In the preface to the pamphlet narrative of 1844 Mrs. Kinzie explained that the record had been taken many years since from the lips of eye-witnesses of the events described, and written down simply for the purpose of preserving to her children "a faithful picture of the perilous scenes through which those near and dear to them had been called to pass." Her record of the massacre is thus on a footing of equality with that of Darius Heald, in that each is based on information derived from participants in the events attending the massacre. From the point of view of the historian, however, it possesses at least one marked advantage over the latter. The Heald narrative was reduced to writing for the first time in 1868, over half a century after the occurrence of the events described. The pamphlet edition of the Kinzie narrative was published in 1844, almost a quarter of a century-earlier. Aside from this priority in point of time, its author possessed, at the time she received her information, the conscious purpose of preserving it in written form, if not, indeed, of publishing it. Unfortunately, however, these obvious advantages possessed by Mrs. Kinzie are offset by qualities in her narrative which destroy, in large part, the historical value it might otherwise have possessed. The evident inability of the author to state the facts correctly is manifest throughout the work. It abounds in details that could not possibly have been remembered by Mrs. Kinzie's supposed informants; in others that could not have been known to them; and in still others that could never have occurred. Undaunted by the absence of records, Mrs. Kinzie repeats speeches and dialogues verbatim, as she, apparently, conceived they should have been recited. Thus the warning speech of Black Partridge, the order of Hull for the evacuation, and the speech of the Miami chieftain at the beginning of the fight are given with all the precision of stenographic reports. The Black Partridge incident is undoubtedly founded on fact, but Mrs. Kinzie's version of his speech is just as certainly the product of her own literary imagination.[942] That Hull sent an order for the evacuation was, of course, a matter of common knowledge; that Mrs. Kinzie possessed a copy of it or could pretend to report it literally is so improbable that even though the original order had never been recovered, we might reasonably regard her version of it as unreliable. Concerning the speech of the Miami chief, if delivered at all, it could not have been in the form which Mrs. Kinzie has recorded; nor could Mrs. Helm, from whom it purports to be reported, possibly have heard it uttered.
[942] Mrs. Kinzie's version of this speech, which has frequently been quoted, affords a typical illustration of her practice of embellishing the narrative with details wholly imaginary. The two source accounts of the incident both agree that Black Partridge sought out the interpreter in order to deliver his warning. According to Helm the two waited upon Heald, to whom "the Indian gave up his medal & told Heald to beware of the next day that the Indians would destroy him & his men." Thus Helm, writing within two years of the event, did not attempt to do more than give the substance of Black Partridge's speech. Nor could he possibly have done otherwise, if there is any truth in his further statement that the warning was concealed from the other officers by Heald and that Wells alone knew of it. Despite this handicap and the equally serious one that the warning was uttered by Black Partridge in his native tongue, Mrs. Kinzie was able, over thirty years later, to report it as follows: "Father, I come to deliver up to you the medal I wear. It was given me by the Americans, and I have long worn it in token of our mutual friendship. But our young men are resolved to imbrue their hands in the blood of the whites. I cannot restrain them and I will not wear a token of peace while I am compelled to act as an enemy."
But a graver fault than the foregoing vitiates the narrative. The account of the events attending the massacre is highly partisan, manifesting throughout a bitter antipathy to Captain Heald and a corresponding idealization of Kinzie. Probably the author is herself responsible for the latter feature; the responsibility for the former must be shared with her informants. Their representations concerning the massacre, and the role played by Captain Heald therein, would obviously be similar to those of Lieutenant Helm. The extent of his antipathy for, and misrepresentations of, his commander will be set forth presently. It is probable that the younger Mrs. Kinzie never saw his narrative of the massacre, although her own account repeats many of the statements contained in it. The fact of their occurrence in the earlier narrative, however, does not of itself establish their reliability. It merely shifts the responsibility for them to Helm and compels an inquiry as to the character of his narrative; and the result of such an inquiry is to dispel all confidence in its reliability and in the candor of its author.
Finally the historical value of Mrs. Kinzie's book is lessened by the author's fondness for romance and for dramatic effect, which too often overshadow her zeal for the simple truth. It was this characteristic of the book, apparently, which led Kirkland to conclude that the author intended it to be regarded as a romance rather than as sober history. Whatever the truth may be as to her intention, there can be no gainsaying Kirkland's verdict that the book reads like a romance. In capacity for adventure its characters rival the traditional medieval knight; while over it all the author has thrown a glamor of romance which was strikingly absent from the crass materialism of life on the northwestern frontier a century ago.
