the War in North America, containing several very remarkable particulars relative to the natural dispositions, tempers, and inclinations of the unpolished savages, not taken notice of in any other history, Edinburgh, 1760,[1576]—a book of no value, except as incidentally illustrating the dangers of partisan warfare.

A review of Mr. Pitt’s Administration, second edition, with alterations and additions, London, 1763. This particularly concerns that minister’s policy in America.

John Dobson’s Chronological Annals of the War (Apr. 2, 1755, to the signing of the preliminaries of peace), Oxford, 1763.[1577]

John Entick’s General History of the late War ... in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, London, 1764, 5 vols.[1578] The author was a schoolmaster and maker of books. Some contemporary critics speak disparagingly of the book. It includes numerous portraits and maps.

History of the late War from 1749 to 1763. Glasgow, 1765.

J. Wright’s Complete History of the late War, or Annual Register of its rise, progress, and events in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America. Illustrated with heads, plans, maps, and charts. London, 1765.[1579]

Capt. John Knox’s Historical Journal of the campaigns in North America for the years 1757, 1758, 1759, and 1760, containing the most remarkable occurrences, the orders of the admirals and general officers, descriptions of the country, diaries of the weather, manifestos, the French orders and disposition for the defence of the colony, London, 1769, 2 vols.[1580]

The beginning, progress, and conclusion of the late War, London, 1770.[1581]

Thomas Mante’s History of the late War in North America, including the campaign of 1763 and 1764 against his Majesty’s Indian enemies, London, 1772. Mante was an engineer officer in the service, but he did not share in the war till the last year of it.[1582] The book has eighteen large maps and plates. It has been praised by Bancroft and Sparks.

As a supplement to the accounts of the war, we may place Major Robert Rogers’s Concise account of North America, London, 1765;[1583] a description of the country, particularly of use as regards the region beyond the Alleghanies, with accounts of the Indians.

The best contemporary English monthly record before 1758 is to be found in the Gentleman’s Mag., but occasional references should be made to other magazines.[1584] After 1758 the monthly accounts yield in value to the yearly summary of Dodsley’s Annual Register.

Respecting the French territory of North America, the readiest English account is Thomas Jefferys’ Natural and Civil History of the French Dominions in North and South America, London, 1760.[1585] Charlevoix is largely used in the compilation of this work, without acknowledgment.

Foremost among the special histories of the war, which were contemporary on the French side, is the Mémoires sur la dernière guerre de l’Amérique Septentrionale, written by Pouchot, of the regiment of Bearn, who twice surrendered his post, at Niagara and Lévis. The book bears the imprint of Yverdon, 1781,[1586] is in three volumes, and has been published in an English version with the following title:—

Memoir upon the late war in North America, between the French and English, 1755-60, followed by observations upon the theatre of actual war, and by new details concerning the manners and customs of the Indians, with topographical maps, by M. Pouchot, translated by Franklin B. Hough, with additional notes and illustrations. Roxbury, Massachusetts. 1866.[1587] 2 vols.

The Literary and Historical Society of Quebec[1588] published in 1838 contemporary Mémoires sur le Canada, 1749-1760, avec cartes et plans. It was reprinted in 1876. The original MS. has a secondary title, “Mémoires du S—— de C——, contenant l’histoire du Canada durant la guerre et sous le gouvernement anglais.” The introduction to it as printed suggests that its author was M. de Vauclain, an officer of marine in 1759.

Concerning the Histoire de la guerre contre les Anglois, Geneva, 1759-60, two volumes, Rich[1589] says it relates almost entirely to the war in America, and cites Barbier as giving the authorship to Poullin de Lumina.[1590]

There is a contemporary account of the campaigns, 1754-58, preserved in the Archives de la Guerre at Paris, which is ascribed to the Chevalier de Montreuil, and is given in English in the N. Y. Col. Docs., x. 912. In the Penna. Archives, 2d ser., vi. 439, it is made a part of an extensive series of documents relating to the period of the French occupation of western Pennsylvania.

