"I will face the enemy," said Kinnison, repeating the words of the brave Herkimer.
"Heroic words. But the General should have possessed more prudence. He had lived long enough in the neighbourhood of the Indians to know their mode of warfare, and he should have sent out rangers to reconnoitre his route," remarked Colson.
"However," observed Kinnison, "the enemy didn't get off whole-skinned. I have heard that they had more than 200 killed. It was a hard-fought battle, and considering all circumstances, no men could have behaved better than our militia did. You see, young men, after they recovered from the confusion of the first attack, they found they had no ammunition save what they had in their cartouch-boxes. Their baggage-wagons were in possession of the enemy, and they could get no water, which was in great demand in such warm weather. To fight five or six hours under such circumstances was certainly noble conduct."
"Another point is to be taken into consideration. The enemy were much superior in numbers," said Colson.
"Of course; that's very important," replied Ranson.
"I suppose there was little mercy shown by either party. There was too much hateful fury," said Hand.
"You're right," remarked Colson. "Few tories received quarters from the militia, and fewer of the militia asked it of the tories."
"Herkimer should have been more cautious. Though a brave soldier, we cannot consider him a good commander," said Pitts.
"Nay, I think he was a good commander, friend Pitts," replied Hanson. "He was cool-headed and skilful in the hottest battle; and because he neglected sending out scouts on one occasion, you should not conclude that imprudence was part of his character."
"But a commander, acquainted with Indian warfare, as Herkimer was, must be considered imprudent if he neglects such a common precaution as sending out scouts," observed Kinnison.