Part iii., 1776, pp. 50, 252-274, and 275), including a letter, Sept.

4th, which says: "The colonel's (Williamson's) next object will be the middle towns, where he expects to be joined by General Rutherford with 200 [2,000?] North Carolinians. Colonel Lewis, of Virginia, will go against the upper or over hill settlements, so that we have no doubt the savages will be effectually chastised."

The treaty at De Witt's Corner, May 20, 1777, between South Carolina, Georgia, and the Cherokees was printed in the _Boston Gazette and Country Journal_, Aug. 18, 1777.

A description of the Cherokee lower towns and of the siege of Watauga is given by Edmund Kirke (James R. Gilmore) in _Lippincott's Magazine_ (July and August, 1855), in a paper on "The Pioneers of the South West." Bare mention is made of the fact that Georgia participated in the campaign of 1776, by Stevens in his _Georgia_, who follows Moultrie in assigning the command of the Georgia troops to Colonel Jack.

McCall, in his _History of Georgia_, gives a curious account of an attempt by a party of Americans to penetrate the Indian country and seize Cameron. Their leader, Capt. James McCall, had with him two officers, twenty-two Carolinians, and eleven Georgians. They were suspected by the Indians of treachery, and were themselves attacked. Their leader was captured and several of the men were killed, but the greater number escaped, and after severe sufferings reached the settlements. Drayton (_Memoirs_, ii. 338) states that this expedition of McCall's was forwarded in consequence of an agreement on the part of the Cherokees in June to permit the arrest of refugees in their towns. The attack was therefore a piece of treachery on the part of the Indians. McCall himself escaped shortly afterward, and joined the Virginia column of invasion. He again made an attempt to seize Cameron. This time he reached the Indian town where Cameron had his headquarters, but the latter had left for Mobile the morning that Captain McCall arrived at the town. McCall gives an account of a raid by General Pickens in the fall of 1782. This apparently is the same as the one described in 1781.

C. C. Jones's _Georgia_ deals with the border wars to about the same extent as McCall. The precise time of Jack's raid is not given, but Jones has followed those who have spoken of it as simultaneous with the joint movement in Virginia and North and South Carolina, among whom we find Ramsay in his _History of the Revolution of South Carolina_. A letter to Gov. Bullock, from B. Rea, July 3, 1776 (_Remembrancer_, Part iii., 1776, p. 50), says: "I shall order the draft that has been made of this regiment to Broad River and Ogeechee as soon as possible, but not to go over the line till I receive your excellency's orders, which I shall wait for with impatience. I shall likewise be glad to know how far we are to act in concert with the Carolinians, or if we are only to guard our own frontiers." This shows that troops were put in the field by Georgia before the question of coöperation was raised, but that it immediately suggested itself as a possibility.

It will be inferred from what has been said that confusion of dates as to the movement of the troops exists. McCall tells the story as if Jack's march in the middle of July were part of a preconcerted plan, in which South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia participated. Jones, as has been seen, follows him in this respect. Ramsey, in his _Annals of Tennessee_, says Christian went into the field on the 1st of August. Williamson, on his second raid, and Rutherford started out about the 1st of September. Christian's march was evidently in coöperation with them, and doubtless at the same time, although in Foote's _Sketches of Virginia_ it is said (pp. 118, 119) that Col. William Christian's campaign against the Cherokees was in October. It is probable that he did not return to the settlements until that month.

It is evident that the attack upon the lower towns of the Cherokees by the Georgia militia was not regarded at the time as a part of the joint concerted movement. On the 5th of August President Rutledge issued a proclamation requiring the Legislative Council and General Assembly to meet at Charleston on the 17th of September, at which time his excellency congratulated them on the success of the troops under Colonel Williamson, and added, "It has pleased God to grant very signal success to their operations; and I hope by his blessings on our arms, and those of North Carolina and Virginia, from whom I have promises of aid, an end may soon be put to this war." In the replies of the Council and of the Assembly recognition is made of the coöperative movements of the North Carolina and Virginia forces. No reference is made in any of these proceedings to the Georgia contingent.

