Chapter VIII (3)

Many of the questions involved in the adjustment of boundaries and settlement of treaties between the Indians and the British government survived the Revolution, and reappeared before the United States Congress in the struggles of land companies for possession of their alleged purchases.[1337] Through the memorials to Congress presented by the Illinois and Ouabache Land Company, which are to be found scattered through the Senate and House documents, as well as in separate tracts, we learn that in order to sustain the claim of this company it became important to show that the Six Nations did not own the Wabash region. For that purpose Deputy-Superintendent Croghan made affidavit that "the Six Nations claim by right of conquest all the lands on the southeast side of the river Ohio down to the Cherokee River, and on the west side of the river down to the Big Miami River."[1338] The king had agreed with the Indians that his people should not go west of an established boundary line. He had warned settlers off their lands. The colonists who were in arms against the king were after the lands, by fair means or foul. What was considered fair means in those days, and what causes there were for the exasperation of the Indians, cannot be fully appreciated unless the subject be followed even beyond the days of the Revolution.

_The Register of Pennsylvania_[1339] also contains a variety of material relating to the subject. A number of the early documents will be found in Hubley's _American Revolution_ (1805).

In making an estimate of the Indian population within the borders of the United States at this time, I have been obliged to rely largely upon my own deductions. Bancroft (_United States_, iii. ch. 22), giving an estimate of the number of Indians east of the Mississippi and south of the St. Lawrence and the chain of lakes in 1640, says: "We shall approach, perhaps exceed, a just estimate of their numbers if we allow ... one hundred and eighty thousand souls" (edition of 1841). It will be observed that the foregoing estimate includes the Canadian Indians. In the preparation of the estimate which I have given, I have examined many scattered statements of the number of warriors of the different tribes, which comprehend different areas within their respective limits, and which frequently overlap each other. The arbitrary spelling of Indian names often presents the same name in such different dress as to make its identification difficult. If we bear in mind that the name as it appears in print is a phonetic rendering of a word which from the mouths of different individuals would sound differently to the same ear, and further, that those who have given us the various renderings were men of different nationalities and of different degrees of cultivation, we shall oftentimes be able to recognize the same tribe in separate statements, under names the spellings of which at first sight have no seeming identity. As regards this Indian population, a tabulated statement will he found in Jefferson's _Notes on the State of Virginia_, which relies upon Croghan, Bouquet, and Hutchins, supplemented by Dodge and Gallatin. Croghan's estimate will be found in Proud's _History of Pennsylvania_ (vol. ii. p. 296.)[1340] Bouquet's estimate will be found in the _Historical Account_ of his expedition,[1341] headed "Names of different Indian Nations in North America, with the numbers of their fighting men." Hutchins's estimate will be found in _An historical narrative and Topographical description of Louisiana_, by Thomas Hutchins (Philadelphia, 1784, App. iii. p. 65), headed "A list of the different nations and tribes of Indians in the Northern District of North America, with the number of fighting men." Sir William Johnson's estimate of the Present State of the Northern Indians,[1342] made Nov. 18, 1763, will be found in the _Doc. Hist. of New York_, i. p. 26, and in _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vii. p. 582.

The estimate of Sir James Wright is in the _Georgia Hist. Soc. Coll._ (Savannah, 1873), iii. part 2, p. 169. The synopsis of the Indian tribes, by Albert Gallatin, is printed in the _Amer. Antiquarian Soc. Proc._, ii. Still another list was published in _Sketches of the History, manners, and customs of the North American Indians, with a plan for their melioration_, by James Buchanan, Esq., his Britannic majesty's consul for the State of New York (New York, 1824, 2 vols.), i. ch. xii. pp. 138-39, where it is called "Names of the different Indian nations hitherto discovered in North America, the situation of their countries, with the number of their fighting men" (1770-1780).

Buchanan claimed to have received this list from Heckewelder, the missionary, and it is identical, except for certain palpable errors in transcribing, with a list in what is now known as Trumbull's _Indian Wars_, the authorship of which is attributed in the original edition[1343] to the Rev. James Steward, D. D. Dr. J. Hammond Trumbull, in reply to a question from me, says the book was "written by Henry Trumbull, then of Norwich, when about seventeen years old."[1344]

Gilbert Imlay, in _A Topographical Description of the Western Territory of North America_, etc. (London, 1792, p. 234), gives a list of Indians on both sides of the Mississippi, and from the Gulf to the St. Lawrence. This list was made up from "Croghan, Boquet, Carver, Hutchins and Dodge." The figures that he uses are plainly intended for the number of the fighting-men, but he puts the total population in this district at less than 60,000. In a second and a third edition, the list is modified. He gives twenty-eight tribes east of the Mississippi, and his calculation of population is based upon 700 to a nation or tribe. He finds in all 20,000 souls, and "consequently between 4,000 and 5,000 warriors."

