Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. 6 (of 8) / The United States of North America, Part I

by Unknown

CHAPTER IX.

THE WEST,

FROM THE TREATY OF PEACE WITH FRANCE, 1763, TO THE TREATY OF PEACE WITH ENGLAND, 1783.

BY WILLIAM FREDERICK POOLE, LL.D.
Librarian of the Newberry Library, Chicago.

THE treaty of peace signed at Paris, February 10, 1763, marks perhaps the most important epoch in the political and social history of North America.[1422] It settled forever a question which had been in doubt for a century,—whether the rule and civilization of France or of Great Britain were to shape the destinies of the western continent. It was the culmination of a seven years' war, in which the vigorous administration of William Pitt had crushed the allied forces of France and Spain. The capture of Quebec by Wolfe, and the surrender of the French army to Amherst at Montreal, were but incidents in the general humiliation which France and Spain had experienced on the continent of Europe, in India, in the West Indies, and on the ocean. They could fight no longer, and were glad to accept any terms of peace which Great Britain might dictate.[1423]

The Treaty of Paris made a strange transformation of the political map of North America, and for the first time brought under British sway the territory which now comprises the Western States of the American Union. Great Britain in the preceding century had granted in the charters of her American colonies boundaries extending from ocean to ocean; but her actual possessions until 1763 were a fringe of country along the Atlantic coast, and extending west to the crests of the Alleghanies. Spain was in possession of Florida and Mexico, and the remainder of the continent was in the real or nominal possession of France. Her imperial domain extended from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Ocean, and from the Alleghanies to undetermined limits beyond the Rocky Mountains. By the Treaty of Paris, Canada and that portion of Louisiana between the Alleghanies and the Mississippi came to Great Britain. In a secret treaty with his Bourbon ally, Carlos III. of Spain, made November 3, 1762, the day when the preliminary articles of peace were signed,[1424] Louis XV. ceded to Spain that part of Louisiana which lay west of the Mississippi, with the island on which New Orleans is situated. France therefore, in this desperate crisis, parted with all her American possessions on the main land, and her name nearly disappeared from the map of North America.[1425] Spain in the war had lost Havana, and in order to recover this key to her other West India possessions she gave up to Great Britain Florida in exchange for Havana.

Severer terms than these would have been exacted by Great Britain from both the allies, except for the recent accession of George III. to the throne, and the changes he made in his cabinet and policy. In the midst of the negotiations of the treaty, Pitt resigned in disgust, and they were concluded by his successor, the Earl of Bute, and by the Duke of Bedford. The transfers of the immense territories ceded by the treaty were not immediate, and several years elapsed before they came into possession of their new rulers.

In the discussions by the new cabinet as to the terms of the treaty, a question arose which was alarming to the American colonies. Should Canada or the Island of Guadaloupe be restored to France? The sugar trade of the latter, it was claimed, was more important to Great Britain than the Canadian for trade. It was further claimed that, if the colonies were relieved from the menace of the French and their savage allies, they would cover the continent, become a great nation, manufacture their own goods, and eventually declare themselves independent.[1426] Many pamphlets appeared in England advocating and opposing the restoration of Canada to France, but there was no abler advocate of the retention of Canada than Dr. Franklin, who was then in London.[1427]

On the 7th of October, 1763, George III. issued a proclamation,[1428] providing for four new governments or colonies, namely: Quebec, East Florida, West Florida, and Grenada, and defining their boundaries. The limits of Quebec did not vary materially from those of the present province of that name, and those of East and West Florida comprised the present State of Florida and the country north of the Gulf of Mexico to the parallel of 31° latitude.

It will be seen that no provision was made for the government of nine tenths of the new territory acquired by the Treaty of Paris, and the omission was not an oversight, but was intentional. The purpose was to reserve as crown lands the Northwest territory, the region north of the great lakes, and the country between the Alleghanies and the Mississippi, and to exclude them from settlement by the American colonies. They were left, for the time being, to the undisputed possession of the savage tribes.[1429] The king's "loving subjects" were forbidden making purchases of land from the Indians, or forming any settlements "westward of the sources of the rivers which fall into the sea from the West and Northwest", "and all persons who have wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any lands" west of this limit were warned "forthwith to remove themselves from such settlements." Certain reasons for this policy were assigned in the proclamation, such as "preventing irregularities in the future, and that the Indians may be convinced of our justice", etc.; but the real explanation appears in the Report of the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, in 1772, on the petition of Thomas Walpole and others for a grant of land on the Ohio. The report was drawn by Lord Hillsborough, the president of the board. The report states:—

"We take leave to remind your Lordships of that principle which was adopted by this Board, and approved and confirmed by his Majesty, immediately after the Treaty of Paris, viz.: the confining the western extent of settlements to such a distance from the seacoast as that those settlements should lie within reach of the trade and commerce of this kingdom, ... and also of the exercise of that authority and jurisdiction which was conceived to be necessary for the preservation of the Colonies in a due subordination to, and dependence upon, the mother country. And these we apprehend to have been the two capital objects of his Majesty's proclamation of the 7th of October, 1763.... The great object of colonizing upon the continent of North America has been to improve and extend the commerce, navigation, and manufactures of this kingdom.... It does appear to us that the extension of the fur trade depends entirely upon the Indians being undisturbed in the possession of their hunting-grounds, and that all colonizing does in its nature, and must in its consequences, operate to the prejudice of that branch of commerce.... Let the savages enjoy their deserts in quiet. Were they driven from their forests the peltry-trade would decrease; and it is not impossible that worse savages would take refuge in them."[1430]

Such in clear and specific terms was the cold and selfish policy which the British crown and its ministers habitually pursued towards the American colonies; and in a few years it changed loyalty into hate, and brought on the American Revolution.[1431]

Before the royal proclamation of 1763 had been issued, or even drafted, a new and fierce Indian war, which is known in history as the Pontiac War, was raging on the frontier settlements. With the conquest of Canada and the expulsion of France as a military power from the continent, the English colonists were abounding in loyalty to the mother country, were exultant in the expectation of peace, and in the assurance of immunity from Indian wars in the future; for it did not seem possible that, with the loose system of organization and government common to the Indians, they could plan and execute a general campaign without the co-operation of the French as leaders.

This feeling of security among the English settlements was of short duration. A general discontent pervaded all the Indian tribes from the frontier settlements to the Mississippi, and from the great lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. The extent of this disquietude was not suspected, and hence no attempt was made to gain the good-will of the Indians. There were many real causes for this discontent. The French had been politic and sagacious in their intercourse with the Indian. They gained his friendship by treating him with respect and justice. They came to him with presents, and, as a rule, dealt with him fairly in trade. They came with missionaries, unarmed, heroic, self-denying men, who labored without pay for what they deemed the highest welfare of their dusky brethren. Many Frenchmen married Indian wives, dwelt with the native tribes, and adopted their customs. To the average Englishman, on the other hand, Indians were disgusting objects; he would show them no respect, nor treat them with justice except under compulsion. To him the only good Indians were dead Indians, and hence he shot savages as he would wild beasts.[1432] So long as the English had the French as competitors for the good-will of the Indian, they treated him with some measure of tact and justice; but when this competition was withdrawn, it was a sad day for both races. The fur trade, by which the Indians obtained their necessary supplies, had been mainly in the hands of the French; and when it was cut off, the Northern and Western Indians, as they had lost the use of bows and arrows, and needed firearms and ammunition in order to take their game, were often in distress for want of food. When the military posts in the West were in possession of the French, the Indians were habitual visitors, and they loitered about the forts. The French tolerated the custom, and treated the intruders with kindness, although their indolent and filthy habits greatly taxed the patience of the garrisons. When these posts came into possession of the English, the visitors were insulted and driven away, and they were fortunate if they were not clubbed.[1433]

The French had shown little disposition to make permanent settlements; but the English, when they appeared, came to stay, and they occupied large tracts of the best land for agricultural purposes. The French hunters and traders, who were widely dispersed among the native tribes, kept the Indians in a state of disquietude by misrepresenting the English, exaggerating their faults, and making the prediction that the French would soon recapture Canada and expel the English from the Western territories.

Pontiac, the chief of the Ottawas, was the Indian who had the motive, the ambition, and capacity for organization which enabled him to concentrate and use all these elements of discontent for his own malignant and selfish purposes. After the defeat of the French, he professed for a time to be friendly with the English, expecting that, under the acknowledged supremacy of Great Britain, he would be recognized as a mighty Indian prince, and be assigned to rule over his own, and perhaps a confederacy of other tribes.[1434] Finding that the English government had no use for him, he was indignant, and he devoted all the energies of his vigorous mind to a secret conspiracy of uniting the tribes west of the Alleghanies to engage in a general war against the English settlements. In the autumn of 1762 he sent messengers with war-belts to the tribes living north of the great lakes, to those in the Ohio and Illinois countries, and they went as far south as the mouth of the Mississippi. His scheme was to make a simultaneous attack on all the Western posts in the month of May, 1763; and each attack was assigned to the neighboring tribes. His summer home was on a small island at the entrance of Lake St. Clair; and being near Detroit, he was to conduct in person the capture of that fort.[1435]

On the 6th of May, 1763, Major Gladwin,[1436] in command at Detroit, had warning from an Indian girl that the next day an attempt would be made to capture the fort by treachery. When Pontiac, on the appointed morning, accompanied by sixty of his chiefs, with short guns concealed under their blankets, appeared at the fort, and, as usual, asked for admission, he was startled at seeing the whole garrison under arms, and that his scheme of treachery had miscarried. For two months the savages assailed the fort, and the sleepless garrison gallantly defended it, when they were relieved by the arrival of a schooner from Fort Niagara, with sixty men, provisions, and ammunition.

Fort Pitt, on the present site of Pittsburg, Pa.,[1437] was in command of Captain Ecuyer, another trained soldier, who had been warned of the Indian conspiracy by Major Gladwin in a letter written May 5th. Captain Ecuyer, having a garrison of three hundred and thirty soldiers and backwoodsmen, immediately made every preparation for defence. On May 27th, a party of Indians appeared at the fort under the pretence of wishing to trade, and were treated as spies. Active operations against Fort Pitt were postponed until the smaller forts had been taken.

Fort Sandusky was captured May 16th; Fort St. Joseph (on the St. Joseph River, Mich.), May 25th; Fort Ouatanon (now Lafayette, Ind.), May 31st; Fort Michillimackinac (now Mackinaw, Mich.), June 2d; Fort Presqu' Isle (now Erie, Pa.), June 17th; Fort Le Bœuf (Erie County, Pa.), June 18th; Fort Venango (Venango County, Pa.), June 18th; and the posts at Carlisle and Bedford, Pa., on the same day. No garrison except that at Presqu' Isle had warning of danger. The same method of capture was adopted in each instance. A small party of Indians came to the fort with the pretence of friendship, and were admitted. Others soon joined them, when the visitors rose upon the small garrisons, butchered them, or took them captive. At Presqu' Isle the Indians laid siege to the fort for two days, when they set it on fire. At Venango no one of the garrison survived to give an account of the capture.[1438]

On June 22d, a large body of Indians surrounded Fort Pitt and opened fire on all sides, but were easily repulsed. The next day they informed Captain Ecuyer[1439] that every other English fort had been taken, and that all the tribes were coming to take Fort Pitt. If he and his garrison would then leave, they would assure him a safe conduct to the English settlements; but otherwise they would be unable to protect him from the bad Indians who would soon arrive. The commander thanked them for their kind solicitude in his behalf, and informed them that he had plenty of men, provisions, and ammunition, and could hold the fort against all the Indians in the woods. He told them also that an army of six thousand English would soon arrive at Fort Pitt, and that another army of three thousand had gone up the lakes to punish the Ottawas and Ojibwas. "Therefore", he said, "take pity on your women and children, and get out of the way as soon as possible." The Indians departed the next day, and did not reappear until July 26th, when they repeated their old story of "love for the English", and grieved that "the chain of friendship had been broken." The following night they surrounded the fort, and with knives dug burrows in the river banks, from which they threw fire-arrows into the fort and shot bullets whenever they had sight of a soldier above the parapets. This sort of warfare was more dangerous to the besiegers than to the besieged. During five days and nights of ceaseless attack the losses of the Indians were more than twenty killed and wounded. In the garrison seven were slightly wounded, and none killed. The Indians then disappeared in order to intercept the expedition of Colonel Bouquet, which was approaching from the east with a convoy of provisions for the relief of Fort Pitt.