Among the Parkman MSS. is a series called New France, 1748-1763, in twelve volumes, mainly transcripts from the French Archives, with copies of some private papers, all supplementing the selection which Dr. O’Callaghan printed in his N. Y. Col. Docs., vol. x.

The papers of this period make a part of the review given by Edmond Lareau in his “Nos Archives,” in the Revue Canadienne, xii. 208, 295, 347. A paper on the “Archives of Canada,” by a former president of the Lit. and Hist. Society of Quebec, Dr. W. J. Anderson, describes the labors of that society, which have been aided by an appropriation from the government to collect and arrange the historical records.[1591] Of a collection made by Papineau from the Paris Archives, in ten volumes, six were burned in the destruction of the Parliament House in 1849. The transcripts of Paris documents in the Mass. Archives, having been copied for the Province of Quebec, have been included in the publication, issued in four quarto volumes, under the auspices of that province, and called Collection de manuscrits contenant lettres, mémoires, et autres documents historiques relatifs à la Novvelle-France, recueillis aux archives de la province de Québec, ou copiés à l’étranger. Mis en ordre et édités sous les auspices de la législature de Québec. [Edited by J. Blanchet.] (Quebec. 1883-85.)[1592]

It was a stipulation of the capitulation at Montreal in 1760 that all papers held by the French which were necessary for the prosecution of the government should be handed over by the French officials to the victors. These are now supposed to be at Ottawa.[1593]

The papers from the Public Record Office (London) from 1748 to 1763, and referring to Canada, occupy five volumes of the Parkman MSS., in the cabinet of the Mass. Historical Society.[1594]

The State of New York, in its Documentary Hist. of New York and its New York Col. Docs.; New Jersey, in its New Jersey Archives; and Pennsylvania in its Colonial Records and Pennsylvania Archives, have done much to help the student by printing their important documents of the eighteenth century.

In New England, Massachusetts has done nothing in printing; but a large part of her important papers are arranged and indexed, and a commission has been appointed, with an appropriation of $5,000 a year,[1595] to complete the arrangement, and render her documents accessible to the student, and carry out the plan recommended by the same commission,[1596] whose report (Jan., 1885) was printed by the legislature. It gives a synopsis of the mass of papers constituting the archives of Massachusetts. Dr. Geo. H. Moore, in Appendix 5 of his Final Notes on Witchcraft, details what legislative action has taken place in the past respecting the care of these archives.

The other New England States have better cared for their records of the provincial period; New Hampshire having printed her Provincial Papers, Rhode Island and Connecticut their Colonial Records.[1597]

Certain historical summaries—contemporary or nearly so—of the English colonies are necessary to the study of their conditions at the outbreak and during the progress of the war.

First, we have an early French view in George Marie Butel-Dumont’s Histoire et Commerce des Colonies Angloises dans l’Amérique Septentrionale, 1755. A portion of it was issued in London in a translation, as The Present State of North America, Part i.[1598]

The Summary of Douglass has been mentioned elsewhere,[1599] and it ends at too early a date to include the later years of the wars now under consideration.

The work of Edmund Burke, An Account of the European Settlements in America, though published in 1757, was not able to chronicle much of the effects of the war. It has passed through many editions.[1600]

M. Wynne’s General History of the British Empire in America, London, 1770,[1601] 2 vols., is in some parts a compilation not always skilfully done.

Smith’s History of the British Dominions in America was issued anonymously, and Grahame (ii. 253) says of it that it “contains more ample and precise information than the composition of Wynne, and, like it, brings down the history and state of the colonies to the middle of the eighteenth century. It is more of a statistical than a historical work.”

A History of the British Dominions in North America (London, 1773, 2 vols. in quarto) was a bookseller’s speculation, of no great authority, as Rich determined.[1602]

William Russell, the author of a History of America from its discovery to the conclusion of the late war [1763], London, 1778, 2 vols. in quarto, was of Gray’s Inn,[1603]—the same who wrote the History of Modern Europe, which, despite grave defects, has had a long lease of life at the hand of continuators. His America has had a trade success, and has passed through later editions.