I have had occasion in this investigation to examine somewhat the question of the population west of the Mississippi, for two purposes: 1st, to determine the numbers to be eliminated from some of the general statements which include tribes whose residence was in the Far West; and 2d, to test the question of the proportion of warriors to population. Brackenridge's _Views of Louisiana_[1345] has proved of especial service for these purposes. There are also some statistics in Perrin du Lac's _Voyage dans les deux Louisianes_, etc.[1346]

The _Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society_ contain many estimates of the population of the natives in different parts of the country, made at different times. Among these an estimate (1795, p. 99) of the Creeks, Choctaws, Chicasaws, Cherokees, and Catawbas, furnished by Dr. Ramsay, places their total population in 1780 at 42,033,—fighting men 13,526. An estimate of the Indian nations employed by the British in the Revolutionary War, made by Captain Dalton, superintendent of Indian affairs for the United States (_Ibid._ x. p. 123), was published in 1783, and gives the number of men furnished by the tribes as 12,680, of whom the Six Nations proper contributed 1,580. The Choctaws, Chicasaws, Cherokees, and Creeks furnished 2,200. The value of this list lies only in the opportunity which it affords for testing the probable accuracy of some of the others.[1347]

There is in the _Doc. Hist. of New York_ (i. p. 17) "an enumeration of the Indian tribes connected with the government of Canada in 1736." It is difficult, if not impossible, to identify many of the tribes in this estimate.[1348]

Elias Boudinot, in _A Star in the West; or an humble attempt to discover the long lost tribes of Israel, preparatory to their return to their beloved city, Jerusalem_ (1816), devotes a small portion of his discussion to the question of population (p. 131 _et seq._).[1349]

"A Table of the principal Indian Tribes" was printed in the _American Pioneer_, a monthly periodical (Cincinnati, i. pp. 257, 408, and ii. 188), where it was credited to Drake's _Indian Biography_; but in fact it was taken from the _Book of the Indians_ by the same author, which is prefaced with an alphabetical enumeration of the Indian tribes and nations. The numbers of the different tribes are given, and the date of the estimates from which the numbers were derived. Franklin furnished a partial list of warriors in 1762, which may prove useful for comparison, and is included by Benjamin Vaughan in the _Political, Miscellaneous, and Philosophical Pieces, &c., written by Benjamin Franklin, &c., &c. Now first collected_ (London, 1779).[1350]

Colonel Force, in the _American Archives_, gives a vast amount of material on the employment of Indians as soldiers by the Americans, which before had been lost from sight in scattered publications. The indexes to these volumes do not suitably analyze their contents. The chief corresponding British repositories are Almon's _Remembrancer_,[1351] a mine which was worked by all the earlier writers upon the Revolutionary War, and to-day the original authority for much of our information; and the _Parliamentary Register_, often called the _Parliamentary Debates_,[1352]—more specific accounts of which, as well as of the _Annual Register_, the _Gentleman's Magazine_, and the _Scots Magazine_, will be found in another place. All of these help to show us the information upon which the British public formed their opinions.

The attitude of Congress upon the Indian question has been traced by means of the _Journals_ and _Secret Journals_ of Congress.[1353]

The fact that the powers conferred upon Carleton for the suppression of rebellion in the provinces probably influenced opinion somewhat in the colonies has been already adverted to, as well as the further fact, shown by extracts from other commissions, etc., that there was no special meaning to be attached to the language used in the commissions. That it did have weight and was used as an argument in the discussion is shown in a review of _The plan of the Colonies, or the charges brought against them by Lord M——d and others, in a letter to his Lordship_, printed in _The Monthly Review or Literary Journal_ (liv., for 1776, p. 408). "Let him review Gen. Carleton's last commission", says the writer. "Your Lordship has already seen it once too often. For what purpose was he authorized to _arm_ the Canadians, and then to _march_ into any other of the _plantations_, and his majesty's rebellious subjects there to attack, and, by _God's help, them to defeat and put to death_? For what purpose did Guy Johnson deliver black belts to all the Indian tribes in his district, and persuade them to lift up the hatchet against the white people in the colonies? The Congress is possessed of those very war-belts; they have a copy of Governor Carleton's commission; they have long since possessed the whole plan."