The _Boston Gazette and Country Journal_, Sept. 16, 1776, contains an account of the outbreak in North Carolina, which says: "The ruined settlers had collected themselves together at different places and forted themselves: 400 and upwards at Major Shelby's, about the same number at Captain Campbell's, and a considerable number at Amos Eaton's." It then describes the relief of Watauga by Colonel Russell with three hundred men. The acts of these men and the first raid of Williamson were the spontaneous movements of the frontier inhabitants. The participation of Georgia was inspired from headquarters at Augusta, with intelligent comprehension of the value of coöperation. The campaigns of the month of September were concerted.

The raid of Gen. Andrew Pickens is described in Ramsay's _South Carolina_ and in Henry Lee's _Memoirs_, the account in the latter being copied in Cecil B. Hartley's _Heroes and Patriots of the South_ (Philad., 1860). The raid of Col. Arthur Campbell is described in Girardin's continuation of Burk's _Virginia_ (iv. p. 472). Campbell's report, in the _Calendar of the State Papers of Virginia_ (i. p. 434), says that he destroyed upwards of one thousand houses, and not less than fifty thousand bushels of corn and a large quantity of other provisions.

=D.= CONNECTICUT SETTLERS IN PENNSYLVANIA.

In 1768, the Proprietaries of Pennsylvania secured an Indian deed for the territory already claimed by the Susquehanna Company of Connecticut, and a lease was executed, which vested in certain enterprising individuals the rights of the Proprietaries to this region, whether gained by royal grant or by purchase. This was followed by simultaneous preparation on the part of the Pennsylvanian lessees and of the Connecticut Company for the occupation by settlers, who were expected to defend their rights against other claimants. The Pennsylvanians were first on the ground, and in January, 1769, built a block-house on the land which had been improved by former Connecticut settlers. Early in February the first detachment of colonists from Connecticut arrived, and then began the contest for possession, which was waged, with success alternating on either side, until the fall of 1771. Houses were burned, crops were laid waste, cattle were driven off and killed, and there was some bloodshed during the progress of these hostilities. Proclamations were put forth by the governor of Pennsylvania, and warrants were issued by the courts of that province for the arrest of the Connecticut leaders for the crime of arson. The several military expeditions of the Pennsylvanians were generally accompanied by a sheriff, whose mission was supposed to be to execute the laws. The citizens of that province do not appear to have been in sympathy with the lessees of the Proprietaries. If they had been, it would have been easy to have crushed the Connecticut colony. This settlement was not at the outset recognized as a part of Connecticut. Permission had been given the company to apply to his majesty for a separate charter. The expectation that an independent government might perhaps be formed, and the opposition to the movement already expressed at London, explain the supineness of the mother colony. The Susquehanna settlement depended for its life upon the efforts of the company. Five townships were laid out, and liberal offers of shares in the lands were made to the first settlers in each of them. Three more townships were subsequently settled on the same plan. These inducements had attracted settlers in such numbers that the Pennsylvanian lessees could not dispossess them. In the autumn of 1771 the Pennsylvanians withdrew, leaving the Connecticut colonists, for the time, in undisturbed possession. Some correspondence followed between the authorities of the colonies, in which the government of Pennsylvania sought to ascertain how far the colony of Connecticut backed up the emigrants; and the governor of that colony in reply denied having authorized any hostile demonstration, but carefully avoided saying anything which could be interpreted as a relinquishment on the part of the colony of its rights under the charter to the land. During the next two years the settlement, although looked upon by Pennsylvania as an invasion and not as yet acknowledged by Connecticut, increased in numbers and prospered. Meetings of the Proprietors were occasionally held, at which the affairs of the towns were adjusted in a general way, authority being delegated to a committee of settlers to act in the intervals between the meetings. In June, 1773, the company adopted at Hartford a form of government for the settlers, stating in the preamble that "we have as yet no established civil authority residing among us in the settlement." In October the Connecticut Assembly resolved that the colony would "make their claim to these lands, and in a legal manner support the same." Commissioners were appointed, and fruitless negotiations were opened with Pennsylvania. In January, 1774, the territory of Susquehanna Company was incorporated into the town of Westmoreland, and became temporarily a part of the county of Litchfield, Connecticut. Almost simultaneously, proclamations were issued by the governors of the two colonies, each prohibiting settlements on the disputed territory except under authority of the colony which he represented. Meantime the settlements in the valley increased. In September, 1775, about eighty settlers, who had just arrived on the west branch of the Susquehanna, were attacked by the Pennsylvania militia. One man was killed; several were wounded; and the men of the Connecticut party were taken prisoners to Sunbury. Upon receipt of this news the Continental Congress, in November, passed resolutions urging the two colonies to take steps to avoid open hostilities. This was, however, of no effect. Boats from Wyoming, loaded with the property of settlers, were seized and confiscated at Fort Augusta. During the fall, extensive preparations were made by the Pennsylvanians for an invasion of Wyoming, under authority from Governor Penn, for the purpose of enforcing the laws of Pennsylvania. In December, Congress expressed the opinion that all appearance of force ought to stop until the dispute could be decided by law; but at the time that the resolution expressing this opinion was under consideration, an army of Pennsylvanians, accompanied by a sheriff, was already invading the valley. The Connecticut people, having been forewarned, successfully resisted this military posse. Several lives were lost in this attempt of the Pennsylvanians to dispossess the colonists. With this failure the attempts of Pennsylvania to expel the Connecticut settlers by force ended. The Revolutionary War was now in progress. Connecticut needed her able-bodied men. She now forbade further settlement on the disputed territory unless licensed by her Assembly.