A New and Complete History of the British Empire in America (London) is the running-title of a work issued in numbers in London about 1756. It was never completed, and has no title-page.[1604]

Jefferys’ General Topography of North America and the West Indies, London, 1768, has a double title, French and English. It is the earliest publication of what came later to be known as Jefferys’ Atlas, in the issues of which the plates are inferior to the impression in this book.[1605]

The special histories of two of the colonies deserve mention, because their authors lived during the war, and they wrote with authority on some of its aspects. These are Thomas Hutchinson’s Hist. of Massachusetts Bay,[1606] and William Smith’s History of the Province of New York.[1607] The latter book, as published by its author, came down only to 1736, though, being written during the war, he anticipated in his narrative some of its events. He, however, prepared a continuation to 1762, and this was for the first time printed as the second volume of an edition of the work published by the New York Hist. Society in 1829-30. In editing this second volume, the son of the author says that his father was “a prominent actor in the scenes described,” which are in large part, however, the endless quarrels of the executive part of the government of the province with its assembly. Parkman characterizes Smith as a partisan in his views. Smith acknowledges his obligations to Colden for “affairs with the French and Indians, antecedent to the Peace of Ryswick;” and while he follows Colden in matters relating to the English, he appeals to Charlevoix for the French transactions.[1608]

Two special eclectic maps of the campaigns of the war may be mentioned:—

Bonnechose, in his Montcalm et le Canada Français, 5th ed., Paris, 1882, gives a “Carte au théâtre des opérations militaires du M^r. de Montcalm, d’après les documents de l’époque.”

In L. Dussieux’s Le Canada sous la domination française (Paris, 1855) is a general map “pour servir a l’histoire de la Nouvelle France, ou du Canada, jusqu’en 1763, dressées principalement d’après des matériaux inédits conservés dans les Archives du ministère de la Marine, par L. Dussieux, 1851.”

As an instance of the curious, perverse error which could be made to do duty for cartographical aids, reference may be made to a publication of Georg Cristoph Kilian, of Augsburg, in 1760, entitled Americanische Urquelle derer innerlichen Kriege des bedrängten Teutschlands ... historisch verfasset durch L. F. v. d. H.

E. The General Historians of the French and English Colonies.—The bibliography of the general histories of Canada has been already attempted,[1609] and to the sources of such bibliography then given may be added M. Edmond Lareau’s Histoire de la Littérature Canadienne (Montreal, 1874), for its chapter (4th) on Canadian historians; and Mr. J. C. Dent’s Last forty years of Canada (1881), for its review of the historians in its chapter on “Literature and Journalism.” New France and her New England historians is the subject of a paper in the Southern Review (new series, xviii. 337).

It is not necessary here to repeat in detail the enumeration of the historians, both French and English, which have been thus referred to.

GARNEAU.

After a likeness in Daniel’s Nos Gloires Nationales, ii. p. 107. There is another portrait in his Hist. du Canada, 4th ed., Montreal, 1883, in connection with a memoir of its author.

The leading historian of Canada in the French interests is, without question, François Xavier Garneau, the earlier editions of whose Histoire du Canada depuis sa découverte jusqu’à nos jours have been mentioned elsewhere;[1610] the final revision of which, however, has since appeared at Montreal (1882-83) in a fourth edition in four volumes, accompanied by a “notice biographique” by Chauveau.[1611] English writers question his clearness of vision, when his national sympathies are evoked by his story, and there are some instances in which they accuse him of garbling his authorities. It must be confessed, however, that the disasters of the French do not always elicit Garneau’s sympathy, and his own compatriots have not all approved his reflections upon Montcalm for his last campaign.

Among the later of the French writers on the closing years of the French domination, Mr. J. M. Lemoine, of Quebec, is conspicuous. Such of his writings as are in English have been gathered in part from periodicals, and principal among them are his Quebec Past and Present, and its sequel, Picturesque Quebec, beside his collection of Maple Leaves, in two series (Quebec, 1863, 1873).[1612]

Jean Langevin delivered at the Canadian Institute, in Quebec, a series of lectures on “Canada sous la domination française” (1659-1759), which have appeared in the Journal de Québec.

