It does not appear that, at the time of the attack on St. Louis, Sinclair, or the party of Indians and traders engaged in the expedition, had heard of the successes of the Spaniards on the lower Mississippi, and of the collapse of the main scheme.[1555] Haldimand furnished Sinclair with the latter information in a letter written at Quebec, June 19th, twenty-four days after the fiasco at St. Louis, and supposing, apparently, that the expedition had not moved from Prairie du Chien. "I have received", he said, "your letters of the 15th and 17th of February, and much approve of the measures they advise me you have taken in the arrangement of the war parties intended to favor the operation of Brig. General Campbell, agreeably to the circular letter forwarded to you.... It is very unfortunate that the [Campbell] expedition should have been either abandoned or not undertaken so early as was intended, owing probably to the fleet having been dispersed, which, from what has happened upon the Mississippi, would appear has been the case. The intermediate attacks you have proposed the Indians should make will, however, answer a good end."[1556]
That Colonel George Rogers Clark was present on the opposite bank of the river at the time of the St. Louis attack, and was there by request of the Spanish commandant, Leyba, and for the defence of the Illinois country, can no longer be doubted.[1557] The proof is in a report of Col. John Montgomery, printed in the Calendar of Virginia State Papers (iii. 443). Montgomery was one of Clark's four captains in his Kaskaskia campaign, and at the period of which he speaks was in command, under Clark, of the post of Kaskaskia. In his report he states: "In the spring of 1780 we [at Kaskaskia] were threatened with an invasion. Colonel Clark, being informed of it, hurried with a small body of troops from the Falls to the mouth of the Ohio, where he received other expresses from the Spanish commandant and myself, and luckily joined me at Cohos [Cahokia] in time enough to save the country from impending ruin, as the enemy appeared in great force within twenty-four hours after his arrival. Finding they were likely to be disappointed in their design, they retired after doing some mischief on the Spanish shore, which would have been prevented if unfortunately the high wind had not prevented the signals being heard." It is evident from this statement that the defence of his own territory was Clark's chief motive for being present on this occasion, and that the invitation of and friendship for the Spanish commandant at St. Louis were mere incidents in the transaction. "Prisoners and deserters from the enemy confirmed the report", says Montgomery, "that a body of a thousand English and Indian troops were on their march to the Kentucky country with a train of artillery;[1558] and the colonel, knowing the situation of that country, appeared to be alarmed, and resolved to get there previous to their arrival.... After giving me instructions, he left Cohos on the 4th of June, with a small escort, for the mouth of the Ohio, on his route to Kentucky." The orders he left with Col. Montgomery were to pursue the Indians retreating up the Illinois River and attack their towns about the time they were disbanding, and to proceed as far as Rock River. "I immediately", says Montgomery, "proceeded to the business I was ordered to do, and marched three hundred and fifty men to the lakeopen [?] on the Illinois River;[1559] and from thence to the Rock River, destroying the towns and crops, the enemy not daring to fight me."[1560]
How much the presence of Clark near the scene of action contributed to the demoralization of the Indian forces is not mentioned by any of the contemporary writers. It is known, however, that his name was a terror to the savage tribes; and Sinclair, in organizing his expedition, found this dread of Clark among the Sioux and other nations west of the Mississippi. He wrote to Captain Brehm, Haldimand's aide-de-camp, February 15, 1780, that there was nothing in Hamilton's disaster which ought to alarm the Sioux, and that "many of them never heard of it. The short-sighted harpies, which necessity has thrown into the service, dwell upon the stories they hear from fretful bands of Delawares, Mascoutins, and Kickapoos near where the event happened. Admit that the disaster has all the supposed consequent misfortunes, it is still more necessary for us to engage the Indians to take a part, which will at once declare their enmity to the party they are engaged to act against."[1561] "The party" Sinclair had in mind was evidently Clark himself; and with him the chief object of the expedition was to recapture the Illinois country.
The general scheme devised by Lord George Germain for the complete conquest of the West,—of bringing down a large party of northwestern Indians upon St. Louis and Ste. Geneviève; of sending an expedition from Detroit to invade Kentucky and keep Colonel Clark busy; of bringing up the Mississippi to Natchez, under General Campbell, a fleet and army, there to unite with the northern expeditions, and from thence to capture the Illinois country and all the Spanish settlements on the river—was an excellent one, and had every promise of success. St. Louis was in no condition to resist an assault, and rank cowardice marked the conduct of the governor and the few soldiers stationed at the post when the Indian raiders appeared.[1562] The Illinois country was very feebly garrisoned, and not a soldier or a shilling had ever been contributed by the Continental Congress for its conquest or defence. The scheme failed because of the promptness and exceptional activity of the Spaniards under Governor Galvez, and the watchfulness and energy of Colonel Clark. It was the last concerted effort of Great Britain to regain possession of the West; as the campaign of Clinton and Cornwallis, with its result one year later at Yorktown, was her expiring effort on the Atlantic coast.[1563] If the Western scheme had been successful, the country north of the Ohio River would have been a part of the province of Quebec, and might have remained Canadian territory to this day. In negotiating two and three years later the treaty of peace with Great Britain under such conditions, it is difficult to conceive what boundaries the United States could have secured. Spain therefore rendered an invaluable service to the United States by enabling George Rogers Clark to hold with his Virginia troops the country he had conquered from the British, until the treaty of peace confirmed to the nation the Mississippi River as its western boundary.
Notwithstanding this important service, there was nothing friendly and disinterested, at this time, in the relations of Spain to the United States. She was looking solely to her own interests, and refused to acknowledge the independence of the United States, or enter into a treaty of alliance except on the most degrading conditions. She must be allowed the exclusive right to navigate the Mississippi, the undisturbed possession of the Floridas and of the east bank of the Mississippi, which she had captured from the British. Spain asserted that the United States had no territorial rights west of the Alleghanies, and that their western boundaries were defined by the royal proclamation of October 7, 1763.[1564] The captures of Manchac, Baton Rouge, Natchez, and Mobile had awakened her military zeal, and nothing less than the possession of the entire Mississippi Valley would then satisfy her territorial ambition. French diplomacy favored some of these extraordinary claims of Spain.[1565]
For the purpose of strengthening the Spanish claim to territory east of the Mississippi, the governor of St. Louis, Don Francisco Cruvat, sent out on the 2d of January, 1781, an expedition to capture St. Joseph, an English fort situated near the present site of Niles, Michigan. Although two hundred and twenty leagues distant, this was the nearest post to St. Louis which raised the British flag. The expedition was in command of Captain Eugenio Pourré, and comprised sixty-five militiamen (of whom thirty were Spaniards) and sixty Indians. The journey, made in the depth of winter across a trackless country, each man on foot carrying his provisions and equipments, was a daring exploit, and it was successful in accomplishing its immediate purpose. They took the fort in the name of his most Catholic Majesty, made prisoners of the few English soldiers found in it, divided the provisions and stores among their own Indians and those living near, and returned to St. Louis early in March, with the English flag, which Captain Pourré delivered with due ceremony to Governor Cruvat.[1566] The treaty of peace, which it is not the purpose of this chapter to discuss, brought this and other shallow pretensions on the part of the Spaniards to territorial rights east of the Mississippi River to an end.[1567]