HENRY BOUQUET.

From an original by Benjamin West, in the gallery of the Penna. Hist. Society.

It was fortunate for the country that there was an officer stationed at Philadelphia who fully understood the meaning of the alarming reports which were coming in from the Western posts. Colonel Henry Bouquet was a gallant Swiss officer who had been trained in war from his youth, and whose personal accomplishments gave an additional charm to his bravery and heroic energy. He had served seven years in fighting American Indians, and was more cunning than they in the practice of their own artifices.[1440] General Amherst, the commander-in-chief, was slow in appreciating the importance and extent of the Western conspiracy;[1441] yet he did good service in directing Colonel Bouquet to organize an expedition for the relief of Fort Pitt.

BUSHY RUN BATTLE, Aug. 5 and 6, 1763.

Slightly reduced from a plate in the London edition of An Historical Account, as "surveyed by Thos. Hutchins, assistant engineer." Key: 1, grenadiers; 2, light infantry; 3, battalion men; 4, rangers; 5, cattle; 6, horses; 7, intrenchment of bags for the wounded; 8, first position of the troops; X, the enemy. The small squares on the hillock near "the action of the 5th" mark "graves." The map is also in Jefferys' Gen. Topog. of N. Amer., etc. (London, 1768), and in I. D. Rupp's Early Hist of Western Penna. (Pittsburg, 1847).

The promptness and energy with which this duty was performed, under the most embarrassing conditions, make the expedition one of the most brilliant episodes in American warfare. The only troops available for the service were about five hundred regulars recently arrived from the siege of Havana, broken in health, and many of them better fitted for the hospital than the field.[1442] Orders for collecting supplies and means of transportation had been sent to Carlisle; but when the colonel arrived with the troops, nothing had been done towards their execution. Such, however, was his energy and sagacity that in eighteen days the horses, oxen, wagons, and provisions needed had been collected, and he was ready to march. As the long train moved out of Carlisle towards the west, where lay the bleaching bones of Braddock's army, the inhabitants looked on in anxious silence. The sight of sixty invalid soldiers conveyed in wagons did not add to the cheerfulness of the scene. Bouquet's most efficient soldiers were the 42d regiment of Highlanders, whom he used as flankers.[1443]

On the 25th of July he reached Fort Bedford, where he left his invalids to recuperate, and engaged thirty backwoodsmen as guides. All communication with Fort Pitt, one hundred and five miles distant, was cut off, and the woods were filled with prowling savages. On August 2d he reached Fort Ligonier, fifty miles from Bedford, where he left his draught-oxen and wagons, and went on with three hundred and fifty pack-horses. About a day's march further west lay the defiles of Turtle Creek, where he expected the Indians would lay an ambuscade. He therefore determined to proceed as far as a small stream called Bushy Run, rest till night, and pass Turtle Creek under cover of darkness. At one o'clock in the afternoon of August 5th, when the train was half a mile from Bushy Run, a report of rifles was heard at the front, indicating that the advanced guard was engaged. Two companies were ordered forward to support it. The woods were quickly cleared, when firing was heard in the rear, and the troops were ordered back to protect the baggage train. Forming a circle around the convoy, the troops kept up the fight gallantly until night. As they were exposed in the open field, while the Indians were under cover in the woods, their loss was heavy compared with that of the enemy. Several officers and about sixty soldiers were killed or wounded, and the situation had become desperate. They had no choice but to camp on the hill where the engagement had taken place, and without a drop of water. Sentinels and outposts were stationed to guard against a night attack, and the morrow was awaited with anxious solicitude. During the night Colonel Bouquet wrote to General Amherst: "Whatever our fate may be, I thought it necessary to give your excellency this information.... I fear insurmountable difficulties in protecting and transporting our provisions, being already so much weakened by the losses of this day in men and horses."

BOUQUET'S COUNCIL WITH THE INDIANS.

This follows in fac-simile a plate in the London edition of the Historical Account (1766), drawn by Benjamin West; and as that artist painted the portrait of Bouquet given on another page, the sitting figure in the left of the plate may safely be considered not unlike that soldier. This plate was reëngraved by Paul Revere, in the Royal Amer. Mag., Dec., 1774.

With the early morning light the woods rang with the exultant war-cries of the Indians. The battle was renewed, and the savages, seeing the distress of the troops, pressed closer and closer, expecting an easy victory. Colonel Bouquet, with a quick perception of the situation and full knowledge of the Indian character, saw that his only hope of escaping the fate of Braddock's army was to draw the enemy from their cover and bring them into close engagement with his regulars. This he did by a stratagem. He ordered his most advanced troops, when in action, to fall back suddenly, as if in retreat, behind a second line lying in ambush. The Indians he expected would follow, eager to seize the train.

BOUQUET'S CAMPAIGN.

Reduced from Smith's Historical Account of the Expedition against the Ohio Indians, London, 1766. It is also included in Jefferys' Gen. Topog. of N. Amer., etc. (London, 1768). It is reproduced in full size fac-simile, in the Cincinnati edition, 1868, and is reëngraved in the Amsterdam edition and in Parkman's Pontiac, vol. ii.

The line in ambush would then open fire, and in the surprise and confusion of the savages the remaining troops would charge upon them. The stratagem was a complete success. As the advanced line retreated, the Indians rushed out of the woods, supposing they were victors. When the line in ambush had delivered its fire and stopped the progress of the Indians, the retreating line had changed direction and were ready to make a charge upon the flank. The ambuscading line then rose and fell upon the enemy in front, who fled, leaving sixty of their number on the field, and among them several prominent chiefs. The pursuit was continued, and the victory was complete.[1444] The next day the expedition, carrying their wounded on litters, moved on towards Fort Pitt, twenty-five miles distant, and arriving four days after the fight, to the great joy of the beleaguered garrison.

The battle of Bushy Run, both for its military conduct and its political results, deserves a place among the memorable battles in America. The Indians fought with a courage and desperation rarely seen in Indian warfare, and the English troops with a steadiness and valor which was due to their training as regulars and the direction of so able a commander. The tidings of this victory broke the spirit of the Indian conspiracy, and the reports were received with rejoicing in all the English colonies.[1445]

The ultimate purpose of Colonel Bouquet's expedition, after relieving Fort Pitt, was to invade the Ohio country, punish the Shawanese, Delawares, and other tribes, extort from them treaties of peace, and recover the English captives in their possession. On account of his losses of men, horses, and supplies at Bushy Run, he was unable to carry out this design until he was reinforced, and it was now too late in the season to expect that his wants could be supplied from the East. His Ohio expedition was therefore postponed until the next year.

On the 29th of July Detroit was reinforced by two hundred and eighty men under Captain Dalzell, who in June had left Fort Niagara in twenty-two barges, with several cannon and a supply of provisions and ammunition. The day after his arrival, Captain Dalzell proposed, with two hundred and fifty men, to make a night attack on Pontiac's camp and capture him. Major Gladwin discouraged the attempt, but finally, against his judgment, consented. Some Canadians obtained the secret and carried it to Pontiac, who waylaid the party in an ambuscade. Twenty of the English were killed and thirty-nine wounded. Among the killed was Captain Dalzell himself.[1446] Pontiac could make no use of this success, as the fort was strongly garrisoned and well supplied with provisions and ammunition. Elsewhere there was nothing to encourage him. The battle of Bushy Run and the arrival of Colonel Bouquet at Fort Pitt alarmed the Western tribes and ruptured the Pontiac confederation. In October some of the chiefs who beleaguered the fort at Detroit sued for peace, and in November the siege was raised. All hope of capturing Fort Pitt had vanished, and the warriors returned to their hunting-grounds. There was quietness on the frontiers during the winter of 1763-64.

In the spring of 1764 scattered war parties were again ravaging the borders. Colonel Bouquet was recruiting in Pennsylvania, and preparing an outfit for his march into the valley of the Ohio. In June, Colonel Bradstreet, with a force of twelve hundred men, was sent up the great lakes. On arriving at Fort Niagara he found assembled a large body of Indians whom Sir William Johnson had summoned into council, using threats when they did not readily respond to his summons. It was apparent that the haughty spirit of the tribes was broken. Treaties of peace were concluded, and a strip of land between the lakes Erie and Ontario, four miles wide on each side of the river Niagara, was ceded to the British government.[1447]

Bradstreet proceeded up Lake Erie, and near Presqu' Isle made, on his own authority, an absurd treaty of peace with some alleged deputies of the Ohio Indians who had made the Western settlements so much trouble; and he added to his folly by writing to his superior officer, Colonel Bouquet, that the Colonel need not march into the Ohio country, as the business of pacifying the Western Indians had been attended to. Bradstreet went on to Sandusky; and instead of punishing the Wyandots, Ottawas, and Miamis, as he was instructed to do, accepted their promise to follow him to Detroit and there make treaties. He arrived in Detroit on the 26th of August. Pontiac had departed, and sent messages of defiance from the banks of the Maumee.[1448]

Colonel Bouquet met with every obstacle in raising troops and collecting supplies for his Ohio expedition, from the stubborn Quakers in the Assembly of Pennsylvania. It was not until September 17th that his convoy arrived at Fort Pitt. Early in October he marched with fifteen hundred men and a long train of pack-horses into the valley of the Muskingum. Wherever he appeared with his strong force the Indian tribes were ready, after much talk, to make treaties of peace and deliver up their white captives, two hundred of whom, and some with reluctance, were taken back to the settlements.[1449] Colonel Bouquet marched to the forks of the Muskingum,[1450] meeting with no opposition, and, having accomplished his purposes, retraced his march, and arrived at Fort Pitt on the 28th of November. The success of the expedition and the return of the captives to their homes were the occasion of joy through the whole country. The assemblies of Pennsylvania and Virginia passed votes of thanks to Colonel Bouquet, and the king conferred on him the rank of brigadier-general. Early in the summer of 1765 he was put in command of the Southern district, and died of fever at Pensacola, September 2, ten days after his arrival.[1451] Had he lived he would have made a brilliant record in the war of the Revolution.[1452]

VICINITY OF FORT CHARTRES.

Reproduced from Thomas Hutchins's Historical narrative and topographical description of Louisiana and West Florida, comprehending the river Mississippi with its branches (Philad., 1784). The same map is in his Topographical description of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and North Carolina, comprehending the rivers Ohio, Kenhawa, &c., the climate, soil; the mountains, latitudes, &c., and of every part, laid down in the annexed map. Published by Thomas Hutchins. With a plan of the rapids of the Ohio, a plan of the several villages in the Illinois country, a table of the distances between Fort Pitt and the mouth of the Ohio. And an appendix, containing Mr. Patrick Kennedy's Journal up the Illinois river (Boston, 1787). From this edition Parkman reproduced the map in his Pontiac, vol. ii. The map was reëngraved in the French edition, Description topographique de la Virginie, etc., Paris, 1781. The original edition was published in London in 1778. It is reprinted in Imlay's Western Territories, 3d ed., p. 485. Cf. Thomson's Bibliography of Ohio, no. 625.—Ed.

The Pontiac War, so far as battles and campaigns were concerned, was ended; but Pontiac was still at large and as untamed as ever. His last hope was the Illinois country, where the foot of an English soldier had never trod. Thither he went, and applying to M. Neyon, in command of Fort Chartres, for aid, was refused. He returned to his camp on the Maumee, and collecting four hundred of his own warriors, and as many of other tribes as would join him, reappeared at Fort Chartres. M. Neyon had left the country in disgust, with many French residents of the Illinois country, and M. Saint Ange de Bellerive was his successor in command of the fort. His visitors, with a mob of Illinois Indians, clamored for weapons and ammunition to fight the English. St. Ange's position was embarrassing, if not dangerous; but he acted with prudence and sagacity. He was under orders to deliver up the fort whenever a British force arrived. He refused to comply with the demands of the Indians, but pacified them with pleasant words and a few presents. The most agreeable sight to this worthy Frenchman, at that time, would have been the arrival of a regiment of British infantry.

