Chapter VIII (4)

The most extensive account of the battle of Monongahela and of the events which led to it is contained in a volume published in 1855, by the Pennsylvania Historical Society, as no. 5 of their _Memoirs_, though some copies appeared independently. It is ordinarily quoted as Winthrop Sargent’s _Braddock’s Expedition_.[1297] The introductory memoir goes over the ground of the rival territorial claims of France and England, and the whole narrative, including that of the battle itself (p. 112, etc.), is given with care and judgment. Then follow some papers procured in England for the Penna. Historical Society by Mr. J. R. Ingersoll. The first of these is a journal of Robert Orme, one of Braddock’s aids, which is no. 212 of the King’s MSS., in the British Museum.[1298] It begins at Hampton on Braddock’s arrival, and ends with his death, July 13. It was not unknown before, for Bancroft quotes it. Parkman later uses it, and calls it “copious and excellent.” It is accompanied by plans, mentioned elsewhere. There is also a letter of Orme, which Parkman quotes from the Public Record Office, London, in a volume marked _America and West Indies_, lxxiv.[1299]

It will be remembered that Admiral Keppel,[1300] who commanded the fleet which brought Braddock over, had furnished four cannon and a party of sailors to drag them. An officer of this party seems to have been left at Fort Cumberland during the advance, and to have kept a journal, which begins April 10, 1755, when he was first under marching orders. What he says of the fight is given as “related by some of the principal officers that day in the field.” The diary ends August 18, when the writer reëmbarked at Hampton. It is this journal which is the second of the papers given by Sargent. The third is Braddock’s instructions.[1301]

The Duke of Cumberland, as commander-in-chief, directed through Colonel Napier a letter (November 25, 1754) to Braddock, of which we have fragments in the _Gent. Mag._, xxvi. 269, but the whole of it is to be found only in the French version, as published by the French government in the _Précis des Faits_. Sargent also gives a translation of this, collated with the fragments referred to.

Reduced—but not in fac-simile—from a sketch among the Sparks maps in the library of Cornell University, kindly submitted to the editor by the librarian. The original is on a sheet 14 × 12 inches, and is endorsed on the back in Washington’s handwriting, apparently at a later date, “Sketch of the situation of Fort Cumberland.”]

Parkman had already told the story of the Braddock campaign in his _Conspiracy of Pontiac_,[1302] but, with the aid of some material not accessible to Sargent, he retold it with greater fulness in his _Montcalm and Wolfe_ (vol. i. ch. 7), and his story must now stand as the ripest result of investigations in which Bancroft[1303] and Sparks[1304] had been, as well as Sargent, his most fortunate predecessors, for Irving[1305] has done scarcely more than to avail himself gracefully of previous labors. The story as it first reached England[1306] will be found in the _Gentleman’s Mag._, and, after it began to take historic proportions, is given in Mante’s _Hist. of the Late War in North America_, London, 1772, and in Entick’s _General History of the Late War_, London, 1772-79.[1307] Braddock himself was not a man of mark to be drawn by his contemporaries, yet we get glimpses of his rather unenviable town reputation through the gossipy pen of Horace Walpole[1308] and the confessions of the actress, George Anne Bellamy,[1309] which Parkman and Sargent have used to heighten the color of his portraiture. He did not, moreover, escape in his London notoriety the theatrical satire of Fielding.[1310] His rise in military rank can be traced in Daniel MacKinnon’s _Origin and Hist. of the Coldstream Guards_, London, 1833. His correspondence in America is preserved in the Public Record Office; and some of it is printed in the _Colonial Records of Penna._, vi., and in _Olden Time_, vol. ii.[1311] His plan of the campaign is illustrated in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vi. 942, 954.[1312] Of the council which he held at Alexandria with Shirley and others, the minutes are given in the _Doc. Hist. New York_, ii. 648.[1313]

From Braddock’s officers we have letters and memoranda of use in the history of the movement. The Braddock orderly books in the library of Congress (Feb. 26-June 17, 1755) are printed in the App. of Lowdermilk’s _Cumberland_, p. 495. The originals are a part of the Peter Force Collection, and bear memoranda in Washington’s handwriting. His quartermaster-general, Sir John St. Clair, had arrived as early as January 10, 1755, to make preliminary arrangements for the march, and to inspect Fort Cumberland,[1314] which the provincials had been building as the base of operations.[1315]

From Braddock’s secretary, Shirley the younger, we have a letter dated May 23, 1755, which, with others, is in the _Col. Rec. of Penna._, vi. 404, etc. Of Washington, there is a letter used by Parkman in the Public Record Office.[1316] Of Gage, there is a letter to Albemarle in Keppel’s _Life of Keppel_, i. 213, and in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xxxiv., p. 367, is a statement which Gage prepared for the use of Chalmers. A letter of William Johnston, commissary, dated Philadelphia, Sept. 23, 1755, is in the _Eng. Hist. Review_ (Jan., 1886), vol. i. p. 150. A letter of Leslie (July 30, 1755), a lieutenant in the 44th regiment, is printed in _Hazard’s Penna. Reg._, v. 191; and _Ibid._, vi. 104, is Dr. Walker’s account of Braddock’s advance in the field. Livingston, in his _Rev. of Military Operations_, 1753-56, gives a contemporary estimate.[1317] Other letters and traditions are noted in _Ibid._, iv. pp. 389, 390, 416.[1318] The depositions of some of the wagoners, who led in the flight from the field, are given in _Col. Rec. of Penna._, vi. 482.[1319]

The progress of events during the preparation for the march and the final retreat can be gleaned from the _Dinwiddie Papers_. Sargent found of use the _Shippen MSS._, in the cabinet of the _Penna. Hist. Society_. A somewhat famous sermon, preached by Samuel Davies, Aug. 17, 1755, before an independent troop in Hanover County, Va., prophesying the future career of “that heroic youth Col. Washington,”[1320] shows what an impression the stories of Washington’s intrepidity on the field were making upon observers. The list of the officers present, killed, and wounded, upon which Parkman depends, is in the Public Record Office.[1321]

The news of the defeat, with such particulars as were first transmitted north, will be found in the _New Hampshire Provincial Papers_, vi. 413, and in Akins’ _Pub. Doc. of Nova Scotia_, 409, etc. The shock was unexpected. Seth Pomeroy, at Albany, July 15, 1755, had written that the latest news from Braddock had come in twenty-five days, by an Indian a few days before, and it was such that, in the judgment of Shirley and Johnson, Braddock was at that time in the possession of Duquesne. (_Israel Williams MSS._, i. p. 154.) Governor Belcher announced Braddock’s defeat July 19, 1755. _New Jersey Archives_, viii., Part 2d, 117. In a letter to his assembly, Aug. 1 (_Ibid._, p. 119), he says: “The accounts of this matter have been very various, but the most authentic is a letter from Mr. Orme wrote to Gov. Morris, of Pennsylvania.”

