i. 208), and in the same library is a drawn map, also by Collet, of

the back country, made in 1768, in twelve sheets. E. W. Caruthers' _Interesting Revolutionary incidents chiefly in the old North State_, second series (Philadelphia, 1856), has a folding map, with the marches of Greene and Cornwallis, from the Cowpens till the separation at Ramsey's Mill.

The standard map of Virginia at the outbreak of the war was that by Fry and Jefferson (see Vol. V. p. 273), originally issued in 1751, but reproduced by Jefferys in 1775, and included in his _American Atlas_ (1775, no. 31). In 1777 Le Rouge reproduced it in Paris, and included it in the _Atlas Amériquain_. Cf. the map of Virginia and Maryland in Hilliard d'Auberteuil's _Essais_; and the maps in _Political Mag._, i. 787, and _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, vi. 25; and for details those in Simcoe's _Journal_ (giving various skirmishes, etc.), Sparks's _Washington_, viii. 158; and Carrington's _Battles_, p. 616. There is among the Rochambeau maps (no. 51) a _Plan du terrain à la rive gauche de la rivière de James, vis-à-vis Jamestown, en Virginie, où etait le Combat du 6 Juillet, 1781_, giving the first and second positions of the troops in the engagement between Lafayette and Cornwallis. It is a colored map, 18 × 18 inches, with a good key. Cf. map on the operations in Virginia in _Mémoires_ of Lafayette (Paris, 1837), vol. i.—ED.

[1152] Pp. 258-329; 290-312 dealing more especially with this engagement. See also Johnson's _Greene_, vol. ii. pp. 346, 370, 372, and 410, and _Charleston News and Courier_ for May 10, 1881. Some part at least of the correspondence of General Morgan is in the collection of Theodorus Bailey Myers (_Johnson's Orderly-book_, p. 211). There are a few letters in the _Correspondence of the Revolution_, iii. 217, with Greene's official announcement of the victory to Washington (pp. 207, 214). Greene's letter to Marion is in Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._, 1781-82, p. 16.

[1153] _The London Gazette, March 27-31, 1781_, reprinted either in whole or in part in _Remembrancer_, xi. 272; _Pol. Mag._, ii. 221; Tarleton, 249; Cornwallis, _Answer to Clinton's Narrative_, App. 1; Cornwallis, _Corr._, i. 81. Balfour, then the commander at Charleston, also reported the particulars to Germain. Cf. _London Gazette_, as above, etc. Cornwallis's order to Tarleton to "push Morgan to the utmost" is in Graham's _Morgan_ 227, and in Tarleton, _Campaigns_, 244.

[1154] Mention should also be made of Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 252-266, and R. E. Lee's ed., 229; Moultrie, _Memoirs_, ii. 252; Gordon, Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii.,—all at second hand. See also Johnson's _Greene_, i. 368; Greene's _Greene_, iii. 139; _Travels in North America in the years 1780, 1781, and 1782. By the Marquis de Chastellux—translated from the French by an English Gentleman_ (London, 1787), ii. 60. The marquis claimed to have derived his account from Morgan, but he probably did not understand him, as his description is at variance with the best authorities. There are accounts of more or less value in McSherry, _Maryland_, 276; _Memoir of General Graham_, p. 38; Marshall, _Washington_, iv. 342; Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 636; Carrington, _Battles_, 546; _Historical Magazine_, xii. 356 (Dec., 1865), a "traditionary account;" _Harper's Monthly_, xxii. 163, etc. Probably as good an estimate as can be formed of Morgan's force is that contained in a letter from Greene to Marion of January 23, 1781. He there gives it at 290 infantry and 80 cavalry of the line, and about 600 militia; total, 970. The estimate of the militia is too high, and might be reduced by 100. Then, too, there were a few small detachments. So that Morgan's assertion in his official report, that he fought with only 800 men, is not incompatible with this statement of Greene's. The British brought, or should have brought, into action at least 1,000 men, including 50 militia and a baggage-guard, which made off, without striking a blow, as soon as the news of the defeat reached it. Greene rates Tarleton's force at 200 more. But 1,000 was probably not far from his number of "effectives" on the morning of Jan. 17, 1781, as opposed to Morgan's 800.

In his official report Morgan gave his loss as 12 killed and about 60 wounded. He states, however, that he was not able at the time of writing to ascertain the loss of the militia in the skirmish and front lines. It must have been very small, however. The British loss he gives as more than 110 killed, more than 200 wounded, and between 500 and 600 prisoners. Morgan states, however, that, as he was obliged to move off the field so quickly, the estimate of killed and wounded was very imperfect. The loss of the British in officers was very large, and it is safe to follow Graham (_Life of Morgan_, p. 308) and place the killed at 80, the wounded at 150, and the prisoners at 600. The important fact is the deprivation to Cornwallis of his light infantry at a time when he was sorely in need of such.

A good plan will be found in Johnson's _Greene_, i. 378, of which a reduced fac-simile is given by Graham (p. 297). A more valuable plan as coming from an actual observer, Colonel Samuel Hammond, is in Johnson's _Traditions_, pp. 529, 530. The best plan is in Carrington's _Battles_, p. 547. The medals given to Morgan, Colonels Washington and Howard are figured in Loubat's _Medallic Hist. of the U. S._, and in Lossing's _Cyclop. U. S. Hist._, p. 341. Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 637, gives a view of the field.—ED.

[1155] Those from Morgan are in Graham's _Morgan_, 328 _et seq._ The most interesting letter from Greene is one that he wrote to Reed (March 18), in Reed's _Reed_, ii. 348. A letter to Washington (Irwin's Ferry on Dan, Feb. 15, 1781) may be regarded as his official report. Cf. _Corres. Rev._, iii. 233. It should be read in connection with one of six days earlier, in the same volume, p. 225. Cf. also a letter to Lieutenant Lock as to militia in _Hist. Mag._, v. 86; Caruthers' _Incidents_, p. 195; originally printed in Tarleton, 252. Lee's description of the retreat after the union of the two wings at Guilford is admirable (_Memoirs_, i. 267-298).

[1156] _London Gazette for June 2-5, 1781_; _Annual Register_ for 1781 (_Principal Occurrences_, p. 62); Cornwallis, _Answer to Clinton_, Appendix, p. 23; Cornwallis, _Corres._, i. 502; Tarleton, 259, etc. For a less official account, see Cornwallis to Rawdon, Feb. 4 and Feb. 21, in Cornwallis, _Corres._, 83, 84.

[1157] Cf. also _British Invasion of North Carolina in 1780 and 1781. A Lecture, by Hon. Wm. A. Graham, delivered before the N. Y. Hist. Soc. in 1853._ This short and interesting account of the campaign is printed as part iii. of _Revolutionary History of North Carolina_ (Raleigh and N. Y., 1853), pp. 180-187. General Joseph Graham also presented the local idea of this campaign in the _University of North Carolina Magazine_, vol. iii.

[1158] See also Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 203; Greene's _Greene_, iii. 148-175; Johnson's _Greene_, i. 387. Johnson thinks that too much credit has been given to Cornwallis. Lamb's _Journal_, 343; Marshall's _Washington_, iv., etc.

[1159] The map is on p. 245. Stedman also gives a plan in _Amer. War_, ii. 328. The whole march can be traced on the general maps, especially the map in Caruthers' _Incidents_, second series. Cf. Lossing, ii. 598.

[1160] See also Seymour's "Journal" (_Penna. Hist. Mag._, vii.) for another contemporary account.

[1161] _North Carolina University Magazine_, vol. vii. 193. This was written in 1824 and cannot be regarded as authority of the first importance. The passage relating to this affair is quoted by Caruthers, _Incidents_, 76. That author's own account is derived to a great extent from tradition (_Incidents_, 71 _et seq._). In the above letter Graham asserted that he saw Eggleston—the leader of Lee's rear troop—strike a Tory with the butt of his pistol, and that the blow brought about the conflict. The different narratives cannot be reconciled. Very likely Lee had forgotten the exact details. It is certain that Stedman (_Amer. War_, ii. 333), in his estimate of the Tory loss in killed alone at between two and three hundred, more than doubled the actual number; but it was a murderous business at best.

[1162] There are three letters from Greene to Washington in Sparks, _Corr. Rev._, iii. 224, 259, 266. The second of these (March 10) was also printed in _Remembrancer_, xii. 37; _Pol. Mag._, ii. 380; and Tarleton, 258. Greene's official report to the President of Congress may be found in Caldwell's _Greene_, p. 432; _Ann. Reg._ for 1781, Principal Occurrences, p. 148; _Remembrancer_, xii. 37; Tarleton, 313; Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 414, etc. Cf. also a letter to Morgan in Graham's _Morgan_, 372, and to Reed, in Reed's _Reed_, ii. 348. As to the proper dispositions to make in engagements where much reliance must be placed on militia, see Morgan to Greene, Feb. 20, in a note to Johnson's _Greene_, ii. 6. As to events subsequent to the battle, see Nash, governor of N. C., to Washington in Sparks, _Corres. Rev._, iii. 282; Greene to same in _Ibid._ 277; Johnson, _Greene_, ii. 37; and _Remembrancer_, xii. 116. Greene also wrote to Greene, governor of R. I., on the same subject. Cf. _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._, vi. 284, and _R. I. Col. Rec._, ix. 380.

[1163] Cornwallis's report to Germain (_London Gazette_, June 2-5, 1781) was widely reprinted (_Corn. Corr._, i. 506; Cornwallis, _Answer to Clinton's Narrative_, App. p. 35; _Remembrancer_, xii. 21, etc., etc.). He also wrote a friendly note to Rawdon, in which he says that after a very sharp action he had routed Greene (_Corn. Corr._, i. 85; _Remembrancer_, xi. 332; _Polit. Mag._, ii. 329, etc.). Balfour communicated the news of the "victory at Guilford" to Germain in two letters, dated respectively March 24 and 27. These last three letters arrived in London in season to be published in the _Gazette Extra_ for May 11, 1781,—nearly a month before the official report was given to the world. Cf. also _Remembrancer_, xi. 329. Cornwallis's _Order-book_ is very valuable for this period, although it is often hard to reconcile the dates as there given with the accepted accounts,—in Caruthers, _Incidents_, 2d ser. pp. 391-442. See also St. George Tucker to Fanny (his wife) under date of March 18, 1781, in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, vii. 40; viii. 201; and Seymour's "Journal" in _Penna. Mag. Hist._, vii. 377. Major Weemys gives the supposed strength of Cornwallis's army before the action at Guilford, March 15, 1781, as, in the field with him, 2,700; in his department, 6,000 in all (_Sparks MSS._ xx.).—ED.

[1164] Good descriptions are in the _Memoirs_ of the British Graham (pp. 41-46), in Gordon (iv. 53), and in Stedman (ii. 337). Lamb in his so-called _Journal_ (pp. 348-362) follows Stedman, but he added several interesting anecdotes, which it must be remembered are related by an actual actor in the battle.

[1165] Another apologetic description is that in McSherry's _Maryland_ (p. 286). The plain fact is that the 2d Maryland broke and contributed materially to the defeat of the Americans. The Grenadier Guards (Hamilton, ii. 247) did excellent work on the British side, and the account in the history of that corps is good. The Hessians, too, once more appeared on the Southern fields (Eelking, _Hülfstruppen_, ii. 101, and Lowell, _Hessians_, 268). Other accounts may be found in Marshall's _Washington_, iv. 336; Greene's _Greene_, iii. 176; Johnson's _Greene_, ii. 4; Allen, _Hist. Amer. Rev._, ii. 393; Andrews, iv. 100; Botta (Otis's trans.), iii. 263; Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 599 and 608; _Mag. Amer. Hist._, vii. 38; _Harper's Magazine_, xv. 158; Dawson, Carrington, etc.

A narrative of subsequent events in North Carolina, with a loyalist's sympathies, is in _The Narrative of Colonel David Fanning ... as written by himself_, Richmond, 1861. "Printed for private distribution only." A small edition (50 copies) was brought out by Sabin in 1865.

[1166] Greene to Huntingdon (President of Congress) in Caldwell's _Greene_, p. 435; _Remembrancer_, xii. 126; _Pol. Mag._, ii. 547; Tarleton, 467, etc. See also letters to Lee and Marion in Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._, 1781-82, 60. Cf. also Sparks, _Corres. Rev._, iii. 299, and Reed's _Reed_, ii. 351, 361.

[1167] Rawdon's order which brought on the battle is in _Pol. Mag._, ii. 340. The British commander reported to Cornwallis (_Corn. Corr._, i. 97, and _Remembrancer_, xv. 1); Balfour to Germain (_London Gazette_, June 2-5, 1781; reprinted in _Annual Register_ for the same year under Principal Occurrences, p. 71; _Pol. Mag._, ii. 380; _Remembrancer_, xii. 27; Tarleton, p. 465; etc.). On the 6th Balfour wrote to Clinton, giving a very gloomy account of affairs (Clinton, _Observations on Cornwallis_, etc., App. p. 97). Clinton enclosed several letters of about this time to Germain (_Remembrancer_, xii. 151). In a letter to Cornwallis, dated Monk's Corner, May 24, Rawdon describes his movements after the fight. It is a valuable letter (_London Gazette_, July 31-Aug. 4, 1781; _Remembrancer_, xv. 4, while extracts are in _Ibid._ xii. 151; _Pol. Mag._, ii. 482; Tarleton, 475; Clinton, _Observations on Cornwallis_, etc., App. p. 91; Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._ (1781-82), p. 77, etc.).

[1168] Cf. also Gordon, iv. 81; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._; Stedman, ii. 324; Lee, _Memoirs_, ii. 57 (he always spells the name of the battle-ground Hobkick's Hill); Lee, _Campaign of 1781_, 264; Balch's _Maryland Line_, 143. As to numbers, Greene thought that the two armies were about equal,—one thousand on each side. This is probably nearly correct; for Rawdon gave his own number at 960, and Gordon, on the authority of returns not now accessible, rated Greene's force at 1,194 men of all arms. This included 254 North Carolina militia who had just arrived. They were not included in the battle line. Williams reported the American loss at 268; but 133 of these are given as missing, with the remark that they probably had mistaken the order as to a place of rendezvous. Rawdon reported his own loss at 220 men. But Tarleton, on the authority of a return in the _Annual Register_, gives it at 258. The discrepancy is not material.

[1169] His letter to the President of Congress is in _Remembrancer_, xii. 197; Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._ (1781-82), p. 70; etc. Cf. also a letter to Washington in Sparks, _Cor. Rev._, iii. 310.

[1170] Cf. _Remembrancer_, xv. 6, for a _copy_. Cf. also _Remembrancer_, xii. 153; _Pol. Mag._, ii. 483; and Gibbes, p. 89, for _extracts_. A report to Clinton of June 6 is printed, with this, except in Gibbes.

[1171] Substantially the same account is in White's _Hist. Coll. of Georgia_, p. 607; Stevens's _Georgia_, ii. 247; and Jones's _Georgia_, ii. 455.

[1172] See, in addition to the above, _Remembrancer_, xii. 289. There are no plans of any of these sieges, and the statements as to numbers are too vague and contradictory to be made the basis of any accurate estimates.

[1173] There is an account of Cruger in Jones, _New York during the Rev. War_, ii. 376.

[1174] See also Greene, to Marion in Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._ (1781-82), p. 100; to Washington in Sparks, _Cor. Rev._, iii. 341; and to Jefferson in Greene's _Greene_, iii. 555. O. H. Williams sent an interesting description of the siege to his brother (Tiffany's _Williams_, p. 21). Greene's letters to Sumter and Marion and Sumter's letters to Marion are in Greene's _Greene_ (fragmentary) and Gibbes, 93 _et seq._

[1175] Several letters from Balfour to Germain of this period are in _Remembrancer_, xii. 172 and 173; _Polit. Mag._ ii.; and _London Gazette_, Aug. 7-11, 1781. Rawdon gives the loss of the garrison as less than forty, but this is very possibly too low. Cruger had 550 men when the siege began. The British account in Mackenzie rates Greene at 5,000, which estimate is absurd. It was not under 1,000 nor over 1,500, including militia. Williams reported the loss at 57 killed, 70 wounded, and 20 missing. Rawdon had "near 2,000" men. Of these 7 were placed _hors de combat_ on the way up, "50" died of the heat, and Lee captured 250 of the cavalry on the homeward march,—a total loss of 307.

[1176] Something can also be found in Gordon, _American War_, iv. 92; Ramsay,_ Rev. in S. C._; Stedman, _Amer. War_, ii. 364; Johnson's _Greene_, ii. 127 (he apologizes for Sumter's behavior; but see Greene's _Greene_, iii. 319); Greene's _Greene_, iii. 219; Jones, _New York during the Revolutionary War_, ii. 376; Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 690; Marshall's _Washington_, iv. 524; etc. Simms has written several romances relating to this time.

Johnson has given a plan of the works in his Greene, ii. 140; a reduced fac-simile is in Greene's _Greene_, iii. 299. The works were planned by Lieutenant Haldane, of Cornwallis's family (cf. Stedman, ii. 364), but Lieutenant Barrette was engineer in charge at the time of the siege. Cf. Hatton in Mackenzie, 163. Also map in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 691.

[1177] Dated near Ferguson's Swamp, Sept. 11, 1781, in Caldwell's _Greene_, p. 441; _Remembrancer_, xiii. 175; _Pol. Mag._, ii. 677; Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._ (1781-82), p. 141; Tarleton, p. 513, etc. Cf. also Marion to P. Horry, in Gibbes, 160.

[1178] It was dated Eutaw, Sept. 9, 1781 (_London Gazette_, Jan. 29-Feb. 2, 1782;) reprinted in whole or in part in _Ann. Reg._, 1782, Principal Occurrences, p. 7; _Remembrancer_, xiii. 152; _Pol. Mag._, iii. 108; Tarleton, 508; Gibbes, p. 136; etc., etc.

[1179] Cf. J. W. De Peyster in _United Service_ (Sept. 1881; _Harper's Mag._, lxvii. 557); Lossing, ii. 699; Dawson, Carrington, etc. On the Eutaw flag, see R. Wilson in _Lippincott's Mag._, xvii. 311. Johnson (_Greene_, ii. 224) gives a plan of two stages of the battle, and it is reproduced by G. W. Greene (iii. 384). Carrington (p. 582) gives a minuter plan. Johnson (ii. 238) gives a map of the country between Eutaw and Charleston.

The journal of Captain Kirkwood, of the Delaware regiment, beginning at Germantown, Sept. 14, 1777, and giving the marches of that regiment in 1777, its course during the Southern campaign of 1780, with a table of the losses at Eutaw, Sept. 8, is in _Sparks MSS._, xxv. (also xlix. vol. 3). Greene's medal is given in Loubat.—ED.

[1180] A notice of Laurens's career, by G. W. P. Custis, is in Littell's Graydon's _Memoirs_ (Appendix, p. 472). See also Hartley's _Heroes_, 310.

[1181] _Remembrancer_, xv. 29; the latter is also in _Corres. of the Rev._, iii. 529. The Delaware troops took part in this action. Cf. C. P. Bennett in _Penna. Mag._, ix. 452 _et seq._ Major Bennett was a lieutenant in the regiment at the time. His account, however, was written fifty years after the war, and cannot be reconciled with contemporary narratives.

[1182] Cf. _Life of Count Rumford_, by George E. Ellis, pp. 123-131, and 666-668. There is absolutely nothing about Rumford's military career in Renwick's so-called _Life of Benjamin Thomson_, in Sparks's _American Biography_, xv. pp. 1-216. A most curious and insufficient reason for this omission is given on p. 59 of the same work.

[1183] See also "Journal of Captain John Davis" in _Penna. Hist. Mag._, v. 300, and Seymour's Journal in _Ibid._ vii. 390.

