Part 9

An examination of the minute book of the old District Court preserved in Russellville, shows that on Monday, October 28, 1799, a grand jury having been empaneled, “made the following presentment: Commonwealth against Susanna Harpe, Sally Harpe, and Betsey Roberts, a true bill.” A District Court was presided over by a judge and two associate judges, and Judges Samuel McDowell and John Allen being absent, the women, rather than delay the trial, agreed to be tried before the one who was present, namely, Judge James G. Hunter. Judge Felix Grundy appeared in behalf of the women, and no one, except the prosecuting officer, against them. Each prisoner was tried by a different jury, the three trials taking place on October 29th and 30th. “Susanna Harpe, late of the County of Henderson and parish of Kentucky, spinster, who stands indicted of felony was led to the bar in the custody of the public jailor and pleads not guilty to the Indictment, and for her trial hath put herself upon God and her Country and the Attorney General in behalf of the Commonwealth, likewise whereupon came a jury, to-wit: [twelve men are named] who being tried ... and having heard the evidence, upon their oaths do say that the Susanna Harpe is not guilty of the murder aforesaid.”

Then followed the trials of “Betsey Roberts, spinster,” and “Sally Harpe, spinster,” both of whom were found “not guilty of the murder aforesaid.” No depositions or other records of the proceedings of these three trials can now be found among the various old documents still preserved in the Logan County Court House. The women were liberated and the act seems to have met the approval of the public.

Major Stewart, in his capacity as sheriff, had many opportunities to talk to his prisoners. Some of the incidents in their lives could not have failed to touch the heart of any man, especially when heard from the lips of the women themselves. Forty years after the Harpe women had been captured, an interview with him on the subject was arranged to procure facts for publication. From this interview we quote:

“Major Stewart said the women seemed grateful to him, and related with apparent candor the story of their lives and their connection with the Harpes. They told him that their husbands had once been put in jail in Knoxville, Tennessee, upon suspicion of crime, when they were innocent; when released, they declared war against all mankind, and determined to murder and rob until they were killed. They said they might have escaped after the murder and robbery at Stegall’s, but for the detention at the branch where Smith was shot. Big Harpe, expecting to be pursued, proposed that the three children be killed, that the others might flee without that encumbrance. His two wives and brother consented after some discussion, but the wife of Little Harpe took her child off to the branch where she had seen a projecting, shelving rock, under which she placed it, and lay down at its outer side, determined to remain and die with her child. As her husband came to the branch to let her know they had concluded to put the children to death, he saw Smith, the horse hunter, approaching. He moved toward him, and sounded the shrill whistle on his ‘charger’--the understood signal of impending danger. Big Harpe almost in a moment made his appearance at the branch mounted on Love’s mare, when the firing commenced. Smith was shot down and the Harpes fled. Big Harpe did not go directly to the camp, but circled around it, fearing the pursuers might already have taken it. These sudden and unexpected events saved the lives of the children by allowing no time for their execution. Little Harpe’s wife and child hastily returned to the camp, when the firing took place a little distance below the shelving rock, and were made prisoners with the wives and children of Big Harpe.” [28]

The same delay that resulted in the capture and death of Big Harpe brought about a great change in the lives of the Harpe women. But Major Stewart, in the interview given forty years after the women had been in his charge, evidently was somewhat mistaken in some of the details and in the identity of some of the characters he recalled. There never were more than three Harpe children and all of them were born in the Danville jail. We have seen how the child of Little Harpe’s wife was killed a few weeks before the women were arrested and taken to Henderson; it is later shown what became of Big Harpe’s children, both of whom were with their mothers in the Russellville jail. It is quite likely that when Big Harpe realized the pursuers were close at hand, he proposed that the children be killed and that then Little Harpe’s wife took the two infants and “determined to remain and die” with them. A few weeks before, she had seen her own child cruelly murdered by Big Harpe, and probably had, ever since, awaited a chance to escape from the violence and villainy of the lives led by the Harpes. She doubtless concluded it would be far better for her and the two infants to fall into the hands of the pursuers than to kill the infants, even though the killing of them would relieve the five Harpes of an encumbrance which they considered sufficient to interfere with their escape. At any rate, the desire of Little Harpe’s wife to free herself, combined with her effort to save the two infants, exercising itself as it did at this critical moment, delayed the attempt to escape and resulted in the capture and killing of Big Harpe.«15»