The latest of the French chronicles are Eugène Réveillaud’s Histoire du Canada et des Canadiens français de la découverte jusqu’à nos jours, Paris, 1884 (pp. 551, with map), and Benjamin Sulte’s Histoire des Canadiens français, 1608-1880 (Montreal, 1882-1884), in eight thin quarto volumes, with illustrations, including portraits of the Canadian historians and antiquaries, Pierre Boucher, Jacques Viger, Garneau, L. J. Papineau, Michel Bibaud, Aubert de Gaspé, Ferland, Abbé Casgrain, and E. Rameau.

The Abbé J. A. Maurault’s Histoire des Abénakis depuis 1605 jusqu’à nos jours, Quebec, 1866, covers portions of the wars of Canada in which those Indians took part.

The American Annals of Dr. Abiel Holmes was published in Cambridge (Mass.) in 1805. It is a book still to inspire confidence, and “the first authoritative work from an American pen which covered the whole field of American history.”[1613] Libraries in America were then scant, but the annalist traced where he could his facts to original sources, and when he issued his second edition, in 1829, its revision and continuation showed how he had availed himself of the stores of the Ebeling and other collections which in the interval had enriched the libraries of Harvard College and Boston. Grahame[1614] gives the book no more than just praise when he calls it perhaps “the most excellent chronological digest that any nation has ever possessed.”

The history of the colonies, which formed an introduction to Marshall’s Life of Washington, was republished in Philadelphia in 1824, as History of the Colonies planted by the English on the Continent of North America to the commencement of that war which terminated in their independence.

JAMES GRAHAME.

After the engraving in the Boston ed. of his History.

James Grahame was a Scotchman, born in 1790, an advocate at the Scottish bar, and a writer for the reviews. By his religious and political training he had the spirit of the Covenanters and the ideas of a republican. In 1824 he began to think of writing the history of the United States, and soon after entered upon the work, the progress of which a journal kept by him, and now in the library of Harvard College, records. In Feb., 1827, the first two volumes, bringing the story down to the period of the English revolution, were published,[1615] and met with neglect from the chief English reviews. As he went on he had access to the material which George Chalmers had collected. He finished the work in Dec., 1829; but before he published these closing sections a considerate notice of the earlier two volumes appeared in January, 1831, in the North American Review, the first considerable recognition which he had received. It encouraged him in the more careful revision of the later volumes, which he was now engaged upon, and in Jan., 1836, they were published.[1616] His health prevented his continuing his studies into the period of the American Revolution. In 1837 Mr. Bancroft had in his History (ii. 64) animadverted on the term “baseness,” which Grahame in his earliest volumes had applied to John Clarke, who had procured for Rhode Island its charter of 1663, charging Grahame with having invented the allegations which induced him to be so severe on Clarke. Mr. Robert Walsh and Mr. Grahame himself repelled the insinuation in The New York American, and a later edition of Mr. Bancroft’s volume changed the expression from “invention” to “unwarranted misapprehension,” and Mr. Grahame subsequently withdrew the term “baseness,” which had offended the local pride of the Rhode Islanders, and wrote “with a suppleness of adroit servility.” It is not apparent that either historian sacrificed much of his original intention. Josiah Quincy defends Grahame’s view in a note to his memoir of the historian prefixed to the Boston edition of his History, in which Grahame had said he was incapable of such dishonesty as Bancroft had charged upon him. Bancroft wrote in March, 1846, a letter to the Boston Courier, calling the retort of Grahame a “groundless attack,” and charging Quincy, who had edited the new edition of Grahame, with giving publicity to Grahame’s personal criminations. Quincy replied in a pamphlet, The Memory of the late James Grahame, Historian, vindicated from the charges of Detraction and Calumny, preferred against him by Mr. George Bancroft, and the Conduct of Mr. Bancroft towards that Historian stated and exposed, in which use was also made of material furnished by the Grahame family, and thought to implicate Mr. Bancroft in literary jealousy of his rival.[1617] Grahame was not better satisfied with the view which Mr. Quincy had taken of the character of the Mathers in his History of Harvard University. “The Mathers are very dear to me,” Grahame wrote to Quincy, “and you attack them with a severity the more painful to me that I am unable to demur to its justice. I would fain think that you do not make sufficient allowance for the spirit of their times.” This difference, however, did not disturb the literary amenities of their relations; and Grahame, in 1839, demurred against Walsh’s proposition to republish his History in Philadelphia, for fear he might be seeming to seek a rivalry with Mr. Bancroft on his own soil. Three years later, July 3, 1842, Mr. Grahame died, leaving behind him a corrected and enlarged copy of his History. Subsequently this copy was sent by his family for deposit in the library of Harvard College, and from it, under the main supervision of Josiah Quincy, but with the friendly countenance of Judge Story and of Messrs. James Savage, Jared Sparks, and William H. Prescott, an American edition of The History of the United States of North America, from the Plantation of the British Colonies till their Assumption of National Independence, in four volumes, was published in Boston in 1845, accompanied by an engraved portrait after Healy.