Governor Sharp’s letters to Lord Baltimore and Charles Calvert are in Scharf’s _Maryland_ (i. pp. 465, 466).

The Rev. Charles Chauncy, of Boston, embodied the reports as they reached him (and he might have had excellent opportunity of learning from the executive office of Governor Shirley) in a pamphlet printed at Boston shortly after (1755), _Letter to a friend, giving a concise but just account, according to the advices hitherto received, of the Ohio defeat_.[1322]

Two other printed brochures are of less value. One is _The life, adventures, and surprising deliverances of Duncan Cameron, private soldier in the regiment of foot, late Sir Peter Halket’s_. _3d ed., Phila._, 1756 (16 pp.).[1323] The other is what Sargent calls “a mere catch-penny production, made up perhaps of the reports of some ignorant camp follower.” The _Monthly Review_ at the time exposed its untrustworthiness. It is called _The expedition of Maj.-Gen’l Braddock to Virginia, ... being extracts of letters from an officer, ... describing the march and engagement in the woods_. London, 1755.[1324]

Walpole[1325] chronicles the current English view of the time.

There was a young Pennsylvanian, who was a captive in the fort, and became a witness of the preparation for Beaujeu’s going out and of the jubilation over the return of the victors. What he saw and heard is told in _An Account of the Remarkable Occurrences in the life and travels of Col. James Smith during his captivity with the Indians_, 1755-59.[1326]

Let us turn now to the French accounts. The reports which Sparks used, and which are among his MSS. in Harvard College library, were first printed by Sargent in his fourth appendix.[1327] These and other French documents relating to the campaign have been edited by Dr. Shea in a collection[1328] called _Relations diverses sur la bataille du Malangueulé [Monangahela] gagné le 9 juillet 1755, par les François sous M. de Beaujeu, sur les Anglois sous M. Braddock. Recueillies par Jean Marie Shea. Nouvelle York_, 1860 (xv. 51 pp.).[1329]

Pouchot[1330] makes it clear that the French had no expectation of doing more than check the advance of Braddock.

* * * * *

The peculiar difficulties which beset the politics of Pennsylvania and Virginia at this time are concisely set forth by Sargent in the introduction of his _Braddock’s Expedition_ (p. 61), and by Parkman in his _Montcalm and Wolfe_ (vol. i. p. 329). Dulany’s letter gives a contemporary view of these dissensions.[1331]

The apathy of New Jersey drew forth rebuke from the Lords of Trade.[1332] Scharf[1333] describes the futile attempts of the governor of Maryland to induce his assembly to furnish supplies to the army.

The belief was not altogether unpopular in Pennsylvania, as well as in Virginia, that the story of French encroachments was simply circulated to make the government support the Ohio Company in their settlement of the country, and Washington complains that his report of the 1753 expedition failed to eradicate this notion in some quarters.[1334] In Pennsylvania there were among the Quaker population unreconcilable views of Indian management and French trespassing, and similar beliefs obtained among the German and Scotch-Irish settlers on the frontiers of the province, while the English churchmen and the Catholic Irish added not a little to the incongruousness of sentiment. The rum of the traders among the Indians further complicated matters.[1335] This contrariety of views, as well as a dispute with the proprietary governor over questions of taxation, paralyzed the power of Pennsylvania to protect its own frontiers, when, following upon the defeat of Braddock, the French commander thrust upon the settlements all along the exposed western limits party after party of French and Indian depredators.[1336] Dumas, now in command, issued orders enough to restrain the barbarities of his packs, but the injunctions availed nothing.[1337] Washington, who was put in command of a regiment of borderers at Winchester, found it impossible to exercise much control in directing them to the defence of the frontiers thereabouts.[1338] Fears of slave insurrection and a hesitating house of burgesses were quite as paralyzing in Virginia as other conditions were in Pennsylvania, and the _Dinwiddie Papers_ explain the gloom of the hour.

For the Pennsylvania confusion, the views of the anti-proprietary party found expression in the _Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania_, a “hotly partisan and sometimes sophistical and unfair”[1339] statement, inspired and partly written by Franklin, the leader in the assembly against the Penns.[1340] While the quarrel went on, and the assembly was neglecting the petitions of the borderers for the organization of a militia to protect them, the two parties indulged in crimination and recrimination, and launched various party pamphlets at each other.[1341] The _Col. Records of Penna._ (vol. vi.) chronicle the progress of this conflict. We get the current comment in Franklin’s letters,[1342] in the histories of Pennsylvania, and in such monographs as Edmund de Schweinitz’s _Life and Times of David Zeisberger_ (Philad., 1870),—for the massacre at Gnadenhütten brought the Moravians within the vortex, while the histories[1343] of the missions of that sect reiterate the stories of rapine and murder.

