part ii. p. 1388, "Charter of Carolina, 1663, § 15.")

[1415] Samuel Kirkland was born at Norwich, Conn., Dec. 1, 1744; graduated at Princeton, 1765; became a missionary among the Indians. The hostility of Guy Johnson bore testimony to the influence of the missionary among the natives. Kirkland was afterward a chaplain in the army. In 1789 he received a grant of land two miles square, now the town of Kirkland, N. Y. He died in 1808. His life, by S. K. Lothrop, was published in Sparks's _American Biography_.

James Deane was born at Groton, Conn., Aug. 20, 1748; graduated at Dartmouth in 1773; and then went as missionary among the Indians. He was employed to pacificate the Northern Indians, and acted as interpreter on many important occasions. He was afterward a judge in Oneida County, N. Y., where he died in 1823. He was much esteemed. Gov. Trumbull said: "The abilities and influence of Mr. Deane to attach the Six Nations to the interest of these colonies is an instance of Divine favor."

[1416] See incidents of this border warfare in James Banks's _Hist. Address_ (Fayetteville, N. C., 1859).

[1417] The rank of this officer is sometimes given as colonel. The expedition is stated by Haywood, in his _History of Tennessee_, to have been led by Col. Leonard McBury. Capt. Leonard Marbury, who at that time commanded a company under Major Jack, is probably the officer referred to.

[1418] The experience of South Carolina in these border wars is exemplified in Alexander Gregg's _History of the old Cheraws: containing an account of the aborigines of the Pedee, the first white settlements, their subsequent progress, civil changes, the struggle of the revolution, and growth of the country afterward; extending from about A. D. 1730 to 1810, with notices of families and sketches of individuals_ (N. Y., 1867).—ED.

[1419] In a letter from Col. Charles Robertson, trustee of the Watauga Association, to his excellency Richard Caswell, etc., April 27, 1777, it is stated that on the 27th of March last Col. Nathaniel Guess brought letters from the governor of Virginia soliciting the Indians to come in to treat for peace. The Indians, in reply to pressure brought to bear upon them, said "they could not fight against their Father King George", etc. (Ramsey's _History of Tennessee_, p. 171).

[1420] _Calendar of Virginia State Papers_, i. 415.

[1421] See Vol. V. p. 280.

[1422] The definitive treaty is in Hansard, xv. (1753-65) p. 1291; _Lond. Mag._, 1763, p. 149; and the preliminary articles signed at Fontainebleau, Nov. 3, 1762, are in Hansard, xv. p. 1240; _Lond. Mag._, 1762, p. 657. There are in the archives of the Dept. of Foreign Affairs in Paris several vols. (nos. 444-449) of papers respecting the negotiation between France and England which led to the treaty of 1763. Cf. _Report_, 1874, on the Canadian archives. Cf. Vol. V. 614.—ED.

[1423] See Parkman's _Montcalm and Wolfe_, ii. 383-413; Green's _Hist. of the English People_ (Lond., 1880), iv. 193; Macaulay's "Earl Chatham", _Ed. Rev._, lxxx. 549, also in his _Essays; Olden Time_, i. 329. Cf. Vol. V. ch. viii.—ED.

[1424] "The treaty of cession to Spain was never published, and the terms of it remain a secret to this day" (Stoddard's _Louisiana_, 1812, p. 72).

[1425] Monette, _Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi_ (New York, 1848), vol. i., has a map showing the territorial possessions before the treaty. For later maps showing the treaty lines, see Vol. V. p. 615.—ED.

[1426] The Duc de Choiseul, in conducting the negotiations on the part of France, suggested that the English colonies would not fail to shake off their dependence the moment Canada should be ceded (Parkman's _Montcalm_, ii. 403); and Kalm, the Swedish botanist, who visited America in 1748-49, made a similar prediction in his _Travels_: "The English government has, therefore, the sufficient reason to consider the French in North America as the best means of keeping the colonies in their due submission" (London, 1772, i. 207). As to the spurious Montcalm letters, see Vol. V. p. 606.—ED.