[1184] The _Maryland Papers_, too, contain several interesting letters, especially one from Roxburgh to Smallwood (p. 186), on the evacuation of Savannah. See also, with regard to the same event, Greene to the President of Congress, in _Remembrancer_, xv. 21.

[1185] Moultrie, _Memoirs_, ii. 343, has devoted considerable space to it. Cf. also _Mag. Am. Hist._, viii. 826.

[1186] Cf. especially on this last campaign Johnson's _Greene_, ii. 238-394, and Lee, _Memoirs_ (2d edition), p. 378 _et seq._

[1187] This table as given in _Charleston Year Book_ (1883), p. 416, is not entirely correct.

[1188] See letter from Clinton, enclosing reports from Mathews of May 16th and 24th, and from Collier of May 16, 1779 (_London Gazette_, June 19-22, and July 6-10, 1779; also in _Remembrancer_, viii. 270, 296, etc.). Collier also wrote three letters to Stephens, secretary of the admiralty (_London Gazette_, as above, and July 10-13, 1779).

[1189] See also Girardin, _Continuation of Burk_, iv. 332-338; Hamilton, _Grenadier Guards_, ii. 236; Stedman, ii. 136; J. E. Cooke in _Harper's Mag._, liii. 1 etc.

[1190] A journal of Baron Steuben in Virginia, Dec. 21, 1780, to Jan. 11, 1781, is among the copies of the Steuben MSS. in the _Sparks MSS._, xv. 182. Cf. Kapp's _Steuben_, and the lives of Jefferson, then governor. Cf. Henry A. Muhlenberg's _Life of Maj.-Gen. Peter Muhlenberg_ (Philad., 1849), who was under Steuben. Cf. also _Deutsch-Amerikanisches Magazin_, 1887; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 383; _Harper's Mag._, lxiii. 333, for portraits and accounts.—ED.

[1191] Clinton, _Observations on Cornwallis_, App. p. 61; _Parliamentary Register_, xxv. 143; and _Germain Corresp._, 75, 79. Arnold's report to Clinton of May 12th—Phillips, who died on the 13th, being too ill to write—is really a diary of events since the 18th of the preceding April, the day on which Phillips began the ascent of the James. It is in _Remembrancer_, xii. 60; _Political Mag._, ii. 390; and _Hist. Mag._, iii. 294. Extracts are given by Ramsay, Tarleton (p. 334), and others. The report (May 16) is given in full in Arnold's _Arnold_, p. 344. Jones in his _New York during the Revolutionary War_ (ii. 463) says that Clinton, distrusting Arnold, gave dormant commissions to Dundas and Simcoe. The commissions were never used; but Simcoe in his _Military Journal_ (ed. of 1787, pp. 108-146; ed. of 1844, pp. 158-208) gave a narrative of the whole movement, in which he figured himself as the principal personage. See also _Memoir of General Graham_, pp. 33-37; Beatson's _Memoirs_, v. 211-225; and Eelking, _Hülfstruppen_, ii. 105.

[1192] Giradin's account is full (_Continuation of Burk_, iv. 418). See also Muhlenberg's _Muhlenberg_, pp. 205-213; Sparks's _Washington_, vii. 269; Lee's _Memoirs_, R. E. Lee's ed., 297, 314; Howison's _Virginia_, ii. 248; Randall's _Jefferson_, i. 283-294, etc. See also, on these movements in Virginia, Wirt's _Henry_; Rives's _Madison_, i. 289; Madison's _Writings_, i. 45; Jefferson's _Writings_, ix. 212; Jones's _New York during the Revolutionary War_, ii. 177; Campbell's _Virginia_, 168; I. N. Arnold's _Life of B. Arnold_, 342-348; Gordon's _Am. War_, iv. 59; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 384; _Va. Hist. Reg._, iv. 195; Marshall's _Washington_, iv. 387; Sparks's _Washington_, vii. 347, 410; Carrington's _Battles_; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 434, 546; and J. A. Stevens's "Expedition of Lafayette against Arnold" in _Maryland Hist. Soc. Proc._ (1878).

[1193] See also Gordon, iv. 107; Lee, _Memoirs_ (2d edition), 285; Stedman, _Am. War_; and Beatson, _Memoirs_, v. 239. On Lafayette's preparations, see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, v. 150

[1194] Something may be found in Regnault's _Lafayette_, 190; Kapp's _Steuben_, 420; Eelking, _Hülfstruppen_, ii. 109; Chotteau, _Les Français_, etc. See also _Harper's Monthly_, vii. 145.

[1195] _Mémoires ... du Générale Lafayette publiés par sa Famille_ (Paris, 1837), vol. i. This edition was in six volumes. An English translation in three volumes was published at London in the same year. The first volume of this was reprinted at New York in 1838, with an appendix containing many valuable documents not elsewhere in print. Among these is a report to Greene relating to the affair at the crossing of the James near Jamestown. Wayne, who commanded at the front, also made a report, which is in Sparks's _Corres. of Rev._ Lafayette's letters and narrative of his campaign in Virginia are in the _Sparks MSS._, nos. lxxxiv., lxxxvi.

[1196] See also _The Part of Virginia which was the seat of action_, in Gordon, iv. 116.

[1197] There is an interesting letter from Christian Febiger to T. Bland, dated July 3, 1781, in _Bland Papers_, p. 71. See also _Ibid._, p. 68.

[1198] Cf. also Denny's journal in _Penna. Hist. Soc. Mem._, vii.; Judge Brooks's account in _Va. Hist. Reg._, vi. 197; _Mag. Amer. Hist._, ii. 572. Lafayette always thought that he forced Cornwallis back to take post at Yorktown; but it was really Clinton's message that he could not reinforce Cornwallis that led the latter to fortify himself, according to E. E. Hale (_Franklin in France_, 463).—ED.

[1199] The _Tenth Report of the Royal Commission on Hist. MSS._ (App. i. p. 29) contains two letters still further lessening the responsibility of Clinton for the disaster. In the first, from Lord George Germain to Clinton, the latter is given "positive orders to push the war in the South." The projected withdrawal of Arnold and Phillips is not approved. This is dated May 2, 1781. In the second letter, also from Germain, Clinton is advised that the French fleet will sail to America, and that Rodney will follow it. This letter is dated July 7, 1781. It is not stated whether Clinton ever received these notes. If he did receive them, he certainly must have felt obliged to continue the war in the South.

In the _Fifth Report of the Commission on Hist. MSS._ (p. 235) there are three letters written by "Sir H. Crosby" and "Sir H. C.", which the editor takes to stand for Sir H. Crosby. At least one was written by Clinton, and the probability is that all were written by him. The first (N. Y., July 18, 1781) relates to the proceedings of Cornwallis, and gives a statement of the troops under some of the British generals in America, and an estimate of the number of French troops which Washington has within call. The third (to G. G., dated Dec., 1781) is plainly the work of Clinton, as the author says that, from the tone of Cornwallis's letter of Oct. 20 (his official report), it might be supposed that the author was to blame for the selection of the post at Yorktown. In the last, also written in December, 1781, the writer attributes the disaster to the want of promised naval supremacy under Sir G. Rodney. He also gives Cornwallis's explanation of the passages complained of in his report. Cf. also Jones's _New York during the Rev. War_, ii., notes to pp. 464-470, where the editor gives extracts from Clinton's annotations of a copy of Stedman's _American War_. S. H. Gay (_N. Am. Rev._, Oct., 1881) follows Cornwallis's movements previous to his fortifying at Yorktown.

[1200] On this subject see also Clinton's _Observations on Stedman_, p. 16.

[1201] _London Gazette_, Dec. 15. Among the more accessible books containing it are _Remembrancer_, xiii. 37; Johnston's _Yorktown_, 181; Tarleton, p. 427; Lee, _Memoirs_ (2d ed.), App. p. 457; R. E. Lee's ed., 610, etc.

[1202] Clinton to Cornwallis, Sept. 6, 1781, in _Parl. Reg._, xxv. 189. Clinton also described his endeavors in a letter to Germain in _Remembrancer_, xiii. 57.

[1203] Cf. _Two Letters respecting the conduct of Rear Admiral Graves on the coast of the United States, July-November, 1781, by William Graves, Esq._ Edited by H. B. Dawson, 1865. The original was privately printed. Dawson says "the present edition is as perfect a fac-simile of the original as can now be made."

[1204] _Remembrancer_, xiii. 515, while a letter from Cornwallis to Washington respecting the form of parole is in _Cornwallis Correspondence_, i. 126.

[1205] _Fifth Report of Royal Commission on Hist. MSS._, p. 235 (Lansdown MSS.).

[1206] _Memoirs_, ii. 434, copied in Niles's _Principles_, etc. (ed. 1876). For effect of the news in England, see _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Nov., 1881, p. 363; and John Fiske on the political consequences, in _Atlantic Monthly_, Jan., 1886. The papers laid before Parliament are in the _Polit. Mag._, iii. 339. Cf. also Walpole's _Last Journals_, ii. 474; Donne's _Corresp. of George III._, etc., ii. 390; Macknight's _Burke_, ii. 457, etc. For the effect in Europe generally, see Parton's _Franklin_, ii. 452; Hale's _Franklin in France_, p. 464.—ED.

[1207] Cf. also two valuable letters written during the siege from Washington to Heath, who commanded on the Hudson, in _5 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, iv. 224 _et seq._ We note two early tables of the prisoners taken, one in the Meshech Weare papers in the Mass. Hist. Soc. library, and the other in the _Sparks MSS._, xlix. vol. iii. The vote of thanks given by Congress to Washington, with his reply, is in _Journals of Congress_, iii. 694. Washington's epaulettes worn at the time are in the Mass. Hist. Soc. (_Proc._, iii. 133). For "Cornwallis Burgoyned", see Moore's _Songs and Ballads_, 367.—ED.

[1208] _Orderly-book of the Siege of Yorktown, from September 26th, 1781, to November 2d, 1781_ (Philad., 1865), being Revolutionary series, no. 1, published by Horace W. Smith.

[1209] Lincoln's MS. orderly-book is in possession of Mr. Crosby, of Hingham, Mass. Johnston (_Yorktown_, p. 91, note) gives an order of Lincoln's as copied from the Lamb MSS. An orderly-book of General Gist belongs to the Maryland Hist. Soc. An _Orderly-Book of the Second Battalion of the Penna. Troops before Yorktown_ is in Egle's _Notes and Queries_, 145-156. It runs, however, only to Sept. 14th. See also Feltman to Lieutenant Johnston, dated Yorktown, Oct. 10, 1781, in Egle (p. 132). There is a _Journal of the Campaign by Lieutenant William Feltman_, May, 1781-April, 1782 (_Penn. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1853, and _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vol. xi.); and a _Journal of the Siege of York in Virginia, by a chaplain of the American Army_ (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, iv. 102-108). From a reference in Thacher's _Journal_, Johnston (_Yorktown_, App., p. 196) infers that the latter appears to have been the work of Chaplain Evans, of Scammell's corps. A portion of the _Military Journal of Major Ebenezer Denny_ relates to this siege (_Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem._, vii. 237-249). Another valuable journal is the one kept by Capt. John Davis, of the Pennsylvania line (_Westchester Village Record_, 1821, and _Principles and Acts of the Revolution_, 1st ed., p. 465, and 2d ed., p. 293, and entire from May 26, 1781, to June 10, 1782, in _Penna. Hist. Mag._, v. 290-311; vii. 339). Other journals are _Notes of the Siege of Yorktown_, by Dayton, in _New Jersey Hist. Soc. Proc._, ix.-x. 187; Colonel Tilghman's _Diary of the Siege of Yorktown_ in Appendix to _Memoir of Tench Tilghman_; _Journal of the Siege of Yorktown_, by Col. Richard Butler, in _Hist. Mag._, viii. 102; _Extract from the Journal of a Chaplain in the American Army_—Sept. 12-Oct. 22, 1781—in _Potter's American Monthly_, v. 744; _Journal of Colonel Jonathan Trumbull_ in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ (April, 1876), vol. xiv. 331; Thacher's _Military Journal_, pp. 334-351; "Siege of York and Gloucester" in _American Museum_, June, 1787,—reprinted in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, vii. 222-224; an anonymous journal in Martin's _Gazetteer of Virginia_, pp. 293-295; and a _Diary of the March from the Hudson to Yorktown and return, by Lieutenant Saunderson_, of the Connecticut line, in Johnston's _Yorktown_, p. 170,—the original being in that author's possession. The diary of David Cobb, Oct.-Nov., 1781, is in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1881, p. 67. A journal of Henry Dearborn, ending Nov. 24, 1781, is owned by Dr. T. A. Emmet, of N. Y., having been bought in the J. W. Thornton sale, no. 284. See also letters from Governor Nelson to various persons in the "Nelson Papers" (no. 1 of the New Series of the Publications of the Virginia Historical Society). There are other letters in the _Va. Hist. Reg._, ii. 34; v. 157; Drake's _Knox_, 69, etc.

[1210] It is entitled _Journal of the Operations of the French Corps under the command of Count Rochambeau_ (_Remembrancer_, xiii. 35, and _Pol. Mag._, ii. 707). Portions are also in Tarleton's _Campaigns_, 443, taken, probably, from a diary which was afterwards printed in the _Paris Gazette_, Nov. 20, 1781, as _Journal des Opérations du Corps Français sous le commandement du Comte de Rochambeau_; also found in _Two Letters respecting the conduct of Rear Admiral Graves_, pp. 31, 32, and translated by Dawson, pp. 38, 39. Another translation, _Substance of a French Journal from the Supplement to the Gazette de France of Nov. 20, 1781_, is reprinted in the _Mag. Am. Hist._, vii. 224, from _Pennsylvania Packet_ of Feb. 21, 1782. See also the account in Rochambeau's _Mémoires_, i. 289-302; Wright's translation of above, 65-80; Soulés, _Troubles_, iii. 369-378, and 386-398,—attributed to Rochambeau; and Lauzun, _Mémoires_, 194-205.

[1211] No. 1,886 in his sale catalogue.

[1212] The _Magazine of American History_ contains two other journals which really formed a part of this diary, and were written by M. de Ménonville (vii. p 283-288), and by "the engineers" (vii. 449-452).

[1213] The original _Journal de Campagne de Claude Blanchard_, ed. by Maurice La Chesnais, was published in Paris, 1869.

[1214] _My Campaigns in America. A Journal kept by Count William de Deux-Ponts, 1780-81. Translated from the French Manuscript, with an Introduction by S. A. Green_, Boston, 1868. The original and translation are here printed successively. Dr. S. A. Green came upon this valuable manuscript by chance while in Paris.

[1215] At a later day it was charged that Lafayette had ordered the garrison of the small redoubt to be put to the sword in revenge for the murder of Alexander Scammell. Of course the charge was false. It led to a correspondence between Lafayette and Hamilton. Cf. _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, vii. 363 _et seq._, and Hamilton's _Works_, vi. 555. Lafayette's narrative, as he gave it to Sparks, is in the _Sparks MSS._, no. xxxii.

[1216] Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 317; Gordon, iv. 175; Stedman, ii.; Lee, _Memoirs_ (2d ed., p. 307). Lee was present during the siege as the bearer of despatches from Greene, or for some other reason.

[1217] _The Yorktown Campaign and the Surrender of Cornwallis_, 1781 (N. Y., 1881). Johnston also printed an article in _Harper's Monthly_, lxiii. 323.

[1218] _Yorktown, an Account of the Campaign_ (N. Y., 1882). See also, by the same author, _The Campaign of the Allies_ in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, vii. 241.

[1219] Drake's _Knox_, 62; Hamilton's _Hamilton_, ii. 256-275; Leake's _Lamb_, 276; Williams's _Olney_, 266; Custis's _Recollections_, 229; Kapp's _Steuben_, 453, etc., with the diary of an Anspach sergeant. Cf. Balch, p. 14, for references to another diary of a German.

[1220] See J. A. Stevens, _The Allies at Yorktown_ in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, vi. 1; Page, _Old Yorktown_ in _Scribner's Mag._, xxii. 801; Goldwin Smith, _Naseby and Yorktown_ in _Contem. Rev._, Nov., 1881; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Dec., 1881,—a collection of newspaper scraps, some of value; E. M. Stone's _French Allies_, 416; E. E. Hale in _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1881; _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, v. 290; W. S. Stryker's _New Jersey Continental Line in the Virginia Campaign of 1781_ (Trenton, 1882); Longchamps, _Histoire Impartiale_, iii. 129; Robin, _Nouveau Voyage_, 29; Le Boucher, ii. 26; Chotteau, 267; Regnault's _Lafayette_, 199,—not good for much; Tarleton's _Campaigns_, 351; Clinton, _Observations on Stedman_, 22; Beatson's _Memoirs_, v. 271; _Memoir of General Samuel Graham_, 55; Grant's _British Battles_, 173; Botta, Otis's trans., iii. 374. Lamb's _Journal_, p. 370 _et seq._, is of considerable interest, especially the portion narrating his escape and subsequent recapture. See also Capt. William Mure to Andrew Stuart, dated Yorktown, Oct. 21, 1781, in Mahon's _Hist. of England_, vol. vii. App. xxxviii. There is in the Boston Public Library a MS. orderly-book of the troops under Lord Cornwallis, dated Williamsburgh, 28 June, 1781, to Yorktown, 19 October, 1781, and made up by several officers. The generally received account of the reception of the news in England is probably not correct. Cf. Stockbridge in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, vii. 321.

[1221] The official account of the recent celebration at Yorktown is called a _Report of the Commission for a monument commemorative of the Surrender of Lord Cornwallis_ (Wash., 1883). This contains Robert C. Winthrop's oration, which has also been separately printed. Another notable address was by the Hon. J. L. M. Curry, delivered at Richmond and published. A French account of this anniversary, _Yorktown Centénaire de l'indépendance des Etats-Unis d'Amérique, 1781-1881_ (Paris, 1886), is the work of Rochambeau's descendant. Cf. Stone's _French Allies_, 535; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, vii. 302; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xix. 101. Another volume called forth by the same celebration is _An Account of General Lafayette's Visit to Virginia in 1824-25_, by Robert D. Ward, Richmond, 1881.

[1222] Liverpool.

[1223] Yet in 1668-9 the colony of Massachusetts had sent a ship-load of masts to Charles II.; and at the end of the century, Bellomont, in one of his despatches home, says that from the port of Boston there sailed more vessels built in New England than belonged to all Scotland and Ireland. Bellomont urged on the home government the importance of making in America their own tar and pitch. New Hampshire was already sending masts, yards, and bowsprits to England, and Bellomont shows the government how they could save by carrying them for themselves. This was in 1700 and 1701.

[1224] Cf. "Ships of the Eighteenth Century", by Admiral Preble, in _United Service_, x. 95, 117.—ED.

[1225] On the capture of the "Margaretta" at Machias, see Kidder's _Military Operations in Eastern Maine_, p. 39; _Maine Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. 142; _Hist. Mag._, xiii. 251; Com. F. H. Parker in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ i. 209; Drisko's _Life of Hannah Weston_ (Machias, 1857), ch. vii. Cf. also _Journal of Mass. Prov. Cong._ (Boston, 1838), pp. 395-96. The account in Dawson's _Battles_ (i. 47) is based on Goldsborough's _Naval Chronicle_ and Cooper's _Naval History_.—ED.