Pontiac, again baffled, sent an embassy of warriors down the Mississippi, with an immense war-belt, and with instructions to show it at every Indian village on the river, and to procure from the French commandant at New Orleans the aid he could not get at Fort Chartres. The warriors reached New Orleans soon after the distressing news had come that Western Louisiana had been ceded to Spain by the secret treaty of November 3, 1762. The health of the governor, D'Abbadie, had given way under the intelligence that a Spanish governor and garrison might arrive any day. The governor gave the Indians one hearing, and postponed the interview until the next day. Before the hour named had arrived he was dead.[1453] M. Aubry, his successor, received the warriors, and said he could do nothing for them. Sullen and disappointed, they paddled their canoes northward, and the last hope of the conspiracy expired.[1454]

An attempt was made early in 1764 to take possession of the Illinois country by sending English troops up the Mississippi River. Major Arthur Loftus, with four hundred regulars, ascended two hundred and forty miles above New Orleans, where Indians in ambuscade fired on them, killed six men, and wounded six others.[1455] The expedition turned back, and returned to Pensacola. Captain Philip Pittman[1456] arrived at New Orleans a few months later with the same design, and ascertaining the temper of the Western Indians, did not make the attempt.[1457]

General Gage, who in November, 1763, succeeded General Amherst as commander-in-chief, saw that there would be no permanent peace with the Western Indians until Fort Chartres and the Illinois country were occupied by British troops, and he resolved to send a force by way of Fort Pitt and the Ohio River. Before executing the plan he thought it advisable to send a messenger in advance, who would visit the tribes, ascertain their dispositions, and allay their enmities if he could not secure their friendship. George Croghan was the person selected for this responsible and dangerous mission. He was deputy-superintendent of Indian affairs under Sir William Johnson. As a fur-trader he had been on friendly relations with the Western tribes, and spoke their language. Lieutenant Alexander Fraser, who spoke French, was to accompany him. They arrived at Fort Pitt in February, 1765, where Croghan was delayed for three months, holding councils with Indians.[1458]

Croghan left Fort Pitt on the 14th of May, in two bateaux, with a few soldiers and fourteen[1459] Indian deputies, Shawanese, Mingos, and Delawares, as evidence and pledge that there was peace between the English and the Western tribes.

RUINS OF MAGAZINE AT FORT CHARTRES.

After a photograph. The magazine is now used by a farmer for the storage of vegetables, etc.

Description at the time of the surrender to the English in 1765: "Four toises [25.6 feet] in front, with its gate in cut stone, furnished with two doors, one of sheet iron and the other of wood, furnished with their iron-work; five toises and a half [35.2 feet] wide, six toises [38.4 feet] long; one building, two toises [12.8 feet] high; one window above, in cut stone, furnished with its shutters in wood, and one of iron" (N. Y. Col. Doc., x. 1164).

On the 23d he arrived at the mouth of the Scioto, where the Shawanese delivered to him seven French traders. On the 6th of June he came to the mouth of the Wabash, where there were indications of the presence of hostile Indians. He dropped down the Ohio six miles further and encamped. On the morning of the 8th his party was fired into by eighty Kickapoos and Mascoutins, and two white men and three of the Shawanese deputies were killed. Croghan himself, and all the rest of the party except two white men and one Indian, were wounded. They were robbed of their outfit, and carried as prisoners to Vincennes.[1460] Here Croghan found Indian acquaintances and friends who treated him and his party with kindness, and rebuked their assailants.[1461] At Post Ouatanon[1462] Croghan found more of his Indian acquaintances; and his captivity being ended, he resumed his official character of ambassador, received deputations from the neighboring tribes, held councils, heard and made speeches, and smoked the pipe of peace. He here received a message from St. Ange, requesting him to visit Fort Chartres, and arrange matters there, which had become exceedingly annoying. He started for the Illinois country on the 18th of July, accompanied by the chiefs of the neighboring tribes. He soon met Pontiac and the deputies from the Illinois tribes on their way to visit him. Both parties returned to the fort and held a council. Pontiac and the Illinois tribes agreed to make peace with the English, as the other nations had done.[1463]

The object of his visit being accomplished, Croghan turned his face homeward, and reached Detroit on the 17th of August. Here he called the Ottawas and the other neighboring tribes into a council, which continued for several days. The Indians acknowledged that they now saw that the French were indeed conquered; that henceforth they would listen no more to the whistling of evil birds, but would lay down the hatchet, and sit quiet on their mats. Pontiac was present, and said: "Father, I declare to all nations that I had made my peace with you before I came here; and I now deliver my pipe to Sir William Johnson, that he may know that I have made peace, and taken the King of England to be my father in the presence of all the nations now assembled."[1464]

From Detroit, Croghan communicated to the commander at Fort Pitt tidings of the complete success of his Western mission; and a company of the 42d regiment of Highlanders, the veterans of Quebec, Ticonderoga, and Bushy Run, under the command of Captain Thomas Stirling, was dispatched in boats for Fort Chartres. Captain Stirling arrived early in October,[1465] and on the 10th relieved St. Ange from his embarrassing command.[1466] These were the first English troops who ever set foot in the Illinois country.[1467]

Croghan left Detroit on the 26th of November, visited Fort Niagara, and arrived at Fort Stanwix, October 21, where he prepared his report to Sir William Johnson, which Sir William transmitted to the Lords of Trade, November 16, 1765.[1468]

For the next decade, the discreet management of the native tribes by Sir William Johnson secured the Western settlements from Indian depredations. During this period there was a constant emigration from Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania into the country between the mountains and the Ohio River, and explorations were begun in Kentucky. The treaty of Fort Stanwix, made with the Six Nations and their dependants in the autumn of 1768, transferred to the British crown the Indian title to what is now the State of Kentucky east of the Tennessee (then Cherokee) River, and a large part of Western Virginia. To the province of Pennsylvania it ceded an extensive tract on its western borders, and defined the boundaries between the English settlements and the Indian territory.[1469] In making this important treaty, Sir William was acting under instructions from the crown, and was furnished with a map[1470] indicating the boundaries desired, for which concessions the crown would give money and presents. He summoned the deputies of the Six Nations and their dependent tribes to meet him in council at Fort Stanwix (now Rome, N. Y.), on the 20th of September, 1768. By the 22d, 2,200 Indians had arrived,[1471] and when the council opened on the 24th, 3,102[1472] deputies were present. For seven weeks Sir William fed[1473] and hospitably entertained this immense concourse of savages, conducting their deliberations, making speeches in their own languages, humoring and repressing their wayward dispositions, and bringing them reluctantly to accept his terms.[1474]

DANIEL BOONE.

From a picture by Chester Harding, in the Mass. Hist. Society's gallery. Cf. Proc., v. 197.

Open hostilities between the Indians and settlers on the Western frontier, which had been suspended since 1765, broke out anew in the spring of 1774,[1475] and raged for a few months in what has been called "Cresap's War", but is now more properly known as the "Dunmore War." Lord Dunmore was then governor of Virginia, and commander of the English forces engaged in the brief campaign. As to the specific cause of the Dunmore War there has been much controversy. The killing of Logan's family, wrongly charged upon Captain Michael Cresap, was one of the causes assigned. Another was the conduct of Dr. John Connolly, the agent of Lord Dunmore in West Virginia, who was charged with being concerned in a plot to bring on a conflict between the settlers and the Indians, in order to serve British interests in the Revolutionary War which was then coming on.[1476] Lord Dunmore was suspected at the time of being in the plot,[1477] and the charge was probably as groundless as that made against Captain Cresap. The occasion of the outbreak lay upon the surface of events,—the growing disquietude and jealousy of the Indians in view of the advancing settlements of the whites, which had reached the eastern bank of the Ohio and was moving farther west. The Shawanese and Delawares had been robbing traders and scalping settlers, whenever an opportunity occurred, ever since they had made a treaty of peace with Colonel Bouquet in 1764. Sir William Johnson's letters to the home government during these nine years are full of narratives of these outrages, and forebodings that another Indian war might break out at any time. More white persons were killed by these Indians during this period of nominal peace than in the whole campaign of the Dunmore War.

A bitter controversy between Virginia and Pennsylvania for possession of the country between the mountains and the Ohio added to the complications arising from the Indian troubles.[1478] Virginia held Fort Pitt and was in possession of the country. In 1774 the tide of emigration was setting strongly towards Kentucky, which had been explored by Daniel Boone in 1769, and later by other parties.[1479] In April, a party of eighty or ninety Virginians made a rendezvous at the mouth of the Little Kanawha, with the intention of descending the Ohio and making a settlement in Kentucky. George Rogers Clark, whose name is to appear later in more important transactions, then twenty-one years of age, was one of the party. In a letter,[1480] written some years later, to Dr. Samuel Brown, professor in Transylvania University, he gives a clear account of the manner in which the Dunmore War began. While camping at the rendezvous, "reports", says Clark, "from the Indian towns were alarming, which caused many to decline meeting. A small party of hunters below us had been fired on by the Indians, which led us to believe that the Indians were determined to make war." They resolved to surprise an Indian town on the Scioto, but had no competent leader. "We knew of Captain Cresap being on the river, about fifteen miles above us, with some hands, settling a plantation, and intending to follow us to Kentucky as soon as he had fixed his people. We also knew he had experience in a former war.[1481] It was proposed, and unanimously agreed on, to send for him to command the party." The messenger met Cresap on his way to Clark's camp. "A council was called, and to our astonishment our intended general was the person who dissuaded us from the enterprise, alleging that appearances were suspicious, but there was no certainty of a war; that if we made the attempt proposed, he had no doubt of success, but that a war would be the result, and that we should be blamed for it, and perhaps justly. He was asked what measure he would recommend to us. His answer was that we should return to Wheeling to obtain intelligence of what was going forward; that a few weeks would determine the matter; and if we should find the Indians not hostilely disposed, we should have full time to prosecute the intended settlements in Kentucky. This measure was adopted, and in two hours we were under weigh."

On arriving at Wheeling, the people, being in a state of alarm, flocked into their camp from every direction. All the hunters and men without families joined them, and they became a formidable party. From Pittsburg they received a message from Dr. Connolly requesting them to keep their position until the messengers returned who had been sent to the Indian towns. Before an answer could be received, a second message, addressed to Captain Cresap, arrived by express from Pittsburg, stating that war was inevitable. Cresap was entreated to use his influence with the party to cover the country until the inhabitants could fortify themselves. "The time of the reception of this letter", says Clark, "was the epoch of open hostilities with the Indians. The war-post was planted, a council called, the letter read, the ceremonies used by the Indians on so important an occasion acted, and war was formally declared. The same evening two scalps were brought into camp. The following day some canoes of Indians were discovered descending the river, taking advantage of an island to cover themselves from our view. They were chased by our men fifteen miles down the river. They were forced ashore, and a battle ensued. A few were wounded on both sides, and we got one scalp only."

The more important charge brought against Cresap, of killing Logan's family, George Rogers Clark disposed of in the same letter, as follows:—

"On our return to camp [from Grave Creek] a resolution was formed to march next day and attack Logan's camp on the Ohio [at Baker's Bottom, opposite the mouth of Yellow Creek], about thirty miles above Wheeling. We actually marched about five miles, and halted to take refreshment. Here the impropriety of executing the proposed enterprise was argued; the conversation was brought on by Cresap himself. It was generally agreed that those Indians had no hostile intentions, as it was a hunting party, composed of men, women, and children, with all their stuff with them.... In short, every person present, particularly Cresap, upon reflection, was opposed to the projected measure. We returned, and on the same evening decamped and took the road to Redstone. It was two days after this that Logan's family was killed; and from the manner in which it was done, it was viewed as a horrid murder by the whole country."