Unfortunately, the chief American compilation, aiming to be a reflex of current news,—Moore's _Diary of the American Revolution_,—is singularly deficient in excerpts respecting the opinions on employing Indians.[1354] There is need of but brief references to the consideration of the subject among the later writers,—such as Ryerson in his _Loyalists of America_ (ii. ch. 33); Mahon (ch. 52) and Lecky (iv. 14), in their respective histories of England. There is special treatment of the matter by William W. Campbell in "The direct agency of the English Government in the employment of the Indians in the Revolutionary War", published in the _New York Hist. Society Proc._ (1845, p. 159).[1355]

Frederic Kidder, in _The Expeditions of Capt. John Lovewell_ (Boston, 1865, p. 114), says: "The last trace of them [the Pequakets] as a tribe is in a petition to the government of Massachusetts, dated at Fryeburg, in which they ask for guns, blankets, and ammunition for thirteen men who are willing to enroll themselves on the patriot side. This document was indorsed by the proper authorities, and the request was granted."[1356]

On the 10th of July, 1775, Adjutant-General Gates, at Cambridge, in a circular letter of instructions for the use of recruiting officers, says: "You are not to enlist any deserter from the ministerial army, nor any stroller, negro, or vagabond, or person suspected of being an enemy to the liberty of America, nor any under 18 years of age." "You are not to enlist any person who is not an American born, unless such person has a wife and family, and is a resident in this country" (Niles's _Principles and Acts_, etc.). Though no mention is made of Indians, the fact of their not being excepted is often pointed out as of significance.

Letters in the _N. H. Provincial Papers_[1357] betray the fears, along the border, of Carleton and Johnson, and reveal the friendly disposition of the Canadian Indians.

The references for the Kennebec march of Arnold are given in another chapter; but in _Senter's Journal_, there mentioned, we have the details of Arnold's interview with the Indians at Sartigan, and of the inducements which he offered them for enlisting. The fact that Indians joined the American army at this point is corroborated by Judge Henry, in his _Account_,[1358] while the topic is also treated in E. M. Stone's _Invasion of Canada_ (Providence, 1867).

Many of the more important acts and resolves of the several colonies, apposite to this inquiry, are in the _American Archives_. The importance which circumstances gave to the position taken by the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts Bay causes great interest to attach to the proceedings of that body. Many conferences between committees and different Indians were held, the accounts of which are found in _A Journal of the Honourable House of Representatives of the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay in New England. Begun at the Meeting House in Watertown in the County of Middlesex on Wednesday the Nineteenth day of July, Anno Domini, 1775_.[1359] These will also be found in a reprint of the Journals for 1774-1775, entitled _Journals of each Provincial Congress of Massachusetts in 1774-1775_, etc., Boston, 1838.

General Gage, in his letter to Stuart, complained of two things: the employment of Indians by the rebels and the shooting of his sentries. It has been shown that the acts of the Massachusetts Bay Provincial Congress justified his first assertion. As to the second, see Frothingham's _Siege of Boston_.[1360]

_The Military operations in Eastern Maine and Nova Scotia, during the revolution, chiefly compiled from the journals and letters of Col. John Allan_, by Frederic Kidder (Albany, 1867), completes the story of the attempt to secure the services of the Eastern Indians, and gives the reasons alleged by the Indians for not complying with the treaty entered into at Cambridge, to furnish a regiment.[1361]

The events which took place in the Mohawk Valley during the summer and fall of 1775 were of far-reaching importance. Their history is recorded in the correspondence of such men as Washington and Schuyler, in the meetings of local committees, and in conferences with Indians. Accounts of many of them are to be found in the _N. Y. Col. Docs._ and in the _American Archives_. There is besides a mass of material in the possession of scattered families, much of which has been worked over by local historians.[1362] The most important of all these later works is the _Life of Joseph Brant (Tha-yen-dan-e-gea), including the Border Wars of the American Revolution_, etc., by William L. Stone.[1363]