[1427] A satirical article on restoring Canada to the French appeared in _Gentleman's Mag._, 1759, p. 620, which has the flavor of Dr. Franklin's style: "Canada ought to be restored in order that England may have another war; that the French and Indians may keep on scalping the colonists, and thereby stint their growth; for otherwise the children will be as tall as their mother; that, though we ought to keep faith with our allies, it is not necessary with our children. We must teach them, according to Scripture, not to 'put trust in princes.' Let 'em learn to trust in God. If we should not restore Canada, it would look as if our statesmen had courage like our soldiers. What have statesmen to do with courage? Their proper character is wisdom." Franklin's serious and avowed tract is considered in Vol. V. p. 615.—ED.

[1428] This document is in the _London Mag._, 1763, p. 541; _Amer. Archives_, 4th ser., i. 172, and in other places [given in Vol. V. p. 615.—ED.] Its terms were the subject of constant reference and discussion for the next twenty years.

[1429] "Many reasons may be assigned for this apparent omission. A consideration for the Indians was, we presume, the principal, because it might have given a sensible alarm to that people if they had seen us formally cantoning out their whole country into regular establishments" (_Annual Register_, 1763, p. 20). The writer of the very able and interesting political articles in this volume was Edmund Burke (Robertson's _Burke_, p. 18).

[1430] Sparks's _Franklin_, iv. 303-323. Dr. Franklin made an extended and vigorous reply to this report (_Idem_, iv. 324-374); and when the matter came up for action in the Privy Council, and his reply was read, the prayer of the petitioners was granted. Lord Hillsborough was so much offended by the decision that he resigned. The Doctor, writing to his son, July 14, 1773, said: "Mr. Todd told me, as a secret, that Lord Hillsborough was much chagrined at being out of place, and could never forgive me for writing that pamphlet against his report about the Ohio" (_Works_, viii. 75).

[1431] See _ante_, chap. i.

[1432] Sir William Johnson, the superintendent of Indian affairs, writing to Secretary Conway, June 28, 1766, said: "Our people in general are very ill calculated to maintain friendship with the Indians, they despise in peace those whom they fear to meet in war. This, with the little artifices used in trade, and the total want of that address and seeming kindness practiced with such success by the French, must always hurt the colonists. On the contrary, could they but assume a friendship, and treat them with civility and candor, we should soon possess their hearts, and much more of their country than we shall do in a century by the conduct now practiced" (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 836). The outrageous conduct of the English traders towards the Indians is a constant theme of complaint by Sir William Johnson in his letters to the Lords of Trade (see _Idem_, vii. 929, 955, 960, 964, 987). He speaks (vii. 965) of the contrast between the French and English traders. The former are gentlemen in character, manners, and dress; the latter, "for the most part, men of no zeal or capacity; men who often sacrifice the credit of the nation to the basest purposes. Can it otherwise happen but that the Indians' prejudices must daily increase, when they are on the one side seduced by men of abilities, influence, and address; and on the other, see such low specimens of British abilities, honor, and honesty? What, then, can be expected but loss of trade, robbery, murder of traders, and frequent general ruptures?" See also _Diary of Siege of Detroit_, ed. by Hough, preface, xiii., and Dr. Hall's tract on _The Dutch and the Iroquois_.

[1433] Sir William Johnson, writing Dec. 26, 1764, to the Lords of Trade, said: "Indeed, it is not to be wondered that they should be concerned at our occupying that country, when we consider that the French (be their motive what it will) loaded them with favors, and continue to do so, accompanied with all outward marks of esteem, and an address peculiarly adapted to their manners, which infallibly gains upon all Indians who judge by externals only; and in all their acquaintance with us [the English] upon the frontiers, have never found anything like it; but, on the contrary, harsh treatment, angry words, and, in short, everything which can be thought of to inspire them with a dislike for our manners and jealousy of our views. I have seen so much of these matters, and am so well convinced of the utter aversion our people have for them in general, and of the imprudence with which they constantly express it, that I absolutely despair of ever seeing tranquillity established until I may have proper persons to reside at the posts, whose business it shall be to remove their prejudices, and whose interests it becomes to obtain their esteem and friendship" (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 689).

[1434] Cf. Major Robert Rogers's _Concise Account_, 1765, pp. 240-243. It was the opinion of Rogers that if the English had used common sagacity in their treatment of Pontiac, the colonies would have been spared the horrors of the Pontiac War.