The killing of Logan's family was done by a party of whites living in the vicinity, under the lead of one Greathouse, who was not a member of the party of Cresap, nor, so far as appears, had he any acquaintance with Cresap.[1482] The "Speech of Logan", which Jefferson printed in his Notes on Virginia (1787, p. 105), and accompanied with the comment that Cresap was "a man infamous for his many murders he had committed on these injured people",[1483] has perpetuated an unmerited stigma upon the memory of an innocent and patriotic man. The speech for a century has been regarded as a choice specimen of Indian eloquence, and the youth of the land have worn it threadbare as a declamation exercise.[1484]

The savagery and miseries of a border war now burst upon the Western frontier. The settlers left their homes and took refuge in the forts, and many new stockades were constructed. Roving bands of Indians swept over the country, pillaging the farms and murdering every white person they found. The Virginia government took prompt action in raising two armies to invade the Indian country. One assembled at Lewisburg, in Greenbriar County, under General Andrew Lewis; and the other at Fort Pitt, under Lord Dunmore. General Lewis had orders to march to the mouth of the Great Kanawha; and Lord Dunmore, descending the Ohio, promised to meet him there. Early in June, while these forces were collecting, Colonel Angus McDonald, with four hundred men, dropped down the Ohio from Wheeling, and landing at Grave Creek, marched against the Indians on the Muskingum, and found their village deserted. The Indians, expecting the whites would cross the river in pursuit, were prepared to receive them in an ambuscade; but finding that the whites were now as well skilled in woodcraft as they, came in and proposed terms of peace. Five chiefs were required of them as hostages. One of these was liberated under the promise that he would bring in the chiefs of other tribes to make peace. A second was sent out to find the first, and neither returning, Colonel McDonald burnt their town, destroyed the crops, and went back to Wheeling with the three hostage chiefs, whom he sent to Williamsburg as prisoners.[1485]

General Lewis took up his march with eleven hundred men on the 11th of September, and arriving at Point Pleasant, near the mouth of the Great Kanawha, on the 6th of October, found that Lord Dunmore was not there. On the 9th a despatch was received from his lordship, stating that he had changed his plans, and should land at the mouth of the Big Hockhocking. Lewis was ordered to cross the Ohio and meet him near the Indian towns. The Indians had this information, doubtless, before it was received by General Lewis, and resolved to attack his camp forthwith before a junction of the two armies was made. The battle came on the next morning while General Lewis was preparing to cross the river, and was fought with the highest courage and skill on both sides until evening, when the Indians were surprised by a flank movement which they supposed was a reinforcement. They gave way and retreated across the river. The Indians were commanded by the noted chief Cornstalk.[1486] The battle of Point Pleasant ranks with Bushy Run as one of the most plucky and evenly contested battles ever fought between Indians and white soldiers. The losses of the Virginians were seventy-five killed and one hundred and forty wounded. The losses of the Indians, who fought under cover, were probably about the same, but were not ascertained, as they threw their dead into the river.[1487]

Reinforced by several companies under Colonel Christian, General Lewis crossed the river, with the intention of joining Lord Dunmore near Chillicothe. At Salt Licks (now Jackson, Ohio) he had orders to halt his troops. Suspecting the motives of Lord Dunmore, he disregarded the orders and pressed on. Near Chillicothe Dunmore made a treaty with the Ohio Indians, who promised not to hunt south of the Ohio, and not to molest voyagers on the river. Lord Dunmore's conduct in changing the plan of the campaign, which left General Lewis exposed to a separate attack, and his subsequent conduct in making peace with the Indians before he had punished them for their breach of former treaties, were regarded by the soldiers engaged as premeditated treachery. This impression was confirmed by the plot he later made with Indians to ravage the settlements of Virginia, and by his hasty departure from the colony. His real motives will never be known. The initial scenes in the drama of the Revolutionary War were in progress. His position as a Tory governor was embarrassing, and naturally inspired suspicion in the minds of the colonists.[1488]

While the Dunmore War was in progress, the "Quebec Bill" was discussed and enacted by the British Parliament. The bill so enlarged the boundaries of the province of Quebec that it made the Ohio and Mississippi rivers its southern and western limits, and the whole Northwest territory a part of Canada. The bill in its passage did not escape the protest of Lord Chatham, Edmund Burke, Charles James Fox, Colonel Barré, and the corporation of the city of London.[1489] The colonies, at the time of the enactment of the Quebec Bill, made complaint concerning it "for establishing the Roman Catholic religion in the province of Quebec, abolishing the equitable system of English laws, and erecting a tyranny there, to the great danger (from so total a dissimilarity of religion, law, and government) of the neighboring colonies."[1490] Its real purpose and effect, however, of robbing the American colonies of 240,000 square miles of territory which had already been ceded to them in their charters, and establishing the Mississippi and the Ohio rivers as Canadian boundaries, in case of war and a separation of the Eastern colonies from the mother country, were not mentioned, and seem not to have been considered. The colonies then had little interest in, and scarcely a thought of, the country beyond the Alleghanies. During the war, however, they learned something of the value of the West; and in the negotiations for peace, in 1782-3, the Quebec Bill was often recurred to as one of the principal causes of the Revolution.[1491]

For several years after the close of the Dunmore War the Western Indians were again quiet. They heard with satisfaction of the opening battles of the Revolution, and were not in haste to take the war-path for either side. Except at the British post of Detroit, the sentiments of the settlers west of the mountains were intensely anti-English. The Eastern colonies were too much occupied in their own defence to give any attention to what was happening at the West. The hardy pioneers, left to themselves, conducted their own campaigns. They were not enrolled in the Continental army, and they knew little of, and cared less for, the Continental Congress and the great commander-in-chief of the army. They recognized only the authority of Virginia; and, as voluntary and patriotic rangers, they achieved some of the most important and brilliant victories of the war, concerning which the official proceedings of Congress, and the voluminous correspondence of Washington and of other prominent actors in the war, make scarcely a mention.

The northeastern portion of Kentucky was explored by Dr. Walker in 1747, the central portion by Daniel Boone and others in 1769, and the northwestern portion in 1773. The first log cabin in Kentucky was built by James Harrod at Harrodsburg, Mercer County, in 1774, and the first fort by Boone, at Boonesborough, Madison County, in June, 1775.[1492] About this time George Rogers Clark made an exploring tour in Kentucky, and in the autumn returned to his home in Albemarle County, Virginia.[1493] In the following spring he went back to Kentucky; and, in view of the depredations which the Ohio Indians were committing on the settlements, called a meeting of the pioneers at Harrodsburg to devise a plan of defence. His plan was to appoint delegates who should proceed to Williamsburg and petition the Assembly that Kentucky be made a county of Virginia. The meeting, however, acting before his arrival and against his judgment, elected him and Gabriel Jones to be members of the Virginia Assembly. Their journey through the trackless wilderness and across the mountains was attended with great suffering, and they arrived after the legislature had adjourned. Patrick Henry was the governor. Before him and the Council, Clark laid the claim of Kentuckians to be regarded as citizens of Virginia, and asked for five hundred pounds of powder as a gift for their protection. He was heard with attention and respect, but was told that the Council had no authority to furnish the gunpowder as a gift. It could be loaned to the Kentuckians as friends, but not as citizens. Clark refused to accept it on such conditions, and left, saying, "A country which is not worth defending is not worth claiming." He was called back, and an order on the commandant at Fort Pitt was given to him for the powder. At the autumn session of the legislature Kentucky was made a county of Virginia.[1494]

On returning to Kentucky Clark found the country more disturbed than ever. The Ohio Indians were invading it with larger parties; they lay in ambush about every fort,[1495] and murdered the luckless soldier of the garrison who ventured outside the stockade. Clark seriously pondered over this alarming state of affairs, and came to the conclusion that the strategic points for defending Kentucky were on the north side of the Ohio River. He had probably never heard of Scipio Africanus and of his policy of fighting the enemy in the enemy's country. Without disclosing his thoughts to any one, he sent, during the summer of 1777, two young hunters as spies to Kaskaskia and Vincennes, and, having received favorable reports, started in October[1496] for Williamsburg. There, on December 10th, he laid before Governor Henry his plan for the conquest of the Northwest territory from the British, whom he regarded as the instigators of the Indian raids upon Kentucky. He also consulted confidentially with George Mason, George Wythe, and Thomas Jefferson. They, with the governor, were enthusiastic for the execution of his scheme and took immediate steps to furnish him with ammunition and supplies.

A PLAN OF CASCASKIES (Kaskaskia).

Reduced from a plate in Philip Pittman's Present State of the European Settlements on the Mississippi (London, 1770). Key: A, The fort. B, The Jesuits. C, Formerly commanding officer's house. D, The church. The river is about 450 feet wide, which will afford a scale to the rest of the plan.—Ed.

The recent surrender of Burgoyne at Saratoga had inspired a new energy in the conduct of the war. The necessary legislation was obtained under the pretext that the supplies were for the defence of Kentucky. Twelve hundred pounds, in the depreciated currency of Virginia, was voted him for expenses in the enemy's country. In January, 1778, Clark received from Governor Henry the rank of colonel, and two sets of instructions: one, which was public, for the defence of Kentucky; and the other, which was secret, for an "attack on the British post at Kaskaskia." He was empowered to raise seven companies, of fifty men each, in any county of the commonwealth, to act as militia under his orders.[1497] He began recruiting, under his public orders, at Fort Pitt, but with little success, owing to quarrels between Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the opposition to the policy of sending soldiers, who were needed there, to defend Kentucky.[1498] After much tribulation he raised three companies, and took them down the river to Corn Island, at the Falls of the Ohio, opposite Louisville. Several companies that had been recruited elsewhere were promised him, but they did not arrive. Some of his men deserted, but enough Kentuckians joined him to make up four companies, or nearly two hundred men.[1499] Here he divulged the secret of their destination, and read to the men his confidential instructions. They willingly accepted the situation, and the next day the expedition started. As their boats shot the falls, the sun was in total eclipse, which fixes the date as June 24, 1778. He had just received from Fort Pitt the news of the treaty of alliance between France and the United States, which he could use to advantage with the French settlers at Kaskaskia. With two relays at the oars, he ran the boats day and night, and on the 28th landed on an island at the mouth of the Cherokee (Tennessee) River. Here a party of white hunters, who had been at Kaskaskia eight days before, was brought in, and they volunteered to accompany him. Nine miles below the island, and one mile above old Fort Massac, they ran into a small creek, concealed their boats, and without a cannon,[1500] a horse, or any means of transporting baggage or supplies, took up their march of more than a hundred miles across the prairies.[1501]

On the afternoon of July 4th they arrived within three miles of Kaskaskia, the river of that name lying between them and the town. There they remained concealed until dark, when they marched to a farm-house on the east bank of the river, about a mile north of the town, captured boats, crossed the river, and found that the people of the town, who a few days before had been under arms expecting an attack, were not aware of their approach. "I immediately", writes Clark, "divided my little army into two divisions: ordered one to surround the town; with the other I broke into the fort,[1502] secured the governor, Mr. Rocheblave, [and] in fifteen minutes had every street secured; sent runners through the town, ordering the people on pain of death to keep close to their houses, which they observed; and before daylight had the whole town disarmed."[1503]

A SECTION OF LIEUT. ROSS'S MAP OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.