The Harpes--Mysteries and Fate of Survivors

Big Harpe was dead, Little Harpe had vanished into the wilderness and the women had again been spared through public sympathy with their apparent helplessness and misfortunes. What was to become of them and of Little Harpe and of the seven determined men who had run down the gigantic monster? How were these men rewarded for their heroism? The records, hunted down with the utmost patience, constitute a new story in which mystery, tragedy, suspicion and pathos all enter to bring about poetic justice. It enables us also to get closer to these terrible personalities.

First as to the seven avengers. On December 16, 1799, the Kentucky Legislature passed “An Act directing the payment of money to John Leiper and others.” The preamble stated that “Micajah Harpe, a notorious offender” had committed “the most unheard of murders” and the Governor on April 22, had offered a reward of three hundred dollars “for the apprehension of said Harpe.” It recites its enactment because “sundry good citizens ... were, while in the attempt to apprehend him, reduced to the necessity of slaying him,” and further declares by its enactment all doubt as to the right of these men to the reward is removed. The money was ordered paid to “John Leiper, James Tompkins, Silas McBee, Mathew Christian, Moses Stegall, Neville Lindsey, and William Gresham ... one hundred of which shall be appropriated to the said John Leiper, and the residue to be equally divided among the others.”

The second clause shows that “Alexander M’Farling, John M’Farling, Daniel M’Farling, and Robert White, who from motives of public good incurred very considerable expense and toil in the pursuit of the said Harpe and his associates ... be allowed one hundred and fifty dollars.” These four men probably lived near Danville, and, as previously noted, had been appointed by the governor to take charge of the Harpes should they be found “in any adjacent state.”

Five of the men who captured and killed Big Harpe fared well. Tompkins and Matthew Christian continued to live in Henderson County, where they died old and highly respected citizens. William Grissom, about 1810, moved to southern Illinois where he continued the life of a well-to-do farmer. Neville Lindsey was identified with the development of west Tennessee. Squire Silas McBee opened up a plantation in Pontotoc County, Mississippi, and ranked among the best and most prominent men in that state. It was there, in 1841, he met the historian Draper, to whom he supplied much data relative to King’s Mountain and also the facts used for his “Sketch of the Harpes.”

As for Stegall and Leiper, the immediate executioners of Big Harpe, no sooner had they sprung into public notice by reason of their acts, than they were enveloped in a mystery of suspicion almost as deep as that surrounding the Harpes themselves. It has grown deeper with time, though their deaths within eight years after the tragedy of the death chase rendered the suspicion more sinister and seemed to confirm it.

It appears that John Leiper had not only seen the Harpes before he joined the band in the chase, but was strongly suspected of having been secretly involved in some of their crimes committed in central Kentucky. In April, 1799, when Colonel Trabue’s boy was killed by the Harpes, “Leiper then resided in Adair County and knew the Trabue family well.” [12E] He probably lived near “old Mr. Roberts,” the father-in-law of Big Harpe, who then had a farm in that part of Adair County which, in 1825, became a part of Russell County. Hypocrite that he was, in all likelihood, he joined some of the men who had gone out to hunt the murderer of John Trabue. For some reason he left that section shortly after the Harpes appeared on the scene. He may have feared that the two outlaws had planned to establish themselves near “old man Roberts” and therefore went to Henderson County, where he was least likely to see them again, and so escape any vengeance they might see fit to execute upon him for joining the posse. Thus, not to begin a better life but to escape death, he left Adair County for parts unknown. On July 3, of the same year, the Henderson County grand jury found an indictment against him for “living in adultery with Ann L. Allen, from the 20th day of last May.”