The Trumbull MSS. in possession of the Mass. Hist. Soc. contain copies of the papers connected with the discussion of the title of the colony to its settlement in the Susquehanna Valley. There is probably no single collection of papers so rich in this direction.

=E.= JOURNALS AND DIARIES OF THE SULLIVAN EXPEDITION.

A list of the journals of Sullivan's expedition was prepared by the writer of this chapter for publication in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1886, and this list in an extended and revised form was to be appended here; but the repetition is rendered unnecessary by the publication of an elaborate volume by the State of New York, _Journals of the military expedition of Major-General John Sullivan against the Six Nations of Indians in 1779, with records of Centennial Celebrations_,—compiled by George S. Conover, under the direction of Frederick Cook, Secretary of State. It reprints, and in some cases gives for the first time in type, the journals of twenty-six participants, pertaining either to the main expedition or to that against the Onondagas. An enumeration is also given of the journals known to have existed, but no longer to be found.

Appended to the journals are the reports of Sullivan, Brodhead, and a roster of the expeditionary army. The main historical narrative is an elaborate account, compacted from four centennial addresses, given by the Rev. David Craft in 1879, and revised from the original publication in the _Centennial Proceedings_ of the Waterloo (N. Y.) Library and Historical Society. In a note it is shown that a collation of all the journals supports Sullivan's statements in his official report, making his total loss in the campaign 41 men, while 41 Indian settlements or towns were destroyed.

The portraits of the book are those of Sullivan (with the spear), General Clinton (profile), Gansevoort (by Stuart), and Philip Van Cortlandt. The rest of the volume describes the various centennial celebrations in 1879, at Elmira, Waterloo, Geneseo, and Aurora, with the addresses, principal among which is one by Erastus Brooks on "Indian History and Wars", and another by Major Douglass Campbell on "The Iroquois and New York's Indian policy."

The maps include one by Gen. John S. Clark of the battlefield of Newtown (not far from Elmira) and the Chemung Ambuscade; another, by the same, of the Groveland Ambuscade, near Conesus Lake, and the route thence to the Genessee; five maps of as many sections of Sullivan's route, surveyed by Lieutenant Benjamin Lodge, the originals of which make a part of the collection of maps made by Robert Erskine, the topographical engineer of the Continental army, and by his successor, Simeon De Witt, and now in the cabinet of the N. Y. Hist. Society. Gen. J. S. Clark, in describing these maps, says that the route of Dearborn on the west side of Cayuga Lake, and General Clinton's descent of the N. E. branch of the Susquehanna, do not appear to have been surveyed, but that Clinton's route is well illustrated in a sketch of Col. William Butler's march (Oct.-Nov., 1778) made by Capt. William Gray, which is also included in the volume. The five maps above referred to are reproductions from the originals, with some names added from the rough preliminary sketches, also preserved in the same collection. A rough plan of Tioga, in fac-simile of a drawing in the journal of Capt. Charles Nukerck, is also given.—ED.

