Part 11

After my arrival in Seattle in the summer of 1869, I became much interested in Seattle's local history. I had known and read of the Indian war of 1855-6, and of the attack on the town of Seattle by the Indians on January 16th, 1856, in which two white men were killed; but of the details of that attack, and of the ensuing battle, I knew nothing. I wrote to Lieutenant Phelps, who was an officer on the warship "Decatur" at the time, and who had written and published an account of the battle, to send me his pamphlet containing such descriptive account, and he promptly and courteously complied with my request. In addition to that official statement, I obtained from many of the leading residents at the time further details, facts and information hereinafter stated.

I ought possibly to state that at the request of Hillory Butler, a dear friend and pioneer, who was present and participated in the fight, I wrote his biography, from which the following is taken. Further to understand the situation, it ought to be remembered that the side-hill fronting the bay from the east line of Second Street (now Avenue) eastward was a dense copse of fern and brush, logs and tree tops, as well as standing timber to the top of the ridge and beyond, affording an excellent cover, or ambuscade for the Indians.

"In the fall of 1855 the Indian tribes east of the mountains became hostile. A small force under Major Haller was sent into the Yakima country to reduce the hostiles to subjection. This force was defeated and driven back to The Dalles. This but aggravated the discontent of the Indians and well-nigh precipitated a general uprising. A feeling of dread and insecurity among the settlers was everywhere present. As precautionary measures, block-houses were built and stockades constructed, in many cases none too soon. A block-house was built in Seattle near where the Boyd building now stands. Hostile emisseries were known to be at work among the Puget Sound tribes. Some of the tribes were known to be wavering in their allegiance to the whites and many individuals of all these tribes had joined the ranks of the hostiles. The people of Seattle, however, felt quite secure for the 'Decatur,' a thirty-gun United States war-ship, under the command of Capt. Gansworth, lay at anchor in the harbor. Her crew consisted of 150 men. There was aboard of her also a company of marines, under the immediate command of Lieut. Morris. Notwithstanding all this, the evidence of an impending attack, became from day to day more convincing to those who calmly studied the situation, and had an accurate knowledge of the Indian character. They were, however, the few; the large majority were unbelievers, and the block-house was tenantless. On the morning of the 7th day of February, 1856, friendly Indians brought the dire intelligence that the town was entirely surrounded with a force of from five to eight hundred hostile Indians, under the command of Leschi, and other hostile chiefs. Even then, no other attention was paid to this startling information than the sending word to the commander of the 'Decatur.' He, however, immediately acted on the information and sent Lieut. Morris, with the company of marines and one of the ship's guns, to the shore. They landed on the point a short distance south of where the New England Hotel now stands. It was about seven o'clock in the morning. Not an Indian was to be seen. All work had ceased. Silence reigned supreme. Men, women and children quietly went to the block-house, or stood in the door-way, or beside their cabins, watching the movement of the soldiers. Lieut. Morris loaded his cannon with a shell and directed aim to be taken at an abandoned cabin, situate on the point a short distance beyond where the gas works now are. The aim was accurate. The shell struck the cabin, exploded, and demolished it. That shot of defiance was immediately answered by the Indians, by a volley from, three to five hundred rifles. Then followed a general stampede of men, women and children for the block-house or the friendly protection of the shore bank--and had it not been for the fact, that the rifles in the hands of the Indians had been generally emptied by the first volley, many of the inhabitants would have fallen on their way to the sheltering bank or block-house. The Indians were here, and skepticism was at an end. The smoke from the rifles indicated clearly that the front line held by the Indians extended along where Third Street or Avenue now is until Marion Street was past, where it curved towards the bay. It was a complete semi-circle, and every part of the then town was within easy rifle range, from said line.

"The 'Decatur' opened with solid shot and shells--alternating with canister and grape. All day long the roar of the Decatur's cannon continued. The ground beyond Third Street was torn up by exploding shells--huge logs and trees were splintered by solid shot--and seemingly every space covered by showers of grape and canister, but still Leschi's warriors held their lines. They kept up a desultory firing all day and continued the same until about midnight, when they withdrew as noiselessly as they came. Three whites were killed during the day--Young Holgate was struck by a bullet between the eyes, while he was standing in the block-house door, and was instantly killed. The others were killed in the attempt to go, or return from their cabins. Every house was struck by Indian bullets. Strange to say, no one was hit by the first general volley fired by the Indians. How many Indians, if any were killed or wounded, during the fight, has never been known.