Clark had been informed by the hunters who accompanied him that the French residents of Kaskaskia regarded the Kentuckians, whom they called Big-Knives, as more savage than Indians; and resolving to make use of this impression, he gave them a shock which would enable them later to appreciate his lenity. The troops, therefore, kept up during the night the most hideous noises; and the residents, believing they had indeed fallen into the hands of savages, gave themselves up as lost. In the morning Clark had for them another surprise. M. Gibault, the priest, with some aged citizens, came to him and begged that the people might once more assemble in their church, hold a service, and take leave of each other, which request was readily granted. When the service was over a deputation came and said the people would submit to the fate of war and the loss of their property, but asked that they might not be separated from their wives and children. "Do you mistake us for savages?" said Clark. "My countrymen disdain to make war upon women and children. It was to prevent the horrors of Indian butchery upon our wives and children that we have taken up arms and appear in this stronghold of British and Indian barbarity. Now please inform your fellow-citizens that they are at liberty to conduct themselves as usual without the least apprehension." They were told of the treaty of alliance with France, and that if he could have surety of their attachment to the American cause they could enjoy all the privileges of its government, and their property would be secure to them. The people were transported with joy, and took the oath of allegiance to the State of Virginia. They also raised a company of volunteers, who accompanied Major Bowman to Cahokia, a French settlement sixty miles north of Kaskaskia. That town readily gave its adhesion to the American cause. Clark also put himself in friendly relations with the Spanish commandant at St. Louis.[1504]

Clark next turned his attention to the British post of Vincennes. M. Gibault, the friendly priest, in view of what had taken place at Kaskaskia and Cahokia, thought that it was unnecessary to send troops to Vincennes. The post was in his spiritual jurisdiction, and he offered to undertake the mission himself, with several persons accompanying him. The result was the same as at Cahokia. The few British soldiers at the post could make no resistance to the popular sentiment, and withdrew to Detroit. Clark, having no troops to spare, allowed the residents, after taking the oath, to garrison and to be responsible for the safety of the fort, which he put in charge of one of his own officers, Captain Leonard Helm, who retained one of his own privates. M. Gibault returned to Kaskaskia about the 1st of August; and Clark, in less than one month after his arrival, was in possession of every British post in the Illinois country, without a battle or the loss of a life.[1505]

A problem now demanded solution which was of so difficult a nature that it would challenge the sagacity and resources of a veteran commander, and Clark was not a veteran. He was twenty-five years of age, and his only military experience had been as a ranger in Kentucky, and as a captain in the short and bloodless campaign of Lord Dunmore. How was he to hold this immense territory with less than two hundred three-months militiamen, whose term of enlistment had already expired, and with no hope of receiving recruits from Kentucky or Virginia? The British commander could send down a force which would outnumber his ten to one. The savage tribes which had ravaged Kentucky could by concerted action overwhelm his scanty force. The Virginia currency which he brought to pay for supplies he found would buy nothing in the Illinois country. It was fortunate for the nation and the Western States that George Rogers Clark was equal to the emergency, and that he had the self-reliance and sagacity to solve the problem successfully.

By his personal entreaties and promises to pay his men, about one hundred of them reënlisted. The others he sent home, with despatches, and with M. Rocheblave, the late commander at Kaskaskia, as a prisoner, to Governor Henry at Williamsburg.[1506] His four companies he soon filled up with resident French recruits, and pretended that he could get all the American soldiers he wanted at the Falls of the Ohio.

He next undertook the pacification and control of the Indian tribes. His sudden appearance in the Illinois country and rapid capture of the Western posts was the occasion of astonishment to the Western tribes; and their chiefs from a range of five hundred miles flocked to Cahokia to see the strange warrior of the "Big Knives." Clark met them there in council with a stern and haughty dignity. Soft speeches to Indians before they were under control he regarded as bad policy. He showed no fear in their presence, and no anxiety for their friendship. He laid before them a war-belt and a peace-belt, and told them to take their choice. If they did not want to have their own women and children killed, they must stop killing the women and children of the Americans. One chief after another rose and made submissive speeches. He refused to smoke the peace-pipe with any until he had heard from every tribe represented, and treaties were concluded. All the tribes gave in their allegiance to the American cause, and he had no further trouble with the Illinois Indians. The councils at Cahokia lasted five weeks, and their influence extended to all the nations around the great lakes. Captain Helm, under Clark's instructions, made similar treaties with the Wabash Indians.

The training and discipline of his little army now received his attention, and in order to conceal his weakness in numbers he allowed no parade except of the guards. About Christmas, 1778, he heard from his spies that Governor Hamilton was preparing to send an army into the Illinois country; and later, that Hamilton with eight hundred men had descended the Wabash and recaptured Vincennes.[1507] Early in January Hamilton sent a scouting party to Kaskaskia to waylay and capture Clark, and it came near succeeding while Clark was returning from a visit to Cahokia. This party was supposed to be an advanced guard of Hamilton's army, and every preparation was made to defend the town. On the 29th of January, 1779, Colonel François Vigo,[1508] a Spanish merchant of St. Louis, arrived from Vincennes, and reported that Hamilton had sent away his Indians and most of his troops, leaving only eighty in the garrison; and that he was intending to collect them in the spring, and with five hundred Southern Indians make a campaign against Kaskaskia.

Clark now conceived the project of capturing Vincennes with his small force before Hamilton could reassemble his troops, and its execution forms one of the most daring and brilliant expeditions in American warfare. On the 4th of February he sent off a large boat called "The Willing", mounting two four-pounders and six swivels, under command of Lieutenant John Rogers, who had forty-six men and orders to sail for the Wabash, and, ten leagues below Vincennes, await further orders. On the next day Clark crossed the Kaskaskia River with one hundred and seventy men, marched three miles, and encamped. On the 7th he began his painful march across the Illinois prairies, a distance as a bird flies of one hundred and forty miles, but as he marched, of more than two hundred. The winter was breaking up, the rivers were swollen, the prairies were covered with water and ice, and the mud was such as can only be found in that rich alluvial country. On the 13th they reached the banks of the Little Wabash. Before them lay a stretch of water three miles wide and from three to four feet deep. They made a canoe, and on the 15th ferried the ammunition across and took the men over the channel, marching them the remaining distance through the water. On the 16th their provisions ran short. Major Bowman's journal says: "17th, marched early; crossed several runs very deep; came to the Embarrass River; tried to cross; found it impossible; travelled till 8 o'clock in mud and water, but could find no place to encamp on. 18th, came in sight of the swollen banks of the Wabash; made rafts for four men to cross and go up to the town and steal boats; but they spend day and night in the water to no purpose, for there is not one foot of dry land to be found. 19th, Colonel Clark sent two men in the canoe down the river to meet the bateau 'The Willing,' with orders to come on day and night, that being our last hope, and we starving; no provisions of any sort now two days." On the 20th they found some canoes and killed a deer. On the 21st the little army plunged into the water and waded for more than a league,—Clark says "breast high", Bowman says "sometimes to the neck", the boats picking up such as were likely to drown. On the 22d, says Bowman, "Clark encourages his men, which gave them great spirits; marched on in the waters; those that were weak and famished went in the canoes; no provisions yet; Lord help us." On the 23d they crossed the Wabash, wading four miles through water breast-high. "We plunged into it with courage, Colonel Clark being first, taking care to have the boats take those that were weak and numbed with the cold." Having crossed, they captured an Indian canoe with some buffalo meat, tallow and corn, which were made into a broth and fed to the famishing men, who soon recovered their strength.[1509] No tidings had come from "The Willing", for she had not yet arrived.[1510]

The town was but a few miles distant, and was unaware of his approach. Clark resolved not to delay the attack until the boat had arrived with his artillery and ammunition, but to capture the fort immediately with the men and means he had. Before moving on the town he wrote a proclamation, addressed to the inhabitants, worded in his peculiar style, and advising all "friends of the king to instantly repair to the fort, join their hair-buying[1511] general, and fight like men. True friends of liberty may depend on being well treated; but they must keep out of the streets, for every one I find in arms on my arrival I shall treat as an enemy." The same evening he marched, took possession of the town, and threw up earthworks in front of the fort. The firing began immediately, and was kept up all night. His men lay in rifle-pits within thirty yards of the walls, the cannon of the fort being so mounted that they could not be trained upon them. Whenever port-holes of the fort were opened to fire, the besiegers poured in a volley of musket-balls, and severely wounded seven of the garrison. Two pieces of cannon were silenced in fifteen minutes. In the morning, Clark summoned Hamilton to surrender, stating that if he were obliged to storm the fort, Hamilton would receive the treatment due to a murderer. "Beware", he added, "of destroying stores of any kind, or any papers or letters that are in your possession; for, by heavens, if you do, there will be no mercy shown you."[1512] While these negotiations were pending, Clark's men took the first full meal they had had for eight days. The summons to surrender was refused, and the firing went on.

CLARK'S SUMMONS.

From a manuscript kindly furnished by Lyman C. Draper, Esq., of Madison, Wis., who owns a large number of Clark's papers. Cf. R. G. Thwaites on Draper, in the Mag. Western Hist., Jan., 1887. The above letter was addressed thus:—

Later in the day, Governor Hamilton asked for a truce of three days, and for a conference as to terms. Clark replied that he would consider no other terms than surrender at discretion; but that he, with Captain Helm, would meet "Mr. Hamilton at the church." At this time a party of Indians came in whom Hamilton had sent to the Ohio for scalps. Clark's men tomahawked them in front of the fort, and threw their bodies into the river.[1513] Clark's terms of capitulation were accepted; and at ten o'clock the next day (the 25th) the fort and its stores were delivered up, and the garrison of seventy-nine officers and men surrendered as prisoners of war.[1514] The only casualty to Clark's soldiers was one man slightly wounded.

Hearing that a convoy with provisions, clothing, and ammunition was on its way to Vincennes from Detroit, Clark sent fifty-three men in boats up the Wabash to intercept it.[1515] They met the convoy one hundred and twenty miles up the river, and captured it, with forty prisoners and despatches for Hamilton.[1516] The value of the goods captured was £10,000, and Clark's men, who had been suffering for clothing and supplies, were bountifully provided for. Clothing to the value of £800 was laid aside for the troops which Clark expected would soon join him in an expedition, which he was planning, for the capture of Detroit.[1517] This project had been on his mind ever since he came into the Illinois country, and all his energies were now directed to its execution. Not being able with his few troops to guard so many prisoners, he sent Governor Hamilton, his principal officers, and a few other persons who had made themselves especially obnoxious by being out with Indian parties, as prisoners of war to Virginia, and paroled the remainder.[1518]

Having met and established friendly relations with the chiefs of the neighboring tribes, he placed Captain Helm in charge of the civil affairs of Vincennes, Lieutenant Brashear in command of the fort with a garrison of forty men, and embarked, on March 20, 1779, for Kaskaskia, on board "The Willing" and seven other boats. They made the trip of three hundred and fifty miles without casualty, and on arriving at Kaskaskia, after an absence of seven weeks, were welcomed by Captain Robert George, who, with his company of forty-one men, had come up from New Orleans, and was in command of the post.

The military conquest of the Illinois country now being complete, a civil government was forthwith established. The Assembly of Virginia was prompt to act as soon as the capture of Kaskaskia was known. In October, 1778, the territory northwest of the Ohio was constituted a county of Virginia, and was named the county of Illinois.[1519] On December 12th, Colonel John Todd was appointed county lieutenant. The governor in his letter of instructions directed Colonel Todd to coöperate with Colonel Clark in his military operations, to have care for the happiness, increase, and prosperity of the county, and to see that justice was duly administered. Colonel Todd's appointment was especially pleasing to Colonel Clark, who said, in writing to George Mason: "The civil department in the Illinois had heretofore robbed me of too much of my time that ought to be spent in military reflection. I was now likely to be relieved by Colonel John Todd. I was anxious for his arrival and happy in his appointment, as the greatest intimacy and friendship had subsisted between us. I now saw myself rid of a piece of trouble that I had no delight in."[1520] Colonel Todd arrived in Kaskaskia in May, 1779. Courts of justice and militia companies were immediately organized in Kaskaskia, Cahokia, and Vincennes,[1521] and, from the lack of American citizens who were qualified, nearly all the official positions were filled by French residents.[1522] A complete civil government was organized and regularly administered in the Northwest territory until the treaty of peace with Great Britain in 1783. This local government became an important factor in the negotiations for that treaty, with reference to the question of boundaries.

Colonel Clark had promises of troops from Virginia and Kentucky for his Detroit expedition, and he was to meet them at Vincennes. Arriving there in July, 1779, he found only thirty from Kentucky of the three hundred promised him. There were no tidings of recruits from Virginia; and Major Bowman, his trusty companion in former campaigns, was fighting the Shawanese on the Ohio at a disadvantage.[1523] Clark, being very impatient, sent out officers to recruit in the settlements, and for this purpose went himself to the Falls of the Ohio. Here he received a letter from Jefferson, now the governor of Virginia, giving him new assurances of Virginia troops for the Detroit expedition, and stating that it was his intention to build a fort on the Mississippi, below the mouth of the Ohio, in order to strengthen the claim of the United States to the Mississippi as its western boundary. The duty of building this fort was later committed to and performed by Colonel Clark. The fort was completed in June, 1780, and was called Fort Jefferson.[1524]

At this time twelve hundred Indians and Canadians from Detroit, with artillery, under Captain Byrd, were coming silently down the Big Miami river to invade Kentucky and help carry out a scheme of conquest soon to be explained. They went up the Licking river, captured two stockades, which were defenceless against cannon, committed the customary British and Indian barbarities, and, although meeting with no opposition, retreated as rapidly as they came. In explanation of the sudden retreat it has been said that the British commander was shocked at the brutal conduct of his Indians, and would proceed no further.[1525] In view of the habitual practice of the British commanders at Detroit of paying the Indians for American scalps,[1526]—a practice Clark alludes to in the term "hair-buying general", which he applied to Governor Hamilton,—this explanation is charitable, but it seems hardly probable. It is more likely that Captain Byrd and his Indians heard the report that Colonel Clark had suddenly returned from his defence of St. Louis and the Illinois country against Sinclair's Indians, and was likely to make it a busy summer for the invaders in Kentucky. Clark with two companions proceeded to Harrodsburg to enlist troops. He there closed the land office, and soon had a thousand men with artillery at the mouth of the Licking, ready for an expedition across the Ohio. He moved rapidly upon Chilicothe and other Indian towns, which he destroyed, with their crops, and also a British trading-post where the Indians had been supplied with arms and ammunition.