=F.= BOUNTIES FOR SCALPS.

It has been stated in the narrative that the colonies themselves were partially responsible for the low estimate in which Indians were held by the inhabitants of the frontiers. Bounties had been so frequently offered for the destruction of wild animals and of Indians that the border settlers might well infer that the law drew no distinction between the savage and the brute. Mrs. Jackson, in her _Century of Dishonor_ (App. p. 406), quotes from Gale's _Upper Mississippi_ (p. 112) a vigorous denunciation of the acts of the governments in granting bounties for scalps: "In the history of the Indian tribes in the Northwest, the reader will at once perceive that there was a constant rivalry between the governments of Great Britain, France, and the United States as to which of them should secure the services of the barbarians to scalp their white enemies, while each in turn was the loudest to denounce the shocking barbarities of such tribes as they failed to secure in their own service. And the civilized world, aghast at these horrid recitals, ignores the fact that nearly every important massacre in the history of North America was organized and directed by agents of some one of these governments." One or two instances, taken from the records by way of illustration, will suffice to show how the settlers along the frontier and legislators reciprocally viewed this subject. In November, 1724, John Lovewell, Josiah Farwell, and Jonathan Robbins, presented a "Humble Memorial" to the General Court of Massachusetts Bay, in which they set forth that they, with forty or fifty others, were "inclinable to range and keep out in the woods for several months together, in order to kill and destroy their Indian enemy, provided they could meet with incouragement suitable." For five shillings a day, and such other reward as the government should see cause to give them, they would "employ themselves in Indian hunting one whole year." On the 17th of November, the General Court by vote authorized the formation of the company, the men to receive "two shillings and sixpence per diem, the sum of one hundred pounds for each male scalp, and the other premiums established by law to volunteers without pay or subsistence" (Kidder's _Captain John Lovewell_, pp. 11, 12). Col. Johnson, in 1747, was "quite pestered every day with parties returning with prisoners and scalps, and without a penny to pay them with" (Stone's _Sir William Johnson_, i. 255, 342). For the outlay made in this behalf Col. Johnson was ultimately reimbursed by the province of New York. In the memorial or representation of their case, submitted by the rioters who murdered the Conestega Indians to the authorities at Philadelphia, it is written: "Sixthly. In the late Indian war, this Province, with others of his Majesty's colonies, gave rewards for Indian scalps, to encourage the seeking them in their own country, as the most likely means of destroying or reducing them to reason; but no such encouragement has been given in this war, which has damped the spirits of many brave men, who are willing to venture their lives in parties against the enemy. We therefore pray that public rewards may be proposed for Indian scalps, which may be adequate to the dangers attending enterprises of this nature." On the 12th of June, 1764, the authorities of Pennsylvania offered bounties for scalps, presumably in response to this petition (_Penna. Col. Rec._, ix. 141, 189).

On the 27th of September, 1776, a committee reported to the South Carolina Assembly, that it was "not advisable to hold Captive Indians as Slaves, but as an encouragement to those who shall distinguish themselves in the war against the Cherokees, they recommended the following rewards, to wit: For every Indian man killed, upon certificate thereupon given by the Commanding Officer, and the scalp produced as evidence thereof in Charlestown by the forces in the pay of the State, seventy-five pounds currency; For every Indian man prisoner one hundred pounds like money" (_American Archives_, 5th ser., iii. 32).