[1226] The steps leading to this action of Washington, who felt authorized to take it by giving a liberal interpretation to his commission, were these: As early as June 7, 1775, the Massachusetts legislature had considered the question of creating a naval force, but moved cautiously (Frothingham's _Siege of Boston_, p. 111). Rhode Island moved first, June 12th, and put two vessels in commission under Abraham and Christopher Whipple, and in July they were cruising. (On this and other early movements in Rhode Island, see Arnold's _Rhode Island_, ii. 351, 363, 369, 386; Staples's _Annals of Providence_, pp. 265-70; _R. I. Hist. Coll._, vol. vi.; Gammell's _Life of Samuel Ward_; and Ward's journal in _Sparks MSS._, lxviii. no. 7.) By July 1st Connecticut had begun to move. Washington's first commission was given to Capt. Nicholas Broughton, of Marblehead, accompanied by instructions, which are given in Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 517, when he took command of the "Hannah" (Frothingham's _Siege of Boston_, 260). John Adams says (_Works_, x. 27; _Letters of Washington to John Langdon_, 1880, p. 19) it was John Manly's application to Washington for authority to fit out a cruiser that led directly to this step, and that Manly was the first to fly a Continental flag, and to have a British flag struck to him.

For the early navy of Pennsylvania, see Wallace's _William Bradford_, p. 130, and in the Appendix of the same work we have an account of the first naval combat on the Delaware, and the first hostile guns heard by Congress, when the "Roebuck" and "Liverpool" were driven down the river by the American flotilla.

On the early movements in Virginia, see _Va. Hist. Reg._, i. 185; _Southern Lit. Messenger_, xxiv. 1-273.—ED.

[1227] Hancock's letter of instructions, October 5, 1775, is in Sparks's _Correspondence of the American Revolution_, i. 56. Cf. _John Adams's Works_, i. 187; x. 31.—ED.

[1228] Selman's own account of this exploit has been printed in the _Salem Gazette_, July 22, 1856. Cf. Sparks's _Writings of Washington_, iii. 193.—ED.

[1229] "Lord Amherst laments the capture of the ordnance vessel,—says her cargo amounted to £10,500. The Board is censured for not putting her stores into a vessel of greater force." Hutchinson's _Diary_ (July 10). Manly continued to gain and deserve the commendation of Washington (Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 266, 271). For an account of Manly's being driven into Plymouth, see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ 2d ser., ii. 158.—ED.

[1230] Rhode Island, as she had put the first armed vessel afloat, was also the inciter of the movements in Congress which resulted in this fleet, her members, in Oct., 1775, having urged action (4 Force, iv. 1838). John Adams gives on the successive stages of the movement (_Works_, ii. 463, iii. 7. Cf. Gammell's _Ward_, 316, and the _Journal of Congress_, 1775). A naval committee was instituted Oct. 13th, and in December it was enlarged, to have a member for each colony. John Adams tells on his labors on this committee were the most agreeable he had in Congress; and he always took great credit to himself for being mainly instrumental in committing Congress to naval policy (_Works_, ix. 363, _Familiar Letters_, 166), and it was he who drew up the Rules of the naval service (_Works_, iii. p. 11; _Journal of Congress_, 1775, p. 282). In tracing the official action of Congress towards the navy, beside the _Journals_, use the index of Ben: Perley Poore's _Descriptive Catal. of Government Publications_; the indexes to the _Amer. Archives_, under such heads as "armed vessels", "fleet", "Mass. armed vessels", "marine committee", "navy", "privateers", "prizes", "row galleys", "seamen", "vessels", and the names of naval characters. The incongruous character of Force's indexes increases the labor considerably in using the _Archives_.

The beginnings of the navy, beside being followed in Cooper, Clark, etc., can be traced in W. E. Foster's _Stephen Hopkins_, ii. App. M; in Bancroft, ix. 134, or final revision, v. 50 in Silas Deane's correspondence in _Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. Washington ceased to exercise any supervision over the armed fleet after the evacuation of Boston in March, 1776. General Ward, who was then left in command in Boston, commissioned Captain Mugford to cruise, June, 1776, before he received any blank commissions from Congress. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, i. 203.

In 1775 David Bushnell invented at Saybrook a machine for blowing up the enemy's vessels, called the "American Turtle." It is described in the _Conn. Soc. Coll._, ii. 315, 322, 333, with references.—ED.

[1231] Sparks's _Washington_, i. 36; iii. 77. There is a memoir of Whipple, with a portrait (cf. also E. M. Stone's _Our French Allies_, p. 26), in Hildreth's _Pioneer Settlers of Ohio_ (1852), pp. 120-164. There are letters of Whipple among the _Com. Tucker Papers_ in Harvard College library. Few of the earlier captains made more captures than Samuel Tucker. Washington commissioned him in Jan., 1776. His reputation as a naval officer was mostly made during his command of the frigate "Boston", in one of whose voyages he took John Adams to France in 1778. The log of this voyage is preserved in Harvard College library, where are also a collection of Tucker's papers, embracing his instructions, correspondence, and logs. They have been used in John H. Sheppard's _Life of Samuel Tucker_ (Boston, 1868), which is abridged by the author in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, April, 1872 (xxvi. 105). Cf. _New Eng. Mag._, ii. 138; Niles's _Register_, xliv. 140; and Johnston's _History of Bristol and Bremen, Me._—ED.

[1232] See note at the end of this chapter.

[1233] On the fisheries as a school for the navy of the Revolution, see Lorenzo Sabine's _Report on the Fisheries of the U. S._ (Washington, 1853), p. 198, and Babson's _Gloucester_. The histories of the maritime towns of Massachusetts touch this point, like Rich's _Truro_, Roads's _Marblehead_, E. V. Smith's _Newburyport_, etc.—ED.

[1234] Cf. _ante_, ch. ii.

[1235] Adams's _Familiar Letters_, 186. The continued naval exploits of Seth Harding and Samuel Smedley, of the Connecticut armed vessels, are recorded in sundry letters in the _Trumbull Papers_ (MSS.), vol. v., etc.—ED.

[1236] _Journals of Congress_, i. 213.

[1237] Cf. Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 353; _John Adams's Works_, iii. 65. Bancroft, in his orig. ed., ix. 134, charges Hopkins with incompetency, but omits the accusation in his final revision, v. 50.—ED.

[1238] Cf. _United Service_, xii. 411.

[1239] _American Archives_, ii. 1394.

[1240] There is a portrait of Biddle in the Pennsylvania Hist. Soc. gallery. _Catal. of Paintings_, no. 138.

[1241] The government of South Carolina gave him four war-vessels of their own, and early in 1778 he went out to meet the English blockading squadron of four vessels, hoping to find himself of superior force to them. He did not meet the squadron, but east of the Barbadoes, on the 7th of March, he did meet the "Yarmouth", sixty-four guns, and, apparently relying on the four small vessels he had with him, he bravely engaged her. But after an action of twenty minutes the "Randolph" blew up, nor was it until five days after that a part of her crew were picked up by the "Yarmouth" on a piece of the wreck. The other vessels of Biddle's squadron escaped.

[1242] The reader will be interested in his own simple account of the voyage, as contained in his report to Franklin and the other commissioners. We print it from his manuscript as a good illustration of the straightforward loyalty of the man.

PORT LEWIS, _Feb'y 14th, 1777_.

GENTLEMEN,—This will inform you of my safe arrival after a tolerable successful cruise, having captured 3 sail of Brigs, one snow, and one ship. The Snow is a Falmouth Packet bound from thence to Lisbon. She is mounted with 16 guns and had near 50 men on board. She engaged near an hour before she struck. I had one man killed. My first Lieut. had his left arm shot off above the elbow, and the Lieut. of Marines had a musquet ball lodged in his wrist. They had several men wounded, but none killed. I am in great hopes that both my wounded officers will do well, as there are no unfavorable symptoms at present. Three of our Prizes are arrived, and I expect the other two in to-morrow. As I am informed that there has been two American Private ships of war lately taken and carried into England, I think it would be a good opportunity to negotiate and exchange prisoners, if it could be done; but I submit to your better judgment to act as you think proper. I should be very glad to hear from you as soon as possible, and should be much obliged if you would point out some line or mode to proceed by in disposing of prisoners and prizes, as nothing will be done before I receive your answer to this. I hope you'll excuse my being more particular at present.

From, Gentlemen, Your most obliged h'ble serv't, LAMB'T WICKES.

[1243] "This will inform you", he writes on the 12th of August, "of my present unhappy situation. The Judges of the Admiralty have received orders of the 6th inst. from the Minister at Paris, ordering them not to suffer me to take any cannon, powder, or other military stores on board, or to depart from this port on any consideration whatever, without further orders from Paris. In consequence of these orders, they came on board on Saturday to take all my cannon out and to unhang my rudder. I have prevented this for the present by refusing to let them take rudder or cannon without producing an order from the minister for so doing. As I told them, my orders corresponded with theirs in regard to continuing in port, but I had no order to deliver anything belonging to the ship to them, which I would not do without orders, and if the ministers insisted on it, made no doubt but you would give your orders accordingly, which would be readily complied with on my part when such orders were received. My powder is stopped, and they have been contented with taking my written parole not to depart until I receive their permission."

[1244] On the questions arising from the carrying of prisoners by the American cruisers into European ports, see Hale's _Franklin in France_, ch. xi. and xviii. On American prisoners in England, see _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, June, '82, p. 428; _Memoirs of Andrew Sherburne_, p. 81; occupants of Old Mill prison, near Plymouth, _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, 1865, pp. 74, 136, 209; occupants of Forton, and journal of Timothy Connor in _Ibid._, xxx. 3, 175, 343; xxxi. 18, 212, 288; xxxii, 70, 165, 280; xxiii. 36; journal of Samuel Custer, etc., _Ibid._, Jan., 1878; Charles Herbert's _Relics of the Rev., Amer. prisoners in England_ (Boston, 1847), with lists of names and the edition of 1854, called _The Prisoners of 1776, compiled from Herbert's Journal by R. Livesey_; narratives in Moore's _Diary_, ii. 344, 437. In 1780 there was reprinted in London, to be sold for the benefit of the American prisoners then in England, a _Poetical Epistle to George Washington_, by the Rev. Charles Perry Wharton of Maryland, which had been originally printed in Annapolis in 1779. There was prefixed to it an unusual portrait of Washington, "engraved by W. Sharp from an original picture."

Perhaps the most distinguished of the Americans confined in the English prisons was Joshua Barney, and the story of his several confinements and escapes is told in _A Biographical Memoir of the late Commodore Joshua Barney, from autobiographical notes and journals in the possession of his family_, by Mary Barney (Boston, 1832). Cf. Lossing in _Field-Book_, ii. 850; _Harper's Monthly_, xxiv. 161; _Cyclop. U. S. Hist._, i. 105—ED.

[1245] _Almon's Remembrancer._

[1246] Landais survived until the year 1818, when he died at the age of eighty-seven years, in the city of New York.

[1247] See Hutchinson's _Diary_, at the date of D'Estaing's sailing.

[1248] See Notes, following this chapter.

[1249] It is printed in _Franklin in France_.

[1250] For accounts of Barry, see Dennie's _Portfolio_, x.; _United Service Mag._ (xii. 578), May, 1885, by Admiral Preble; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 847; Scharf and Westcott's _Philadelphia_, i. 304. The narrative of Luke Matthewman, one of Barry's lieutenants, is in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, ii. 175, copied from the _N. Y. Packet_, 1783.—ED.

[1251] A MS. journal of a cruise on board the brigantine of war "Tyrannicide", in the service of the State of Massachusetts Bay, John Allen Hallet commander, in 1778, is in the Boston Public Library.—ED.

[1252] The log of the "Protector" is in the library of the N. E. Hist. Geneal. Society. Cf. Ebenezer Fox's _Revolutionary Adventures_ (Boston, 1838); _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 187.—ED.

[1253] The following is an official list, sent to Franklin in March, 1780, of the navy of the United States at that time:—

"America" (74 guns), Captain John Barry, on the stocks at Portsmouth, N. H.

"Confederacy" (36 guns), Seth Harding, refitting at Martinico.

"Alliance" (36 guns), Paul Jones, in France.

"Bourbon" (36 guns), Thomas Read, on the stocks in Connecticut.

"Trumbull" (28 guns), James Nicholson, ready for sea in Connecticut.

"Deane" (28 guns), Sam'l Nicholson, on a cruise.

"Providence" (28 guns), Ab'm Whipple; "Boston" (28 guns), Sam'l Tucker; "Queen of France" (20 guns), I. Rathbourne; "Ranger" (18 guns), S. Sampson,—within the Bar at Charleston, S. C., to defend that harbor.

"Saratoga" (18 guns), J. Young, on the stocks at Philadelphia.

Cf. _Sparks MSS._, xlix. vol. iii.

[1254] See chap. vi.

[1255] The table on a later page shows that there were nearly 90,000 Continentals and militia on the rolls at different times during 1776; but it is not probable that 70,000 were in service at any single time, and the terms of service were short.—ED.

[1256] There is a curious difficulty as to the name of this little vessel. In printed histories she is sometimes called the "Penet" and sometimes the "Perch." There is no question that the State owned a vessel called the "Penet", which was named from one of the mercantile agents in Nantes. But, after a careful examination of the manuscript of the journals of Mr. Austin, who carried the news, we are satisfied that the vessel was the "Perch", and that she is called the "Penet" in some of the manuscripts only from an error of the early copyists.

[1257] A third edition was printed at Cooperstown in 1848. Editions with revisions and additions were issued at New York in 1853 and 1856, use being made in part of matter collected by Cooper himself. An abridged edition was published in New York in 1856. There were other editions in London, Paris, and Brussels. Cooper's _Lives of distinguished Naval Officers_ (Philad., 1846) includes only Paul Jones of the Revolutionary period.

[1258] Second ed., London, 1866. The first ed. was in 1863.

[1259] There are a few accessory books: J. Rolfe's _Naval Biography during the Reign of George III._ (London, 1828, in two volumes,—Sabin, xvi. 67,601). _The Detail of some particular services performed in America during the years 1776-1779_ (printed for Ithiel Town, N. Y., 1835,—Sabin, v. 19,775) had previously appeared in _The Naval Chronicle_, and consists, in the main, of a journal supposed to be kept on board his Majesty's ship "Rainbow", while under the command of Sir George Collier, on the American coast. Town says that the book was privately printed from a manuscript obtained by him in London in 1830, and it is said that all but seventy copies were destroyed by fire. There is a copy in Harvard College library, and others are noted in the Brinley (no. 4,002) and Cooke (no. 708) sales.

John Adams sent to Congress in 1780 an account of the naval losses of Great Britain from the beginning of the war (_Diplom. Corresp._, iv. 483, v. 234). A similar statement (1776-1781) on the British side is in the _Political Magazine_, ii. 452.

[1260] In January, 1763, peremptory orders were sent from England to the governor and company of Connecticut to put a stop to the Susquehanna settlement. In September of the same year, Governor Fitch wrote to the board of trade that he had strictly obeyed the orders; that a delegation from the Six Nations had been received, and in the presence of the assembly he had announced the commands of his majesty; that this had apparently satisfied the natives. (_Trumbull MSS._, Mass. Hist. Soc.)

[1261] In Proud's _History of Pennsylvania_, ii. p. 326, there is a note containing an extract from an "authentic publication", entitled _A narrative of the late massacres in Lancaster County, of a member of Indians, friends of this Province_ (Philadelphia, 1764). In this narrative (which was written by Franklin,—cf. Sparks's _Franklin_, i. 273; iv. 56), religious enthusiasm, "chiefly Presbyterian", is the alleged motive for the outbreak. See, also, a reprint of a curious pamphlet on the massacre of the Conestogoe Indians by the Paxton Boys, in the _Hist. Mag._, July, 1865, p. 203. For other tracts see _Carter-Brown Catal._, iii. 1,407-1,415; Field's _Indian Bibliog._, nos. 854, 1,187, 1,193, 1,331; _Brinley Catal._, nos. 3,062-3,070; Hildeburn's _Penna. Press_, ii. nos. 2,029-2,034; cf. _Penna. Hist. Soc. Coll._, i. 73; _Zeisberger_, by Schweinitz, 274; Graydon's _Memoirs_, 49; and letter of Richard Peters in _Aspinwall Papers_, ii. 508.—ED.

[1262] In Reed's _Reed_, i. p. 35, there is a letter from Dr. John Ewing, coolly discussing this transaction, as if it were a laudable attempt on the part of the frontier inhabitants to relieve themselves in a perfectly justifiable way from a source of danger. He says, "there was not a single act of violence, unless you call the Lancaster affair such, although it was no more than going to war with that tribe."

[1263] The Conestogoes belonged to the Five Nations, but had no connection with the Tuscaroras. The Five Nations put in a claim for the land of the Conestogoes, as "their relations and next heirs." (Sir William Johnson to Governor Penn, Feb. 9, 1764, _Penna. Archives_, iv. p. 162.)

[1264] His correspondence with Gage is in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, ii. 833 _et seq._

[1265] The question of the rights of Indian women in lands of the tribes forms part of the discussion in the paper by Lucien Carr, entitled "The social and political condition of women among the Huron-Iroquois tribes." (_Report xvi. of the Peabody Museum_, pp. 216-218.) Instances are on record where transfers were compelled by the women in opposition to the wishes of the chiefs, and where they prevented sales, the terms of which had been arranged by the men. At the conference at Canajoharie Castle in 1763, where the Mohawks submitted one of their numerous complaints against settlers for stealing their lands, all the women present interrupted the speaker, and declared that they "did not choose to part with their lands and be reduced to make brooms for a living." The fraudulent transfers alluded to in the text had already attracted the attention of the authorities. By proclamation, dated October 7, 1763, the king had forbidden private individuals to purchase land from Indians.

[1266] "After the peace, numbers of the frontier inhabitants of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, etc., animated with a spirit of frenzy, under pretext of revenge for past injuries, though in manifest violation of British faith and the strength of the late treaties, robbed and murdered sundry Indians of good character, and still continue to do so, vowing vengeance against all that come in their way; whilst others forcibly established themselves beyond even the limits of their own governments in the Indian country."

[1267] At this date the Mohawk Valley, as far west as the boundary line, was jointly occupied by the whites and the Mohawk tribe. Immediately to the west of that line, in the neighborhood of Oneida Lake, lived the Oneidas. Both Mohawks and Oneidas had extensive hunting-grounds to the north. The Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas severally lived upon the lakes which to-day bear the names of those tribes. The Tuscaroras occupied land which had been allotted them immediately to the south of the Oneida country, and had also a section on the Susquehanna. [See Colden's map in Vol. IV. 491, and the maps in Vol. III. 281, 293.—ED.] The whole number of the confederacy did not exceed 10,000 souls, of whom 2,000 were warriors, more than one half being Senecas. The most conspicuous tribe among the Ohio Indians was the Shawanese. They were a source of terror to the Virginia settlers, and had a hand in most of the invasions of Kentucky, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. They numbered about 300 warriors, and lived in Ohio on the Scioto and its branches. The Delawares, counting 600 warriors, were scattered from the Susquehanna Valley to Lake Erie; 200 Wyandots lived near Sandusky. These and other tribes living on the border or in Canada, who were classified as allies of the Six Nations, numbered in all about 2,000 warriors. The other tribes living east of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio, with whom the British had dealings, or of whom they had knowledge, were classified as the "Ottawa Confederacy, comprehending the Twightwees or Miamis", and numbered about 8,000 warriors, of whom 3,000 lived near Detroit. In all, there were, according to this estimate, which is from Sir William Johnson's papers, about 12,000 warriors. [See Sketch map in Vol. IV. 298.—ED.]

A similar computation of the "gun-men or effectives" in the South, made by Sir James Wright in 1773, shows that over 9,500 men could be furnished by the Choctaws, Creeks, Cherokees, and Catawbas. From other sources we have estimates which include tribes omitted by the above authorities, from which it would appear probable that there were about 35,000 warriors east of the Mississippi, in the United States and across the straits at Detroit. There is a difference of opinion as to the proportion of warriors to the total population. Apparently the proportion varied in different tribes. Some observers have placed the number as high as six to one; others, as low as three to one. Between four and five to one appears to be about the number furnished by the averages of the best observers. This will give for a total Indian population east of the Mississippi, in the United States and along the lakes near Detroit, at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, 150,000 persons.