Patience ceased to be a virtue, and a “Representation”[1344] to the House was finally couched in the language of a demand for protection. The assembly mocked and shirked; but the end came. A compromise was reached by the proprietaries furnishing as a free gift the money which they denied as a tax on their estates, and Franklin undertook to manage the defence of the frontiers, with such force and munitions as were now under command.[1345]

Any history of the acquisition of lands by the English, particularly by Pennsylvania, shows why the Indians of the Ohio were induced at this time to side with the French.[1346]

Pownall, in his treatise[1347] on the colonies, classified the Indian tribes by their allegiance respectively to the English and French interests.[1348] It is claimed that the Iroquois were first allured by the Dutch, through the latter’s policy of strict compensation for lands, and that the retention of the Iroquois to the English interests arose from the inheritance of that policy by their successors at Albany and New York.[1349]

* * * * *

Braddock’s instructions to Shirley for the conduct of the Niagara expedition are printed in A. H. Hoyt’s _Pepperrell Papers_ (1874), p. 20. This abortive campaign does not occupy much space in the general histories, and Parkman offers the best account. The _Massachusetts Archives_ and the legislative _Journal_ of that province, as well as Shirley’s letters, give the best traces of the governor’s efforts to organize the campaign.[1350] Some descriptive letters of the general’s son, John Shirley, will be found in the _Penna. Archives_, vol. ii.[1351] The best contemporary narratives in print are found in _The Conduct of Shirley briefly stated_, and in Livingston’s _Review of Military Operations_.[1352]

* * * * *

The main dependence in the giving of the story of the Lake George campaign of 1755 is, on the English side, upon the papers of Johnson himself, and they are the basis of the _Life and Times of Sir William Johnson_,[1353] which, being begun by William L. Stone, was completed by a son of the same name, and published in Albany in 1865, in two volumes.[1354] The preface states that Sir William’s papers, as consulted by the elder Stone, consist of more than 7,000 letters and documents, which were collected from various sources, but are in good part made up of documents procured from the Johnson family in England, and of the Johnson MSS. presented to the N. Y. State library by Gen. John T. Cooper.[1355] An account of Johnson’s preparatory conferences with the Indians (June to Aug., 1755) is printed in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vi. 964, etc., and in _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 267-99.[1356] On the 22d of August Johnson held a council of war at the great carrying place,[1357] whence on the 24th he wrote a letter,[1358] while Col. Blanchard, of the New Hampshire regiment, a few days later (Aug. 28-30) chronicled the progress of events.[1359]

The account of the fight (Sept. 8), which Johnson addressed to the governors of the assisting colonies, was printed in the _Lond. Mag._, 1755, p. 544.[1360]

The sixth volume of the _New York Col. Docs._ (London documents, 1734-1755) contains the great mass of papers preserved in the archives of the State;[1361] but reference may also be made to vols. ii. 402, and x. 355. The _Mass. Archives_ supplement them, and show many letters of Shirley and Johnson about the campaign.[1362] In the _Provincial Papers of New Hampshire_, vol. vi., there are various papers indicating the progress of the campaign, particularly (p. 439) a descriptive letter by Secretary Atkinson, dated Portsmouth, December 9, 1755, and addressed to the colony’s agent in London. It embodies the current reports, and is copied from a draft in the Belknap papers.[1363]

The jealousy between Massachusetts and New York is explained in part by Hutchinson.[1364] The Massachusetts assembly complained that Johnson’s chief communication was with New York, and, as was most convenient, he sent his chief prisoners to the seaport of that province, while they should have been sent, as the assembly said, to Boston, since Massachusetts bore the chief burden of the expedition.[1365] It was also complained that the £5,000 given by Parliament to Johnson was simply deducted from the appropriation for the colonies.[1366]

The jealousy of the two provinces was largely intensified in their chief men. Shirley did not hide his official eminence, and had a feeling that by naming Johnson to the command of the Crown Point expedition he had been the making of him. Johnson was not very grateful, and gained over the sympathy of De Lancey, the lieutenant-governor of New York.[1367]

Fac-simile of the map in the _Gentleman’s Mag._, xxv. 525 (Nov., 1755), which is thus explained: “The French imagined the English army would have crossed the carrying place from Fort Nicholson at G [B in southeast corner?] to Fort Anne at F, and accordingly had staked Wood Creek at C to prevent their navigation; but Gen. Johnson, being informed of it, continued his route on Hudson’s River to H. The French marched from C to attack his advanced detachments near the lake. The dotted lines show their march. A, Lake George, or Sacrament. B, Hudson’s River. C, Wood Creek. D, Otter Creek. E, Lake Champlain. F, Fort Anne. G, Fort Nicholson. H, the place where Gen. Johnson beat the French. H C, the route of the French.”

A copy of the map used by Dieskau on his advance, and found among his baggage, as well as plans of the fort at Crown Point, are among the Peter Force maps in the Library of Congress. A MS. “Draught of Lake George and part of Hudson’s river taken Sept. 1756 by Joshua Loring” is also among the Faden maps (no. 19); as is also Samuel Langdon’s MS. _Map of New Hampshire and the Adjacent Country_ (MS.), with a corner map of the St. Lawrence above Montreal, including observations of Lieut. John Stark.]

Parkman received copies of the journal of Seth Pomeroy from a descendant, and Bancroft had also made use of it. A letter of Pomeroy, written to headquarters in Boston, is preserved in the _Massachusetts Archives_, “Letters,” iv. 109. He supposed himself at that time the only field-officer of his regiment left alive. The papers of Col. Israel Williams are in the Mass. Hist. Soc. library,[1368] and give considerable help. The campaign letters of Surgeon Thomas Williams, of Deerfield, addressed chiefly to his wife (1755 and 1756), are in the possession of William L. Stone, and are printed in the _Historical Magazine_, xvii. 209, etc. (Apr., 1870).[1369] The French found in the pocket of a captured English officer a diary of the campaign, of which Parkman discovered a French version in the Archives of the Marine.

The Rev. Samuel Chandler, who joined the camp at Lake George in October as chaplain of a Massachusetts regiment, kept a diary, in which he records some details of the previous fights, as he picked them up in camp, giving a little diagram of the ambush into which Williams was led.[1370] In it are enumerated (p. 354) the various reasons, as he understood them, on account of which the further pursuit of the campaign was abandoned. Johnson’s chief of ordnance, William Eyre, advised him that his cannon were not sufficient to attack Ticonderoga.[1371] Parkman speaks of the text accompanying Blodget’s print[1372] and the _Second Letter to a Friend_ as “excellent for information as to the condition of the ground and the position of the combatants.” Some months later, and making use of Blodget, Timothy Clement also published in Boston another print, which likewise shows the positions of the regiments after the battle and during the building of Fort William Henry.[1373]

There are three contemporary printed comments on the campaign. The first is a sequel to the letter written by Charles Chauncy on Braddock’s defeat, which was printed at Boston, signed T. W., dated Sept. 29, 1755, and called _A second Letter to a Friend; giving a more particular narrative of the defeat of the French army at Lake George by the New England troops, than has yet been published, ... to which is added an account of what the New England governments have done to carry into effect the design against Crown Point, as will show the necessity of their being helped by Great Britain, in point of money_.[1374] This and the previous letter were also published together under the title _Two letters to a friend on the present critical conjuncture of affairs in North America; with an account of the action at Lake George_, Boston, 1755.[1375]

NOTE.