When Leiper was asked to join in the Harpe chase it was observed that he hesitated, saying he had no proper horse for such work, but that if Captain Robert Robertson’s could be procured, he would go. When such arrangement was made, Leiper boastingly declared that if he got sight of either of the Harpes he “would stick to the chase until he killed them or they killed him.” Later, when Leiper and Christian overtook Big Harpe, shortly before he was killed, the outlaw called to Leiper, “I told you to stay back or I’d kill you,” and Leiper replied, “My business with you is for one or the other of us to be killed.” These and other remarks, as later interpreted by the other pursuers, indicated that more than a casual acquaintance existed between Leiper and the Harpes. Although applauded for taking part in the killing of Big Harpe, and thus ridding the country of a scourge, he was nevertheless condemned for his motive in doing so. He “died suddenly of winter fever some time during the winter of the cold Friday” (Friday, February 6, 1807). Up to the day of his death he was looked upon as a suspicious character by all his neighbors and so, being unworthy of trust and an outcast, lived and died friendless. [12E]

Moses Stegall was at first the hero of heroes in the returning band. He had suffered the loss of his wife, child, and home, and it seems that fate itself had destined him to strike the last deserved blow. He had been regarded as a questionable character, yet no one could trace any particular crime to him. The report of the tragic manner in which he had put an end to Big Harpe kept in the background, for a time, all unfavorable reports heretofore heard. But it soon became apparent that he, too, had a hidden motive in taking so active a part in the pursuit of the outlaws. It was recalled that when he discovered that Big Harpe had been wounded, but was still able to talk, he had stepped forward and deliberately cut off his head. This act was, at the dreadful instant, regarded by the excited spectators as one highly deserved as far as Harpe was concerned, but for Stegall it was soon suspected to have been an act whereby he could silence the tongue of a dangerously wounded man who might still survive sufficiently to reveal some of the lawlessness in which Stegall himself was implicated. That this was his motive is verified by a number of authorities. Draper, after a conversation with General Thomas Love, of Tennessee, who was a cousin of Major William Love, and whose wife was a cousin of Thomas Langford, noted this: “The company, before his arrival, had some confession from Harpe, and Stegall was afraid he would be implicated and wanted him out of the way, for Stegall bore a bad character. Parson Henry says it was suspected that Stegall purposely left his home to give the Harpes an opportunity to kill his victims.” [12E]

Forty years after Big Harpe was killed, a preacher traveling from Lexington, Kentucky, by way of the Henderson and Harpe’s Head Road to Mammoth Cave, heard the tradition of the capture of Harpe as then told in the neighborhood where Stegall lived. Relative to Stegall’s motive, he wrote: “As for Stegall, he never bore a good character and his excessive zeal and forwardness created new suspicions against him as being an accomplice of Harpe whom he might wish effectually to prevent from betraying him by a precipitate death under colour of vengeance.” [38]

Governor John Reynolds, in his comments on the notoriety of some of the settlers who, in pioneer days, lived in Illinois near Ford’s Ferry and Cave-in-Rock, pictures the last scene in Stegall’s life: “In 1806, at the place, ten miles from the Ohio, where Potts resided afterwards, on the road west of the river, a bloody tragedy was acted. A man named Stegall--the same who assisted to kill one of the Harpes in Kentucky--eloped with a young girl and made the above place his residence.... Two or three brothers of the seduced girl, and her father, followed them from Trade Water, Kentucky, the residence of the father.... They found Stegall and the others sitting up under a gallery outside of the cabin, with a lamp burning. The assailing party advanced in silence and secrecy, near Stegall, and shot him without doing any of the others any injury whatever ... and brought back the deluded girl to her home and family.” [102]