[1268] "My intelligence informs me", wrote Governor Penn to Lord Dunmore, March 1, 1775, "that your lordship has set up an office for granting lands far within the limits of this province, and that lands already patented by me have been granted by your lordship."

[1269] Guy Johnson refers to the success of his interference on this occasion in his letter to the magistrates and others of Palatine, Canajoharie, and the upper districts, dated May 20, 1775, quoted in Stone's _Brant_, i. p. 65.

[1270] Accustomed as the inhabitants of the Northern colonies had been to coöperating with Indians in the several wars with the French, the proposition to make use of their services did not excite the universal feeling of horror which would be aroused by the same proposition to-day. On the contrary, it was regarded as a natural and inevitable condition attached to the war that the natives should be engaged upon the one side or the other; and rumors of the friendly disposition of this tribe, and of the number of warriors which that tribe would furnish to the cause, found their way into the journals of that day. It was evident that Indian auxiliaries would be of greater military value to the English than to the Americans. The English army would be practically an army of invasion. There were no English homes exposed to destruction. The use of savages by the Americans would not keep out of the field a single Englishman for the protection of the scalps of his family. Nevertheless, it was felt by the colonists that all the tribes that could be secured would be an advantage gained. Such evidently was the opinion of the men composing the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts Bay, who first met the question, and, even before the battle of Lexington, solved it by employing some of the Stockbridge Indians as minute-men. The records of that body go far towards justifying the statement made by Gen. Gage at Boston (June 12, 1775), that the "rebels" were "bringing as many Indians down here as they could collect."

[1271] In this letter to Kirkland the assertion is made that the step was taken because of information received that "those who are inimical to us in Canada have been tampering with the natives." In the _American Archives_, 4th series, ii. p. 244, is a letter dated Montreal, March 29th, from J. Brown to Samuel Adams and Joseph Warren, Committee of Correspondence of Boston, in which Brown's mission is betrayed even without his credentials. He was prospecting the ground with a view to future operations. He reports that "the Indians say they have been repeatedly applied to and requested to join with the king's troops to fight Boston, but have peremptorily refused, and still intend to refuse. They are a simple politick people, and say that if they are obliged, for their own safety, to take up arms on either side, they shall take part on the side of their brethren the English in New-England." In the same letter Brown states as a secret that Ticonderoga must be seized on the beginning of hostilities. Samuel Adams, one of the committee to whom Brown's letter was addressed, was also a member of the committee which drafted the letter to Kirkland. If Brown's letter did not reach Adams in time to inspire the suggestion of "tampering", it indicates at least the character of the rumors. The English writers (like Mahon, vi. 35) look upon the plea of "tampering" as a pretence; and Dartmouth, in July and August, 1775, called his orders retaliatory ones. We know that there was little for the colonists to apprehend from Carleton on this score. His opposition to the enlistment of Indians for service outside Canada drew forth complaints afterward from Guy Johnson (_N. Y. Col. Docs._, viii. p. 636). Still less was there cause for apprehension if the Caughnawagas were going to take sides with the colonists. It was probably understood that the statements of these Canadian Indians could not be implicitly relied upon.

[1272] The enlisted Indians are occasionally heard from during the war, although their services were not conspicuous. Their fondness for liquor soon brought them into trouble, and we find that a petition signed by seventeen of them was presented to the Provincial Congress, asking that liquor might be kept out of their way. This petition was duly granted. (_Am. Arch._, 4th ser., ii. pp. 1049 and 1083.) During the siege of Boston they occasionally killed a sentry (_The Boston Gazette and Country Journal_, Aug. 7, 1775; Frothingham's _Siege of Boston_, pp. 212, 213). In _Mass. Archives_, vol. lvi. (special title, "Coat Rolls, 8 Months' Service, 1775—vol. i. Rolls"), no. 173, is a copy of what purports to be an order for bounty money, etc., signed by thirty-two persons. Appended is the following: "Camp at Charlestown, March 12, 1776. This may certify that the within named persons were soldiers in my Regiment, and served as such in the service of this province last summer, until they were discharged by his Excellency Gen. Washington. Attest, John Paterson, Col. These Indians belonged to Capt. William Goodrich's Company. Attest, John Sargent." Some of them, under the command of Captain Ezra Whittlesey, were "posted at the saw-mills", Sept. 13, 1776 (_Amer. Arch._, 5th series, ii. p. 476). If Guy Johnson is to be believed, there were enlisted Indians in the battle of Long island, and some of them were taken prisoners (_N. Y. Coll. Doc._, viii. p. 740). Washington applied for them for scouting service, Oct. 18, 1776 (_Amer. Arch._, 5th series, ii. p. 1120); Jones (_Annals of Oneida County_, p. 854) says that a considerable party of Oneidas participated in the battle of White Plains, and that a full company of Stockbridge Indians, under Captain Daniel Ninham, went to White Plains (_Ibid._ p. 888). A capture by Indians of six prisoners is reported in Moore's _Diary_, etc., i. p. 476. The Stockbridge Indians were ambuscaded at King's Bridge with severe loss, Aug. 31, 1778. (_Mag. Am. Hist._, v. p. 187.) In 1819, the survivors of this tribe, petitioning the President of the United States for the protection of their rights in certain lands in Indiana, said: "When your parent disowned you as her children, and sent over to this great island many strong warriors to burn your towns, destroy your families, and bring you into captivity, we, of the Muhheakunuks, defended your fathers on the west against the warriors which your parent had sent against you on that side; and we also sent our warriors to join your great chief, Washington, to aid him in driving back into the sea the unnatural monsters who had come up from thence to devour you, and ravage the land which we a long time before granted to your fathers to live upon." (_American State Papers—Public Lands_, vol. iii., Washington, 1834).

[1273] Kidder's _Mil. Operations in Eastern Maine_, p. 51.—ED.

[1274] In Kidder's _Expeditions of Captain John Lovewell_, it is stated that the petition for guns, blankets, etc., of thirteen Pequakets, who were willing to enlist, was granted by the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts Bay. The date of the petition is not given. For the treaty of July 10, 1776, see _Amer. Arch._, 5th, i. 835; and the reply of the Micmacs to Washington, _Ibid._ iii. 800.—ED.

[1275] On the 24th of May, Ethan Allen addressed a letter to several tribes of the Canadian Indians, asking their warriors to join with his warriors "like brothers, and ambush the regulars." This proceeding he reported to the General Assembly of Connecticut two days afterward. On the 2nd of June, Allen proposed to the Provincial Congress of New York an invasion of Canada, urging as one of the reasons therefor that there would be "this unspeakable advantage: that instead of turning the Canadians and Indians against us, as is wrongly suggested by many, it would unavoidably attach and connect them to our interest." From Newbury, Colonel Bayley, on the 23d of June, addressed the Northern Indians as follows: "If you have a mind to join us, I will go with any number you shall bring to our army, and you shall each have a good coat and blanket, etc., and forty shillings per month, be the time longer or shorter."

In the autumn of 1775, Arnold on his Kennebec march was joined at Sartigan by a number of Indians, to whom he offered "one Portuguese per month, two dollars bounty, their provisions, and the liberty to choose their own officers." Under this inducement they took their canoes and proceeded with the invading column.

[1276] Governor Trumbull, of Connecticut, was in correspondence with Major Brown. Fifteen days after the fall of Ticonderoga the governor wrote to the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts Bay, and, without mentioning his authority, spoke of the "iterated intelligence we receive of the plans framed by our enemies to distress us, by inroads of Canadians and savages from the Province of Quebec upon the adjacent settlements." (Stuart's _Trumbull_, p. 185.) In a note (_Ibid._ p. 186) an extract from a letter of Arnold, of the 19th, is given, in which Arnold says that there are "400 regulars at St. Johns, making all possible preparation to cross the lake, and expecting to be joined by a body of Indians, with a design of retaking Crown Point and Ticonderoga." (Cf. also, Arnold, May 23d, from Crown Point, in _Jour. Cong._, i. 111.) The New Hampshire Provincial Congress, on the 3d of June, 1775, had "undoubted intelligence of the attempts of the British ministry to engage the Canadians and savages in their interest, in the present controversy with America, and by actual movements in Canada." (_Sparks's MSS._) On the 6th of July, 1775, Governor Trumbull wrote to General Schuyler, enclosing a statement of a person who had been in Canada, containing the assertion that Governor Carleton "directly solicited the Indians for their assistance, but on their refusal declared he would dispossess them, and give their lands to those who would." July 21, 1775, Schuyler gave Major John Brown a general letter for use in Canada, in which he said: "Reports prevail that General Carleton intends an excursion into these parts; that for that purpose he is raising a body of Canadians and Indians." (Lossing's _Schuyler_, i. 366.) On Aug. 15th, Brown reported that "Sir John Johnson was at Montreal with a body of about 300 Tories and some Indians, trying to persuade the Caughnawagas to take up the hatchet", etc. (_Ibid._ p. 380). From the foregoing we can see that Congress had some reason to believe that the English authorities were at work among the Indians. Washington was evidently not convinced of the fact until Schuyler received information of a positive character concerning the Guy Johnson conference at Montreal. On the 24th of December, 1775, he wrote to Schuyler: "The proofs you have of the ministry's intention to engage the savages are incontrovertible. We have other confirmation of it by some despatches from John Stuart, the superintendent for the southern district, which luckily fell into my hands" (Sparks's _Washington_, iii. p. 209). Congress had not made public its previous sources of information, but it authorized the publication of "the second paragraph in General Schuyler's letter relative to the measures taken by the ministerial agents to engage the Indians in a war with the colonies." Montgomery, at St. John's, had, in September, already met with proofs of the most convincing character, but the presence of the Mohawks there, and their opposition to the American force, does not seem to have made the impression to which it was entitled.

[1277] _Secret Journals of Congress_, p. 44. Sparks, in his review of the subject, says "After the sanguinary affair at the Cedars ... Congress openly changed their system" (_Washington_, iii. p. 497). The resolution passed May 25th. Washington was then in Philadelphia. As late as June 9th, he wrote from New York: "I have been much surprised at not receiving a more explicit account of the defeat of Colonel Bedell and his party at the Cedars. I should have thought some of the officers in command would and ought to have transmitted it immediately, but as they have not, it is probable that I should have long remained in doubt as to the event, had not the commissioners called on me to-day." The coincidence of Washington's presence in Philadelphia at the time of the passage of the resolve is more significant than the fact that a battle had been fought of which the general of the army had only just heard two weeks after that date.

[1278] The address to the people of Ireland is dated May 10, 1775, the date of the assembling of Congress. The address was agreed to July 28th. It would be hard to justify the language used, if we accept the nominal date of the instrument as the actual date of its composition. When it was issued, the atrocities committed at the Cedars were still fresh in the minds of the members.

[1279] A note on the opinions of leading men, respecting the employment of Indians, is on a later page. The index (under _Indians_) to B. P. Poore's _Descriptive Catalogue_ will point to the government publications.—ED.

[1280] _Speeches_; also in Niles's _Principles_ (1876), p. 459. Cf. also Burke's _Speeches_, and the reference in Walpole's _Last Journals_, ii. 193.—ED.

[1281] This letter of Dunmore is quoted by Dartmouth. (_Am. Arch._, 4th, iii. 6.) On the 23d of April, 1779, William Livingston forwarded copy to Congress. It was ordered to be printed (Almon's _Remembrancer_, viii. p. 278). According to Bancroft, Gage in 1774 asked Carleton his opinion about raising "a body of Canadians and Indians, and for them to form a junction with the king's forces in this province." Carleton, in reply, apparently discouraged the project, saying, "You know what sort of people they [the Indians] are" (Bancroft, vii. pp. 117, 119).

[1282] Guy Johnson was the son-in-law of Sir William Johnson, as well as his successor in office, and the Mohawks said: "The love we have for Sir William Johnson, and the obligations the whole Six Nations are under to him, must make us regard and protect every branch of his family."

[1283] From the best evidence that I can get, I conclude that Ontario and Oswego are one. Stone and Lossing state that there were two conferences. Guy Johnson, in "a brief sketch of his past transactions", refers to but one (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. 636).

[1284] At a conference between Captain John, in behalf of the Six Nations, and Colonel Butler, of the colony of Connecticut, in 1776, Captain John said: "We come to make you a visit, and let you know we were at the treaty at Oswego with Col. Guy Johnson." "We do now assure you that so long as the waters run, so long you may depend on our friendship. We are all of one mind and are all for peace." (Miner's _Wyoming_, p. 183.) Under date of Nov. 21, 1774, the following is entered in the records of Harvard College: "As the corporation with pleasure have received information of Mr. Zebulon Butler to engage in a mission to the Tuscarora Indians, they cheerfully signify their readiness to give him all suitable encouragement, as far as may be in their power, if he should proceed according to his intention in so laudable an undertaking." This extract will perhaps explain Col. Butler's influence among the Indians.

[1285] An unsuccessful attempt was made to detach Cameron, Stuart's deputy, from the king's service. He was offered a salary and compensation for losses if he would join the American cause. "He refused to resign his commission or accept of any employment in the colony service." Hearing later that he was to be seized, he fled to the Cherokee country. This alarmed the colonists, but they were quieted when they heard that he had written "that Captain Stewart had never given him orders to induce the Indians to fall upon Carolina, but to keep them firmly attached to his majesty" (Moultrie's _Memoirs_, i. p. 76). It appears from Stuart's correspondence that he received almost simultaneously, in the first part of October, satisfactory replies from the Indians and orders from General Gage to make use of the natives (_Amer. Arch._, 4th ser., iv. p. 317). The Catawbas, a relatively insignificant tribe, were said to be friendly to the rebels. The Cherokees were ready for attack (Almon's _Remembrancer_, Part iii., 1776, p. 180).

[1286] The reasons for believing that both these statements were true have already been given.

[1287] Bancroft's _United States_, viii. p. 88.

[1288] _Parl. Reg._, x. p. 48. Flavored as follows in a communication quoted in Almon's _Remembrancer_, viii. p. 328: "God and nature hath put into our hands the scalping-knife and tomahawk, to torture them into unconditional submission." Burgoyne's opinions at this time became important; they are in his speeches (_Parl. Reg._), his letter to the secretary of state (Ryerson's _Loyalists_), his address to the Indians (Anburey's _Travels_), and elsewhere (_Hadden's Journal and Orderly-Book_, etc.). Cf. also _Gent. Mag._, March, 1778; McKnight's _Burke_, ii. 213; _Walpole and Mason Corresp._, i. 335; Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_.—ED.

[1289] Vol. iii., App.

[1290] At the same time that some of them were engaged in hostilities in Canada, others were at Philadelphia having peace-talks with Congress (_Journals of Congress_, ii. pp. 192, 206, 207).

[1291] For the treaty at Albany in August, see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xxv. 75, and _N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. 605. A report of the commissioner of Indian affairs in the Northern Department, addressed to President Hancock from Albany, Dec. 14, 1775, is in _Letters and Papers, 1761-1776_ (MSS. in Mass. Hist. Soc.).—ED.

[1292] Numerous other conferences and communications between different persons and bodies and the several tribes attracted attention this season. In May, 1775, the Mohawks declared to the committee of Albany and Schenectady that it was their intention to remain neutral, but they had heard that their superintendent was threatened, and they would protect him (_Am. Arch._, 4th ser., ii. p. 842). They also addressed a letter to the Oneidas, calling on them to prevent the Bostonians from capturing him (_Ibid._ pp. 664, 665). For accounts of the conferences, see _Am. Arch._, 4th ser., iii.; also Stone's _Brant_, i. ch. v. Cf. letter from Albany in _Am. Arch._, 4th ser., iii. p. 625.

[1293] When Fort Stanwix was occupied without causing an Indian outbreak, Washington congratulated Schuyler (Sparks's _Washington_, iv. p. 24). We have but little information of the conference at Montreal which Col. Guy Johnson held in July; but in Almon's _Remembrancer_, i. p. 241, the statement is made that a considerable number of the chiefs and warriors of the Six Nations were present, and that there were also present 1,700 Caughnawagas. In the presence of Governor Carleton, "they unanimously resolved to support their engagements with his majesty, and remove all intruders on the several communications." This gives a hint of the jealousy with which they regarded the occupation of the posts at the carrying-places between the Mohawk Valley and the lakes. See also Guy Carleton's letter to Dartmouth (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. 635), in which he says that at Ontario they agreed to defend the communications.

[1294] An intended conference of the Six Nations with the Canadian Indians was announced to Congress by Schuyler in January, 1776 (_Am. Arch._, 4th ser., iv. p. 898). In March the Oneidas, by their friendly interference, again prevented the taking up of the hatchet which had been surrendered at Albany. (Dean to Schuyler, _Am. Arch._, 4th ser., v. p. 768.) The Caughnawagas went to Oneida, but would not go to the Onondaga council in March (_Ibid._ p. 769). Dean went to the Onondaga council. While on the way there his life was threatened, and the Oneidas declined to go on until they received assurances of Dean's safety (_Ibid._ pp. 1100-1103). The Caughnawagas, returning from Onondaga[?], surrendered the sharp hatchet which Col. Guy Johnson had given them. ("The Commissioners in Canada to the President of Congress, Montreal, May 6, 1776", in _Ibid._ p. 1214.)

[1295] The loyalists termed this Schuyler's "Peacock Expedition", because the men decorated themselves with feathers from the peacocks at Johnson Hall. Cf. Jones's _New York_, i. 71, and note xxx.; De Peyster's _Life and Misfortunes of Sir John Johnson_ (New York, 1882), which was first issued as a part of the _Orderly-Book of Sir John Johnson_ (Albany, 1882). This contains a portrait of Sir John, which will also be found in Hubbard's _Red Jacket_.—ED.

[1296] Tuesday, March 5, 1776. Two Indian chiefs, who lately arrived in town from Canada, were introduced to his majesty at St. James's by Col. Johnson, and graciously received (_Gentleman's Magazine_, xlvi. p. 138).

[1297] See _ante_, chap. ii.

[1298] The site is at present covered by the town of Rome. Its name was changed, when occupied by the Americans, to Fort Schuyler, and for a time the new name conquered a place in the despatches, but the fort is more generally known and spoken of by its original title. There had been another Fort Schuyler at the spot where Utica now stands, and this fact has caused some confusion. See a paper on Forts Stanwix and Bull and other forts near Rome, by D. E. Wager, in the _Oneida. Hist. Soc. Trans._, 1885-86, p. 65.—ED.

[1299] The "large force at Oswego" was probably suggested by a grand Indian council held at Niagara in September, 1776, between Col. John Butler and others representing the English and fifteen Indian tribes, including representatives of the Six Nations. The Indians declared their intention to embark in the war and abide the result of the contest (MSS. of Gen. Gansevoort, quoted by Stone in his _Brant_, ii. p. 4, note).

[1300] In March the Oneidas sent a delegation, accompanied by the Rev. Mr. Kirkland, to the army, to see how matters were going. An offer made by them to act as scouts, probably a result of this tour of inspection, was on the 29th of April accepted by Congress.

[1301] Stone, in his _Brant_, i. p. 185, attributes to Herkimer an act of intended treachery utterly inconsistent with Herkimer's character as it is portrayed to us. Simms, in his _Frontiersmen_, etc. (ii. p. 19), gives a more natural version of the story.

[1302] This tragical incident, which attained great currency at the time, is followed in D. Wilson's _Life of Jane McCrea_ (New York, 1853); Mrs. Ellet's _Women of the Rev._ (ii. 221); Lossing's _Schuyler_ (ii. 250) and _Field-Book_ (vol. i.); the elder Stone's _Brant_ (i. 203), and the younger Stone's papers in _Hist. Mag._ (April, 1867) and _Galaxy_ (Jan., 1867, also in Beach's _Indian Miscellany_), and App. to his _Burgoyne's Campaign_; Asa Fitch in _N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc._, also in Stephen Dodd's _Revolutionary Memorials_; Epaphras Hoyt in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc._ (1847, p. 77); _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, viii. 202; also Moore's _Diary_ (475), and Ruttenber's _Hudson River Indians_ (p. 273). The subsequent fate of Lieut. Jones, her lover, is told in the _Catholic World_, Dec., 1882.—ED.