The prodigious labor performed by Colonel Stone in the classification and orderly arrangement of the immense amount of his material will be gratefully appreciated by the investigator to-day, even though he has at command publications by the state and national governments containing much of the same material. Since Colonel Stone's day other laborers have been diligently at work in the same field, gleaning facts and collecting historical material of various kinds. Their work has revealed some errors in the _Life of Brant_,[1364] which are not of such importance, however, as to displace the work from its position as the chief authority on the subject. The habits and modes of life of the Indians and the organization of the confederacy of the Six Nations were not understood as thoroughly when Colonel Stone wrote as they are to-day. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Morgan, in his _League of the Iroquois_, does not agree with Stone in the assertion that Brant was the principal war-chief of the confederacy. A portion of Stone's ground had been earlier covered by William W. Campbell in his _Annals of Tryon County, or the Border Warfare of New York during the Revolution_ (N. Y., 1831),[1365] a work still looked upon as authority upon many points, republished (1849) as _The Border Warfare of New York during the Revolution, or the Annals of Tryon County_. Another volume devoted to the same topics, but widely different in character and in execution, is Jephtha R. Simms's _History of Schoharie County and Border Wars of New York_ (1845), republished in 1882, with additional matter, as _The Frontiersmen of New York, showing customs of the Indians, vicissitudes of the pioneer white settlers, and Border Strife in two wars, with a great variety of romantic and thrilling stories never before published_,—both editions showing an industrious care to amass, with little skill in presentation.

The Revolutionary War divided the councils of the Six Nations. Had they acted as a unit in favor of the English, the problem would have been more difficult for the provincials. The friendly warnings of the Oneidas were of constant use to the Americans throughout the struggle. Their position materially changed the problem which was set for St. Leger, and though they did not then act aggressively, their unfriendly attitude must have caused his retreating column uneasiness. These Indians were probably of greater service as neutrals—who in that character were able to penetrate the enemy's country and report what was going on—than they would have been had they taken up the hatchet on the American side at the outset. Their attitude was largely due to the Rev. Samuel Kirkland, the missionary.[1366]

In the account of the border wars, as in all other respects, Lossing's _Field-Book_ is a useful publication, based upon ordinarily accepted authorities, with local anecdotes, traditions, and descriptions interjected by the author.[1367] A contemporary narrative (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii.), called an "Historical Journal", was necessarily written without opportunity for critical revision.

We have a narrative of events from the English side in Stedman's _American War_, where it is said that Montgomery was "joined by several parties of Indians" (i. p. 133), and that Ethan Allen's party numbered "about one hundred and fifty men, composed of Americans and Indians." One inducement for Burgoyne's employment of Indians was "a well-grounded supposition that if he refused their offers they would instantly join the Americans." Wyoming, we learn, "fell a sacrifice to an invasion of the Indians" (ii. p. 73). He speaks of "the Indian settlements of Unadilla and Anaguago, which were also inhabited by white people attached to the loyal cause."

Thacher's _Military Journal_, a contemporaneous account of current events on the American side, as they appeared or as they were told to the author, is often of help in fixing the date of some event about which there is a dispute, even when the description itself of the action is meagre, or consists of mere mention. Thus he puts the destruction of Cobleskill in 1778, when Campbell says it was in 1779,—an error on the part of the later writer, unless there was more than one raid upon that insignificant settlement, as stated by Stone.[1368] Thacher's account of the battle of Oriskany and siege of Fort Stanwix is brief, but it shows that the first stories about the affair were quite reasonable.

In the study of the topography, so far as it was known, and of the geographical nomenclature of the frontier just previous to the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, the _Memoir upon the late War in North America_, by M. Pouchot,[1369] will be found very useful.

The story of St. Leger's expedition and the battle of Oriskany, though told at some length in this chapter as illustrative of border warfare, is so essential a part of the campaign of Burgoyne that the critical discussion of the authorities has been, except in some matters pertaining to the use of Indians, treated rather in connection with the story of that campaign than here.[1370]

The historical introduction upon Sir John Johnson which Gen. J. Watts De Peyster contributed to _The Orderly-Book of Sir John Johnson_ (Albany, 1882) indicates a marked change of opinion upon the exploits of Johnson, as compared with the views which he had expressed in earlier accounts of the battle of Oriskany published by him in 1859, 1869 (_Hist. Mag._, Jan.), 1878 (_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Jan.), and 1880. He confesses that an examination of the British accounts has given him a somewhat enthusiastic admiration for Johnson's methods, but his repeated study has not yet cleared up all errors.[1371] This _Orderly-Book_ gives us the movements of Sir John Johnson's command up to the time that they left Oswego. Through the details for guard and fatigue duty during the delay at Buck Island we get at the different commands which formed the expedition. De Peyster and Stone conclude, from the introduction of a general order for the issue of forty days' rations for five hundred men, just before leaving Buck Island, that this determines the number of St. Leger's command, but the evidence is hardly conclusive.[1372]

In James E. Seaver's _Life of Mary Jemison_ (N. Y., 1856, 4th ed.) we have the story of the way in which the Senecas bewailed their losses, given by a woman who had been long among them as captive and adopted member; and it is on her authority (p. 114) that it is sometimes stated that the English offered bounties for scalps.[1373] An account of the exertions of Red Jacket to keep his people out of the conflict will be found in J. Niles Hubbard's _An account of Sa-go-ye-wat-ha, or Red Jacket and his People_ (Albany, 1886), ch. 3.