Thus within about a half dozen years after Stegall and Leiper helped to capture Big Harpe they had passed into the Great Beyond. Tradition insists that but for the persistence of these two men, the other five would have abandoned the hunt for the Harpes--as many others had done elsewhere--and both outlaws, in all probability, would have escaped to add more crimes to their long list.«16»

Such is the story of the Harpes and their principal crimes. No doubt regarding these crimes existed in the various localities. How many similar deeds they actually committed will never be discovered, for in the sparsely settled country isolated settlers could, and often did, disappear without leaving any trace of their fate and in many instances travelers who were killed were missed by no one.

There also hangs somewhat of a veil of personal mystery over these criminals. Who were the Harpes and what sort of men were they in appearance and bearing? Who were the three women that, from choice or because of terror of their mates, lived through such terrible experience with them, bore children to them and so became forever linked with the history of these horrible outlaws?

Whether or not the two Harpes were brothers and the two “wives” of Big Harpe sisters, is, after all, a question that is not definitely settled by any authoritative record or direct testimony that has yet been produced. At this date it seems unlikely that any further proof of their origin, names or relationship will ever be discovered. When they were active it was necessary to their safety to assume various false names. They changed clothing to such an extent as they could, in order to avoid pursuit and capture, as well as to avoid suspicion among those they might later approach as intended victims.

They certainly seem to have been brothers in crime and brutality; but were they brothers by birth? The supposed wife and the “supplementary” wife of Big Harpe were, in the same degree, sisters in their toleration of his crimes, but were they actually sisters through one sire? Throughout the story the view has been taken that the two men were brothers and the two women sisters, for such was the prevailing belief. All the contemporary and early subsequent accounts so refer to them, except Smith, who, in his _Legends of the War of Independence_, published in 1855, says the men were first cousins. He designates Micajah or “Big” Harpe as “William Harpe,” a son of John Harpe, and Wiley or “Little” Harpe as “Joshua Harpe,” a son of William Harpe, who was a brother of John Harpe. Smith also represents Susan, the wife of Big Harpe, as a daughter of Captain John Wood, and Betsey, Big Harpe’s supplementary wife, as Maria Davidson, a daughter of Captain John Davidson. Their fathers, he says, were North Carolinians, both captains in the Revolutionary army, but in no wise related by blood. Concerning the two women, he says that they were abducted by the Harpes and became their “involuntary wives.” He ignores the fact that the two women seem to have taken no advantage of any of the chances they had to escape from these villains, and is likewise apparently ignorant of the fact that the third woman, Sally Rice, the wife of Little Harpe, was associated with the outlaws during their most outrageous actions. This same writer says that “Big Harpe and Joshua Harpe” fought at King’s Mountain in October, 1780, and were about twenty years old at that time, whereas all other records show the two men could not then have reached the age of ten.

Smith cites no authority for his various statements, although in the preface to his book he declares that he obtained his materials for his pioneer day sketches by questioning survivors of the times and the events. It is also observed that no other writers of that time present authority for the statements they make as to the origin and relationships of the Harpe band.

Breazeale, himself a resident of Knoxville, had opportunities to gather on the ground early recollections of them. In 1842 he wrote that when the Harpes appeared there in 1797 or 1798, they “professed” to have come from Georgia, “represented” themselves to be brothers, and “said” their name was Harpe. He is careful to add, “whether their real name was Harpe or not, no one knew; nor was it ever ascertained where they had been born and brought up, or who were their relatives.” As they soon turned out to be thieves and were driven away from the neighborhood of Knoxville, it is at least possible that the relationship, the name and all else they gave out might have been assumed and false in order to cover their tracks from a former place. After the murder of Langford in Lincoln County in 1799, they were both indicted under the name of Roberts, which they had evidently assumed and under which they pleaded and were held. It may be suggested here that if Roberts was the true name of Big Harpe’s two “wives,” a shrewd criminal would, it seems, hesitate to assume it as an alias, for the name would help identify him. After their escape from the Danville jail the governor in his proclamation of reward for their capture called them “Harpe alias Roberts,” which shows that their actual names were unknown. It is reasonable to assume that they used false names as the necessity arose. When, in Henderson County, they represented themselves as “preachers,” they must have used fictitious names for the occasion. The name of Harpe became so full of terror and their description as “big” and “little” brothers was so broadcast, that change of name, appearance and pretended occupation was necessary to their safe movement. It will later appear that Little Harpe, after his escape from Kentucky, assumed various names, none of which he had used before and one of which he signed under oath to an official document.«17»