Clark's favorite scheme of organizing an expedition for the capture of Detroit was delayed, and his spirit chafed under the disappointment. Jefferson was deeply interested in the project, and, Sept. 26, 1780, wrote an earnest letter to General Washington, urging him to furnish the means. "We have long meditated the attempt, under the direction of Colonel Clark, but the expense has obliged us to decline it. We could furnish the men, provisions, and every[thing] necessary, except powder, had we the money. When I speak of furnishing the men, I mean they should be militia, for such is the popularity of Colonel Clark, and the confidence of the Western people in him, that he could raise the requisite number at any time."[1527] On Dec. 15th he writes again, in more urgent terms, and says: "The regular force Colonel Clark already has, with a proper draft from the militia beyond the Alleghany, and that of three or four of our northern counties, will be adequate for the reduction of Fort Detroit, in the opinion of Colonel Clark.... I am the more urgent for an immediate order, because Colonel Clark awaits here your Excellency's answer by the express."[1528] Washington was also impressed with the military importance of Clark's expedition, and, Dec. 29th, instructed Colonel Brodhead, in command at Fort Pitt, to furnish Clark with the artillery and stores he required, and such a detachment of Brodhead's and Gibson's regiments as could be spared.[1529]

Colonel Brodhead did not acknowledge General Washington's instructions, which were placed in Colonel Clark's hands to deliver, until the 25th of February, and they did not reach him until the 21st.[1530] During this interval of nearly two months, Benedict Arnold, with fifteen hundred British troops, sailed up the James River, and was ravaging Virginia, which, from the absence of its Continental soldiers, was almost defenceless.[1531] In this emergency, Colonel Clark tendered his services to Baron Steuben in her defence, and with a small body of militia received the enemy in Indian and Western fashion. Jefferson, writing, Jan. 18, 1781, to the Virginia delegates in Congress, says: "Baron Steuben had not reached Hood's by eight or ten miles, when they [the enemy] arrived there. They landed their whole army in the night, Arnold attending in person. Captain Clark (of Kaskaskias) had been sent forward with two hundred and forty men by Baron Steuben; and, having properly disposed of them in ambuscade, gave them a deliberate fire, which killed seventeen on the spot and wounded thirteen."[1532]

Colonel Clark's outfit at Fort Pitt went on very slowly and with many embarrassments. Writing, with the rank of brigadier-general, to Washington, on the 26th of May, 1781, he says: "The invasion of Virginia put it out of the power of the governor to furnish me with the number of men proposed for the enterprise to the West."[1533] Colonel Brodhead did not feel that he could spare the troops at the fort which were promised. Clark's only hope was now in getting Continental troops. "But I have not yet lost sight of Detroit", he says, and wishes to set out on the expedition early in June. He was doomed to disappointment. The summer and autumn wore away, and the obstacles in his path increased. The troops he expected were employed elsewhere; the Western Indians again became hostile, and there was a general apprehension among the settlements of incursions upon them from Detroit by the British and their Indian allies. The opportunity of capturing Detroit had passed. General Irvine, in command at Fort Pitt, writing to Washington, Dec. 2, 1781, says: "I presume your Excellency has been informed by the governor of Virginia, or General Clark, of the failure of his expedition." He reports General Clark at the Rapids of the Ohio with only seven hundred and fifty men, and "the buffalo meat all rotten." "The general is apprehensive of a visit from Detroit, and is not without fears the settlement will be obliged to break up unless reinforcements soon arrive from Virginia."[1534]

At this point, George Rogers Clark, at the age of twenty-nine years, ceased to be a factor in Western history. His favorite scheme had failed under circumstances which he could not control. No command was offered him in the Continental army. With a feeling that he was neglected, that his eminent services were not appreciated, and with a sense of wrong that his private property had been sacrificed to pay public debts,[1535] his mind became depressed, and he fell into social habits which tended to increase his despondency. In November, 1782, he conducted a force of ten hundred and fifty men against the Indians on the Miami, took ten scalps and seven prisoners, burned their towns, destroyed their crops and the outfit of a British trading-post;[1536] but he displayed none of the brilliancy shown in his earlier campaigns. He was discharged from the service of Virginia July 2, 1783, with a letter of thanks for his services from the governor. The financial distress of the State was assigned as the motive for his discharge.[1537]

In March, 1782, the frontier settlers, without provocation and in cold blood, butchered nearly a hundred "Christian Indians" in the Moravian mission settlements on the Muskingum. These Indians, under the instruction of their teachers, had adopted the habits and pursuits of civilized life, and were non-resistant in their principles. Their villages, Schönbrun, Gnadenhütten, and Salem, were regularly laid out, with houses and chapels built of squared logs and having shingled roofs. They had farms yielding abundant crops, and schools where the children were educated. Visitors from Western tribes far and near came to look upon the strange sight, and verify the reports which had reached them of the happiness and prosperity of the "Christian Indians." The number of converts had increased so rapidly that good Father David Zeisberger and his assistant, John Heckewelder, the missionaries, believed that the whole Delaware tribe would soon come under their influence.[1538]

With the outbreak of the American Revolution the troubles of these gentle missionaries and their converts began. They were between two raging fires. Their peace principles forbade their engaging in the conflict or favoring either side, although their sympathies, which they could not express, were with the Americans. As a natural consequence of their neutrality, they fell under the suspicion and hatred of both parties. The British at Detroit were eager to secure all the Ohio tribes in their interest, and the missionaries made the Delawares pledge themselves to remain neutral. It was also suspected, and it was doubtless true, that the Moravians gave information to the Americans as to the movements of hostile tribes. The British, therefore, were of the opinion that the Moravian settlements were in secret alliance with the enemy, and they resolved to break up the settlements and remove the inhabitants to Sandusky.[1539] On the other hand, the settlers on the frontiers of Pennsylvania and Virginia hated the "Christian Indians", first, and chiefly, because they were Indians; and secondly, because they allowed the Wyandots to come among them, and had fed and hospitably treated other hostile tribes which had made raids on the white settlements. In the autumn of 1781 Colonel David Williamson raised a company of volunteers in western Pennsylvania to visit the Moravian towns and remove the inhabitants to Fort Pitt; but in the execution of the scheme he was anticipated by the British and their Indian allies, the Shawanese,[1540] Wyandots, and Hurons, who were there before him. On August 10, 1781, one Matthew Elliott, in the service of the governor of Detroit, and Half-King, a chief of the Hurons, appeared at Gnadenhütten with three hundred whites and Indians flying the British flag. Without offering personal violence, they urged the missionaries and converts to abandon the Muskingum country, and place themselves under the protection of the British at Sandusky, on the ground that they were in constant peril from the white settlers on the border. Having declined the offer of British protection, their fears were appealed to, their cattle were shot, and their houses ravaged by the Indians. Worn out by fear and persecution, on September 11th they turned their unwilling steps from the valley of the Muskingum towards Sandusky, under the charge of their uninvited escorts.[1541] Having reached their destination, the missionaries were sent to Detroit to answer before the governor to charges made against them, and were acquitted.[1542]

During the winter the captives at Sandusky suffered from want of proper shelter and food, and a party of a hundred went back to the deserted villages to gather corn which had been left standing in the fields. A report of their return reached the white settlements, and Colonel Williamson, without any civil or military authority, again picked up a company of volunteers and started for the Muskingum country. On his former expedition he brought back several Indians whom the British party had overlooked, and after the form of a trial at Fort Pitt they were released. The colonel was blamed by the people that he had not shot the Indians at sight. Arriving at the deserted towns, he found the "Christian Indians" harvesting their corn and suspecting no danger. He told them that he had come to remove them to Fort Pitt, and ordered them to a building, where they were confined. A vote was then taken by his men, whether the prisoners should be taken to Fort Pitt or put to death. Only eighteen voted to spare their lives. The captives were informed of their fate, and were told that, "inasmuch as they were Christians, they would be given one night to prepare for death in a Christian manner." In the morning they were tomahawked and butchered in the most shocking manner. "Thus", said Loskei, the Moravian bishop, "ninety-six persons magnified the name of the Lord by patiently meeting a cruel death."[1543]

Another expedition, known as the "Crawford Campaign", was forthwith organized, the purpose of which was to exterminate the Wyandots and the Moravian Delawares on the Sandusky, and to give no quarter to any Indian. Colonel Williamson was again the chief organizer, and probably the same men were enlisted who had disgraced themselves on the Muskingum. Colonel William Crawford,[1544] who had seen much service in the Continental army, was put in command, much against his wishes, and Williamson was second in rank. On May 25, 1782, four hundred well equipped and mounted backwoodsmen, breathing vengeance against the red men, started out from Mingo Bottom, on the Ohio, for the Sandusky country, a journey of one hundred and fifty miles. Nineteen days later a remnant of them returned to the same spot, a defeated and demoralized rabble, with a loss of seventy killed, wounded, and missing. The Indians knew their plans, and had time to summon the neighboring tribes and to procure British soldiers and artillery from Detroit. Two battles were fought, in which they were outnumbered and outgeneralled, and it was fortunate that any of them escaped. Stragglers came in daily, reporting the sufferings and cruel tortures they had undergone, but none of them could report the fate of Colonel Crawford. He was captured, and the barbarity of the Indian mind exhausted itself in the ingenuity of the tortures with which he was put to death.[1545]

On May 26, 1780, a raid was made on the Spanish post of St. Louis by a party of fifteen hundred Indians and a hundred and forty English and Canadian traders, fitted out by Lieutenant-Governor Sinclair, of Michilimacinac, and led by a Sioux chief named Wabasha. The affair lasted only a few hours, and no assault was made on the fortified enclosure; but a considerable number of persons found on their farms or intercepted outside of the palisades were shot or captured. A portion of the party crossed the Mississippi and made a similar raid on Cahokia. They all then left for their northern homes as rapidly as they came,—some by way of the Wisconsin and Fox rivers, and others by way of the Illinois River to Chicago, where Sinclair had two vessels awaiting them.