[1435] The fort at Detroit was a stockade on the west side of the Detroit River, twenty-five feet high, with a bastion at each corner, and a block-house over each gateway, the whole enclosing about a hundred small houses. A few pieces of light artillery were mounted on the bastions. The garrison consisted of eight officers, one hundred and twenty soldiers, and forty-five fur traders, under the command of Major Henry Gladwin, an experienced and gallant officer. Two small armed schooners were anchored in the stream. The white cottages of the Canadian farmers lined both banks of the river. About a mile below the fort, on the western bank, was a village of the Pottawattamies, and on the opposite shore a Wyandot village. Four miles above the fort were the lodges of the Ottawas (Parkman's _Pontiac_, i. 212-222). Parkman's, _Conspiracy of Pontiac_ is one of the most entertaining monographs in American history; and no writer can treat the subject without acknowledging his indebtedness to the accurate and scholarly investigations of that distinguished historian. The reader of this brief summary of events will find full details in the charming narrative of Parkman. He says of the Bouquet and Haldimand Papers, in the British Museum, that they contain "several hundred letters from officers engaged in the Pontiac War, some official, others personal and familiar." These he availed himself of in his last revision (1870), but he had collected 3,400 MS. pages of unprinted documents for his original edition (1851). All these MS. collections are now in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society.—ED.

[1436] A biographical notice of Major Gladwin (who became major-general in 1782) by Dr. O'Callaghan is in _N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 961. Parkman spells the name "Gladwyn." Detroit was now the chief post of this new Northwestern government. Amherst, in a letter to Egremont, Nov. 30, 1762, had recommended the place as the proper headquarters (Shelburne Papers, vol. 48, _Hist. MSS. Com. Report_, v. 217).—ED.

[1437] See plan in Vol. V. p. 532.

[1438] Some years later, an Indian who was present described the scene to Sir William Johnson. A party of Senecas gained admission to the fort by treachery, and murdered all the garrison except the commander, and him they later put to death by roasting over a slow fire (Parkman, ii. 20).

[1439] Capt. Simeon Ecuyer was in the English service during the Revolutionary War, and is mentioned with high terms of praise, as "Major" Ecuyer, in "Journal of the most remarkable Occurrences in Quebec, from Nov. 14, 1775, to May 7, 1776" (_N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1880, p. 232).

[1440] A biographical sketch (in French) of Col. Bouquet, by C. G. F. Dumas, is prefixed to the Amsterdam edition, 1769, of Bouquet's second expedition, 1764. The same (in English) is prefixed to Robert Clarke's reprint in the _Ohio Valley Series_, 1868. A different and fuller translation of Dumas's sketch is in _Olden Time_, i. 203, and is preceded (p. 200) by a sketch by another writer. George H. Fisher, in _Penna. Mag._, iii. 121-143, gives the life, with an excellent portrait, of Col. Bouquet, and his letters to Anne Willing, a young lady with whom he had tender relations, but whom he did not marry. J. T. Headley, in _Harper's Mag._, xxiii. 577 (Oct., 1861), has an illustrated article on Col. Bouquet. The Bouquet Papers, 1757-1765, were given by the heirs of Gen. Haldimand, in 1857, to the British Museum. There is a synopsis of them in Brymner's _Report on the Canadian Archives_, 1873.—ED.

[1441] Brymner, the Canadian archivist, in examining the papers in the Public Record Office in London, was denied access to the volume of the "America and West Indies" series, which contains the correspondence of Amherst, Jan.-Nov., 1763.—ED.

[1442] Sir Wm. Johnson (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 962) gives the number of men in Bouquet's command as 600.

[1443] He soon found that even they had the bad habit of losing themselves in the woods. He wrote to Amherst, July 26th: "I cannot send a Highlander out of my sight without running the risk of losing the man, which exposes me to surprise from the skulking villains I have to deal with" (Parkman, ii. 56).

[1444] The reports of Colonel Bouquet to General Amherst, Aug. 5th, 6th, and 11th, give the losses in both actions as 50 killed, 60 wounded, and 5 missing (_Gent. Mag._, 1763, p. 486; _Lond. Mag._, 1763, p. 545; _Mag. of Western Hist._, ii. 650; _Annual Register_, 1763, p. 31). Parkman (ii. 68) makes the losses "8 officers _and_ 115 men." The officers were included in the above enumeration. Of the losses by the Indians, General Amherst wrote (_Gent. Mag._, 1763, p. 489): "The number of the savages slain was about 60, and a great many wounded in the pursuit. The principal ringleaders who had the greatest share in fomenting the present troubles were killed." As to the number of Indians engaged, Sir William Johnson (_N. Y. Col. Doc._,