Having told of some of the deeds the Harpes committed, an effort is now made to picture to the readers how the monsters looked who could and did commit these crimes. The career of the Harpes was so swift and so veiled by its criminal nature, that the opportunities to examine in detail their appearance and manner was very brief. “Dead men tell no tales” and since those who saw the Harpes at their work were usually victims, they could leave no record. Those who have left descriptions received them from others who had had them second hand. When the difference in observers and conditions is considered, and when the disguises and changes of attire and situation are allowed for, it is surprising to find that a plausible and convincing portrait is made of Big Harpe.

As already stated, Judge James Hall, in April, 1824, published in _The Port Folio_ a brief account of one of the crimes committed by the Harpes, and having been accused of having written a story “unworthy of belief,” he published in the same magazine about a year later an account of another of their murders and convinced his critics and other readers that his stories of the Harpe atrocities were true. Judge Hall evidently continued his investigation of the Harpes, and seems to have made a special effort to gather data relative to their personal appearance. He realized that fiction is often a better visualizer of persons and their acts than is formal history. So when, in 1833, he published his romance entitled _Harpe’s Head_, and later republished it under the title of _Kentucky, A Tale_, his readers were given a striking picture of the Harpes, and especially of Big Harpe. In his preface to this romance he states that although the tale is the “offspring of invention,” nevertheless “two of the characters [the two Harpes] introduced are historical and their deeds are still freshly remembered by many of the early settlers of Kentucky.” Their acts were, he explains “of a character too atrocious for recital in a work of this description ... and have therefore been merely introduced into a tale wholly fictitious.”

Judge Hall’s description of Big Harpe is as follows:

“His appearance was too striking not to rivet attention. In size he towered above the ordinary stature, his frame was bony and muscular, his breast broad, his limbs gigantic. His clothing was uncouth and shabby, his exterior weatherbeaten and dirty, indicating continual exposure to the elements, and pointing out this singular person as one who dwelt far from the habitations of men, and who mingled not in the courtesies of civilized life. He was completely armed, with the exception of a rifle, which seemed to have only been laid aside for a moment, for he carried the usual powder horn and pouch of the backwoodsman. A broad leathern belt, drawn closely around his waist, supported a large and a smaller knife and a tomahawk. But that which attracted the gaze of all ... was his bold and ferocious countenance, and its strongly marked expression of villainy. His face, which was larger than ordinary, exhibited the lines of ungovernable passion, but the complexion announced that the ordinary feelings of the human breast were extinguished, and instead of the healthy hue which indicates the social emotions, there was a livid, unnatural redness, resembling that of a dried and lifeless skin. The eye was fearless and steady, but it was also artful and audacious, glaring upon the beholder with an unpleasant fixedness and brilliancy, like that of a ravenous animal gloating upon its prey and concentrating all its malignity into one fearful glance. He wore no covering on his head, and the natural protection of thick, coarse hair, of a fiery redness, uncombed and matted, gave evidence of long exposure to the rudest visitations of the sunbeam and the tempest. He seemed some desperate outlaw, an unnatural enemy of his species, destitute of the nobler sympathies of human nature, and prepared at all points for assault or defense.”«18»