The sketch on the other side of this leaf follows an engraving, unique so far as the editor knows, which is preserved in the library of the American Antiquarian Society. It is too defective to give good photographic results. The print was “engraved and printed by Thomas Johnston, Boston, New England, April, 1756.”

The key at the top reads thus: “(1.) The place where the brave Coll. Williams was ambush^{’d} & killed, his men fighting in a retreat to the main body of our army. Also where Cap^t. McGennes of York, and Cap^t. Fulsom of New Hampshire bravely attack’d y^e enemy, killing many. The rest fled, leaving their packs and prisoners, and also (2.) shews the place where the valiant Col. Titcomb was killed, it being the westerly corner of the land defended in y^e general engagement, which is circumscribed with a double line, westerly and southerly; (3.) with the s^d double line, in y^e form of our army’s entrenchments, which shows the Gen. and each Col. apartment. (4.) A Hill from which the enemy did us much harm and during the engagement the enemy had great advantage, they laying behind trees we had fell within gun-shot of our front. (W.) The place where the waggoners were killed.”

On the lower map is: “The prick^{’d} line from South bay shews where Gen. Dieskau landed & y^e way he march^{’d} to attack our forces.”

The two forts are described: “Fort Edward was built, 1755, of timber and earth, 16 feet high and 22 feet thick & has six cannon on its rampart.”

“This fort [William Henry] is built of timber and earth, 22 feet high and 25 feet thick and part of it 32. Mounts 14 cannon, 33 & 18 pounders.”

The dedication in the upper left-hand corner reads: “To his Excellency William Shirley, esq., Captain general and Gov^r-in-chief in and over his Majesty’s Province of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, Major General and Commander-in-chief of all his Majesty’s land forces in North America; and to the legislators of the several provinces concerned in the expeditions to Crown Point,—this plan of Hudson River from Albany to Fort Edward (and the road from thence to Lake George as surveyed), Lake George, the Narrows, Crown Point, part of Lake Champlain, with its South bay and Wood Creek, according to the best accounts from the French general’s plan and other observations (by scale No. 1) & an exact plan of Fort Edward & William Henry (by scale No. 2) and the west end of Lake George and of the land defended on the 8^{th} of Sept. last, and of the Army’s Intrenchments afterward (by scale 3) and sundry particulars respecting y^e late Engagement with the distance and bearing of Crown Point and Wood Creek from No. 4, by your most devoted, humble servant, TIM^O. CLEMENT, _Surv^r._ Have^l. Feb. 10, 1756.”]

The second is William Livingston’s _Review of the military operations in North America from ... 1753 to ... 1756, interspersed with various observations, characters, and anecdotes, necessary to give light into the conduct of American transactions in general, and more especially into the political management of affairs in New York. In a letter to a nobleman_, London, 1757.[1376]

The third is, like the tract last named, a defence of the commanding general of all the British forces in America, and is said to have been written by Shirley himself, and is called _The Conduct of Major-General Shirley, late General and Commander-in-Chief of his Majesty’s forces in North America, briefly stated_, London, 1758.[1377]

Dwight, in his _Travels in New England and New York_ (vol. iii. 361), and Hoyt, in his _Antiquarian Researches on the Indian Wars_ (p. 279), wrote when some of the combatants were still living. Dwight was the earliest to do General Lyman justice. Stone claims that the official accounts discredit the story told by Dwight, that Dieskau was finally shot, after his army’s flight, by a soldier, who thought the wounded general was feeling for a pistol, when he was searching for his watch.[1378]

Daniel Dulany, in a MS. Newsletter after the fashion of the day, gives the current accounts of the fight.[1379]

The story of the fight had been early told (1851) by Parkman in his _Pontiac_, revised in his second edition;[1380] and was again recast by him in the _Atlantic Monthly_ (Oct., 1884), before the narrative finally appeared in ch. ix. of the first volume of his _Montcalm and Wolfe_.[1381]

After an inaccurate plan in the contemporary _Mémoires sur le Canada_, 1749-1760, as published by the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec (réimpression), 1873, p. 98. The French accounts often call Fort William Henry Fort George. Cf. the map in Moore’s _Diary of the Amer. Revolution_, i. p. 79.

The _Catal. of the King’s Maps_ (Brit. Mus.), i. 424, shows a drawn map of the fort at the head of Lake George, under date of 1759, and (p. 425) another of the lake itself.]

On the French side, the official report of Dieskau[1382] was used by Parkman in a copy belonging to Sparks, obtained from the French war archives, and this with other letters of Dieskau—one to D’Argenson, Sept. 14; another to Vaudreuil, Sept. 15—can be found in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vol. x. pp. 316, 318 (Paris Documents, 1745-78),[1383] as can the reports of Dieskau’s adjutant, Montreuil (p. 335), particularly those of Aug. 31 and Oct. 1, which, with other papers, are also preserved in the _Mass. Archives, documents collected in France_ (MSS.), ix. 241, 265.[1384] The report made by Vaudreuil,[1385] as well as his strictures on Dieskau, is preserved in the Archives de la Marine, as is a long account by Bigot (Oct. 4, 1755),—both of which are used by Parkman. Cf. also the French narratives in the _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 320, 324, 330. There is also in this same collection (p. 316) a Journal of occurrences, July 23 to Sept. 30, 1755, which is also in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. p. 337, where are other contemporary accounts, like the letter of Doreil to D’Argenson (p. 360) and those of Lotbinière (pp. 365, 369). The _Mémoires_ of Pouchot is the main early printed French source; though there was a contemporary _Gazette_, printed in Paris, which will be found in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. p. 383.