[1303] The hints as to Burgoyne's opinions of the Indians which are derived from contemporaneous documents are of course more satisfactory than any of his subsequent expressions of opinion. In his speech in the House of Commons, May 26, 1778, his estimate of their value as soldiers was very reasonable: "Sir, I ever esteemed the Indian alliance, at best, a necessary evil. I ever believed their services to be overvalued; sometimes insignificant, often barbarous, always capricious; and that the employment of them in war was only justifiable when, by being united to a regular army, they could be kept under control, and rendered subservient to a general system." (_Parl. Reg._, ix. p. 218).

[1304] The number of Herkimer's force can never be positively ascertained. It has generally been stated at from 800 to 1,000. In the letter of the Council of Safety to John Jay and Gouverneur Morris (_Journals of the Provincial Congress, the Provincial Convention, the Committee of Safety, and the Council of Safety of the State of New York_, vol. i. p. 1039) it is estimated at 700.

[1305] _Narrative of the Mil. Actions of Col. Mariamus Willett_ (N. Y., 1831).

[1306] In Simms's _Frontiersmen_, ii. p.152, and note, there is a description of the Cobleskill affair. Simms says that Stone is in error in making two engagements, one in 1778 and one in 1779, at this spot, and he places the date at May 30, 1778. Campbell describes the event as having occurred in 1779 (_Border Warfare_, etc., p. 175). Thacher, in his _Military Journal_, mentions the event in 1778. The next date preceding the entry is May 20th; the next succeeding, June 1st. Col. Stone actually gives three accounts of this engagement,—two in the summer of 1778 and one in 1779.

[1307] The population of the valley at that time has been estimated by Miner at twenty-five hundred, who rejects the larger number given by Chapman and others as not being based on any enumeration; but John Jenkins, in 1783, represented, in behalf of the inhabitants, to the legislature, that such an enumeration was taken, and yielded six thousand persons.

[1308] From Major John Butler's report to Lieut.-Col. Bolton, dated at Lackwanak, July 8, 1778. This report was apparently withheld from Miner's agent, who wrote against its title "Disallowed at the foreign office." Butler's humanity "in making those only his object who were in arms" was the subject of congratulation of Lord George Germain, in a letter to Sir Henry Clinton. See extract in Miner's _Wyoming_, p. 234. Butler probably understates his losses; but, as is the case with all successful ambuscades, it must have been light. Miner quotes from an American prisoner, who thinks from forty to eighty fell. This seems improbable, when the circumstances of the fight are taken into consideration. The report of Colonel Denison to Governor Trumbull is among the Trumbull MSS. in the Mass. Hist. Soc.

[1309] Eleven dead Indians were left on the field. The American loss was reported by Sullivan as three killed and thirty-three wounded. The number of the enemy engaged was reported by prisoners at eight hundred, although Butler himself stated that his whole force numbered only six hundred men.

[1310] Aug. 20, 1779, General Haldimand had a conference with deputies of the Six Nations. Sullivan was then invading the Indian country. Haldimand told the Indians that he did not "establish" Oswego, because he then "had intelligence that the rebels were preparing boats at Saratoga and Albany to go up the Mohawk River, with an intention to take post at Oswego; but in the course of a few weeks he received a different account, that that was not their intention, but a large rebel army was come up the Connecticut River under the command of the rebel General Haysen, with an intention to invade this province." "As to your apprehensions of the rebels coming to attack your country, I cannot have the least thought of it" (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. p. 776). Sullivan's force was accounted for as "a feint to be made upon the Susquehanna to draw the attention of Colonel Butler and the Six Nations of Indians from going to Detroit."

[1311] Respecting the original maps made by Lieut. Lodge, of Sullivan's army, showing by actual survey the routes of the several divisions of the army, General Clark informs me that they have been discovered, and will be included in a proposed volume on the campaign, to be issued by the State of New York. What seems to be an original map is preserved among the Force maps in the library of Congress. There is in Simms's _Frontiersmen_ (ii. 272) a map of Sullivan's march along Seneca and Cayuga lakes from the Tioga, following a sketch found among the papers of Capt. Machin, who was in the expedition. See note following this chapter.

For the route of Brodhead, see _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, iii. 655. Maps of the Groveland ambuscade and the Newtown fight are in the _Cayuga County Hist. Soc. Coll._, no. 1.—ED.

[1312] There is in the _Penna. Archives_, xii., a list of the forts in Pennsylvania built and maintained during the war.

[1313] It did not need that with the adoption of Indian tactics the barbarous custom of mangling the dead should be included, even for purposes of economy. "On Monday, the 30th, sent out a party for some dead Indians." "Toward morning found them, and skinned two of them from their hips down, for boot-legs: one pair for the major, the other for myself" (_Proc. N. J. Hist. Soc._, ii. p. 31,—Diary of Lieut. William Barton).

[1314] The destruction of grain in Schoharie Valley alarmed Washington. On November 5th he wrote Governor Clinton, saying: "We had the most pleasing prospects of forming considerable magazines of bread from the country which has been laid waste, and which from your Excellency's letter is so extensive that I am apprehensive we shall be obliged to bring flour from the South to support the troops at and near West Point" (Sparks's _Washington_, vii. p. 282).

[1315] The operations of the several columns are reported by Gen. Haldimand in a letter to Lord George Germain, dated Quebec, Oct. 25, 1780. The return of "rebels killed and taken on the expedition to the Mohawk River, in October, 1780", was as follows: On the Mohawk River and at Stone Arabia, the 18th, 19th, and 20th of October, prisoners, 10 privates; killed, 1 colonel and 100 privates. At Canaghsioraga, the 23d of October, prisoners, 2 captains, 1 lieutenant, 4 sergeants, 4 corporals, 45 privates; killed, 1 lieutenant, 3 privates. The returns of October 23d must refer to the capture of the party sent to destroy the boats, an event which is generally said to have been accomplished without firing a shot.

[1316] "It is thought, and perhaps not without foundation, that this incursion was made upon a supposition that Arnold's treachery had succeeded" (Sparks's _Washington_, vii. p. 269).

[1317] By a pocket-book found on Butler's person it appears that he had with him 607 men, including 130 Indians. This list is appended to Willett's report in Almon's _Remembrancer_, xiii. 341.

[1318] _Secret Journals_, p. 255.

[1319] Cf. Vol. V. p. 584.

[1320] William Leete Stone was born April 20, 1792. He died August 15, 1844. He was for many years one of the proprietors and editors of the _New York Commercial Advertiser_. In addition to the works enumerated in the text, and besides several miscellaneous works, he also published _Border Wars of the American Revolution_ (two volumes, 1839), _Poetry and History of Wyoming_, (1841), and _Life of Uncas and Miantonamoh_ (1842). He is generally spoken of as Col. Stone, a title which he gained through a staff-office. (Cf. account of Col. S. in _Hist. Mag._, Sept., 1865, and his portrait in Feb., 1866).

[1321] Cf. Vol. III. p. 510.

[1322] See Vol. IV. pp. 409-12.

[1323] _The Journals of the Provincial Congress, The Provincial Convention, The Committee of Safety, and the Council of Safety of the State of New York, 1775-1776-1777_, Albany, 1842, in two volumes, the second volume being devoted to the correspondence of the Provincial Congress. Here we are able to trace the doubts about Brant, the suspicion of Guy Johnson, and we learn what steps were taken to check their influence. Reports of conferences and meetings are given here, including the meeting between Brant and Herkimer at Unadilla.

[1324] Two of these which have been found useful in connection with this chapter are: _Indian Treaties and Laws and Regulations relating to Indian affairs, to which is added an Appendix, containing the proceedings of the Old Congress, and other important State Papers, in relation to Indian Affairs_ (published by the War Department, Washington, 1826); and _Laws, Treaties, and other documents having operation and respect to the Public Lands. Collected and arranged pursuant to an Act of Congress, passed April 27, 1810_ (Washington City, 1811).

See also _Indian Treaties, 1778-1837. Compiled by the Committee on Indian Affairs_ (Washington, 1837).

[1325] See notice in Vol. V. p. 581.

[1326] In this book there is a full account of the organization of a company of rangers, and a description of their mock Indian costume. There is also an account of the seizure and destruction by the settlers of a lot of goods which the authorities had quietly permitted to be forwarded by traders to the frontier for traffic with the Indians at a time when the border inhabitants did not wish it done. The military authorities, who interfered, were brushed away as lightly as the traders had been who complained to them. The bibliography of the book is given in Vol. V. p. 579.

[1327] See Vol. V. p. 580.

[1328] _Upper Mississippi, or historical sketches of the Mound Builders, the Indian Tribes and the progress of civilization in the Northwest, from_ A. D. _1600, to the Present time_, by George Gale (Chicago, 1867).

[1329] _An authentic and comprehensive history of Buffalo, with some account of its early inhabitants, both savage and civilised, comprising historic notions of the Six Nations, or Iroquois Indians, including a sketch of the life of Sir William Johnson, and of other prominent white men long resident among the Senecas. Arranged in chronological order_, by William Ketchum (Buffalo, 1864), 2 vols.

[1330] Mary Jemison, the white woman who lived among the Senecas so many years, is carelessly spoken of several times as Mary Johnson; elsewhere he gives the name correctly.

[1331] _The Book of the Indians and History of the Indians of North America from its first discovery to the year 1841_, by Samuel G. Drake (Boston, 1841). This is the title of the 8th edition.

[1332] _The Memoir and writings of James Handasyd Perkins_, edited by William Henry Channing (Boston, 1851), 2 vols. His chief paper originally appeared in the _N. A. Rev._, Oct., 1839.

[1333] _Annals of the West, embracing a concise account of principal events which have occurred in the Western States and territories, from the discovery of the Mississippi Valley to the year eighteen hundred and fifty-six._ Compiled from the most authentic sources, and published by James R. Albach (Pittsburgh, 1858, 3d edition).

[1334] Cf. Vol. V. p. 581.

[1335] Lack of space prevents the proper development of the influence upon the Indians, of the constant absorption by the colonies of their lands. Besides settlers with their families; besides squatters, and in addition to English companies, like the Ohio Company and the Walpole Company, the attention of individuals was directed towards these lands for the double purposes of colonization and investment. Bancroft (vi. 377) says that Franklin organized "a powerful company to plant a province in that part of the country which lay back of Virginia, between the Alleghanies and a line drawn from Cumberland Gap to the mouth of the Scioto." The correspondence of Washington discloses his eagerness to secure land for investment (see Vol. V. p. 271). He labored to get for the soldiers who had participated with him in the French wars the land bounties offered by Dinwiddie, and in addition he sought to secure land for himself by purchase. "Nothing is more certain", he wrote to his agent, "than that the lands cannot remain long ungranted, when once it is known that rights are to be had" (Sparks's _Washington_, ii. 346). "My plan is to secure a good deal of land" (_Ibid._ 348). He wished the matter kept secret, as he apprehended that others would enter into the same movement if they knew about it (_Ibid._ 349). In 1770 he personally visited the valley of the Ohio, and marked corners for the soldiers' land. While on this trip he was told by Indians that they viewed the settlements of the people on this river with an uneasy and jealous eye, and that they must be compensated for their right if the people settle there, notwithstanding the cession of the Six Nations (_Ibid._ 531).

In Pennsylvania an act was passed Feb. 18, 1769, "to prevent persons from settling on lands within the boundaries of this province not purchased of Indians." The preamble recites that "Whereas, many disorderly persons have presumed to settle upon lands not purchased of the Indians, which has occasioned great uneasiness and dissatisfaction on the part of the said Indians, and have [_sic_] been attended with dangerous consequences to the peace and safety of the province", etc. (_Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, etc., republished under authority of the Legislature_, by Alexander James Dallas, Philadelphia, 1797).

[1336] See Vol. III. p. 161.

[1337] If land companies were disposed to avail themselves of the doubt as to what tribe of Indians had a right to sell land, so the British government itself had treated the question of their shadowy allegiance to suit its convenience. Bradstreet, in his abortive attempts at making a treaty with them, called them subjects. Sir William Johnson said the very idea of being "subjects was abhorrent to them." Compare this with the doctrine laid down in Huske's _Present State of North America_, pp. 16, 17.

[1338] Croghan's testimony does not materially alter the boundaries as they were defined by Sir William Johnson in his report to the Lords of Trade, Nov. 13, 1763 (_N. Y. Col. Docs._, vii. p. 573). "Along the ridge of the Blue Mountains to the head of the Kentucky River, and down the same to the Ohio above the rifts, thence northerly to the south end of Lake Michigan", etc. Cf. letters (1767) to Franklin from George Croghan, Joseph Galloway, and Samuel Wharton, in the Shelburne Papers (_Hist. MSS. Com. Rep._, v. 218).

Charles W. E. Chapin contributed an article entitled "The Property Line of 1768", to the _Magazine of American History_, January, 1887. He shows how the boundary line defined in the Fort Stanwix treaty came to be known as the "Property Line", and forcibly points out the powerful influence this treaty had upon the Revolution.

[1339] _The Register of Pennsylvania, devoted to the preservation of facts and documents, and every other kind of useful information respecting the State of Pennsylvania_, 16 vols., 1828-1835, a weekly journal, edited by Samuel Hazard. See Vol. III. p. 510.

[1340] Cf. Vol. III. p. 508.

[1341] _An historical Amount of the Expedition against the Ohio Indians in the year 1764 under the command of Henry Bouquet_, etc., (London, reprinted for T. Jefferies, etc., 1766), App., vol. v. p. 69.

[1342] See also Stone's _Sir William Johnson_, Appendix, ii. no. vii. p. 486.

[1343] This original edition is called _History of the Discovery of America, of the landing of our forefathers at Plymouth, and of their most remarkable engagements with the Indians in New England from their first landing in 1620, until the final subjugation of the natives in 1669_. _To which is annexed the defeat of Generals Braddock, Harmer, and St. Clair by the Indians at the Westward, etc._ By the Rev. James Steward, D. D. (Brooklyn, L. I., no date). Slight changes were made in some of the titles to later editions, to indicate the material added, and the date 1669 was altered to 1679. Pritts, under the impression that it was a rare book, reprinted it in his _Border Life_, etc. Its accuracy was impugned in the _Historical Magazine_ (1857, p. 376; and 1858, p. 29). It was vigorously denounced in Field's _Indian Bibliography_ (no. 1,570, p. 397). "This work under all its Protean forms bears evidence that it was written for a comparatively unlettered public." Col. Peter Force is quoted as having said that he found twenty-two chronological errors on a single page. The notice concludes: "Under all forms there is only a variation of worthlessness." Dr. Trumbull gives a brief bibliographical notice in the _Brinley Catalogue_ (which shows six editions), from which I have extracted some of the information used in the text. The very poor woodcuts with which the book was originally illustrated, the violent colors with which the wretched illustrations of some of the later editions were disfigured, and the errors of dates, have prevented recognition of what there was of value about it.

[1344] It is not worth while to undertake to follow this book through all its editions and changes. It is important, however, for our purposes to note some of them. The estimate to which I have alluded is given in the appendix of the edition referred to above (p. 176), and the statement is made that it was obtained "from a gentleman employed in one of the Indian treaties." There was a second issue of the first edition with the imprint "Norwich", and the authorship attributed to "A Citizen of Connecticut." An edition was published at "Norwich, for the Author, at his Office", in 1810. In this edition "Henry Trumbull" appears as the author. Another edition was issued at Norwich in 1811, and another in 1812. One was also issued at Trenton in 1812. In these various editions slight changes in the arrangement of materials took place, some corrections were made, and from time to time additional matter was inserted. The name of the gentleman who furnished the list of Indians is given on page 115 of the Trenton edition, which I have been able to consult, as Benjamin Hawkins. Editions were published at Boston in 1819, 1828, 1841, and 1846. Dr. Trumbull is of opinion that there must be twenty editions of the book, which is certainly poor enough; but it happens that this list, which was evidently furnished by some one familiar with the subject, is to our purpose. The same list did service in _A Tour in the United States of America_, etc., by J. F. D. Smyth (London, 1784), where it appears (i. p. 347) without recognition of the original source. The arrangement of the order of tribes is changed, and the spelling of many of the Indian names is altered to correspond with the French methods of spelling, thus suggesting the possibility that the list may have been transcribed by Smyth from some French work. The author foots up the total number of warriors, including certain tribes west of the Mississippi and others in Canada, at 58,930. To these he adds one third to represent the old men, and making an error in his calculation, calls the total number of men 88,570. Allowing six souls for each male warrior he arrives at a total of 531,420, which, he says, "I consider as the whole number of souls, namely, men, women, and children of all the Indian nations."

[1345] _Views of Louisiana, together with a Journal of a Voyage up the Missouri River in 1811._ By H. M. Brackenridge, Esq. (Pittsburgh, 1814).

[1346] _Voyage dans les deux Louisianes et chez les Nations Sauvages du Missouri, par les Etats-Unis, l'Ohio et les Provinces qui le bordent, en 1801, 1802, et 1803; Avec un apperçu des mœurs, des usages, du caractère et des coutumes religieuses et civiles des peuples de ces diverses Countrées_, par M. Perrin du Lac (A Lyon, 1805).

[1347] It is also given in Campbell's _Annals of Tryon County_, note L, p. 319.

[1348] Three of the estimates referred to in the text are reprinted by Schoolcraft under the following headings: "Enumeration of M. Chauvignerie's Official Report to the Government of Canada, A. D. 1736;" "Estimate of Colonel Bouquet, 1764;" "Estimate of Captain Thomas Hutchins, 1764." Schoolcraft also gives one more estimate of that period, viz.: "Account of the Indian Nations given in the year 1778 by a Trader who resided many years in the neighborhood of Detroit. (From the MSS. of James Madison.)" (Schoolcraft's _Indian Tribes_, iii. p. 553.)

[1349] All of the authorities to which he refers have already been cited, and it may fairly be said that there is nothing of special value in his remarks on the subject. In the development of the topic to which the work is devoted the author alludes to the custom of the Indians to refrain from connection with women not only during the time that they were on the war-path, but for some days before starting. The unanimity of testimony as to this custom of the Indians renders special citations unnecessary. Until the natives were debauched in this respect by contact with civilization, no authentic instance can be found of the violation of a woman by a warrior on the war-path. Brantz Mayer, in his defence of Cresap (_Logan and Cresap_, p. 110), quotes from the _Md. Gazette_ (Nov. 30, 1774) a charge of this sort. If there was foundation for it in the minds of those who made it, investigation would probably have traced the outrage to whites disguised as Indians. The superstition which protected women from Indian assault was still in force at that time.

[1350] The editor says he "has given the following memorandum of Indian _fighting men_, inhabiting near the distant parts, in 1762; to indulge the curious in future times, and show also the extent of Dr. Franklin's travels. He believes it likely to have been taken by Dr. Franklin in an expedition which he made as a commander in the Pennsylvania militia, in order to determine measures and situation for the outposts; but is by no means assured of the accuracy of this opinion. The paper, however, is in Dr. Franklin's handwriting: but it must not be mistaken as containing a list of the whole of the natives enumerated, but only as such part of them as lived near the places described."

