2. Two of these four versions import that the inhabitants, men, women, and children, were "indiscriminately butchered;" the other two versions import that none were "butchered" except in battle, and none were "scalped" except those who had fallen in battle.
3. In two of these versions it is stated that those who were in the forts after their surrender were "massacred," without respect to age or sex; in the other two versions it is stated that not one of them was massacred, but they were all permitted to cross the Susquehanna with their effects.
4. In one of these versions, Colonel John Butler is represented as not only the commander of the whole party of invasion, but the author of all the cruelties perpetrated in the "massacre" of Wyoming; yet Mr. Hildreth's statement shows the reverse—that Colonel Butler had accepted the surrender of Fort Wyoming "upon the promise of security to life and property;" that "desirous to fulfil these terms, he presently marched away with his Tories; but he could not induce the Indians to follow;" that "the depredations which followed were inflicted by the Indians alone, and whom Colonel Butler could not command, and against his remonstrance and example and that of his Tories."
It is therefore plain that the accounts at the time of the "Massacre of Wyoming," published by the Congress party, were of the most exaggerated and inflammatory character, containing the grossest misrepresentation, and doing the greatest injustice to the leaders and conduct of the expedition, of which accounts they had no knowledge, nor any means of correcting them. These partial and shamefully exaggerated accounts and misrepresentations were spread through Europe, and produced the most unfavourable impression in regard to the "Tories" and their mixture with the Indians—the only place of refuge for them, as they were driven from their homes to escape the sentences of death, imprisonment, or banishment, subject in all cases, of course, to the destruction and confiscation of their property. The English Annual Register for 1779, after reproducing these unjust and inflated accounts, candidly says:
"It is necessary to observe, with respect to the destruction of Wyoming, that as no narrative of the exploits of the leaders in that transaction, whether by authority or otherwise, has yet appeared in this country, we can only rely for the authenticity of the facts which we have stated upon the accounts published by the Americans.
"Happy should we deem it, for the honour of humanity that, the whole account was demonstrated to be a fable." (Vol. IV., p. 14.)
The testimony furnished by the four versions of the transaction by American historians shows how largely the original accounts of it were fabulous.
Since compiling and analysing the foregoing four historical versions of the "Massacre of Wyoming," I have read Colonel Stone's Life of Joseph Brant, Thayendanegea, including the Border Wars of the American Revolution, and have carefully examined his account of the "Massacre of Wyoming." Colonel Stone visited the place (1838), and obtained all the information which the oldest inhabitants and family letters could give, and examined all the papers in the State Paper Office, and obtained much information from correspondence and personal interviews with aged and distinguished inhabitants, well acquainted with all the particulars of the alleged "Massacre." The result of his researches was to justify the hopes of the British Annual Register, quoted on previous page, which, after having republished the American accounts of the "Massacre," says: "Happy should we deem it, for the honour of humanity, that the whole account were demonstrated to be a fable."
This has been done by Colonel Stone after the lapse of more than half a century. In the fifteenth chapter of the first volume of his eloquent and exhaustive work he gives a history of the settlement, and of the many years' wars between the rival claimants of Connecticut and Pennsylvania—the former styled "the Susquehanna Company," and the latter "the Delaware Company." The question was also complicated by Indian claims, as the land had been once acquired by the Six Nations, and alleged to have been sold to both companies. Many of the Mohawks and other Indians resided in and near the settlement. On the breaking out of the war, politics largely entered into the disputes, and armed conflicts ensued, and no less than ten forts were erected in the settlement.
According to Colonel Stone, the "Massacre" was not the result of surprise, nor did it involve the indiscriminate massacre of women and children, but was the result of a pitched battle between the Loyalists and Continentals, in which the latter were the assailants and were defeated, and whatever "massacre" there was followed the battle.[90]