"When the first gun was fired Mr. Butler and his wife were just sitting down to breakfast. They both jumped from the table and went to the door. The bullets from the answering volley struck all around them. Mrs. Butler hastened to the block-house and safely reached it. Butler gathered up a few valuables and followed in a short time. He, however, sought the friendly protection of logs and stumps, for the Indian rifles were now reloaded and the closeness of the whizzing bullets indicated that the Indians were watching his stealthy flight. He returned to his house in the same manner during the day for some portable valuables. While there, he went up stairs, but the bullets were rattling around in a manner a little too spiteful and plentiful, and he did not stay long. Those of the men who had rifles, took positions behind some protecting log or friendly stump, and fired at the spot where the puff of a rifle indicated an Indian warrior concealed. Whether these shots were effective or not, is unknown--they often caused a cessation of firing from that ambuscade. As full of terror as were the events of that February day, the duration of its effect on the minds of the pioneer settlers of the embryo city was but brief. It was but a thrilling passage in the unwritten history of pioneer life. After the roar of the Decatur's cannon and the sharp crack of the rifle had ceased, all returned to cabins and homes, and soundly slept and sweetly dreamed of the good time coming. Such is pioneer life, and such the mental conditions, and characters it begets. Still we cannot disguise the fact that had it not been for the presence of the war-ship Decatur, with her complement of guns and fighting men, the town would have been plundered and burned, and its inhabitants would have perished in a terrible massacre.

"During that fated morning Chief Seattle with many of his tribe lay under the cover of the friendly shore-banks, silent and stolid spectators of the raging battle. During a lull in the firing, he, to the astonishment of all, leaped upon the bank and with arms flying, and voice roaring defiance, commenced a bending, bounding and contortion war-dance of the most intensified order. The hostiles quickly got the range, but as soon as the bullets commenced to sing around him in dangerous proximity, Seattle's feet flashed in air as he made a headlong plunge down the bank. Seattle's war-dance was over, and he attempted no repetition of the performance on that gloomy day. Many who witnessed this strange performance supposed that the old chieftain had received a mortal shot, but he had escaped without a scratch.

"The Indians, in giving an account afterwards, of the firing from the ship, said that they were not afraid of the solid shot and grape and canister, but the guns that 'poohed' (or shot) twice were a mystery and terror to them. This was their description of the firing and explosion of shells.

"This was in harmony with the idea of the Indians on the plains in their first intercourse with the immigrants. The first immigrants' trains had with them mountain howitzers mounted on strong gun carriages. The Indians spoke of the Bostons as a tribe of men who could shoot their wagons at them.

"A kindred idea was entertained by the Mexicans, of the Spaniards when Cortez first invaded Mexico. The Mexican had no written, but a pictorial language. The Spaniard on his horse was pictured as one animal with two heads, four legs and two arms. This was the description which the correspondents of those days first sent to the Halls of Montezuma for the inspection of an affrighted monarch.

"We have already stated that during the battle a large number of shells fell upon the benches between Third Street and the bluff beyond. Most of them exploded when they struck the ground, or a log, or a tree. Some of them, however, did not, but buried themselves in the earth or under the roots of huge trees, retaining all their latent forces. It is said that our friend Dextor Horton on one of his tours of inspection of the improvements going on in his loved city one chilly day, passed by the lots on which Mr. Colman's fine residence now stands. Noticing a crater of fire burning in the center of a mammoth cedar stump, he drew near to it to enjoy the genial heat. As is always characteristic of man, he turned his back to the fire, parted his coat tails, and was comfortable. As the day, although cold, was clear and the bright waters of the Sound were before him--the dark forests beyond and still beyond, the Olympic Range with its ragged ridges then snow-crowned--as he was drinking in this scene of beauty and grandeur, lo! a terrific explosion occurred. Impelled by the impetus of the explosion he made a quick start and very fast time, for a short distance. Convinced, however, that the shooting was over, he stopped and turned to see what had happened. The stump was gone, the fire extinguished, and he left with the mournful remark, that he had no idea the durn stump was loaded."

My Religious Belief

I believe in that system of religion which produces, in its practical operation, the best man and the best woman, the best husbands and the best wives, the best fathers and the best mothers, the most affectionate and obedient children, and the more honest and patriotic citizens and public functionaries. I care not what you may call it; by its fruit or practical results it should be judged. This is the Bible rule, and it is eminently practical and just.