[1351] In addition to a vast number of reports, extracts from letters, and proceedings of one sort and another, I would call especial attention to the following papers: Carleton's Commission (ii. p. 120); Proceedings connected with Connolly's arrest (ii. pp. 218-221); Schuyler's expedition to Tryon County (iii. p. 135); Stuart's letter to Gage, Oct. 3, 1776 (Part iii., 1776, iv. p. 180); an account of Wyoming massacre from fugitives (vii. p. 51); Col. Wm. Butler's report to General Stark of the destruction of Unadilla, etc. (vii. pp. 253-255); Colonel Van Schaick's report of the destruction of Onondaga (viii. p. 272); the Minisink affair (viii. pp. 275, 276); the letter of the Earl of Dartmouth to Lord Dunmore (viii. p. 278); attack On Indians at Ogeechee, April, 1779 (viii. p. 300); action of the Council at Williamsburgh in Hamilton's case (viii. p. 337); letters from Sullivan's headquarters concerning battle at Newtown (ix. p. 23); Sullivan's proclamation to Oneidas (ix. p. 25); Brodhead's report of his expedition (ix. p. 152); Sullivan's report, Teaoga, Sept. 30, 1779 (ix. p. 158); Joint movements in the valleys of Mohawk, Hudson, and Connecticut (xi. pp. 81-83). The foregoing sufficiently illustrates the wealth of historical material collected in the _Remembrancer_.

[1352] The _Register_ contains nearly all the papers submitted to Parliament which bore upon American affairs, together with other documents which the publishers from time to time added to the volumes. The _Remembrancer_ and the _Register_ together furnish the means of writing a history of the border warfare of the Revolution which would be nearly complete. A large mass of documentary material respecting the relation of General Haldimand in Quebec with the Indians and with British officers operating with the Indians is in the _Haldimand Papers_, in the British Museum, of which the Dominion archivist, Douglas Brymner, is now printing a calendar in his _Annual Reports_ (Ottawa). The correspondence of Haldimand and Guy Johnson, 1778-1783, makes three vols. Many papers on this border warfare are in the Quebec series of MSS. in the Public Record Office, and are also noted by Brymner (_Report_, 1883, p. 79).—ED.

[1353] In the _Secret Journals_, the Articles of Confederation, proposed by Franklin on the 21st of July, 1775, are printed in full. I have had occasion to refer to them because an offensive and defensive alliance with the Six Nations is proposed in them. In the "Advertisement" to the edition of the _Secret Journals_ which is cited, the publishers say that these Articles "have never before been published." In the _Gentleman's Magazine_ (xlv. p. 572) a "Plan of the American Confederacy" is given. This plan is copy of Franklin's proposed Articles of Confederation, with a preamble addressed to the Provincial Congress of North Carolina, and was apparently received from that colony. In connection with this, see Bancroft (viii. p. 97). In the _Scot's Magazine_ (Edinburgh, 1775, xxxvii. p. 665) these Articles were copied from the _Gentleman's Magazine_, with this comment: "The copy from whence this was printed was addressed particularly to the Province of North Carolina; but the same was without doubt submitted to the consideration of every other Provincial Congress, as the preamble clearly shows." The preamble thus referred to reads: "The Provincial Congress of —— are to view the following Articles as a subject which will be proposed to the Continental Congress at their next session." These two magazines publish the Articles as a mere submission of a plan. When the proposed Articles of Confederation reached the _Annual Register_ they became "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union entered into by the several colonies of New Hampshire, &c., &c., in General Congress met at Philadelphia, May 20, 1775" (_Annual Register_, 1775, p. 253). These Articles were also published as if they had been adopted in _The History of the British Empire, etc._ By a Society of Gentlemen. (Printed for Robert Campbell & Co., Philadelphia, 1798, 2 vols.: i. p. 188, note.) They are also given as Articles of Confederation, etc., entered into, etc., May 20, 1775, in _An Impartial History of the War in America_, etc., Boston, 1781, Appendix to vol. i. p. 410.

[1354] The rumors current in the colonies during the progress of events express the hopes and the fears of the colonists, and to a certain extent also indicate their opinions. We should naturally expect to find in an American collection of this sort something to help us in getting at the views of the colonists on the question of employing Indians. In fact, there is but little to be found in the book on this subject, and we are obliged to turn again to Almon's _Remembrancer_, where we find numerous rumors recorded, some of them improbable in their very nature, but serving to indicate the hopes of the people; as for instance, in a letter from Pittsfield, May 18, 1775: "The Mohawks had given permission to the Stockbridge Indians to join us, and also had 500 men of their own in readiness to assist" (i. p. 66). Again, Worcester, May 10: "We hear that the Senecas, one of the Six Nations, are determined to support the colonies" (i. p. 84). [This extract will be found in the _Spy_ of that date.] June 20, 1775: "The Indians from Canada, when applied to by Governor Carleton to distress the settlement, say they have received no offence from the people, so will not make war with them" (i. p. 147). August 3: "The Canadians and Indians cannot be persuaded by Governor Carleton to join his forces, but are determined to remain neuter" (i. p. 169). August 12: "The Indian nations, for a thousand miles westward, are very staunch friends to the colonies, there being but one tribe inclined to join Governor Carleton, of which, however, there is no danger, as the others are able to drive that tribe and all the force Carleton can raise" (i. p. 251). The _Boston Gazette and Country Journal_ for August 21, 1775, contains the statement that "all apprehensions of danger from our fellow-subjects in Canada and the Indians are entirely removed." The arrival of Swashan, with four other Indians of the St. Francois tribe, at Cambridge, with the statement that "they were kindly received and are now in the service", is printed in the columns of the same journal. Cf. Drake's _Book of the Indians_, iii. ch. xii. p. 156; Moore's _Diary of the Rev._, i. p. 127. The _Boston Gazette_, etc. (Dec. 4, 1775) has the following: "Last week his Excellency the Commander-in-Chief received some despatches from the Honorable Continental Congress, by which we have authentic intelligence that several nations of the Western Indians have offered to send 3,000 men to join the American forces whenever wanted." _The New England Chronicle or the Essex Gazette_, from Thursday, July 27, to Thursday, August 3, 1775, published at Stoughton Hall, Harvard College, under date of Aug. 3, says: "We can't learn that a single tribe of savages on this continent have been persuaded to take up the hatchet against the colonies, notwithstanding the great pains made use of by the vile emissaries of a savage ministry for that purpose."

[1355] Also in Campbell's _Border Warfare of New York during the Rev. War_ (a second edition of his _Annals of Tryon County_), App.

[1356] This petition, if in the _Mass. Archives_, as one might infer, cannot now be found there.

[1357] For instance, John Sullivan and John Langdon write from Philadelphia, May 22, 1775, that the Indians tell them Guy Johnson "has really endeavored to persuade the Indians to enter into a war with us" (vii. p. 501); Lewa, a well-known Indian, reports the Canadian Indians friendly to the Americans, and says he "can raise 500 Indians to assist at any time" (vii. p. 525); Governor Trumbull has learned that "the Cognawaga Indians have had a war-dance, being bro't to it by Gen. Carleton" (vii. p. 532); Rev. Dr. Eleazer Wheelock gives Dean's report as to the good-will of the Canadian Indians (vii. p. 547).

[1358] Sparks asserts that Natanis, a Penobscot chief, was in the interest of Carleton (_Washington_, iii. p. 112, note). Judge Henry says he was one of those who joined Arnold at Sartigan. In the _American Archives_ (5th ser., i. pp. 836, 837), James Bowdoin, writing to Washington, says that the Penobscots said "that when General Washington sent his army to Canada, five of their people went with them, and two of them were wounded and three taken prisoners." The small number of Indians who accompanied Arnold cut no figure in the campaign, but the advance of the column under Montgomery excited fears in the minds of the English in Canada that the invaders might use the natives as auxiliaries, precisely as the Americans feared a similar use on the English side. In Almon's _Remembrancer_ (ii. p. 108), a letter from Quebec states: "General Montgomery, who commands the provincial troops, consisting of two regiments of New York militia, a body of Continental troops, and some Indians", etc. On Sept. 16, 1775, General Carleton, writing from Montreal to Gage, in an account of the landing of the Americans near St. John's, says: "Many Indians have gone over to them, and large numbers of Canadians are with them at Chamblée" (Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 110, note). The Canadian Indians, instead of contributing to Montgomery's force, asked for protection,—a plea which apparently seemed, in the excitement of the hour in Canada, to be a declaration of friendship. "The Caghnawagas have desired a 100 men from us. I have complied with their request, and am glad to find they put so much confidence in us, and are so much afraid of Mr. Carleton" (letter from Montgomery, camp before St. John's, Oct. 20, 1775, in Almon's _Remembrancer_, ii. p. 122). The Mohawks, on the contrary, acted on the English side, and some of them were killed by the Americans.

[1359] It was from these reports, as well as from personal interviews, that Washington formed his opinion as to the temper of the Canadian and Northern Indians. A few quotations will illustrate what he had a right to think, _e. g._ (p. 35) report of committee, August 3, 1775, appointed to confer with Lewis, a chief of the Caughnawaga tribe. "_Question._ Has the governor of Canada prevailed on the St. Francois Indians to take up arms against these colonies? _Answer._ The governor sent out Messi'rs St. Luc and Bœpassion to invite the several tribes of Indians to take up arms against you.... They answered nobody had taken up arms against them, and they would not take arms against anybody to trouble them, and they chose to rest in peace." Again (p. 80), the committee appointed to confer with the St. Francois tribe reported, Aug. 18, 1775: "_Q._ If Governor Carleton should know you offered us your assistance, are you not afraid he would destroy you? _A._ We are not afraid of it; he has threatened us, but if he attacks us we have arms to defend ourselves." Once more (p. 81): "_Q._ Do you know whether any tribes have taken up arms against us? _A._ All the tribes have agreed to afford you assistance, if wanted." Also (p. 89), Aug. 21st, £10 was appropriated for the use of five Indians belonging to the St. Francois tribe, "one being a chief of said tribe; the other four, having entered into the Continental army, are to receive eight pounds of said sum as one month's advance wages for each of them;" and (p. 148) Oct. 9, speech of two head sachems of the St. John's tribe. "Penobscot Falls, September 12, 1775. We have talked with the Penobscot tribe, and by them we hear that you are engaged in a war with Great Britain, and that they are engaged to join you in opposing your and our enemies. We heartily join with our brethren in the colony of Massachusetts, and are resolved to stand together, and oppose the people of Old England, that are endeavoring to take your and our lands and liberties from us."

[1360] "A company of minute-men, before the 19th of April, had been embodied among the Stockbridge tribe of Indians, and this company repaired to camp. On the 21st of June two of the Indians, probably of this company, killed four of the regulars with their bows and arrows, and plundered them" (Frothingham's _Siege of Boston_, p. 212). A letter of July 9th says: "Yesterday afternoon some barges were sounding the river of Cambridge (Charles) near its mouth, but were soon obliged to row off, by our Indians (fifty in number), who are encamped near that place" (_Ibid._ p. 212, note). On the 25th (June): "This day the Indians killed more of the British guard." On the 26th: "Two Indians went down near Bunker Hill, and killed a sentry" (_Ibid._ p. 213). Frothingham's authority is given as "John Kettel's diary. This commences May 17, and continues to Sept. 31, 1775." Through the kindness of Mr. Thomas G. Frothingham I have examined the original diary, which, in addition to the extracts given, contains several others showing that our riflemen picked off the British sentries. _The Boston Gazette and Country Journal_ (August 7, 1775) contains the following: "Watertown, August 7. Parties of Rifle Men, together with some Indians, are constantly harassing the Enemy's advanced Guards, and say they have killed several of the Regulars within a Day or two past." (_Ibid._ 14th): "We hear that last Thursday Afternoon a number of Rifle men killed 2 or 3 of the Regulars as they were relieving the Centries at Charlestown lines." The fact that two Indians were wounded by our own sentries in August is recorded in Craft's Journal, etc. (Essex Institute Hist. Coll., iii. p. 55). As there were no Indians with the English, this must have been an accidental collision.

[1361] The correspondence of Allan and Haldimand is in the _Quebec Series_, vol. xvii. (Public Record Office), and is chronicled in Brymner's _Report on the Dominion Archives_ (1883). Cf. further in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1858, p. 254, _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, 1882, p. 486; W. S. Bartlet's _Frontier Missionary_ (1853); G. W. Drisko's _Life of Hannah Weston_ (Machias, 1857); Journal of sloop "Hunter" in _Hist. Mag._, viii. 51; Ithiel Town's _Particular Services_, etc. There is a portrait and memoir of Frederic Kidder in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, April, 1887.—ED.

[1362] Cf. N. S. Benton's _Herkimer County_; Harold Frederic in _Harper's Mag._, lv. 171; Dawson's _Battles_, ch. 36; Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. ch. 12, etc.

[1363] This work was reviewed in the _Monthly Review_, iii. p. 349; _The New York Review_, iii. p. 195; _Christian Examiner and General Review_, xxvi. p. 137; _Christian Review_, iii. p. 537; _No. Amer. Rev._, Oct., 1839, by J. H. Perkins. (Cf. _Poole's Index_.)

The two volumes originally published in 1838 were edited by the son in 1865. An abridgment of it, known as the _Border Wars of the Rev._, makes part of Harper's Family Library.

There is some account of the early life of Brant in J. N. Norton's _Pioneer Missionaries_ (N. Y., 1859), and of his posterity by W. C. Bryant, of Buffalo, in _Amer. Hist. Record_, July, 1873; reprinted in W. W. Beach's _Indian Miscellany_. S. G. Drake told Brant's story in the _Book of the Indians_, and in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, ii. 345; iii. 59. There are references to letters of Brant among the Haldimand Papers, in the _Index of MSS._ (Brit. Mus.), 1880, p. 195. Mr. Lyman C. Draper, of Madison, Wisconsin, has been an amasser of material respecting Brant for forty years, but has not yet published his studies.

[1364] Col. Stone speaks of two conferences held in 1775, one at Ontario and one at Oswego. He says: "Tha-yen-dan-e-gea had accompanied Guy Johnson from the Mohawk Valley first westward to Ontario, thence back to Oswego" (_Brant_, i. p. 149). Lossing, upon the evidence at his command, adopted the same opinion: "Johnson went from Ontario to Oswego" (_Schuyler_, i. p. 355). I have made some effort to discover the site of Ontario, which apparently was to the "westward" of Oswego, but have been unable to find it, and have been forced to the conclusion that the officers who dated their letters from Fort Ontario at Oswego, and who spoke of the post in their correspondence, used the words Ontario and Oswego indifferently to express the same place. Guy Johnson dates several letters at Ontario. Col. Butler, in his correspondence in connection with the St. Leger expedition, dates his letters first at Niagara, then at Ontario. On Guy Johnson's map of the country [see _ante_, p. 609] the site is designated as Fort Ontario, and no other Ontario is put down. Guy Johnson reported that St. Leger had gone "on the proposed expedition by way of Ontario" (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. p. 714). We know that he went by Oswego, and except that Col. Butler writes from Ontario, we have no mention of Ontario in any of the accounts of this expedition. Gen. Haldimand, in speaking of the proposed reëstablishment of the post, calls it Oswego (_Ibid._ viii. p. 777). Guy Johnson, in the same connection, calls it Ontario (_Ibid._ p. 775) and Fort Ontario (_Ibid._ p. 780). Rev. Dr. Wheelock, describing Johnson's movements, said he had withdrawn with his family by the way of Oswego (_N. H. Provincial Papers_, vii. p. 548).

Shortly after Johnson's arrival in Montreal he wrote a brief account of his transactions to the Earl of Dartmouth, in which he spoke of the conference at Ontario, but said nothing of a second at Oswego (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. p. 636). This journal, certified by Joseph Chew, Secretary of Indian Affairs, appears to account for his motions continuously during this period, and speaks only of the conference at Ontario. He arrived at Ontario June 17th, embarked at that point July 11th for Montreal, and arrived at the latter place July 17th, with 220 Indians from Ontario (_Ibid._ viii. p. 658; Ketchum's _Buffalo_, i. p. 243). Mr. Berthold Fernow informs me that in Guy Johnson's account for expenses in the Indian Department in 1775 this item occurs: "July 8, 1775. For cash given privately to the chiefs and warriors of the 6 Nations during the treaty at Ontario, £260." No other conference in that immediate neighborhood is mentioned in the _Johnson MSS_. An instance of indifference in the application of the two names will be found in Mrs. Grant's _Memoirs of an American Lady_. Mr. B. B. Burt, of Oswego, writes to me that "there was not any Ontario west of Oswego except the _lake_", and kindly calls my attention to several instances in the records which tend to show the confusion in the use of these names. Among others he refers to a letter of Sir William Johnson's, in which he speaks of Ontario and Oswego, apparently meaning the same place (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. p. 530). A similar instance, as I believe, is to be found in the letter of Capt. Walter N. Butler to Gen. Clinton, Feb. 18, 1779, quoted in Stone's _Brant_, i. p. 384. In this latter case it is not surprising that the identity of the two places was not suspected by Col. Stone. At first sight Butler seems to be speaking of two distinct spots. In Orasmus H. Marshall's _Niagara Frontier, embracing Sketches of its early history and French and English local names_ (1865), Ontario as a town or site is not mentioned. O'Reilly's _Rochester_ contains an Indian account of the alliance, which makes no mention of Ontario (see pp. 388, 389). On the other hand, the Duc de la Rochefoucault Liancourt's _Travels through the United States of North America, the country of the Iroquois and Upper Canada, in the years 1795, 1796, and 1797_, mentions a place called Ontario on the Genessee River, but he gives no other description of it than of the log-cabin where he spent the night.

Hough, in his _Northern Invasion of October, 1780_, gives his reason for disputing Stone's statement that the Oneida settlements were destroyed by the enemy in the winter of 1779-1780. The reasons for believing that Hough was correct are stated elsewhere.

Stone places the invasion of the Schoharie Valley in October, 1780; but Simms (_Frontiersmen_, ii. p. 392 _et seq._) makes it clear that there were two invasions during that year, as indeed Stone himself (vol. ii. p. 97) seems to allow in quoting from Almon's _Remembrancer_ (part ii., 1780).

In his enthusiasm for his hero, Col. Stone is betrayed into calling Brant the principal war-chief of the confederacy; but Morgan, in his _League of the Iroquois_ (p. 103), speaking of the celebrated Joseph Brant Ta-yen-dä-ná-ga, says his "abilities as a military leader secured to him the command of the war parties of the Mohawks during the Revolution. He was also but a chief, and held no other office or title in the nation or in the confederacy." (Ketchum's _Buffalo_, i. p. 331). Stone (ii. p. 448) further says "the Six Nations had adopted from the whites the popular game of ball or cricket", but the _Jesuit Relations_, as well as La Potherie and Charlevoix, would have put him right in this respect.

[1365] Tryon County was formed in 1772 (Albany County then embracing all the northern and western part of the colony), so as to cover all that part of New York State lying west of a line running north and south nearly through the centre of the present Schoharie County. Campbell's work, by its title, therefore fairly included the scene of all the border warfare of New York. Many of the notes in the appendix are valuable, and they contain sketches of the lives of Sir William Johnson, Brant, Gen. Clinton, and Gen. Schuyler; Moses Younglove's account of his captivity and his charges against the English; and an account of the Wyoming massacre. Franklin's successful imitation, the Gerrish letter, is copied (as genuine in the first edition) from a local newspaper of the Revolutionary period. A table of the number of Indians employed by the English in the Revolutionary War is given, and an article, by the author, on the direct agency of the English government in the employment of Indians in the Revolutionary War is reprinted. The sketch of Clinton's life was separately published as _Lecture on the Life and Military Services of General James Clinton, read before the New York Historical Society, Feb., 1839_.

[1366] _Life of Kirkland_, by S. K. Lothrop, in Sparks's _Amer. Biog._, vol. xv. A sketch will also be found in the _History of the town of Kirkland, New York_, by Rev. A. D. Gridley (New York, 1874).

[1367] In the _History of the United States for families and libraries_, by Benson J. Lossing (New York, 1857), the author deals briefly, but accurately, with the events covered by this chapter. Cf. also his earlier _Seventeen Hundred and Seventy-Six_ (New York, 1849).