It is true that bounties had previously been offered in New York for scalps taken from the "enemy", but at the time of the Revolution New York and Massachusetts had apparently abandoned the policy of offering bounties for scalps. Abundant records show that they had been committed to this policy in earlier times. The Act of Assembly in South Carolina, the previous legislation in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, and Virginia, and the subsequent legislation in Pennsylvania and Illinois, were directed exclusively against Indians. _Penna. Colonial Records_ (xii. 311; xii. 632; xiii. 201). _Laws of the Colonial and State Governments relating to Indians and Indian Affairs from 1633 to 1831 inclusive, with an appendix containing the proceedings of the Congress of the Confederation and the laws of Congress from 1800 to 1830 on the Same Subject_ (Washington city, 1832), p. 239. In the _Pennsylvania Archives_ (iii. p. 199) there is a curious letter from the superintendent of Indian affairs in the Southern Department to the governor of Maryland, dated June 30, 1757, in which he says that several of the colonies are becoming fond of giving large rewards for scalps. If these rewards were confined to their own people he should consider it laudable, but as they are offered chiefly to Indians the case is very different. He says the Indians make several scalps out of one. The Cherokees in particular make four scalps out of one man killed. "Here are now", he adds, "twenty scalps hanging out to publick view which are well known to have been made out of five Frenchmen killed. What a sum (at £50 each) would they produce if carried to Maryland, where the artifice would not probably be discovered!" In early times in Maryland, the proof required from persons who had killed Indians, in order that the reward might be claimed, was the production of the right ear of the dead Indian. There was less opportunity to subdivide the ears, and thus multiply the bounties. The charge that the English paid bounties for scalps thus found its way naturally into the histories, and the officers who had been disciplined in the previous wars were probably ready to make such offers. Doddridge (_Notes_, 274) expresses the belief current on the frontier when he says, "The English government made allies of as many of the Indian nations as they could, and they imposed no restraint on their savage mode of warfare. On the contrary, the commandants at their posts along our Western frontiers received and paid the Indians for scalps and prisoners, thus, the skin of a white man's or even a woman's head served in the hands of the Indian as current coin, which he exchanged for arms and ammunition, for the further prosecution of his barbarous warfare." This belief found expression at the time, and worked its way into print. The _Remembrancer_ gives a letter from Capt. Joseph Bowman "at a place called Illinois Kaskaskias, upon the Mississippi", dated July 30, 1778, in which we read: "The Indians meeting with daily supplies from the British officers, who offer them large bounties for our scalps" (_Remembrancer_, viii. p. 83). There is, however, better authority than rumors of this class to justify those authors who repeat this statement. When Governor Hamilton was captured at Vincennes, he was sent to Williamsburg, and his conduct was investigated by the Council of Virginia. In their report the Council say, "The board find that Governor Hamilton gave standing rewards for scalps, but offered none for prisoners, which induced the Indians, after making the captives carry their baggage into the neighborhood of the fort, there to put them to death, and carry in their scalps to the governor, who welcomed their return and success by a discharge of cannon" (_Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson_, ed. by Thomas Jefferson Randolph, Boston, 1830; 2d ed., vol. i. p. 456). Thus the official sanction of a board composed of prominent men of good reputation has been given to the statement. In weighing the value of this decision we must not forget that Hamilton was the special object of hatred to the Virginians. Col. George Rogers Clarke, in an official communication to the governor of Virginia, from Kaskaskia, Feb. 3, 1779, speaks of "A late meneuv^r of the Famous Hair Buyer General Henry Hamilton, Esqr., Lieut.-Governour of De Troit", etc., etc. (_Calendar of the State Papers of Virginia_, p. 315). C. W. Butterfield edited a reprint of _A Short Biography of John Leith_ (Lancaster, Ohio, 1831) as _Leith's Narrative_ (Cincinnati, 1883), and in this new edition (p. 39) we find an account of a brutal murder, by Indians, of a prisoner at Sandusky: "They knocked him down with tomahawks, cut off his head, and fixed it on a pole erected for the purpose; when commenced a scene of yelling, dancing, singing, and rioting." To this part of Leith's narrative the annotator attaches a note, in which he states that a part of the "importance of this recital is in a historical sense;" "that captives were brought to the points contiguous to Detroit, and then tomahawked and scalped, the direct result of Hamilton's barbarous policy of offering rewards for scalps, but paying none for prisoners." The language of the note is ambiguous, but a natural interpretation of its purpose would be that the statement in the text was relied upon to prove the charges against Hamilton. I presume this prisoner was scalped,—it would probably have been recorded by Leith as a remarkable event if he had escaped being scalped,—but a statement which omits mention of the fact can hardly be cited as evidence against Hamilton.