I further believe in the existence of an allwise Creator of all things--the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. I do not believe in him as a Supreme Ruler located at some distant point in an immense Universe, but as an omnipresent God.

I believe in the immortality of man--not of his physical nature, but of that divine emanation breathed into the nostrils of man by his Creater that made him a living soul. It was an emanation from God and cannot die.

I do not intend to state more than one reason among many for my belief in the existence of God; but the immortality of man, founded on reason, outside of the Scriptural declarations, I shall present more elaborately.

When I take a survey of the Universe and find all things running in the rhythm of order and harmony, I ask myself the question: What is it that produces this universal order and harmony? No answer can be given other than that it is the result of law. Now, we can have no more conception of law outside of a lawmaker, than we can have of an agent without a principal or an agency. Law and lawmaker, as well as agent and principal, are inseparably interlocked. The one cannot exist without the other. Therefore since we must admit the existence of law, the existence of a lawmaker is a necessary logical sequence: that lawmaker, is God. As to the immortality of the soul, I offer the following reason, founded principally on grounds outside of the Bible's declaration of the fact.

Ever since the poetic Job uttered the profound question, "If a man die shall he live again?" the inquiry has been ringing down the pathway of time with increasing interest. Man's immortality is usually proven by the declarations of the Bible, which are supposed to reveal it as an ultimate truth. The immortality of the soul is susceptable not of demonstration, but of reasonable proof by reason itself. If we concede the existence of God with the attributes usually ascribable to such a being, and which He must necessarily possess in order to be God, such as infinite wisdom, goodness and Almighty power, and if we concede further that He is the Creator of man, man's immortality results as a logical sequence from such concessions. The desire of immortality, if not universal among all conditions of men, at least approaches universality. This universal desire may be called an innate property, or attribute of man's moral constitution implanted in him by his Creator. It can not be true that a being with the attributes which we ascribe to God, could create man with such a desire, to tantalize him through life, and to disappoint him in death. Consider the fact that nowhere in nature, from the highest to the lowest, was an instinct, an impulse, a desire implanted, but that ultimately were found the conditions and opportunities for its fullest realization. Consider the wild fowl that, moved by some mysterious impulse, start on their prodigious migrations from the frozen fens of the Pole and reach at last the shining South and summer seas; the fish that from tropic gulfs seek their spawning-grounds in the cool, bright rivers of the North; the bees that find in the garniture of fields and forests the treasure with which they store their cells; and even the wolf, the lion, and the tiger that are provided with their prey. Look in this connection to the brevity of life; its incompleteness; its aimless, random, and fragmentary carreers; tragedies; its injustices; its sorrows and separations. Then consider the insatiable hunger for knowledge; the efforts of the unconquerable mind to penetrate the mysteries of the future; its capacity to comprehend infinity and eternity; its desire for the companionship of the departed; its unquenchable aspirations for immortality--and let me ask: "Why should God keep faith with the beast, the bee, the fish, and the fowl, and cheat only man?" But the logical sequence from the concessions mentioned above is not the argument in proof of man's immortality which I desire to present.

The account of the creation of man as given in the Bible is remarkable for its statement of the distinguishing difference between man and the rest of creation. When man was created, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. He created the beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, the fishes in the sea and the creeping things on the earth, but none of these became living souls. This language, whether inspired or not, states the difference which now exists and which has ever existed between man and the other created things. What do we understand by soul? By soul is meant the power to think, to reflect, and to judge of the moral quality of actions and thoughts. Let me take the sceptic's standard of what we should believe, and what we should not believe; that is, we ought not to believe that of which we have no evidence, and for which we can give no satisfactory reason. I proceed by a process of elimination, as will be readily seen. My first proposition, interrogatively stated, is this. Is the power to think and reflect and to judge of the moral quality of thoughts and actions, a property of matter or not? If it is a property of matter, then the sands and rocks and the earth think and reflect and judge of the moral quality of actions and thoughts; but we have no reason to believe that sand, or rock, or earth thinks, or that either possesses the ability to judge of the moral quality of actions or thoughts; hence we ought not to believe it. Thus we see that the general proposition is not true, and ought not to be believed.