[1368] Historical writers have been greatly at variance on this point. John M. Brown (pamphlet _History of Schoharie County_, quoted by Simms and Stone) says the event took place in June or July, 1776; but Stone (_Brant_, ii. p. 313), in giving Brown's account, corrects the date to July, 1778. In the Gansevoort Papers Stone found the affair assigned to the close of May, 1778, corresponding with the date in Thacher, and with the account given in McKendry's journal of the disaster to "Capt. Partrick" at "Coverskill;" this was adopted by Simms in his _Frontiersmen_ (ii. p. 151), and Stone put his narrative under this date in his _Brant_ (ii. p. 354). Campbell (_Border Warfare_) places it in 1779, but Stone (_Brant_, ii. p. 412) says that Capt. Patrick could not possibly have commanded the troops, as he was killed in the attack of the previous year. It seems to me that Simms clearly establishes that there was but one attack on Cobleskill.

[1369] See Vol. V. p. 616. Fort Stanwix, which is sometimes spoken of as a log fort, is thus described by Pouchot: "This fort is a square of about ninety toises on the outside, and is built of earth, revetted within and without by great timbers, in the same fashion as those at Oswego" (vol. ii. p. 138). We find no mention of Ontario.

[1370] See _ante_, ch. iv.—ED.

[1371] De Peyster seems to have misinterpreted the language of St. Leger's letter, where St. Leger states that Lieut. Bird was led to suppose that Sir John Johnson needed succor, and in consequence of this false information Bird went to the rescue, thus leaving the camp without defenders. On page cxi, De Peyster says: "The white troops, misled by the false reports of a cowardly Indian, were recalled to the defence of the camp." There is no phrase in any accounts that I have met with in which action on the part of the troops is predicated on the information of a "cowardly Indian", except that contained in St. Leger's account, which De Peyster himself quotes, p. cxxx, as follows: "Lieut. Bird, misled by the information of a cowardly Indian that Sir John was prest had quitted his post; to march to his assistance." In spite of his mistake as to which marched to the other's assistance, on page cxxxiv he says "When the Indians began to slip out of the fight, the Royal Greens must have been hurried to the scene of action, leaving the lines south of the fort entirely destitute of defenders."

[1372] The troops which were intended for St. Leger are named in the _Parl. Reg._, viii. p. 211. He was to have 675 regulars and Tories, "together with a sufficient number of Canadians and Indians." St. Leger was to report to Sir William Howe at Albany. The numbers of the force which he took with him, although different in detail, corresponded as a whole with the estimate. He was so confident of success that at Lachine he detached a sergeant, a corporal, and thirty-two privates to accompany the baggage of the king's royal regiment by way of Lake Champlain to Albany. Ten "old men" were also ordered to be left at Point Clair (_Johnson's Orderly-Book_, p. 63). Carleton on the 26th of June reported as follows: "St. Leger has begun his movement, taking the detachment of the 34th regiment [100 men], the royal regiment of New York increased to about 300 men, and a company of Canadians [say 75 men]. He will be joined by the detachment of the 8th regiment [100 men] and the Indians of the Six Nations with the Misasages, as he proceeds. About 100 Hanau chasseurs have since arrived, and are on their way to join him" (_Parl. Reg._, viii. p. 215). The king's (8th) regiment, which was to join as the expedition proceeded, and the Hanau chasseurs, were at Buck Island July 10th (_Johnson's Orderly-Book_, p. 67). The increase of Johnson's regiment is to be accounted for by the presence of "Jessup's corps" (_Ibid._ p. 36, note 17). This force, apparently numbering 675 men, was increased at Oswego by Butler's rangers, a company of 70 to 75 men, making the total force of whites nominally about 750 men. From that number 44 men had been detached, as above. Forty days' provisions for 500 men were on the 17th of July ordered to be made ready to be embarked. From this order De Peyster and Stone argue that St. Leger's total effective force of whites was 500 men. In the same order Lieut. Collerton was directed "to prepare ammunition for two 6-pounders and 2 cohorns, and 50 rounds ball cartridges per man for 500 men", showing by the same reasoning that there were 500 men who bore muskets. No entry is made in the order-book concerning provisions for the Indians and rangers after leaving Buck Island. Col. Claus reported "150 Mississaugas and Six Nation Indians" at that point (Claus to Secretary Knox, _N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. p. 719), and said that St. Leger had 250 with him when he arrived at Oswego (_Ibid._). Brant joined the expedition at this point with 300 more (_Ibid._). A company of rangers raised by Col. Butler participated in the campaign (Carleton to Germain, July 9 and Sept. 20, 1777, _Parl. Reg._, viii. pp. 220, 224). They apparently joined the expedition at "Ontario", as Butler calls "Oswego." The Western Indians and the Senecas had been summoned by Col. Butler. He reported that "the number of Indians at Ontario and the Senecas at 'three rivers' cannot fall much short of 1,000" (_Ibid._ 226). The Indians were stopped at "three rivers" by Col. Claus; but from those assembled at Oswego and "three rivers", there were "upwards of 800" who went forward with the expedition to Fort Stanwix (Claus to Secretary Knox, _N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. p. 719). Among these were some Senecas, who participated in the ambuscade under the leadership of chiefs of their own tribe, in concurrence with Sir John Johnson and Col. Butler (_Parl. Reg._, viii. p. 226). It is evident that the rations for 500 men did not make provision for the Indians nor for the company of rangers. Making every allowance for the reduction of the force by illness, it would seem as if the allowance of 650 whites to St. Leger's effective force must be within limits. The presence of each separate command alluded to by Carleton in his report of what had gone forward, is recognized at some point in the _Orderly-Book_. The "upwards of 800 Indians" mentioned by Claus makes a total of about 1,450. St. Leger throws a doubt over the number of Indians present by saying that all of them participated in the ambuscade. Both Butler and Claus say there were 400 of them in the fight. The probability is that some of them were engaged in transporting supplies across the portage, and that all in camp were sent forward. Col. Stone gives Brant credit for devising the ambuscade and leading the Indians. Butler says not a ward of Brant, but praises the Senecas. Here again we must resort to conjecture for explanation. It may be that Brant was on one side of the road with his "poor Mohawks", of whose sufferings in the battle he afterwards spoke, while Butler with his Senecas was on the other side. St. Leger's statement that all the Indians went to the front shows one thing at least,—that the force with which he undertook to cut off Willett's 250 men must have been whites. He had men enough with him while engaged in clearing the creek and in transporting provisions—with 80 men at the front, and with Lieut. Bird's command, decoyed from camp by false intelligence—to return to intercept Willett. Cf. _Precis of the Wars in Canada_ (London, 1826), which states that St. Leger's corps "consisted of 700 regulars, with eight pieces of ordnance and about 1,000 Indians."

In all this discussion I have assumed that Sir John Johnson's orderly-book contained all the orders with reference to rations. As such orders were not a necessary part of the record, it may he doubted whether other orders not affecting that corps would not be found in St. Leger's order-book.

[1373] Mary Jemison puts the loss of the Senecas alone above what Claus and Butler reported the total Indian loss. Claus states the British loss at three officers, two or three privates, and thirty-two Indians killed (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. p. 720). Col. Butler puts the English loss in the action at four officers killed and two privates wounded; the Indian loss at thirty-three killed and twenty-nine wounded (_Parl. Reg._, viii. p. 226). Mary Jemison (p. 116) says: "Previous to the battle of Fort Stanwix the British sent for the Indians to come and see them whip the rebels; and at the same time stated that they did not wish to have them fight, but wanted to have them just sit down, smoke their pipes, and look on. Our Indians went, to a man, but, contrary to their expectation, instead of smoking and looking on, they were obliged to fight for their lives; and in the end were completely beaten, with a great loss of killed and wounded. Our Indians alone had thirty-six killed and a great number wounded. Our town exhibited a scene of real sorrow and distress when our warriors returned, recounted their misfortunes, and stated the real loss they had sustained in the engagement. The mourning was excessive, and was expressed by the most doleful yells, shrieks, and howlings, and by inimitable gesticulations."

[1374] The exaggerated rumors of the losses at Minisink which first reached Sullivan's camp were immediately displaced by more accurate accounts. "The accts we rec'd from the Delaware at Minisings on the 29th are more favorable than at first represented. The Tories and savages made a descent upon that settlement, and, having burned several houses, barns, etc., were attacked by a Regt. of Militia, who repulsed and pursued them a considerable distance. Forty men were killed on our side, the Colo. and Major included" (Major Norris's journal in _Publications of the Buffalo Hist. Soc._, i. p. 225).

The account which appears in the _Boston Gazette and Country Journal_, Sept. 6, 1779, is singularly free from exaggeration. Indeed, it underrates the whole affair. It speaks of the destruction of the town as "an excursion on old Minisink", and says the militia marched to the assistance of their neighbors and followed the savages thirty miles into the wilderness. An action ensued in which upwards of twenty of the enemy were killed, and our losses, killed, wounded, and missing, were upwards of thirty. The later accounts are in E. M. Ruttenber's _Orange County_ (Newburgh, 1875); Charles E. Stickney's _Minisink Region_ (Middletown, 1867); in the _N. Y. Columbian_, copied in Niles's _Principles and Acts_, and in Dr. Arnell's _Address to the Med. Soc. of Orange Co._; and the addresses at the dedication of the monument at Goshen (showing forty-five names of the slain), in Samuel W. Eager's _Outline Hist. of Orange County_.

[1375] Almon's _Remembrancer_, viii. 51. The _Boston Gazette and Country Journal_ (July 27, 1778) contains a letter from Samuel Avery, July 15, 1778, giving the "disagreeable intelligence, brought by Mr. Solomon Avery, this moment returned from Wyoming, on the Susquehanna River", which says: "The informant conceives, that of about five thousand inhabitants one half are killed and taken by the enemy prisoners, and the other half fleeing away naked and distressed." The same paper (August 3) contains the Poughkeepsie account.

[1376] Botta's account is reprinted in the _Penna. Register_ (i. 129; cf. vi. 58, 73, 310; vii. 273).

[1377] Miner, in 1806, called Judge Marshall's attention to some of the errors in his account. In 1831 the judge revived the correspondence on the subject, and expressed his intention to avail himself of the information furnished by Mr. Miner.

[1378] William L. Stone, in the _Life and Times of Red Jacket_, referring to his father's _Life of Brant_, says (p. 75): "Indeed, until this work appeared, it was universally believed that Brant and his Mohawk warriors were engaged in the massacre of Wyoming. Gordon, Ramsay, Thacher, and Marshall assert the same thing." Thacher in his account of Wyoming, under date of August 3, does not mention Brant's name, but charges the responsibility for the atrocities upon Col. John Butler.

Ramsay (ii. 323, etc.) mentions Brant's name, but does not charge upon the invaders an indiscriminate slaughter. He says the women and children were permitted to cross the Susquehanna and retreat through the woods to Northampton County. Stone claimed an _alibi_ for Brant in his _Border Wars_, while Caleb Cushing (_Democratic Rev._) thought the case not proved; but Stone, again, in his _Wyoming_, reasserted it, and Peck, in his _Wyoming_ (3d ed., N. Y., 1868), sustains Stone. The question is also discussed by Thomas Maxwell in Schoolcraft's _Indian Tribes_, v. 672.

On this subject see "Letter to the Mohawk chief, Ahyonwaegho, commonly called John Brant, Esq., of the Grand River, Upper Canada, from Thomas Campbell, Jan. 20, 1822", published in the _New Monthly Magazine_, London, 1822 (vol. iv. p. 97).

It has been already stated that the correspondence of Guy Johnson shows that in the plan of campaign Brant's field of operations in 1778 did not include Wyoming. Gen. John S. Clark in a private note quotes from a MS. in the handwriting of Col. Daniel Claus, entitled _Anecdotes of Captain Joseph Brant, 1778_, a copy of which is in the possession of Hon. J. B. Plumb, of Niagara, Canada, a statement that Sakayenwaraghton led the Senecas at Oriskany (1777), and that after the battle a council was held at Canadesege, at which it was agreed that this chieftain should attack Wyoming in the early spring, and that Brant should attack the New York settlements. This MS. further says that the Indians "bore the whole brunt of the action, for there were but two of Butler's rangers killed." What is known of the life of this Seneca chieftain is given by Geo. S. Conover in his pamphlet, _Sayengueraghta, King of the Senecas_ (Waterloo, 1885).

[1379] Ryerson in his _Loyalists of America_ (ii. ch. 34) compares the accounts of Wyoming given by Ramsay, Bancroft, Tucker, and Hildreth, and credits Hildreth with the most accurate story. He copies Stone's account from the _Life of Brant_, and expresses himself in approbation of it. There is an account of the Wyoming affair in _The History of Connecticut from the first Settlement to the present time_, by Theodore Dwight, Jr. (New York, 1841), which is unusually full of errors. I should be strongly inclined to quote here from the pages of Murray's _Impartial History of the present War_, etc., to show that British opinions were as strongly pronounced in their expressions against the reported acts of Butler, and that they held the authorities who permitted him to bear a commission responsible, were it not that I find so many pages in this book identical with _An Impartial History of the War in America_, which was published about the same time in Boston, that I am at a loss to determine which was the original book. The two books are not in all respects the same. The one purports to be an English composition, the other an American recital. Phrases in which the enemy are alluded to in the one are reversed in the other, while topics which are elaborated in one are barely mentioned in the other; still, there are enough pages identical in the two, except for the toning down of the adjectives, to make me doubtful of the authorship of the Rev. James Murray. The bibliography of these books is examined elsewhere in this _History_.

[1380] In order to show what has been accepted as history on this point, I quote a portion of the account in this history, which is typical: "After the savages had completed their work of slaughter in the field, they proceeded immediately to invest Fort Kingston, in which Col. Dennison had been left with the small remnant of Butler's troops and the defenceless women and children. In such a state of weakness the defence of the fort was out of the question; and all that remained to Dennison was to attempt to gain some advantageous terms by the offer of a surrender. For this purpose he went himself to the savage chief; but that inhuman monster, that Christian cannibal, replied to the question of terms that he should grant them _the hatchet_. He was more than true to his word, for when, after resisting until all his garrison were killed or disabled, Col. Dennison was compelled to surrender at discretion, his merciless conqueror, tired of scalping, and finding the slow process of individual murder insufficient to glut his appetite, shut up all that remained in the houses and barracks, and by the summary aid of fire reduced all at once to one promiscuous heap of ashes. Nothing now remained that wore the face of resistance to these savage invaders but the little fort of Wilksborough, into which about seventy of Col. Butler's men had effected their retreat, as has been said. These, with about the same number of Continental soldiers, constituted its whole force, and when their enemy appeared before them they surrendered without even asking conditions, under the hope that their voluntary obedience might find some mercy. But mercy dwelt not in the bosoms of these American Tories; submission could not stay their insatiable thirst of blood. The cruelties and barbarities which were practised upon these unresisting soldiers were even more wanton, if possible, than those which had been exhibited at Fort Kingston. The seventy Continental soldiers, _because_ they were _Continental_ soldiers, were deliberately butchered in cruel succession; and then a repetition of the same scene of general and promiscuous conflagration took place, which had closed the tragedy at the other fort. Men, women, and children were locked up in the houses, and left to mingle their cries and screams with the flames that mocked the power of an avenging God."

[1381] Chapman's sketch, although it repeats many of the errors in the popular accounts, says that the women and children fled from the valley. It also gives a copy of the articles of capitulation at the final surrender (note ii.). This account is a long step towards the story as at present accepted.

[1382] It is also given, with other official documents, in Dawson's _Battles_, i. ch. 38.

[1383] This report is also given in a sketch of the life of Zebulon Butler, which forms a part of the article headed Edmund Griffin Butler, in Geo. B. Kulp's _Families of the Wyoming Valley_ (Wilkesbarre, Pa., 1885, vol. i.).

[1384] Bancroft has necessarily treated such events briefly, but the peculiar facilities which he has enjoyed for gaining access to the papers in foreign archives give especial value to his statistics in connection with such incidents in the war as the battle of Oriskany and the destruction of Wyoming.

[1385] In the _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Register_ (xiv. p. 265) an article, "Mrs. Skinner and the Massacre at Wyoming", by D. Williams Patterson, opens with a quotation from Col. Stone's book, and then proceeds as follows: "The above account, which was probably taken by Col. Stone from a newspaper article, published soon after the death of Mrs. Skinner, contains so many errors that it seems proper to place on record a version of the story more nearly in accordance with facts." The facts stated are of a biographical and genealogical character.

[1386] In a previous note I have reproduced one of the typical accounts of the Wyoming massacre, as the story was told by the earlier historians. The details given in accounts of that class were accepted for a long time without question. Fortunately for the good name of the human race, Butler, with all his responsibility for the wrongs done during the continuance of this border warfare, was not the inhuman wretch which he was represented to be, and the wholesale slaughter of the women and children turned out to be a pure invention. Horrors enough remain unchallenged to raise a doubt if even now all errors have been removed. I have not introduced any of these shocking stories in my narrative, but they can be found in Chapman, Miner, and Stone.

The story of the horrors of the night is told in Hubbard's _Life of Van Campen_ in such a way as to make it seem more probable than the same story appears when read in some of the other accounts.

Among the more general accounts are those in Egle's _Pennsylvania_; Hollister's _Connecticut_, with a good account of the Connecticut colony in Pennsylvania; H. Hollister's _Lackawana Valley_ (N. Y., 1857), following Miner closely; Stuart Pearce's _Luzerne County_ (Philadelphia, 1860); Campbell's _Tryon County_, App.; Mrs. E. F. Ellet's _Domestic Hist. of the Amer. Rev._ (N. Y., 1850), ch. 13, and her _Women of the Amer. Rev._ (N. Y., 1856), ii. 165; Henry Fergus's _United States_ in Lardner's _Cab. Cyclopædia_, reproducing the old erroneous accounts; and even so late a history as _Cassell's United States_, by Edmund Ollier, is little better. A marked instance of the heedless method of popular historians is J. A. Spencer's _United States_ (N. Y., 1858), who seems to have followed at that late day Thacher as he found his account in Lossing, _Seventeen Seventy-Six_ (_Hist. Mag._, ii. 126-128), which author reasonably complained that if he were to be trusted at all, he should have been taken in the later research of his _Field-Book_, or even of his school history, since Dr. Spencer was fond of quoting such authorities.

Poole's _Index_ gives references to several periodical articles. Chief among such contributions are those in the _Worcester Mag._, i. 37; the reviews of Peck in the _Methodist Quarterly_ (3d ser., xviii. p. 577, and the 4th ser., vol. xl.), and the paper in _Household Words_, xviii. p. 282; A. H. Guernsey in _Harper's Mag._, xvii. 306 (also see vii. 613); L. W. Peck in _National Mag._, v. 147; Erastus Brooks in the _Southern Lit. Messenger_, vii. 553.

The whole subject of the invasion of the valley was reviewed by Steuben Jenkins in an historical address, which is embodied in "_A record of the one hundredth year commemorative observances of the battle and massacre_", etc., etc., edited by Wesley Johnson (Wilkesbarre, Pa., 1882).

The bibliography of Wyoming, by H. E. Hayden, is given in the _Proc. of the Wyoming Valley Hist. and Geol. Soc._ (1885).

[1387] There are contemporary letters in the _Hist. Mag._, x. 172.

[1388] The story of Cherry Valley is one of the numerous incidents connected with the border war included in the _Historical Collections of the State of New York_, edited by John W. Barber and Henry Howe (New York, 1845). Such accounts in this work are generally transferred bodily from Campbell or Stone, but occasionally some old newspaper cutting is reproduced. At the celebration in 1840, addresses were made by William W. Campbell and by William H. Seward. They were published in pamphlet form, and Mr. Campbell printed his own address as a note to the 2d edition of the _Annals of Tryon County_.