This affair has been the occasion of many conflicting statements[1546] as to the time it occurred, the number of persons killed and captured, and how it happened that so large a body of Indians in the British service came so far and did so little which was warlike. It has been often asserted, and as often denied, that George Rogers Clark, at the request of the Spanish commandant, was at St. Louis at the time of the incursion, or so near as to render efficient service. The purpose and character of this expedition, and the causes of its failure, are explained by contemporary documents[1547] recently published, which were not accessible to earlier writers. It was a part of a much larger scheme ordered, and perhaps devised, by the cabinet in London, to capture New Orleans and all the Spanish posts west of the Mississippi and the Illinois country.[1548]

On May 8, 1779, Spain declared war against Great Britain, and on July 8 authorized her American subjects to make war upon Natchez and other English posts on the east bank of the Mississippi.[1549] On June 17, Lord George Germain, secretary for the colonies, wrote to General Haldimand, informing him that Spain had declared war, and that hostilities were to begin at once; and he was ordered to attack New Orleans and reduce the Spanish posts on the Mississippi.[1550] These orders were issued in a circular letter sent to all the Western governors. Sinclair acknowledged the circular February 17, 1780, and informed the general that he had taken steps to engage the Sioux and other tribes west of the Mississippi for the expedition.[1551] De Peyster at Detroit wrote to Haldimand, March 8, that he had taken measures "to facilitate Sinclair's movements on the Mississippi, and be of use to Brigadier Campbell, if he has not already taken New Orleans. The Wabash Indians will amuse Clark at the Falls of the Ohio."[1552] The general scheme here touched upon was, that General Campbell, stationed at Pensacola, should, with a British fleet and army, come up the Mississippi to Natchez, and there meet the Indian expedition sent by Sinclair down the western bank of the river, which was under instructions to capture and destroy the Spanish posts on its way. The united forces were then to expel the Spaniards from all their settlements on the lower Mississippi. The scheme miscarried. Governor Galvez, of New Orleans, a person of great ability and energy, no sooner heard of the declaration of war against Great Britain than he raised a fleet and army to capture the British posts on the Mississippi; and in September, 1779, the forts at Manchac, Baton Rouge, and Natchez, with their garrisons, surrendered to him. He took also eight English vessels employed in transport service, and in carrying the supply of provisions to Pensacola.[1553] Galvez next turned his attention to Mobile, which he captured March 14, 1780; and then to Pensacola, which surrendered May 9, 1781. Brigadier Campbell, therefore, in May, 1780, was otherwise engaged than in executing the splendid scheme which had been assigned to him by the British cabinet and his superior officer, General Haldimand.[1554]

It does not appear that, at the time of the attack on St. Louis, Sinclair, or the party of Indians and traders engaged in the expedition, had heard of the successes of the Spaniards on the lower Mississippi, and of the collapse of the main scheme.[1555] Haldimand furnished Sinclair with the latter information in a letter written at Quebec, June 19th, twenty-four days after the fiasco at St. Louis, and supposing, apparently, that the expedition had not moved from Prairie du Chien. "I have received", he said, "your letters of the 15th and 17th of February, and much approve of the measures they advise me you have taken in the arrangement of the war parties intended to favor the operation of Brig. General Campbell, agreeably to the circular letter forwarded to you.... It is very unfortunate that the [Campbell] expedition should have been either abandoned or not undertaken so early as was intended, owing probably to the fleet having been dispersed, which, from what has happened upon the Mississippi, would appear has been the case. The intermediate attacks you have proposed the Indians should make will, however, answer a good end."[1556]

That Colonel George Rogers Clark was present on the opposite bank of the river at the time of the St. Louis attack, and was there by request of the Spanish commandant, Leyba, and for the defence of the Illinois country, can no longer be doubted.[1557] The proof is in a report of Col. John Montgomery, printed in the Calendar of Virginia State Papers (iii. 443). Montgomery was one of Clark's four captains in his Kaskaskia campaign, and at the period of which he speaks was in command, under Clark, of the post of Kaskaskia. In his report he states: "In the spring of 1780 we [at Kaskaskia] were threatened with an invasion. Colonel Clark, being informed of it, hurried with a small body of troops from the Falls to the mouth of the Ohio, where he received other expresses from the Spanish commandant and myself, and luckily joined me at Cohos [Cahokia] in time enough to save the country from impending ruin, as the enemy appeared in great force within twenty-four hours after his arrival. Finding they were likely to be disappointed in their design, they retired after doing some mischief on the Spanish shore, which would have been prevented if unfortunately the high wind had not prevented the signals being heard." It is evident from this statement that the defence of his own territory was Clark's chief motive for being present on this occasion, and that the invitation of and friendship for the Spanish commandant at St. Louis were mere incidents in the transaction. "Prisoners and deserters from the enemy confirmed the report", says Montgomery, "that a body of a thousand English and Indian troops were on their march to the Kentucky country with a train of artillery;[1558] and the colonel, knowing the situation of that country, appeared to be alarmed, and resolved to get there previous to their arrival.... After giving me instructions, he left Cohos on the 4th of June, with a small escort, for the mouth of the Ohio, on his route to Kentucky." The orders he left with Col. Montgomery were to pursue the Indians retreating up the Illinois River and attack their towns about the time they were disbanding, and to proceed as far as Rock River. "I immediately", says Montgomery, "proceeded to the business I was ordered to do, and marched three hundred and fifty men to the lakeopen [?] on the Illinois River;[1559] and from thence to the Rock River, destroying the towns and crops, the enemy not daring to fight me."[1560]

How much the presence of Clark near the scene of action contributed to the demoralization of the Indian forces is not mentioned by any of the contemporary writers. It is known, however, that his name was a terror to the savage tribes; and Sinclair, in organizing his expedition, found this dread of Clark among the Sioux and other nations west of the Mississippi. He wrote to Captain Brehm, Haldimand's aide-de-camp, February 15, 1780, that there was nothing in Hamilton's disaster which ought to alarm the Sioux, and that "many of them never heard of it. The short-sighted harpies, which necessity has thrown into the service, dwell upon the stories they hear from fretful bands of Delawares, Mascoutins, and Kickapoos near where the event happened. Admit that the disaster has all the supposed consequent misfortunes, it is still more necessary for us to engage the Indians to take a part, which will at once declare their enmity to the party they are engaged to act against."[1561] "The party" Sinclair had in mind was evidently Clark himself; and with him the chief object of the expedition was to recapture the Illinois country.

The general scheme devised by Lord George Germain for the complete conquest of the West,—of bringing down a large party of northwestern Indians upon St. Louis and Ste. Geneviève; of sending an expedition from Detroit to invade Kentucky and keep Colonel Clark busy; of bringing up the Mississippi to Natchez, under General Campbell, a fleet and army, there to unite with the northern expeditions, and from thence to capture the Illinois country and all the Spanish settlements on the river—was an excellent one, and had every promise of success. St. Louis was in no condition to resist an assault, and rank cowardice marked the conduct of the governor and the few soldiers stationed at the post when the Indian raiders appeared.[1562] The Illinois country was very feebly garrisoned, and not a soldier or a shilling had ever been contributed by the Continental Congress for its conquest or defence. The scheme failed because of the promptness and exceptional activity of the Spaniards under Governor Galvez, and the watchfulness and energy of Colonel Clark. It was the last concerted effort of Great Britain to regain possession of the West; as the campaign of Clinton and Cornwallis, with its result one year later at Yorktown, was her expiring effort on the Atlantic coast.[1563] If the Western scheme had been successful, the country north of the Ohio River would have been a part of the province of Quebec, and might have remained Canadian territory to this day. In negotiating two and three years later the treaty of peace with Great Britain under such conditions, it is difficult to conceive what boundaries the United States could have secured. Spain therefore rendered an invaluable service to the United States by enabling George Rogers Clark to hold with his Virginia troops the country he had conquered from the British, until the treaty of peace confirmed to the nation the Mississippi River as its western boundary.

Notwithstanding this important service, there was nothing friendly and disinterested, at this time, in the relations of Spain to the United States. She was looking solely to her own interests, and refused to acknowledge the independence of the United States, or enter into a treaty of alliance except on the most degrading conditions. She must be allowed the exclusive right to navigate the Mississippi, the undisturbed possession of the Floridas and of the east bank of the Mississippi, which she had captured from the British. Spain asserted that the United States had no territorial rights west of the Alleghanies, and that their western boundaries were defined by the royal proclamation of October 7, 1763.[1564] The captures of Manchac, Baton Rouge, Natchez, and Mobile had awakened her military zeal, and nothing less than the possession of the entire Mississippi Valley would then satisfy her territorial ambition. French diplomacy favored some of these extraordinary claims of Spain.[1565]

For the purpose of strengthening the Spanish claim to territory east of the Mississippi, the governor of St. Louis, Don Francisco Cruvat, sent out on the 2d of January, 1781, an expedition to capture St. Joseph, an English fort situated near the present site of Niles, Michigan. Although two hundred and twenty leagues distant, this was the nearest post to St. Louis which raised the British flag. The expedition was in command of Captain Eugenio Pourré, and comprised sixty-five militiamen (of whom thirty were Spaniards) and sixty Indians. The journey, made in the depth of winter across a trackless country, each man on foot carrying his provisions and equipments, was a daring exploit, and it was successful in accomplishing its immediate purpose. They took the fort in the name of his most Catholic Majesty, made prisoners of the few English soldiers found in it, divided the provisions and stores among their own Indians and those living near, and returned to St. Louis early in March, with the English flag, which Captain Pourré delivered with due ceremony to Governor Cruvat.[1566] The treaty of peace, which it is not the purpose of this chapter to discuss, brought this and other shallow pretensions on the part of the Spaniards to territorial rights east of the Mississippi River to an end.[1567]

---

[THE CLOSING SCENES OF THE WAR.]

BY THE EDITOR.

The campaign of Yorktown over, Rochambeau made his headquarters at Williamsburg (Parton's Jefferson, ch. 29), while Washington, having dispatched two thousand men south under St. Clair (instructions in Sparks's Washington, viii. 198) to reinforce Greene, moved with the rest of the army, by land and water, to the neighborhood of the Hudson (Sparks's Washington, viii. 199, 200; Irving's Washington, iv. ch. 29, 30; Kapp's Steuben, ch. 23; Lossing's Field-Book, ii. ch. 5). Washington at once acted in conjunction with Congress to prevent the country lapsing into a neglect of the war establishment through over-confidence in the effects of the capture of Cornwallis. In April, 1782, Washington left Philadelphia and joined the army, establishing his headquarters at Newburgh, in a house which is still standing. (Views of it are in Mag. of Amer. Hist., 1883, p. 357 (taken in 1834); Irving's Washington, quarto ed., iv. 434; W. H. Bartlett's Hist. of U. S.; with a paper by C. D. Deshler on "A Glimpse of Seventy-Six", in Harper's Mag., xlix. 231; with Lossing's "Romance of the Hudson", in Ibid., liii. p. 32; also in his Field-Book, ii. 99, his Hudson, 199, and his Mary and Martha Washington, 215; Gay's Pop. Hist. of U. S., iv. 84.)

There are several special accounts of this latest camp of the army. (Cf. Asa Bird Gardiner on "The Last Cantonment of the Main Continental Army" Mag. Amer. Hist., 1883, vol. x. 355), which is accompanied by a plan of the camp near New Windsor. Simeon De Witt's maps of the locality and the camp are in the N. Y. Hist. Soc. library. De Witt was the geographer of the American army, succeeding Erskine, who had died in 1780. Various orderly-books of this time are in the American Antiquarian Society library. Other papers on the camp are in Mag. Amer. Hist., Jan., 1884, p. 81; by J. T. Headley in Harper's Mag., lxiv. 651, and Galaxy, xxii. 7. Cf. also Ruttenber's Newburgh (1859) and the account of the first annual meeting of the Hist. Soc. of Newburgh Bay and the Highlands, Feb. 22, 1884,—Newburgh, 1884.

Washington and Congress were soon perplexed with the case of Capt. Joshua Huddy, and with a project of retaliation for that officer's execution. Huddy, an officer of the New Jersey line, commanded a block-house at Tom's River, New Jersey, and was there captured with his men by a band of refugee loyalists (W. S. Stryker's Capture of the Block-House at Tom's River). Huddy was taken by Capt. Richard Lippincott, a New Jersey loyalist, to Sandy Hook, where he was hanged on the pretence that he had been engaged in causing the death of Philip White, a Tory, who had been killed while endeavoring to escape from his guard. Congress ordered retaliation, and a young British officer, then a prisoner, Capt. Charles Asgill, was drawn by lot to suffer death unless Clinton should surrender Lippincott. Clinton condemned the action of Lippincott, who was, however, acquitted on trial, on the ground that his action was in accordance with instructions from the board of Associated Loyalists (Jones's N. Y. during the Rev., vol. ii. note xxix. p. 481). The execution of Asgill was postponed by Washington in the hope of some compensating arrangement, and at the instance of Lady Asgill, the young man's mother, the French monarch interceded with such effect that Congress, in November, 1782, ordered Washington to set Asgill at liberty. (References: Sparks's Washington, i. 378; viii. 262, 265, 301-310, 336, 361; ix. 197; Sparks MSS., vols. lxxii., xlviii., lviii.; Niles's Principles and Acts 1876 ed.), p. 509; Remembrancer, xiv. 144, 155; xv. 127, 191; Political Mag., iii. 468, 472; Jones's N. Y. during the Rev., ii. 232, 483, and Johnston's Observations on Jones, 77; Thomas Paine's American Crisis, and a Letter to Sir Guy Carleton on the Murder of Captain Huddy, and the Intended Retaliation on Captain Asgill, of the Guards (London, 1788); Memoir of Gen. Samuel Graham, edited by his son, Col. J. J Graham (Edinburgh, privately printed, 1862,—extract in Hist. Mag., ix. 329). Washington caused all the papers on the subject to be printed in the Columbian Mag., Jan. and Feb., 1787. This young officer of twenty died as Gen. Sir Charles Asgill in July, 1823. Cf. Diplomatic Corresp., xi. 105, 128, 140; Irving's Washington, iv. ch. 29; Sparks's Corresp. of the Rev., iii.; Heath's Memoirs, 335; Sparks's Franklin, ix. 376; Hamilton's Republic, ii. 282. The English view is given in Adolphus's England, iii. ch. 46.