Secondly--Is thought and the power to judge of the moral qualities of thoughts and actions a property of organized matter? The grass and shrubs and trees are organized matter; but we have no reason to believe, and no evidence upon which such a belief can be founded, that the grass, or trees, or shrubs think, or possess any power to judge of the moral quality of things; therefore, according to the standard which we have adopted, we ought not to believe it; hence the more limited proposition is not true.

Thirdly--Is the power to think, to reflect and to judge of the moral quality of actions and thoughts a property of animal organization? If it be, clams and oysters as animal organizations think; possess the power to reflect and to judge of the moral quality of thoughts and actions, but we have no evidence that they possess any of these powers, and consequently we ought not to believe it.

Fourthly--Are the powers we have been considering essential to the existence of soul-life, possessed by the higher animal organizations, such as lions and tigers and domestic animals?

Here an important distinction must be noted. There is a thing, universally recognized as existing, called instinct. All of the actions of animals and many of the actions of human beings spring from instinct. Instinct was given for self-preservation and defense. It is a sort of semi-intellect, and sometimes in the perfection of its action is equal to the highest development of soul-power; for instance, the action of a bee, purely the result of instinct, in the economy of space in the fitness of all its contrivances in making the comb, is wonderful; no improvement can be made upon it by the highest development of inventive genius. How does instinct act as contra distinguished from actions based upon the exercise of soul-power? Instinct acts in a straight or direct line with its object. As an illustration,--a tiger is hungry, a man is hungry; the tiger sees a lamb--the man sees a loaf of bread in the baker's window; both, left to the impulse of instinct, would go directly to the object desired by each; the man, although cruelly hungry, as he approaches the object of his desires, says to himself, "This bread does not belong to me; it is the property of another, and I have no right to take it without his consent." Here we see, in the case of the man, a soul-power acting at right angles with the impulse of instinct and controlling and governing the action of the man. It is only when men are controlled by soul-power, as against instinct, that they really are men in the higher sense of the term.

With this principle thus briefly stated, and carefully separating the actions of men as well as animals springing from instinct from the actions of men springing from the soul-power, we are prepared to make the declaration that the tiger is incapable of acting on the considerations that influenced the action of the man; the rightfulness or wrongfulness of his act in seizing the lamb did not, nor could it enter at all into his action; he was affected by no consideration of right or wrong, and indeed could not be; hence we are prepared for the conclusion that the power to think, to reflect and to judge of the moral quality of acts and thoughts, is not possessed by the higher animal organization, or, in other words, that they have no soul such as we have defined it. Having thus briefly shown by a process of elimination that man alone possesses the power that we have described as soul-power, we have established the first part of our argument.

Man alone being possessed of soul qualities, the question arises, what are the duration of these qualities? We argue that, being an emanation from God, they must of necessity partake of the nature of God, and are therefore indestructible, and eternal. But it is objected that when the body dies we see no more manifestation of soul-life. Concede it, for the sake of argument. Does it follow that the soul is extinct? The body was the instrument through which the soul manifested itself, just as the piano is the instrument through, or by which, a certain class or kind of music is manifested. Is the impairment or destruction of the particular piano, a destruction or extinction of that music? Who would thus reason? The music manifested through that piano had an existence in the mind, or soul of some person anterior to the existence of the signs made on paper by the use of which the music on the piano was produced, or manifested; and it is evident that the impairment or destruction of the piano did not destroy the music. What force, then, is there in the claim that, simply because the instrument through which the soul manifested itself is dead, the soul itself is dead, or extinct? There are many illustrations of this thought in actual life. The wonderful, almost inspired, conception of beauty, passion and anguish transferred by the artist's brush to canvas, as enduring monuments of the immortality of genius, existed in the mind of the artist before a single line of the grand conception was transferred to canvas. If there be any defect in the picture it is usually a defect of execution, not of conception. The canvas is but the means by which these conceptions of beauty, passion or anguish are manifested to the souls of others. Who will argue that the destruction of the frail canvas is the destruction of these conceptions? They existed before they were transferred to canvas; its destruction does not extinguish them.

It is said again, that soul-attributes are the results of that mysterious power called life, operating in connection with animal organization. But a tiger has life and animal organization, yet it is clear that he possesses no soul-qualities. Besides, if soul-qualities are the result of such life and organization, the manifestation of soul-power would be in exact proportion to the strength of the forces operating to produce this resultant; hence the elephant, in which these forces exist in the larger degree, would give us the grander manifestation of intellectual and moral qualities. I have stated the objection and given a brief answer, but full enough to show the logical absurdity of the objection.