A paper in the Archives de la Guerre is thought by Parkman to have been inspired by Dieskau himself, and, in spite of its fanciful form, to be a sober statement of the events of the campaign. It is called _Dialogue entre le Maréchal de Saxe et le Baron de Dieskau aux Champs Elysées_.[1386] Some of the events subsequently related by Dieskau to Diderot are noticed in the latter’s _Mémoires_ (1830 ed.), i. 402.

Henry Stevens, of London, offered for sale in 1872, in his _Bibliotheca Geographica_, no. 553, a manuscript record of events between 1755 and 1760, which came from the family of the Chevalier de Lévis. It purports to be the annual record of the French commanders in the field, beginning with Dieskau, for six successive campaigns. Stevens, comparing this record of Dieskau with such of the papers as are printed in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, where they were copied from the documents as they reached the government in France, says that the latter are shown by the collection to have been “cooked up for the home eye in France,” and that “we lose all sympathy for the unfortunate Dieskau.” Stevens refers particularly to two long letters of Dieskau, Sept. 1 and 4, sent to Vaudreuil.[1387]

* * * * *

The feeling was rapidly growing that the next campaign should be a vigorous one. Gov. Belcher (Sept. 3, 1755) enforces his opinion to Sir John St. Clair, that “Canada must be rooted out.”[1388] The _Gentleman’s Magazine_ printed papers of similar import.

In November, 1755, Belcher had written to Shirley, “Things look to me as if the coming year will be the criterion whereby we shall be able to conclude whether the French shall drive us into the sea, or whether King George shall be emperour of North America.”[1389] In December, Shirley assembled a congress of governors at New York, and laid his plans before them.[1390] When Shirley returned to Boston in Jan., 1756, the _Journal_ of the Mass. House of Representatives discloses how active he was in preparing for his projects.[1391] Stone[1392] portrays the arrangements.

To Stone,[1393] too, we must turn to learn the efforts of Johnson to propitiate the Indians,[1394] in which he was perplexed by the movements in Pennsylvania and Virginia against the tribes in that region.[1395] The printed contemporary source, showing Johnson’s endeavors with the Indians, is the _Account of Conferences_, London, 1756, which may be complemented by much in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, vols. i. and iv. Thomas Pownall published in New York, in 1756, _Proposals for securing the friendship of the Five Nations_. As the campaign went on, Johnson held conferences at Fort Johnson, July 21 (of which, under date of Aug. 12, he prepared a journal), and attended later meetings at German Flats, Aug. 24-Sept. 3, and again at Fort Johnson. These will be found in the _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vi. 461-496;[1396] and in the same volume, pp. 365-376, will be found the conference of deputies of the Five Nations, July 28, 1756, with Vaudreuil, at Montreal.[1397]

From an original bill in an illustrated copy of _Historical Sketches of the Paper Currency of the American Colonies, by Henry Phillips, Jr._, Roxbury, 1865,—in Harvard College library.]

The early events of the year, like the capture of Fort Bull,[1398] find illustrations in various papers in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, vol. i. 509, and _N. Y. Col. Docs._ x. 403, with some local associations in Benton’s _Herkimer County_.

The centre of preparation for the campaign during the winter was in Boston, and Parkman[1399] shows the methods of military organization which the New England colonies, with some detriment to efficiency employed. He finds his material for the sketch in the manuscripts of the _Mass. Archives_ (“Military”), vols. lxxv. and lxxvi., and in equivalent printed papers in _R. I. Colonial Records_, v., and _N. H. Provincial Papers_, vi. The latter colony issued bills this year, as they had the previous season, called Crown Point currency, in aid of the expedition, a fac-simile of one of which is annexed.[1400]

Another main source for these preliminaries, as well as for the routine of the campaign later in Albany and at Lake George is the _Journal_ of General John Winslow, who, after some coquetting with Pepperrell on Shirley’s part, was finally selected for the command of the expedition against Crown Point.[1401] The second volume of this journal, which is in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society, covers Feb.-Aug., and the third, Aug.-Dec., 1756. They consist of transcripts of letters, orders, etc., chronologically arranged.

The volumes labelled “Letters” in the _Massachusetts Archives_ (MSS.) contain various letters, which depict the condition of the camps and the progress of the campaign. Parkman[1402] refers to them, as well as to a report of Lieut.-Col. Burton to Loudon on the condition of the camps,[1403] and to the journal of John Graham, a chaplain in Lyman’s Connecticut regiment.[1404]

* * * * *

Shirley rightfully understood the value of Oswego to the colonies. As Parkman[1405] says, “No English settlement on the continent was of such ill omen to the French. It not only robbed them of the fur-trade, but threatened them with military and political, no less than commercial ruin.” The previous French governor, Jonquière, had been particularly instructed to compass its destruction, above all by inciting the Iroquois to do it, if possible, for the post was a menace in the eyes of the Indians. Shirley hoped to redeem the failure of last year, and he had the satisfaction of hearing of Bradstreet’s success in the midst of the personal detraction which assailed him.[1406] The military interest of the year, however, centres in the siege and fall of Oswego (Aug. 14), introducing Montcalm on the scene.[1407] Capt. John Vicars, a British officer who was with Bradstreet, gives an account of the fortifications, which Parkman[1408] uses. The correspondence of Loudon and Shirley in the English archives marks the progress of events.[1409] Respecting the siege itself there is a letter, from an officer present, in the _Boston Evening Post_, May 16, 1757. Stone[1410] uses MS. depositions of two of the English prisoners who escaped from the French.[1411] A declaration by soldiers of Shirley’s regiment is printed in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vii. 126.