The speeches made at centennial anniversary in 1878 were published in the _Centennial Celebration of the State of New York_ (Albany, 1879). The main address was delivered by Major Douglass Campbell (p. 359). Cf. H. C. Goodwin's _Cortland County_ (N. Y., 1859); Dawson's _Battles_, i. ch. 45; Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 268, 297.

[1389] _Ibid._, Jan. 4, 1779, has a letter from Cherry Valley, dated Nov. 24, 1778.

[1390] See _Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc._, 1886. One hundred copies of McKendry's journal were privately printed from these proceedings in 1886, with the title,—_1779_. _Sullivan's Expedition against the Indians of New York_, edited by the writer of this chapter.

[1391] See note E, at the end of this chapter.—ED.

[1392] In a note, vol. iii. p. 312, he says: "Sullivan in his account says forty: but if a few old houses which had been deserted for years were met with and burnt, they were put down for a town. Stables and wood hovels and lodges in the field, when the Indians were called to work, these were all reckoned as houses." He charges that Sullivan was importunate in absurd demands for supplies, and amongst other things called for eggs to take upon his Indian campaign. This statement of Gordon undoubtedly rests upon something which he had seen in print. Is it not probable that his prejudice prevented him from seeing the humor in a newspaper squib inserted by some wag, in which Sullivan's slow movements and pertinacious demands for supplies are thus ridiculed? Cf. Eben Hazard in _Belknap Papers_, i. 23. The writers of "Allen's History" follow the same lead. "He lived during the march in every species of extravagance, was constantly complaining to Congress that he was not half supplied, and daily amused himself in unwarrantable remarks to his young officers respecting the imbecility of Congress and the board of war" (_Allen's Amer. Rev._, ii. 277). Bancroft (x. 231) speaks of Sullivan as "wasting his time writing strange theological essays", and gives him credit for destroying only "eighteen towns."

[1393] The attendant controversies touching Sullivan's career as a soldier and a legislator are examined in another place in this _History_, but reference may be here made to T. C. Amory's paper on this expedition in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._, iv. 420, and to another on the same subject in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xx. 88.

[1394] Quotations from Haldimand's correspondence and speeches are given elsewhere. The openness of Clinton's movements seemed to Washington such a complete betrayal of the whole scheme that on the 1st of July he wrote to Sullivan that Clinton "had transported, and by last accounts was transporting, provisions and stores for his whole brigade three months, and two hundred and twenty or thirty batteaux to receive them; by which means, in the place of having his design concealed till the moment of execution, and forming his junction with you, in a manner by surprise, it is announced" (Sparks's _Washington_, vi. p. 281). During the whole of this hazardous proceeding Clinton was not molested, nor did Haldimand seem to derive any conception of what it meant. Yet Washington was so far right in saying that the intention of the movement was "announced" that on the 5th of July the following appeared in the _Boston Gazette and Country Journal_: "The stores are all arrived, and the greatest exertions are made by Gen. Clinton to transport them unto Lake Otsego, over a carrying-place of about thirty miles. Everything will be then ready to go down the Susquehanna and join Gen. Sullivan."

[1395] The latest official figures given by Sullivan are those of July 21st,—2,312 rank and file; the entire number given in the report footing up, according to Craft, 2,539. In the same estimate, Craft puts Clinton's force at 1,400, and the total marching column at 3,100 to 3,200 men. It was promised by Washington that Lieut.-Col. Pawling should join Clinton at Anaguaga with 200 men (Sparks's _Washington_, vi. p. 275). Stone says Clinton was joined at "Oghkwaga" by a detachment of Col. Pawling's levies from Wawarsing (_Brant_, ii. p. 18). Peabody in his _Life of Sullivan_ makes the same statement. Bleeker in his order-book makes no mention of Pawling's regiment. Erkuries Beatty, August 16th, says: "Major Church marched to meet the militia here. Returned in the evening and saw nothing of them" (_Cayuga Co. Hist. Soc. Coll._ no. i. p. 64). McKendry in his journal corroborates this statement (_Sullivan's Expedition against the Indians_, p. 30). In a letter (Aug. 24, 1779) from Gen. Clinton to his brother, contained in the Sparks collection, the general states that the expected reinforcement by Pawling was not effected. _Geo. Clinton papers—Sparks MSS._, no. xii. (Harvard Col. library).

[1396] Washington in his instructions to Sullivan had insisted that Sullivan should dispense with everything possible, on the ground that the delays incident to the transportation of a great bulk of stores might balk the expedition (Sparks, vi. 264; _Hist. Mag._, xii., Sept., 1867, p. 139). He was indignant when he heard that Clinton had taken to great a quantity of stores with him. Referring to this, Sullivan wrote to Clinton, July 11, 1779 saying "Gen. Washington has wrote to me as he has to you, but I have undeceived him by showing him that in case you depended on our magazines for stores we must all starve together, as the commissaries have deceived us in every article" (Bleeker's _Order-book_, p. 15). Lt.-Col. Adam Hubley wrote to the President of Pennsylvania: "Our expedition is carrying on rather slow, owing to the delay in provisions, etc. I sincerely pity Gen. Sullivan's situation. People who are not acquainted with the reasons of the delay, I'm informed, censure him, which is absolutely cruel and unjust" (_Penna. Archives_, vii. p. 554). "The long stay at Wyoming was owing to the infamous conduct of the commissaries and quartermasters employed in furnishing the necessary provisions and stores. And finally, when the army did move, it was so scantily supplied that the success of the expedition is by that means rendered exceedingly precarious" (Diary of Jabez Campfield, surgeon, etc., _N. J. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 2d Series, iii. p. 118). "Various opinions prevailed about our proceeding any further on account of our provisions" (Hubley, in Miner's _History_, App., p. 97).

[1397] Sullivan to Col. John Cook, July 30, 1779: "Nothing could afford me more pleasure than to relieve the distressed, or to have it in my power to add to the safety of your settlement; but should I comply with your requisition, it would most effectually answer the intentions of the enemy, and destroy the grand objects of this expedition" (_Penna. Arch._, vii. p. 593).

[1398] "We converted some old tin kettles, found in the Indian settlements, into large graters, and obliged every fourth man not on guard to sit up all night and grate corn, which would make meal, something like hominy. The meal was mixed with boiled squash or pumpkin, when hot, and kneaded into cakes and baked at the fire" (Nathan Davis, in _Hist. Mag._, April, 1868, p. 203).

[1399] Adam Hubley says 500 savages, 200 Tories (Miner's _History_, Appendix, p. 93); Daniel Livermore says 600 chosen savages (_N. H Hist. Soc. Coll._, vi. p. 308); Lieut. Barton, 200 whites, 500 Indians (_N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc._, ii. p. 31); Daniel Gookin, 600 Indians, 14 regulars, 200 Tories (_N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, xvi. p. 27); Jabez Campfield, 1,000 strong, 300 or 400 of whom were Tories (_N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iii. 2d Series, p. 124); George Grant, 1,500 (_Hazard's Reg._, xiv. p. 74); Major Norris, 1,500 Indians (Jones's _New York_, vol. ii. p. 613); Gen. Sullivan, 1,500 (_Remembrancer_, ix. p. 158); Rev. David Craft, after a study of the subject, estimates the force at 200 to 250 whites, and probably not less than 1,000 Indians (_Centennial Celebration_, etc., p. 127, note). Cf. _Mag. Amer. Hist._, iv. 420, and F. Barber's letter in _Sparks MSS._, xlix. vol. iii.

[1400] Dr. Campfield says: "The Indian houses might have been comfortable had they made any convenience for the smoke to be conveyed out; only a hole in the middle of the top of the roof of the house. The Indians are exceedingly dirty; the rubage of one of their houses is enough to stink the whole country" (_N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iii., 2d Series, p. 132). Erkuries Beatty, speaking of the houses at Onoguaga, says that they were good log houses, with stone chimneys and glass windows (_Cayuga Hist. Soc. Coll._, no. i. p. 64). Van Campen says that the houses were generally built by fixing large posts in the ground, at a convenient distance from each other, between which poles were woven. This formed the covering of the sides. The roof was made by laying bark upon poles, which were properly placed as a support. To afford greater warmth the sides were plastered with mud. The houses that were found on the route were all of this description (John N. Hubbard's _Border Adventures of Major. Moses Van Campen_, Bath, N. Y. 1842). "They were built chiefly with split and hewn timbers, covered with bark and some other rough materials, without chimneys or floors" (Norris in Jones's _New York_, ii. p. 613). Col. Dearborn (_MS. Journal_) uses almost identical language with Norris. "Newtown—here are some good buildings of the English construction" (Capt. Daniel Livermore, in _N. H. Hist. Coll._, vi. pp. 308-335). The huts or wigwams were constructed of bark, and very narrow in proportion to their length, some being thirty or forty feet long, and not more than ten feet wide, generally with a bark floor, except in the centre, where there was a place for the fire (Nathan Davis, in _Hist. Mag._, April, 1868, p. 202). According to Hubley, Chemung contained fifty or sixty houses built of logs and frames; Catharine's town, fifty houses, in general very good; Canadea, about forty well-finished houses, and everything about it seemed neat and well improved; Kanadalauga, between twenty and thirty well-finished houses, chiefly of hewn plank; Anayea, twelve houses, chiefly of hewn logs (_Penna. Archives_, 2d Series, vol. xi.). Nukerck describes the houses at "Kandaia" as "large and elegant; some beautifully painted" (Campbell, _Annals Tryon County_, p. 155); speaking of "Kanandagua", he says: "This town, from the appearance of the buildings, seems to have been inhabited by white people. Some houses have neat chimneys, which the Indians have not, but build a fire in the centre, around which they gather" (_Ibid._ p. 157). McKendry speaks of the "cellars and walls" of the houses at "Onnaguago", and says it was a "fine settlement, considering they were Indians." This place had been destroyed fifteen years before by Capt. Montour, and Sir William Johnson then described it as having houses "built of square logs, with good chimneys" (_N. Y. Col. Docs._, vii. p. 628). McKendry says some of the houses at "Appletown" were of "hew'd timber." At "Canondesago", some of them built with hewed timber and part with round timber and part with bark.

[1401] Hildreth and others speak of Niagara as if it were Sullivan's objective point. John C. Hamilton (_History of the Republic_, i. p. 543) says: "Instructions from Hamilton's pen were addressed to Sullivan", etc. (p. 544). "A surprise of the garrison at Niagara and of the shipping on the lakes was to be attempted." By whom was Niagara to be surprised? Hamilton leaves it to be inferred that Sullivan was instructed to attempt it, whereas it was only mentioned as one of the possible advantages to be gained from the Indians in case they should sue for peace.

[1402] Washington's letters in Sparks, and in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Feb., 1879, p. 142.

[1403] Ryerson in his _Loyalists of America_, etc., devotes a chapter to the Sullivan campaign, which he terms "Revenge for Wyoming." He confounds Zebulon Butler with William Butler, which is not perhaps to be wondered at, for Campbell and Stone did the same thing, although the fact that there were two English officers of the name of Butler engaged in the border wars on the English side, and two American officers of the same name opposed to them in the same campaigns, and the further fact that at Wyoming the forces on each side were commanded by a Butler, were warnings enough that especial scrutiny should be observed in distinguishing these persons.

[1404] General Stryker (p. 7) gives Clinton's force at 1,700, and Sullivan's at 3,500. He states that his account was compiled from twenty published (by typographical error, the compositor has put thirty) and five unpublished diaries. He suggests that Sullivan's delay may possibly have been a part of Washington's strategy. T. C. Amory shares this opinion.

Sullivan's fight at Newtown is thus described by H. C. Goodwin in _Pioneer History of Cortland Co._, etc.: "The contest was one which has but few parallels. The enemy yielded inch by inch, and when finally forced at the point of the bayonet to leave their intrenchments and flee, terror-stricken, to the mountain gorges or almost impassable _lagoons_, the ground they had occupied was found literally drenched with the blood of the fallen victims." Accounts of varying length are given in other local histories: _Delaware County and Border Wars of New York_, etc., by Jay Gould (Roxbury, 1856); _Centennial History of Erie County, New York_, by Crisfield Johnson (Buffalo, 1876); _Annals of Binghamton and of the Country connected with it, from he earliest settlement_, by J. B. Wilkinson (Binghamton, 1840); _History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham's Purchase, and Morris reserve, etc._, by O. Turner (Rochester, 1851); J. M. Parker's _Rochester_ (1884, p. 236); Ketchum's _Buffalo_ (ii. 318); Campbell's _Tryon County_; Simms's _Frontiersmen_, etc.

There is a monograph on the campaign by A. T. Norton,—_Hist. of Sullivan's Campaign_ (1879),—and special chapters in Dawson (i. 537), and accounts in the more general works, like Stone's _Brant_; Ryerson's _Loyalists_ (ii. 108), examining Stone's account; O. W. B. Peabody's _Life of Sullivan_; Hamilton's _Republic of the U. S._; some local traditions in Timothy Dwight's _Travels_ (iv. 204). Gen. J. Watts De Peyster has some essays on the campaign in the _N. Y. Mail_, Aug. 26, 29, and Sept. 15, 1879.

There are various letters respecting the campaign in the Gansevoort Papers, as copied by Sparks (_Sparks MSS._, vol. lx.). Cf. the autobiography of Philip van Cortlandt in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, ii. 289, and William M. Willett's _Narrative of the military actions of Col. Marinus Willett_ (N. Y., 1831).

[1405] The New Jersey Historical Society has a MS. order-book kept by Lieutenant-Colonel Barber, of the Third New Jersey Regiment, who was also appointed deputy adjutant-general for the Western army. The last entry made is dated Sept. 6, 1779. In Hammersly, and in the roster compiled by General Stryker, Francis Barber is put down as lieutenant-colonel of this regiment. This order-book has been attributed by some to George C. Barber. The library of Cornell University owns one kept by Thomas Gee, quartermaster's sergeant in Col. John Lamb's regiment of artillery, which contains the orders of the day issued at Fort Sullivan from Aug. 27, 1779, to Oct. 2, 1779 also the return march to Easton, the last entry being Oct. 26, 1779. My knowledge of these MS. order-books was derived from Gen. John S. Clark, of Auburn, N. Y. I am indebted to Hon. Steuben Jenkins for details concerning the Barber order-book, and to Professor Moses Coit Tyler, of Cornell University, for a description of the Gee order-book. Dr. F. B. Hough edited the _Order-book of Capt. Leonard Bleeker, major of brigade in the early part of the expedition under Gen. James Clinton against the Indians in the Campaign of 1779_ (N. Y., 1865). On Clinton's share in the expedition, see W. W. Campbell's _Services of James Clinton_ (N.Y. Hist. Soc., 1839); Chaplain Gano's _Biog. Memoirs_ (1806). For a portrait of Clinton, see Irving's _Washington_, 4^o ed., v., and Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 112.

[1406] Craft, May 9, 1879, had already furnished a list of journals of the campaign, and had appealed to the public for further information (_Penna. Mag. of Hist._, iii. pp. 348, 349).

[1407] See note E, at end of chapter.—ED.

[1408] The journals thus used are Erkuries Beatty's, covering Clinton's movements; Thomas Grant's and George Grant's, covering the march up the east side of Lake Cayuga; and Henry Dearborn's, for the march up the west side of the same lake.

[1409] _Boston Gazette and Country Journal_, Nov. 1, 1779.

[1410] The expedition is referred to by Gordon, Ramsay, and Marshall, each of these writers giving a brief account of the march and the work accomplished. On the 27th of October, 1779, Congress resolved that "the thanks of Congress be given to his excellency General Washington for directing, and to Colonel Brodhead and the brave officers and soldiers under his command for executing, the important expedition against the Mingo and Munsey Indians, and that part of the Senecas on the Allegheny River, by which the depredations of those savages, assisted by their merciless instigators, subjects of the King of Great Britain, upon the defenceless inhabitants of the Western frontiers have been restrained and prevented."

[1411] A descriptive article entitled "Mohawk Valley in the Revolution", by Harold Frederic, was published in _Harper's Magazine_ (lv. p. 171). Cf. _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Oct., 1879. The activity of the Tories and Indians in the Mohawk Valley gave rise from time to time to various rumors, some of which found their way into print. It was stated in 1779 that Fort Stanwix had surrendered to the English. This was repeated in a pamphlet of the day, a mere chronological register of events, published in 1783, and entitled _The American and British Chronicle of War and Politics; being an accurate and comprehensive Register of the most memorable occurrences in the last ten years of his Majesty's reign, etc. From May 10, 1773, to July 16, 1783_. The entry of Nov. 2, 1779, was, "Col. Butler, with some Indians, surprise and take Fort Stanwix, Mohawk River." In 1780 this rumor was repeated, and found its way into the _Remembrancer_ (x. 347): "New York, Sept. 23.... We are informed that about a fortnight ago Fort Stanwix, after having been five or six weeks closely invested, was taken by 600 British troops commanded by a Lieutenant-Colonel, supposed to be the King's or 8th Regiment: Our faithful friend, Capt. Joseph Brant, with a party of Indians, shared in the glory of the conquest."

Occasionally we meet, in the accounts of the fighting in the Mohawk Valley and vicinity, with the statement that some Indian was present who was commissioned by the Continental Congress. In the _Journals of Congress_ (v. 133) we find that on the 3d of April, 1779, the board of war submitted a report, whereupon it was resolved, "That twelve blank commissions be transmitted to the commissioners of Indian affairs for the Northern Department, and that they or any two of them be empowered to fill them up with the names of faithful chiefs of the Oneidas and Tuscaroras, giving them such rank as said commissioners shall judge they merit." (Cf. _Remembrancer_, viii. p. 121)

[1412] Stone relied upon the statement of John T. Kirkland (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, iv. p. 69): "In the year 1780, the hostile Indians, British troops, and refugees drove them from their villages", etc.

[1413] _Sparks MSS._ (Harvard College library,—no. xiii. p. 281), where are various letters of John Butler, Brant, Lt.-Col. Bolton, etc., taken from the headquarters or Carleton Papers, and they include Brant's report on the Minisink affair and Butler's report of the Newtown fight. The letter of Guy Johnson is in Ketchum's _Buffalo_ (i. 337).

[1414] As early as 1774 the minds of the colonists were turned inquiringly towards this question. Joseph Reed wrote on Sept. 25, 1774, to the Earl of Dartmouth, that "the idea of bringing down the Canadians and savages upon the English colonies is so inconsistent, not only with mercy, but justice and humanity of the mother country, that I cannot allow myself to think that your lordship would promote the Quebec Bill, or give it your suffrage, with such intention" (Reed's _Reed_, i. p. 79). The "full power to levy, arm, muster, command, and employ all persons whatsoever residing within our said province", and to "transport such force to any of our plantations in America", with which Carleton was commissioned, was but a renewal of the authority conferred upon James Murray in 1763 (_Parl. Reg._, iv., App., "The New Commission of the Governor of Quebec", etc., pp. 8, 26). The same language was used in the commission of Sir Danvers Osborn, Bart., to be captain-general of New York in 1754 (_Ibid._ p. 48). In the XV. section of the charter granted by Charles II. to the Lords Proprietors of South Carolina, the grantees were authorized to levy, muster, and train "all sorts of men, of what condition, or wheresoever born", and to pursue enemies, "yea, even without the limits of the said province" (_Ibid._ p. 64). The clause is repeated in the second charter of Charles II. to the Lords Proprietors of Carolina (_Ibid._ p. 79). Lord Baltimore was authorized by Charles I. with the same general powers to levy and arm, and "to make war and pursue the enemies and robbers aforesaid, as well by sea as by land, yea, even without the limits of the said province, and (by God's assistance) to vanquish and take them." (Cf. _The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters_, etc., Washington, 1877,