It had been arranged by Kinzie that Mrs. Kinzie and her children should be taken across the lake to St. Joseph in a boat in charge of the servants and some friendly Indians. Kinzie himself went with the troops. The boat was detained at the mouth of the river, however, and here Mrs. Kinzie spent the time during the battle and massacre. Mrs. Helm had ridden out with her husband, and thus was actually present in the battle. She soon became separated from her husband and apparently was with the rear division around the wagons during the fighting there. According to her own story as told in Wau Bun, at the height of the fighting she drew aside and with philosophic calmness began to compose herself to meet her end. While thus engaged the surgeon, Van Voorhis, came up, wounded and panic-stricken, "every muscle of his face quivering with the agony of terror." Oblivious of the helplessness and inexperience of the young woman, he frantically sought some assurance of safety from her. While the battle raged around she strove to discourage his hope and to arouse him to meet his fate with manly firmness. She even pointed out the soldierly behavior of Ronan, who, though mortally wounded and nearly down, was fighting with desperation on one knee. This appeal to the example set by Ronan was, however, in vain, eliciting from the surgeon only the astonishing rejoinder "with a convulsive shudder," that he had "no terrors of the future—he is an unbeliever."
The remarkable dialogue was interrupted at this point by a young Indian who attempted to tomahawk Mrs. Helm. She dodged the blow, and closing with the warrior struggled to secure his knife. From this predicament she was suddenly snatched by Black Partridge, who bore her to the lake and plunged her into the water. Instead of drowning her as she expected, he held her in a position which permitted her to breathe, and she soon discovered that he had taken this way of saving her from the tomahawk. When the firing died down he bore her to the shore and up the sand bank, whence she was conducted back to the Pottawatomie camp west of the fort on the south side of the river.
Such is Mrs. Helm's narrative of her experience in the massacre itself, as reported by Mrs. Kinzie. It is evident that only a portion of the tragedy came under her own personal observation, although in Wau Bun all the remainder of the narrative, many pages in length, is represented as being quoted directly from her. If any portion of the Wau Bun account of the massacre is worthy of credence it should be this which recites Mrs. Helm's personal experience. Unfortunately the credibility of even this portion is dubious. That the actor should emphasize her own part in the affair is, of course, only natural. That the dialogue with Van Voorhis occurred as represented is, under all the circumstances, simply incredible. Unfortunately we have no other record of how Van Voorhis met his fate, and so for nearly three-quarters of a century his memory has been blackened by this cruel tale, thoughtlessly taken up and repeated in the numerous accounts of the massacre based on that contained in Wau Bun. The little we know of Van Voorhis tends to the belief that he was a young man of more than usual spirit and breadth of vision. His friend and college classmate, Surgeon Cooper, testified to his personal worth and bravery, and to the end of his life protested that the Wau Bun version of his death was a cruel slander.[943] More significant is the testimony of the fragment of a single letter of Van Voorhis, of which a copy has been preserved. Writing from his lonely station in October, 1811, he thus foretold the future destiny of this region: "In my solitary walks I contemplate what a great and powerful republic will yet arise in this new world. Here, I say, will be the seat of millions yet unborn; here the asylum of oppressed millions yet to come. How composedly would I die could I be resuscitated at that bright era of American greatness—an era which I hope will announce the tidings of death to fell superstition and dread tyranny."[944] The man who at the age of twenty-two could pen these lines is the only one of the whites present on the day of massacre who is represented as having behaved like a poltroon and a coward.
[943] Wilson, Chicago from 1803 to 1812.
[944] Van Voorhis, Ancestry of Wm. Roe Van Voorhis, 144.
The story of the rescue of Mrs. Helm by Black Partridge has come to be regarded as a classic in the early history of Chicago. It has been made the dominant theme of the massacre monument, and has been accepted without question by practically all who have written upon the massacre. Yet it may well be doubted whether the event as described by Mrs. Kinzie in Wau Bun ever actually occurred. That Black Partridge saved Mrs. Helm is probably true, but that the affair possessed the romantic aspect which it has come to assume in the popular mind, or that Mrs. Helm distinguished herself by her heroism seems unlikely.