[949] The issues raised by Helm's account of the massacre render it a matter of regret that but little authentic information is extant concerning him. Judge Woodward, in his letter to Proctor concerning the Chicago captives, speaks highly of Helm (Appendix VII): there is evidence, however, which tends to invalidate Woodward's estimate of Helm's character. The following sheds some light upon the characters respectively of Heald and his detractor. Heald was twice wounded in the battle of August 15, receiving a bullet in the hip and another through the arm. The former wound never ceased to trouble him (Physician's certificates, Heald Papers, in Draper Collection), and he carried the bullet which caused it to his grave. Helm received a slight flesh wound in the heel, from which he recovered so quickly that within six weeks Forsyth reported him "in good health and spirits" (letter of Thomas Forsyth to John Kinzie, September 24, 1812, printed in Magazine of History, XV, 89; see also, infra, letter of Heald to B. Roberts, December 1, 1825). Heald refrained from applying for a pension, and when one was procured for him by two of his friends without his knowledge, the latter, in breaking the news to him, thought it worth while to urge him not to decline it, and to suggest that he bestow it upon his children in case he felt any delicacy about accepting it himself (supra, note 620). It is apparent from the letter of Heald to B. Roberts, December 1, 1825 (printed below), that when Helm came to apply for a pension he not only made what he might of his wound, but also preferred a claim against the government for money advanced by him from his own funds to purchase articles for the troops at Chicago. This claim Heald denominated "entirely false & without the least foundation imaginable"; and further that any vouchers which Helm might submit in support of his claim were fraudulent. Heald's emphatic condemnation of Helm's assertions and claim find support in what we know of Helm's financial situation at the time. See on this supra, p. 365. In view of this it seems unlikely, without regard to Heald's testimony, that he was in a position to advance money to buy articles for the soldiers.
[Letter of Heald to B. Roberts]
St. Charles Missouri
1 December 1825.
Dear Sir, I have reed, your Letter from Russellsville on the subject of Capt Helms claims on the Government. As to his wound reed, at Chicago I know nothing that can be of service to him in order that he may procure a pension, all that I can say of my own knowledge is that I discovered he walked a little lame, soon after the action was over, but I had no opportunity to find out the cause of it, before we were seperated. I was told about 10 days after the action by Mr. Kinzie, the stepfather of Mrs. Helm, that Capt. Helm's wound was very trifling & could not injure him. I have since seen Mr. Thos. Forsyth with whom Capt. Helm resided for several mo[n]ths immediately after the action and he told me that Capt. Helms wound was of no consequence, & that it appeared to be nothing more than a small flesh wound in one of his heals & did not disable him in the least.
The statement he made to you respecting the articles he says he purchased for the troops & advanced the money out of his own funds to pay for them is entirely false & without the least foundation imaginable. And If he has any vouchers to support the claim, depend upon it Sir, they are fraudulent.
Should you wish for my deposition stating my own knowledge of Capt. Helms
Should you wish for my deposition to support Capt. Helms claim for a Pension, I am perfectly willing to give it, but I can say nothing more than I have said in this letter of my own knowledge.
The Honbl. B. Roberts
Member of Congress.
The original manuscript from which the foregoing is taken is the copy of the letter retained by Heald, and is owned by his granddaughter, Mrs. Wright Johnson, of Rutherford, N.J.
After the sources of information derived from the two surviving officers and their wives follow a number of reports of distinctly lesser importance which found their way into the newspapers of the time. Several of these were preserved from oblivion by being reprinted during the few weeks following the massacre in that general repository of information, Niles' Register. The number of such reports which require consideration here is small. The news of the fall of Fort Dearborn was borne to the nearest American settlements more rapidly than might, in view of all the circumstances, have been expected. As early as August 28 a report of it was published in the Western Courier, of Louisville.[950] It consisted of an extract from a letter received at Louisville from an officer of the army who apparently was at or in the vicinity of Fort Wayne. It stated correctly enough the leading facts that the fort had been evacuated, the garrison attacked after marching "about one mile," and that Heald had surrendered on receiving assurances of mercy for the garrison. It erred, however, in reporting Heald and his wife among the slain, as well as all but three of Wells's Miamis. From these three survivors, it was stated, the information had been gained.