Since this work has been in press, we have an article in the New York Evangelist of 6th of January, 1870, from the pen of Rev. Mr. Treat, D. D., containing a brief statement of the Whitman massacre, and the following as the result of the investigations as had in several religious bodies in Oregon; the conclusion is as follows:—
“It so happens, however, that men who are more competent to adjudicate the case have not hesitated to do so. The Congregational Association of Oregon adopted a report in June last, which condemns the ‘prominent and absolute falsehoods’ of Father Brouillet’s pamphlet, and expresses the belief, ‘from evidence, clear and sufficient to them, that the Roman Catholic priests did themselves instigate violence to the missions, resulting in massacre.’ Similar action was taken by the Old School Presbytery, the Cumberland Presbytery, and the U. P. Presbytery. The Methodist Conference, composed of more than seventy preachers, and under the presidency of Bishop Kingsley, adopted a comprehensive and able report, which was published at Portland, September 25, 1869, in which the massacre at Wailatpu is declared to have been ‘wholly unprovoked by Dr. Whitman or any other member of the mission,’ and to have arisen from the policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company ‘to exclude American settlers,’ and the ‘efforts of Roman priests directed against the establishment of Protestantism in the country.’ It is believed that the other evangelical denominations in Oregon have spoken with the same distinctness and the same confidence.
“Valuable testimony is borne to the character of the missionaries who survived Dr. Whitman, and who have been residents of Oregon to this day, as also to the fidelity and success of their labors, but there is not space for it in the present article. Suffice it to say, that, while the motives of Hon. J. Ross Browne, in appending Father Brouillet’s pamphlet to his ‘Letter,’ and the reasons of the House of Representative for publishing the same, are open to grave suspicion, facts and opinions have been elicited, which throw additional light upon the manifold bearings and uses of the missionary enterprise.”
On page 40 of Rev. J. B. A. Brouillet’s “Protestantism in Oregon” and page 33 of J. Ross Browne’s report, we find, under date of September 5, 1847, that “the Right Rev. Bishop Blanchet arrived at old Fort Wallawalla (now called Wallula), where he was cordially received by Mr. McBean, clerk in charge of said fort. He was accompanied by the superior of Oblates and two other clergymen. He had the intention of remaining but a few days at the fort, for he knew that Tawatowe (or Young Chief), one of the Cayuse chiefs, had a house which he had designed for the Catholic missionaries, and he intended to go and occupy it without delay; but the absence of the Young Chief, who was hunting buffalo, created a difficulty in regard to the occupation of the house, and in consequence of it he had to wait longer than he wished.”
The house here spoken of was erected during the summer of 1837, before any Catholic missionaries were thought of, at least among the Indians, or by the American missionaries, and it was late in the fall of 1838 that Revs. Blanchet and Demerse passed down the Columbia River. These first missionaries of the Society of Jesus, wishing to do Mr. P. C. Pambrun, then clerk of the post, a special favor, baptized the infant son of the Young Chief, for whose benefit and occupation, Mr. Pambrun said, the company had ordered that house to be built. If it was designed for these priests, who was the designer?
Mr. Brouillet, in his narrative, says:—
“On the 23d of September, Dr. Whitman, on his way from the Dalles, stopped at Fort Wallawalla. His countenance bore sufficient testimony to the agitation of his heart. He soon showed by his words that he was deeply wounded by the arrival of the bishop. ‘I know very well,’ said he, ‘for what purpose you have come.’ ‘All is known,’ replied the bishop; ‘I come to labor for the conversion of the Indians, and even of Americans, if they are willing to listen to me.’ The doctor then continued, in the same tone, to speak of many things. He attributed the coming of the bishop to the Young Chief’s influence! made a furious charge against the Catholics, accusing them of having persecuted Protestants and even of having shed their blood wherever they had prevailed. He said he did not like Catholics ⚹ ⚹ ⚹ that he should oppose the missionaries to the extent of his power. ⚹ ⚹ ⚹ He spoke against the Catholic Ladder![12] and said that he would cover it with blood, to show the persecution of Protestants by Catholics. He refused to sell provisions to the bishop, and protested he would not assist the missionaries unless he saw them in starvation.”
[12] A picture explaining the principal points of Catholic faith.
It is barely possible that Dr. Whitman said all that this priest says he did. In that case, did he forfeit his own and the lives of all that fell with him? This narrative of Protestantism reveals a dark page in our history,—one that should be thoroughly investigated as well as understood by all.
On the 24th page, 33d of Ross Browne’s report, this priest says:—
“After such a manifestation of sentiment toward Catholics in general and priests in particular, the bishop was not astonished in hearing some hours after that Dr. Whitman, on leaving the fort, went to the lodge of Piopiomoxmox (Yellow Serpent); that he had spoken a great deal against the priests; that he had wished to prevail upon this chief to co-operate with him, in order that by the aid of his influence with the Cayuses, Des Chutes, and Dalles Indians, he might be enabled to excite these nations against them, etc.”