Of the contemporary printed sources, note must be made of the “State of facts” in the _Lond. Mag._, 1757, p. 14; of the _Conduct of General Shirley_, etc., p. 110; of Livingston’s _Review_; of _The military history of Great Britain for 1756-57_. _Containing a letter from an English officer at Canada, taken prisoner at Oswego, exhibiting the cruelty of the French. Also a journal of the Siege of Oswego_, London, 1757.[1412]

Of somewhat less authority is a popular book, _French and Indian cruelty exemplified in the life of Peter Wilkinson_, with “accurate detail of the operations of the French and English forces at the siege of Oswego.”[1413] Of a more general character are the accounts in Mante,[1414] Smith,[1415] and Hutchinson.[1416]

Parkman, who sketches the early career of Montcalm,[1417] surveys the chief French authorities on the siege, as gathered mainly from the Archives of the Marine and those of War, at Paris;[1418] the _Livre des Ordres_; Vaudreuil’s instructions to Montcalm, July 21; the journal of Bougainville; the letters of Vaudreuil, Bigot, and Montcalm. The _N. Y. Col. Docs._ (vol. x.) contain various translations of these,[1419] including (p. 440) a journal of the siege transmitted by Montcalm; other versions are in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, vol. i.

There was printed at Grenoble, in 1756, a _Relation de la prise des forts de Choueguen, ou Oswego, & de ce qui s’est passée cette année en Canada_. A small edition was privately reprinted in 1882, from a copy belonging to Mr. S. L. M. Barlow, of New York.[1420] Martin, in his _De Montcalm en Canada_, ch. iii., presents the modern French view, as also does Garneau, _Hist. du Canada_, 4th ed., vol. ii. 251. Maurault, in his _Hist. des Abénakis_ (1866), tells the part of the Indians in the siege.

Of the partisan warfare conducted by Rogers and Putnam, we have the best accounts in the reports which the former made to his commanding officer.[1421] These various reports constitute the volume which was published in London in 1765 “for the author,” called _Journals of Major Robert Rogers, containing an account of the several excursions he made under the generals who commanded, during the late war_.[1422] Rogers’ Journals are written in a direct way, apparently without exaggeration, but sometimes veil the atrocities which he had not screened in the original reports.[1423] Parkman points out that the account of his scout of Jan. 19, 1756, is much abridged in the composite _Journals_.

The exploits of Rogers are frequently chronicled in Winslow’s _Journal_, and there are other notes in the _Mass. Archives_, vol. lxxvi. Parkman cites Bougainville’s _Journal_ as giving the French record.[1424] There is a contemporary account of one of Rogers’ principal actions, in what Trumbull[1425] calls “perhaps the rarest of all narratives of Indian captivities.” The edition which is mentioned is a second one, published at Boston in 1760, and Sabin[1426] does not record the first. It is called _A plain narrative of the uncommon sufferings and remarkable deliverance of Thomas Brown, of Charlestown in New England, who returned to his father’s house the beginning of Jan., 1760, after having been absent three years and about eight months; containing an account of the engagement, Jan., 1757, in which Captain Spikeman was killed and the author left for dead_.

Of Putnam’s exploits there is a report (Oct. 9, 1755) in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, iv. p. 172. The _Life_ of Putnam by Humphreys chronicles his partisan career, while that by Tarbox passes it over hurriedly. Hollister’s and other histories of Connecticut give it in outline.

* * * * *

The circulars of Pitt to the colonies, asking that assistance be rendered to Loudon, and (Feb. 4, 1757) urging the raising of additional troops, is in _New Jersey Archives_, viii. Pt. ii. pp. 209, 241. There are in the _Israel Williams MSS._ (Mass. Hist. Soc.) letters of Loudon, dated Boston, Jan. 29 and Feb., 1757, respecting the organization of the next campaign.

For the attack on Fort William Henry (1757) conducted by Rigaud, Parkman[1427] cites, as usual, his MS. French documents,[1428] but gives for the English side a letter from the fort (Mar. 26, 1757), in the _Boston Gazette_, no. 106, and in the _Boston Evening Post_, no. 1,128; with notes of other letters in the _Boston News-Letter_, no. 2,860.

The best account yet published of Montcalm’s later campaign against Fort William Henry (the Fort George of the French) is contained in the last chapter of the first volume of Parkman’s _Montcalm and Wolfe_.[1429]

On the French side there is the work of Pouchot, and Dr. Hough’s translation of it (i. 101). The _Rough List_ of Mr. Barlow’s library (no. 941) shows, as the only copy known, a _Relation de la prise du Fort Georges, ou Guillaume Henry, situé sur le lac Saint-Sacrement, et de ce qui s’est passé cette année en Canada_ (12 pp.), Paris, 1757.

Of the documentary evidence of the time Parkman makes full use. He secured from the Public Record Office in London the correspondence of Webb and a letter and journal of Colonel Frye, who commanded the Massachusetts troops, and from these he gives extracts in his Appendix F.[1430]

In the Paris documents as gathered (copies) in the archives at Albany,[1431] and in the copies of other documents from France, supplementing these, and contained in the series of MSS. given by Mr. Parkman to the Mass. Historical Society, there are the _Journal_ of Bougainville, “a document,” says Parkman, “hardly to be commended too much,” the diary of Malartic, the correspondence of Montcalm, Lévis, Vaudreuil, and Bigot. In adding to the graphic details of the theme, there is a long letter of the Jesuit Roubaud, which is printed in the _Lettres Edifiantes et Curieuses_.[1432]

Jonathan Carver, who was a looker-on, has given an account in his _Travels_, which Parkman thinks is trustworthy so far as events came under Carver’s eye.[1433]

The journals of the Montresors, father and son, Colonels James and John, during their stay in 1757-59 in the neighborhood of Forts William Henry and Edward, throw light upon the spirit of the time.[1434] They are preserved in the family in England, and, edited by G. D. Scull, have been printed in the _N. Y. Hist. Coll._, 1881, accompanied by heliotypes of portraits of the two engineers.[1435]

Living at the time, and enjoying good advantages for acquiring knowledge, Hutchinson, in his _Massachusetts_ (vol. iii. p. 60), might have given us more than he does, but his purpose was mainly to show the effect of the campaign upon that colony. It is noticeable, however, that he says the victims of the massacre were not many in number. Most later writers on the English side add little or nothing not elsewhere obtainable.[1436]

Bancroft[1437] made use of a considerable part of the material available to Parkman; but his latest revision does not add to his earlier account.