Early in May the news from England made it evident that the war was approaching an end, and the promised release from further campaigning left the public mind in a better condition to comprehend how weak a stay Congress had proved itself, and how insufficient was the power lodged in that body to compel the States to do any and all acts necessary for the common good. The natural distrust which was created of the form of government, whose success in carrying on the war had been largely fortuitous, was still more increased by the difficulties yet to be encountered in disbanding an army, in satisfying its well-earned demands, and in organizing a stable control for the future (Bancroft, final revision, vi. 59, etc.) It was not, then, surprising that notions of counteraction should in any minds take the form of a monarchical solution of the problem, and this sentiment found expression in a letter, written by Col. Nicola, of the army, to Washington, in which it was somewhat adroitly suggested that Washington should consent to be the head of a royal government. Washington met the suggestion with an indignant and stern reply, and we hear nothing more of the subject (Sparks, viii. 300, etc.; Irving, iv. 370).

Sir Guy Carleton was sent to relieve Sir Henry Clinton in New York, and he arrived early in May. His instructions (April 4, 1782,—Sparks MSS., lviii.; cf. Sparks's Washington, viii. 294-298) were to avoid hostilities except for defence. He failed to open communication with Congress to treat for peace (Madison's Debates, vol. i.; Rives's Madison, i. 331, 333). An account of the cantonments of the British about New York just before this (Feb., 1782) is in the Sparks MSS. (xlix. vol. iii.). Clinton's account of his being relieved is in Mahon, vii. App., p. xvii. It was not till August that Carleton's communications to Washington rendered it certain that the concession of independence was a preliminary of the negotiations then going on for peace. Active hostilities accordingly ceased on both sides, though a posture of caution and vigilance was still maintained by each commander. The French, who had remained in Virginia, now joined (September) the Americans on the Hudson. There is among the Rochambeau maps an excellent colored plan (no. 33), measuring twenty inches wide by thirty high, showing the country from White Plains north, and called Position des Armées Amer. et Française à King's Ferry, Peak's Hill, et Hunt's Taverne, 17 Sept. et 20 Oct., 1782. In October the French under the Baron de Viomenil marched to Boston and embarked, while Rochambeau and Chastellux sailed from Baltimore. On the final departure of the French see a paper by J. A. Stevens in the Mag. Amer. Hist., vii. p. 1. The report on their departure, made to Congress, is dated Jan. 1, 1783,—Secret Journals, iii. 267.

CAPTAIN ASGILL.
(From Andrews's Hist. of the War, London, 1785, vol. iv. Cf. Harper's Cyclo. of U. S. Hist., ii. 653.)

In Dec., 1782, the army had set forth in representations to Congress the sufferings which it had experienced from the want of pay (Journals of Congress, iv. 206; Madison's Debates, etc., i. 256; Rives's Madison, i. 383; Morse's Hamilton, i. 114). Nothing satisfactory came of this appeal, and a movement of uncertain extent, but seemingly having the countenance of officers of high rank, was aimed at producing action on the part of the army, which might easily, if allowed to proceed, have passed beyond prudent control, till a claim for redress of grievances might instigate an act of mutiny. Its chief manifestations were in two successive anonymous addresses, circulated through the camp at Newburgh, which were written, as was later acknowledged, by Major John Armstrong, a member of Gen. Gates's staff. Washington interposed at a meeting of the officers (March 15, 1783), and by a timely address turned the current. The original autograph of his address belongs to the Mass. Hist. Society, and that body issued a fac-simile edition of it (Boston, 1876), with letters of Col. Pickering, Gov. John Brooks, Judge Dudley A. Tyng, and William A. Hayes, authenticating the document, and describing the scene when Washington read it. Copies of the addresses made by Armstrong himself are in the Sparks MSS., xlix. 1, 8, and they are given in Sparks's Washington, viii. 551; and in a Collection of papers, relative to half-pay and commutation of half-pay, granted by Congress to officers of the army. Compiled by the permission of General Washington from the original papers in his possession (Fishkill, 1783). Cf. Sabin, iv. 14, 379. Washington at a later day, Feb. 23, 1797, wrote to Armstrong, exonerating him from having intended any evil to the country (Sparks MSS., no. xxiv.). The genuineness of this letter having been assailed, Armstrong (Nov. 27, 1830) wrote a letter asserting its truth, and this autograph letter is in Harvard College library. More or less extended accounts of the incidents accompanying this attempt to organize a coercion of the civil by the military power will be found in the lives of Washington by Marshall (iv. 587); Sparks (viii. 369, 393); and Irving (iv. ch. 31); in Pickering's Pickering (i. ch. 29, 30, 31; including Montgar's, i. e. Armstrong's, letter in 1820); Drake's Knox, 77; Rives's Madison (i. 392); J. C. Hamilton's Republic (ii. 365, 385), and Alexander Hamilton (ii. 68); Morse's Hamilton, i. 119; Quincy's Shaw (p. 101); Hildreth's United States (iii. ch. 45); Dunlap's New York (ii. 230); Lossing's Field-Book (ii. 106, 315); Journals of Congress (iv. 213); Bancroft, final rev., vi. 71.

A letter from Lafayette, who had gone to France, shortly afterwards arrived, announcing the signing of the preliminary articles of peace; and the news being confirmed by a letter from Carleton, Washington, on April 19, the eighth anniversary of the day of Lexington, issued a proclamation announcing cessation of hostilities. Sparks's Washington (viii. 425; App. 13); Heath's Memoirs; Madison's Debates (i. 437); Diplom. Correspondence (ii. 319-329; x. 121; xi. 320); Secret Journals of Cong. (iii. 323, under date of April 11, 1783).

Knox had suggested (Drake's Knox), and in April, 1783, the Society of the Cincinnati had been formed from the officers of the army, with a plan of transmitting membership to descendants. It was intended as an organization to perpetuate a brotherhood formed in arms, and to offer an organization which might conveniently deliberate as occasion required upon the condition of the country. As a rule the principal civil leaders of the Revolution looked upon the combination with disapproval (Wells's Sam. Adams, iii. 202; Austin's Gerry, ch. 25; Sparks's Franklin, x. 58; Bigelow's Franklin, iii. 247; John Adams, Works, ix. 524, called it "the first step taken to deface our temple of liberty"), and even with dread, lest it might lend itself to the creation of castes and the furtherance of schemes against the liberties of the country. There was a widespread dissatisfaction among the people generally, not always temperately expressed, and years were required to remove the apprehension so incontinently formed. The society was organized in the Verplanck house (view in Appleton's Journal, xiv. 353); the fac-similes of the signatures to the original subscription are given in the Penna. Archives, vol. xi., and a representation of a certificate signed by Washington is in Lossing's Field-Book, ii. 128. The bibliography of the society and its branches, by States, is given by Lloyd P. Smith in the Bulletin of the Philadelphia Library, July, 1885. Particular reference may he made to the accounts and expositions given in the Penna. Hist. Soc. Memoirs (1858), vi. pp. 15-55, by Alexander Johnston; North Amer. Review, v. lxxvii. 267, by W. Sargent; St. Clair Papers, i. 590; Kapp's Steuben, ch. 26; E. M. Stone's Our French Allies, p. xix; Lossing's Field-Book, ii. 127; J. B. McMaster's People of the U. S., i. 167; R. C. Winthrop's Speeches, etc. (1852, etc.), P. 345; and the account of the centennial of the order in Mag. Amer. Hist., Sept., 1883, pp. 171, 235, 253.

On the 18th June, 1783, Washington from Newburgh, whither he had removed his headquarters from Verplanck's after the departure of the French, issued his last circular letter to the States (Sparks, viii. 439; Irving, iv. 394), full of counsel and warning.[1568]

The troops were in large part dismissed on furlough, and finally, Congress (Oct. 18) by proclamation, directed the disbandment of the army, to take effect Nov. 2 (Secret Journals, iii. 406). A small body was, however, still kept together under Knox, to await the definitive form of the treaty. Washington now occupied a brief space in making a journey with Gov. Clinton over the battlefields of Burgoyne's campaign. He then, at the request of Congress, proceeded to Princeton, and was domiciled for a while at Rocky Hill, in order to be at hand for conferences with that body. From this place, Nov. 2, 1783, he issued a farewell address to the army. (Sparks, viii. 491; Irving, iv. 402; Pickering's Pickering, i. 488.)

The last surviving pensioner of the Revolution is called one Lemuel Cook in the Amer. Hist. Record, ii. 357. In 1864, what purported to be the record of the latest survivors of the war appeared in Elias B. Hillard's Last Men of the Revolution (Hartford, 1864). An account of John Gray as the last soldier of the Revolution, by J. M. Dalzell, was printed at Washington in 1868. B. P. Poore's Descriptive Catal. of Gov't Publications will enable one to trace many of those soldiers whose claims came before Congress.

Carleton giving notice of his readiness to evacuate New York, Washington now returned to West Point, and prepared to enter the city with Gov. Clinton on the appointed day. The general and the governor entered the upper end of the town on Nov. 25, while the British embarked at the lower end. Valentine's N. Y. City Manual for 1861 gives various documentary records, some in fac-simile. On Dec. 1 there were fireworks, a broadside programme of which is in the cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Society. Trumbull painted a picture of the scene of the evacuation, which is given in the Mag. Amer. Hist., 1883, p. 387. The histories of New York city commemorate the event, and there are illustrated papers on it in Harper's Mag., Nov., 1883 (vol. lxvii. 609), and Manhattan Mag., Dec., 1883. Cf. Hist. Mag., xi. 42; Lieut.-Col. Smith's letter in N. Y. City during the Rev. (N. Y., 1861); Irving's Washington, iv. ch. 33; Jones's N. Y. during the Rev. (ii. 504). Some days after the British had gone, Washington met his principal officers (Dec. 4) in Fraunce's Tavern, and bade them farewell.

FRAUNCE'S TAVERN IN NEW YORK.

This building stood on the corner of Pearl and Broad streets, N. Y., and was occupied by Washington as headquarters when he entered the city after the British evacuated in 1783. The cut follows a view given in Valentine's N. Y. City Manual, 1854, p. 547, accompanied by a paper by W. J. Davis. Cf. Mag. of Amer. Hist., iii. 144, 151, 152; Lossing's Field-Book, ii. 839; Gay's Pict. Hist. U. S., iv. 90; Dawson's Westchester. The opening chapter of McMaster's History of the People of the United States, (N. Y., 1883) describes the appearance of New York city at this time, and indeed of the other principal American towns, and the habits of living through the country. An account of New York at this time is also in the Manhattan Mag., ii. 561.

Immediately leaving New York, Washington journeyed to Annapolis, where Congress was then assembled. Here, on Dec. 23, he met Congress in the State House (view in Columbian Mag., Jan., 1789; Lossing's Field-Book, ii. 402), where he resigned his commission in an address. (Sparks, viii. 504, and App., xiv.; Marshall, iv. 622. A fac-simile of the manuscript is given in the Mag. Amer. Hist., 1881, vol. vii. 106. Cf. Journals of Congress, iv. 318; Ridgeley's Hist. of Annapolis.) On Christmas Eve, Washington reached Mount Vernon, once more a private gentleman.

Congress on the 14th Jan., 1784, sitting at Philadelphia, finally ratified the definitive treaty of peace.

---