The Virginia Council, while they published no evidence bearing upon the question of Hamilton's buying scalps, were more explicit when it came to his inciting Indians to acts of war:—

"Williamsburgh, Va. In Council, June 16, 1779. Case of Hamilton, Dejaine La Mothe." "They find that Hamilton has executed the task of inciting the Indians to perpetrate their accustomed cruelties on the citizens of these States, without distinction of age, sex, or condition, with an eagerness and activity which evince that the general nature of his charge harmonized with his particular disposition; they should have been satisfied, from the other testimony adduced, that these enormities were committed by savages acting under his commission, but the number of his Proclamations, which at different times were left in houses, the inhabitants of which were killed or Carried away by Indians, one of which Proclamations, under the hand and seal of Governor Hamilton, is in possession of the Board, puts the fact beyond doubt", etc. (_Remembrancer_, viii. p. 337). "The narrative of the Capture and treatment of John Dodge by the English at Detroit" was made public about the same time (_Remembrancer_, viii. p. 73). The portion of Dodge's story which relates to the reception by Hamilton of Indians returning with scalps and prisoners, bears a striking resemblance to the report of the Council. Dodge states that Hamilton become so enraged at him that the governor "offered £100 for his scalp or his body." In another place he says: "These sons of Britain offered no reward for prisoners, but they gave the Indians twenty dollars a scalp", etc., etc.; and again: "One of these parties returning with a number of women and children's scalps and their prisoners, they were met by the commandant of the fort, and after the usual demonstrations of joy, delivered their scalps, for which they were paid."

Some correspondence passed between Jefferson and the governor of Detroit on the question of Hamilton's treatment as a prisoner, in which Jefferson dwells at length upon Hamilton's responsibility for the acts of the Indians, but it is to be remarked that no charge is made against Hamilton of paying bounties for scalps (_Calendar of State Papers of Virginia_, i. p. 321). Before the British government is finally convicted of having offered bounties for scalps, it is just that other evidence should be adduced than such affidavits as that of Moses Younglove (Campbell, _Tryon County_, 2d ed., p. 116), who swears that he "was informed by several sergeants-orderly for General St. Leger that twenty dollars were offered in general orders for every American scalp." The mere showing of scalps at headquarters does not necessarily imply that the Indians were to be paid for them (_Ibid._ p. 307). According to Campbell (_Ibid._ p. 117), Col. Gansevoort, in a letter, confirms the statement that twenty dollars were offered by St. Leger for every American scalp. Col. Gansevoort, besieged in Fort Stanwix, relied of course upon some other person for this statement. It is probably the Younglove story in another shape. It must not be forgotten that St. Leger ordered Lt. Bird "not to accept a capitulation, because the force of whites under Bird's command was not large enough to restrain the Indians from barbarity and carnage."