Dwight, in his _Travels in New England and New York_,[1438] who remembered the event as a child, expresses the view which long prevailed in New England, that Montcalm made no reasonable effort to check the Indians, and emphasizes the timidity and imbecility of Webb, who lay at Fort Edward with 6,000 men, doing nothing. Dwight narrates as from Captain Noble, who was present, that when Sir William Johnson would gather volunteers from Webb’s garrison to proceed to Munro’s assistance Webb forbade it.[1439]

Respecting the attack in the autumn (Nov. 28, 1757) on German Flats, there are the despatches of Vaudreuil, the _Journal_ of Bougainville, and papers in _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, i. 520, and _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 672, the latter being a French summary of M. de Belêtre’s campaign. Loudon’s despatch to Pitt, Feb. 14, 1758, is the main English source.[1440]

* * * * *

While Webb held the chief command at Albany, Stanwix was organizing, with the help of Washington, the defence along the Pennsylvania and Virginia borders, and Bouquet further south.[1441] The lives of Washington and the histories of those provinces trace out the events of the summer in that direction. The main thread of this history is the precarious relation of the provinces with the Indians, and much illustrative of this connection is found in the _Penna. Col. Rec._, vol. vii. Dr. Schweinitz’s _Life of Zeisberger_ and the various Moravian chronicles show how that people strove to act as intermediaries.

The Delawares had not forgotten the deceit practised upon them at Albany in 1754, in inveigling them into giving a deed of lands, and Sir William Johnson was known to be in favor of revoking that fraudulent purchase. Conferences with the Indians were numerous, even after the spring opened.[1442] Johnson received the deputies of the Shawanese and Delawares at Fort Johnson in April, and concluded a treaty with them.[1443]

It boded no good that the Six Nations also, in April, had sent deputies to Vaudreuil, and all through the spring the region north of the Mohawk was the scene of rapine.[1444] The truth was, the successes of the French had driven the westerly tribes of the Six Nations into a neutrality, which might turn easily into enmity, and to confirm them in their passiveness, and to incite the Mohawks and the easterly tribes into active alliance, Johnson, who knew his life to be in danger, summoned the deputies of the confederacy to meet him at Johnson Hall on the 10th of June. His journal for some time previous to the meeting is printed by Stone.[1445] Johnson accomplished all he could hope for. His answer to the Senecas of June 16 is in the _Penna. Archives_, vi. 511. Under his counsel, the final conclusion with the Indians farther south was reached in a conference at Easton, in Pennsylvania, in July and August.[1446]

* * * * *

Of the defeat of Rogers in March, which opened the campaign of 1758, his own report after he got into Fort Edward, printed at the time in the newspapers, is mainly given in his _Journals_, together with a long letter of two British regular officers who accompanied him, and who in the fight escaped capture, but wandered off in the woods, till hunger compelled them to seek the French fort, whence by a flag of truce they despatched (Mar. 28) their narrative. The French accounts are derived from the usual documentary sources as indicated by Parkman (ii. p. 16).

* * * * *

The English historians of the war in Europe all describe the change in political feeling which brought Pitt once more into power, with popular sympathy to sustain him.[1447] The public had aroused to the incompetency of the English military rule in America, and upon the importance of making head there against the French, as a vantage for any satisfactory peace in Europe.[1448] This revulsion is best described in Parkman[1449] and in Bancroft.[1450] The letter of Pitt recalling Loudon (who was not without his defenders[1451]), as addressed to the governor of Connecticut, is in the Trumbull MSS., vol. i. p. 127.

The condition of the camp at Lake George in the spring and early summer is to be studied in the official papers, as well as in letters printed in the _Boston News-Letter_ and in the _Boston Evening Post_.[1452] Parkman describes from the best sources the fort and the outer entrenchments.[1453]

* * * * *

The official reports on the English side of the fight on July 8th are in the Public Record Office. The letter which Abercrombie addressed to Pitt from Lake George, July 12, as it appeared in the _London Gazette Extraordinary_, Aug. 22, is printed in the _N.Y. Col. Docs._, x. 728. Dwight represents the opinions of Abercrombie’s generalship as current in the colonies,[1454] and we read in Smith’s _New York_, vol. ii. p. 264, that the difficulty “appeared to be more in the head than the body.” The diary of William Parkman, a youth of seventeen, who was in a Massachusetts regiment, reflects the charitable criticism of his troops, when the diarist calls their commander “an aged gentleman, infirm in body and mind.”[1455] We have various other descriptions and diaries from officers engaged.[1456]

Parkman[1457] collates the different authorities as respects the losses on the two sides,[1458] and his details are the best of all the later historians.[1459] Of the French contemporary accounts, which are numerous, there are several from the Paris Archives in the Parkman MSS., which have been used for the first time in his _Montcalm and Wolfe_. Some of the more important ones are printed in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._ x.[1460]

There is an account in Pouchot, and Chevalier Johnstone’s “Dialogue in Hades” is in the _Transactions_ of the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec, and summarized accounts in Martin’s _De Montcalm en Canada_, ch. vii., and in Garneau’s _Canada_, p. 279.[1461] For the life of the camp later established at the head of Lake George, there are items to be drawn, not only from the official reports, but from the _Israel Williams MSS._ Parkman (ii. 117) uses a diary of Chaplain Cleaveland. An orderly book of Col. Jonathan Bagley, of a Connecticut regiment, covering Aug. 20-Sept. 11, 1758, is in the library of the American Antiq. Society.[1462] It indicates that the celebration at Lake George of the victory at Louisbourg took place Aug. 28, as does an orderly book of Rogers’ Rangers, covering Aug.-Nov., 1758, at Lake George and Fort Edward.[1463]

Of the autumn scouting, there are letters in the _Boston Weekly Advertiser_, the centre of interest being the fight between Rogers and Morin.[1464]

Of the Frontenac expedition, Bradstreet’s own report to Abercrombie is in the Public Record Office. Parkman uses it, as well as letters in the _Boston Gazette_, no. 182; _Boston Evening Post_, no. 1,203; _Boston News-Letter_, no. 2,932; _N. H. Gazette_, no. 104. The articles of capitulation are in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 826. Smith (_New York_, ii. 266), speaking of Bradstreet’s expedition, says he “rather flew than marched.”[1465]

On the French side, there are the official documents, the _Mémoire sur la Canada_, 1749-60 (published by the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec), and Pouchot, i. 162.