Excluding Parkman’s series of histories, upon which it is not necessary to enlarge here after the constant use made of them in the critical parts of the present volume, the most considerable English work to be compared with his is Major George Warburton’s Conquest of Canada, edited by Eliot Warburton, and published in London in two volumes in 1849, and reprinted in New York in 1850. He surveys the whole course of Canadian history, but was content with its printed sources, as they were accessible forty years ago.

Among the other general American historians it is enough to mention in addition Bancroft,[1618] Hildreth,[1619] and Gay;[1620] and among the English, Smollett,[1621] who had little but the published despatches, as they reached England at the time, and Mahon (Stanhope), who availed himself of more deliberate research, but his field did not admit of great enlargement.[1622] The Exodus of the Western Nations, by Viscount Bury, is not wholly satisfactory in its treatment of authorities.[1623]

Henry Cabot Lodge’s Short History of the English Colonies (N. Y., 1881) has for its main purpose a presentation of the social and institutional condition of the English colonies at the period of the Stamp Act Congress in 1765; and the condensed sketches of the earlier history of each colony, which he has introduced, were imposed on the general plan, rather unadvisedly, to fill the requirements of the title. He says of these chapters: “They make no pretence to original research, but are merely my own presentation of facts, which ought to be familiar to every one.”

F. Bibliography of the Northwest.—Concerning the historical literature of the States of the upper lake region and the upper Mississippi, a statement is made in Vol. IV. p. 198, etc. Since that was written some additions of importance have been made. The Northwest Review, a biographical and historical monthly, was begun at Minneapolis in March, 1883; but it ceased after the second number. In Nov., 1884, there appeared the first number of the Magazine of Western History, at Cleveland.

The two most important monographs to be added to the list are:—

S. Breese’s Early history of Illinois, from 1673 to 1763, including the narrative of Marquette’s discovery of the Mississippi. With a biographical memoir by M. W. Fuller. Edited by T. Hoyne. Chicago, 1884; and Silas Farmer’s History of Detroit and Michigan: a chronological cyclopædia of the past and present, including a record of the territorial days in Michigan and the annals of Wayne county. Detroit, 1884,—the latter the most important local history yet produced in the West. The first volume of the Final Report of the Geological Survey of Minnesota, by Winchell, adds something to the early cartography of the region, and gives an historical chart of Minnesota, showing the geographical names and their dates, since 1841. The Historical Society of Minnesota has added a fifth volume (1885) to the Collections, which is largely given to the history of the Ojibways.

The Historical Society of Iowa having ceased to publish the Annals of Iowa in 1874 (1863-1874, in 12 vols.), a new series was begun in 1882 by S. S. Howe, but the society declined to make it an official publication, and began the issue of a quarterly Iowa Historical Record in 1885.

On the Canada side the Historical and Scientific Society of Manitoba have been issuing since 1882, at Winnipeg, its Reports, Publications, and Transactions.

---