It adds little force to the evidence that we find similar allegations against the British in the class of books represented by Seaver's _Life of Mary Jemison_ (p. 114), (various editions,—see Field's _Indian Bibliography_, nos. 1,380-81). In a similar manner, Simms (_Frontiersmen_, i. p. 10) cites a letter-writer as saying that the price per scalp was eight dollars; and Jenkins (_Wyoming Memorial_, p. 151) charges Burgoyne with opening a market for scalps at ten dollars each. Simms (_Schoharie County_, p. 578) says that a certificate, signed by John Butler, concerning certain scalps taken by "Kayingwaarto, the Sanakee chief", was found upon the body of an Indian killed during the Sullivan campaign. The details of the descriptions easily enable us to identify the scalps referred to in the certificate. An excellent local authority (Ketchum's _Buffalo_, i. 327, 329) analyzes the story thus "Gi-en-gwah-toh in Seneca is identical with Say-en-qua-ragh-ta in Mohawk, and is another spelling of the name in the certificate.... It is historically certain that the age, if nothing else, would preclude the possibility of Sayenquaraghta's being the person who wounded and scalped Capt. Greg and his corporal near Fort Stanwix in 1778. And it is equally certain that Sayenquaraghta was not killed by a scouting party of Sullivan's army in 1779, but was alive and well at Niagara in 1780, and came to reside at Buffalo Creek in 1781." The incident sought to be identified with this receipt was not only one of the most striking among the events of the border war, but the Indian actor appears to have been equally prominent. Butler makes especial mention of Brant and Kiangarachta—probably the same name as Gi-en-gwah-toh or Sayenquaraghta—in his account of the battle of Newtown (_Sparks MSS._).

If we are forced to such evidence as this against the British government, we unfortunately find ourselves confronted with testimony of a like character against the Americans. Guy Johnson writes to Germain (_N. Y. Col. Docs._, viii. 740): "Some of the American colonies went further by fixing a price for scalps." Again it is said (_Amer. Archives_, 4th, v. 1102): "Seneca sachems assert that Oneidas want Butler's scalp, and that General Schuyler offered $250 for his person or scalp." Thomas Gummersall declared at Staten Island, Aug. 6, 1776 (_Amer. Archives_, 5th, i. 866), that "Mr. Schuyler, a rebel general, invited Sir John Johnson down, promising him protection, and at the same time employed the Indian messenger, in case he refused, to bring his scalp, for which he was to have a reward of one hundred dollars." It might, perhaps, be claimed that the bounties offered by South Carolina justified the first of these counter-assertions by the English, but I presume there would be no hesitation in classing these statements, as a whole, among those which were especially prepared for the purpose of influencing public opinion.

Before leaving this subject, the reader may need to be warned against a fabrication of Franklin, which has deceived many. Sparks speaks of Franklin "occasionally amusing himself in composing and printing, by means of a small set of types and a press he had in his house, several of his light essays, _bagatelles_, or _jeux d'esprit_, written chiefly for the amusement of his friends. Among these were the following, printed on a half-sheet of coarse paper, so as to imitate as much as possible a portion of a Boston newspaper", which he gave out as a _Supplement to the Boston Independent Chronicle_ of March 12, 1782. This pretended newspaper contained what purported to be an extract from a letter from Captain Gerrish, of the New England militia, dated Albany, March 7, 1782, which reads as follows: "The peltry taken in the expedition will, you see, amount to a good deal of money. The possession of this booty at first gave us pleasure; but we were struck with horror to find among the packages eight large ones, containing scalps of our unhappy country-folks, taken prisoners in the three last years by the Seneka Indians from the inhabitants of the frontiers of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and sent by them as a present to Colonel Haldimand, governor of Canada, in order to be by him transmitted to England. They were accompanied by the following curious letter to that gentleman;" which is given under the signature of James Crawfurd, and affords a detailed account of the contents of each package. This fictitious Supplement was reprinted as genuine in Almon's _Remembrancer_. In the first edition of Campbell's _Annals of Tryon County_ it was printed in the Appendix as genuine, and copied from a newspaper published in Dutchess County during the Revolution (_Ibid._, 2d ed., 307). It was also reprinted in _Rhode Island Historical Tracts_ (no. 7, p. 94, note I). It was exposed by Sparks, by Parton in his _Life of Franklin_ (ii. p. 437), by Campbell in his second edition of the _Annals of Tryon County_, and by Col. Stone in the Introduction to his _Brant_ (i. p. xvi.). In a note Col. Stone spoke of the document as "long believed and recently revived and included in several works of authentic history." There are copies of the original fabrication in the Stevens Collection of Frankliniana (Dept. of State at Washington; Stevens's _Hist. Coll._, i. p. 168); and in the Boston Public Library (_Franklin Collection_, p. 12).