The loss of Frontenac gave rise to a disagreement between Vaudreuil and Montcalm as to the dispositions to be made upon Lake Ontario, and the papers which passed between them are in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 866, etc., as well as others on the conflict of their opinions respecting the defence of Ticonderoga (_Ibid._, p. 873, etc.).

* * * * *

The main sources for the Duquesne expedition of 1758 are in the Public Record Office, _America and West Indies_, including the correspondence of Forbes.[1466] There are also papers in the _Col. Records of Penna._ and _Pennsylvania Archives_. The letters of Washington in Sparks’ _Washington_ (vol. ii.) may be supplemented by the fuller text of the same, and by others, in _Bouquet and Haldimand Papers_, in the British Museum. Washington’s letters to Bouquet are in _Additional MSS._, vol. 21, 641, of the British Museum, and there is a copy of them among the Parkman MSS.[1467] There is a letter of a British officer in the _Gent. Mag._, xxix. 171. For the new route made by Forbes, see Lowdermilk’s _Cumberland_, p. 238. The routes of Braddock and Forbes are marked on the map given in Sparks’ _Washington_, ii. 38, and Washington’s opinion of their respective advantages is in _Ibid._, ii. 302.

Of Grant’s defeat, the principal fight of the campaign, there are contemporary accounts in the _Penna. Gazette_,[1468] _Boston Evening Post_, _Boston Weekly Advertiser_, _Boston News-Letter_, etc.; in Hazard’s _Penna. Reg._, viii. 141; in _Olden Time_, i. p. 179. Grant’s imprudence met with little consideration in England. (_Grenville Correspondence_, i. 274.)

The account of Post’s embassy, July 15 to Sept., 1758, appeared in London in 1759, as the _Second Journal of Christian Frederick Post_.[1469]

Parkman,[1470] Bancroft,[1471] and Irving,[1472] of course, tell the story of Forbes’s campaign,—the first with the best help to sources.[1473]

* * * * *

The concomitants of the winter of 1758-59 in Canada must be studied in order to comprehend the inequality of the two sides in the signal campaign which was to follow. Parkman finds the material of this study in the documents of the Archives de la Marine et de la Guerre in Paris; in the correspondence of Montcalm, of which he procured copies from the present representative of his family, including the letters of Bougainville[1474] and Doreil[1475] on their Paris mission; and in the letters of Vaudreuil, in the Archives Nationales.[1476] Much throwing light on the strained relations between the general and the governor will be found in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vol. x.[1477] French representations of the situation in Canada are given in the _Considérations sur l’État présent du Canada_, published by the Literary and Historical Society of Quebec in 1840, sometimes cited as Faribault’s _Collection de Mémoires_, no. 3. Further use may be made of _Mémoire sur le Canada_, 1749-1760, _en trois parties_, Quebec, 1838.[1478]

The comparative inequality of the two combatants was a fruitful subject of inquiry then, especially upon the French side. There is in the _Penna. Archives_, 2d series, vi. 554, a French _Mémoire_, setting forth their respective positions, needs, and resources, dated January, 1759, and similar documents are given in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 897, 925, 930.

Later writers, with the advantage of remoteness, have found much for comment in the several characteristics, experiences, aims, and abilities of the two warring forces. These are contrasted in Warburton’s _Conquest of Canada_.[1479] Judge Haliburton[1480] points out the great military advantages of the paternal and despotic government of Canada. Viscount Bury, in his _Exodus of the Western Nations_,[1481] compares the outcome of their opposing systems. Parkman gives the last chapter of his _Old Régime in Canada_ to a vigorous exposition of the subject. The institutional character of the English colonists, developed from the circumstances of their life, is compared with the purpose of the French colonists to reproduce France, in E. G. Scott’s _Development of Constitutional Liberty in the English Colonies of America_.[1482]

Among the later French authors, Rameau, in his _France aux Colonies_ (Paris, 1859), writes in full consciousness of the limitations and errors of policy which deprived France of her American colonies.[1483] The efforts which were made to propitiate the Indians before the campaign opened are explained in Stone’s _Life of Johnson_, ii. ch. v., and in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vii. 378.

Upon the movement to render secure the new fort at Pittsburgh, Parkman found in the Public Record Office, in London, letters of Col. Hugh Mercer (who commanded), January-June, 1759; letters of Brigadier Stanwix, May-July;[1484] and a narrative of John Ormsby, beside a letter in the _Boston News-Letter_, no. 3,023. In the Wilkes Papers, in the _Historical MSS. Commission Report, No. IV._, p. 400, are long and interesting accounts of affairs at this time in Pennsylvania, written from Philadelphia to Wilkes by Thomas Barrow (May 1, 1759).

The Niagara expedition was a mistake, in the judgment of some military critics, since the troops diverted to accomplish it had been used more effectually in Amherst’s direct march to Montreal. More expedition on that general’s part in completing his direct march would have rendered the fall of Niagara a necessity without attack. Perhaps the risk of leaving French forces still west of Niagara, ready for a siege of Fort Pitt, is not sufficiently considered in this view.[1485]

The Public Record Office yields Amherst’s instructions and letters to Prideaux, and the letters of Johnson to Amherst. Stone[1486] prints Johnson’s diary of the expedition, and the Haldimand Papers in the British Museum throw much light.[1487] Letters of Amherst are in the N. Y. State Library at Albany.

On the French side, the account in Pouchot’s _Mémoires sur la dernière guerre_[1488] is that of the builder and defender of the fort.[1489] His narrative is given in English in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, x. 977, etc., as well as in Hough’s ed. of Pouchot. The letters of Vaudreuil from the French Archives are in the Parkman MSS. The English found in the fort a French journal (July 6-July 24, 1759), of which an English version was printed in the _N. Y. Mercury_, Aug. 20, 1759. It is also given in English in the _Hist. Mag._ (March, 1869), xv. p. 199.