[433] Wilson, Chicago from 1803 to 1812. On leaving Fort Dearborn in 1810, Whistler presented Cooper a pistol and a copy of Shenstone's poems. The latter was given by Cooper to General James Grant Wilson, and he in turn presented it to the Chicago Historical Society. Cooper wrote to Kingsbury at the time of the quarrel that he was willing to sell his life to prove Whistler's innocence of the charges against him (Kingsbury Papers). The date and salutation of this letter have been cut off, but it was evidently written soon after May 26, 1810.
[434] Drennan Papers, Nicoll to Whistler and Cooper, November 1, 1809.
To "suttle" meant to supply the soldiers with articles not furnished them by the government. Shortly after Cooper's arrival at Fort Dearborn Matthew Irwin had been appointed Government factor, to conduct the Indian trading establishment at Chicago.[435] He seems also to have held, as did Varnum, the former factor, the appointment of Government contractor for supplying the garrison with such provisions as were furnished the soldiers by the government.[436] The privilege which Cooper had obtained of suttling for the garrison interfered not only with Irwin's profits but also with those of Kinzie, who, until the dissolution of the partnership with the younger Whistler, had enjoyed this trade. Irwin and Kinzie soon drew together in opposition to Captain Whistler, whom they seem rightly to have regarded as the real power behind Cooper. For some reason Jouett, the Indian agent, and Lieutenant Thompson joined the Irwin-Kinzie coalition; Lieutenant Hamilton, who was Whistler's son-in-law, of course sided with the latter, and the quarrel soon became furious.
[435] Wisconsin Historical Collections, XIX, 326.
[436] That Irwin held this appointment is shown by his letters to Kingsbury; e.g., see letter of April 29, 1810, in Kingsbury Papers. My conclusion that Varnum had been contractor as well as factor is based on certain entries in the Barry Transcript.
Irwin claimed that Whistler and his adherents combined in a policy of persecution calculated to force him to give up his position as contractor in order that Whistler's son might regain it.[437] Whistler, on the other hand, asserted that the "malignant wretches" opposed to him, particularly Jouett, were guilty of defrauding the public; as for Lieutenant Thompson, he was a mere tool in the hands of his associates, who despised him even while they used him.[438] Jouett had told of his running away to escape paying his landlord, and Whistler stated he had acknowledged himself a "Liar" in the presence of all the gentlemen of the fort and its vicinity. Cooper bore a challenge to a duel from Lieutenant Hamilton to Kinzie, which the latter declined to accept, contenting himself with roundly cursing both principal and second.[439] Half a century later Cooper described the trader as a man of ungovernable temper, who frequently engaged in bitter quarrels.
[437] Kingsbury Papers, Irwin to Kingsbury, April 29, 1810. The obnoxious conduct of Whistler, Hamilton, and Cooper is detailed at considerable length in this letter.
[438] Ibid., Whistler to Kingsbury, May 27, 1810.
[439] Wilson, Chicago from 1803 to 1812.
The opposition to Whistler, determined to drive him from Chicago if not from the army, preferred charges against him to Kingsbury and demanded a court martial. Among other things, aside from the claim that he had conspired with Hamilton and Cooper to force Irwin to give up his office, it was claimed that he had beaten a soldier for not trading with his son,[440] and had defrauded the government by raising ten acres of corn,[441] apparently by the labor of soldiers. On the other hand Cooper preferred charges against Thompson which he believed would inevitably "brake" him.[442] It is not possible with the information available to decide the question of right between the two warring parties, but it is significant that Whistler and later Captain Heald, both of whom incurred the enmity of Kinzie, repeatedly received testimonials of confidence from their brother officers. Captain Heald, who succeeded Whistler at Fort Dearborn, reported that he had found everything in good condition and believed that Whistler had paid "particular Attention to every Part of his duty" during the time he had commanded there.[443] He also refuted the charge of Whistler's enemies that he had been in the habit of raising large quantities of corn. Kingsbury, Whistler's immediate superior, also testified to his belief in his integrity, and in the falsity of the charges against him, and Varnum, who had been factor at Fort Dearborn from 1805 to 1808, expressed approval of Whistler's conduct during that time.[444] In harmony with this favorable testimony are the observations of William Johnston,[445] who journeyed from Fort Wayne to Chicago in the spring of 1809. He recorded that Fort Dearborn was "the neatest and best wooden garrison in the United States," a fact which did "great honor to Capt. John Whistler who planned and built it." The observant visitor also records that Whistler had under him, at the time of his visit, the same men as when he built the fort. Although their term of enlistment had expired they had all re-enlisted—a sure sign that Whistler was a good officer.