As respects the Minisink massacre, the accounts made public by Brant were fairly accurate, though they ran some risk in being transmitted first to Niagara, thence to Quebec, and finally to England. They stand the test of time better than the American accounts. The Tory organ in New York, _Rivington's Gazette_, printed the first American accounts, representing that only thirty escaped from the ambuscade,—a statement followed in several histories; but the local authorities, on the strength of investigations made at the time of erecting the monument, generally agree on the smaller statements of loss.[1374]

The earliest account of the massacre at Wyoming is in a letter written at Poughkeepsie, July 20, 1778, just after the fugitives had arrived there,[1375] and this account seems to be largely the source whence Gordon, Botta,[1376] and Marshall[1377] drew their accounts. Owing probably to the fact that Marshall cites Ramsay in his footnotes, this last historian is frequently included with the others in the general charge of having furnished an exaggerated and erroneous statement of this deplorable event,[1378] but, in fact, Ramsay is reasonably accurate, and is free from many of the errors which characterize the other narratives.[1379]

Hinman's _Connecticut during the Revolution_ contains an account of the Wyoming massacre, transcribed directly from a contemporaneous publication. A full account of the massacre will be found in Girardin's continuation of Burk's _History of Virginia_ (iv. of the series, p. 314 _et seq._), based upon the shocking tales of the fugitives. The popular account was repeated in the _History of the Revolution_ which purported to have been written by Paul Allen.[1380]

Isaac A. Chapman, the first of the local historians to touch the subject, prepared a manuscript, with a preface dated Wyoming, July 11, 1818; but the book was not published until after his death, as _A Sketch of the history of Wyoming_[1381] (Wilkesbarre, 1830).

Charles Miner, the first to sift out the errors from the accepted accounts, after collecting from survivors their personal experiences, published a series of newspaper sketches which led to his _History of Wyoming, in a series of letters from Charles Miner to his son, William Penn Miner, Esq._, etc. (Philadelphia, 1845). He carefully chronicled the antecedent history of the Connecticut colony, and gave the first trustworthy detailed account of the invasion, and the articles of capitulation granted to the several forts by Major John Butler. Mr. Miner's agent was apparently refused, at the foreign office, London, a copy of the report of Major Butler. This important document will be found in _Wyoming, its history, stirring incidents and romantic adventures_, by George Peck, D. D. (New York, 1858).[1382] The author says in his preface: "Forty years since we first visited Wyoming, and from that period we have enjoyed rare advantages for the study of its history." He gives the report of Zebulon Butler to the board of war,[1383] dated at Gnadenhütten, July 10, 1778 (p. 49), the report of Major John Butler to Lieut.-Col. Bolton, dated at Lackuwanak, 8th July, 1778 (p. 52); and there is a thorough résumé of the discussion as to Brant's presence at Wyoming (pp. 87, 88, 89). The report of Butler to Bolton was presumably the document which he received through the favor of Hon. George Bancroft, who cites it (_United States_, x. 138) in his account of the Wyoming invasion.[1384]

Col. William L. Stone treated the subject in a thorough manner in _The Poetry and History of Wyoming containing Campbell's Gertrude of Wyoming, and the History of Wyoming from its discovery to the beginning of the present century_.[1385] The book has passed through several editions, and the same historical materials are also used in his _Life of Brant_.[1386]

The massacre at Cherry Valley has not, like Wyoming, an especial literature of its own. The event is described in the _Remembrancer_,[1387] and in all the histories, and is fully treated in Campbell's _Annals of Tryon County_ (ch. 5), in Simms's _Frontiersmen of New York_, and in Stone's _Life of Brant_ (i. ch. 17). Both Campbell and Simms lived in this region, and it was the special field in which Brant was operating. This particular expedition was not under Brant's control. He had apparently concluded the season's work and joined Walter N. Butler's force reluctantly, being jealous of him for having command of the expedition. At Wyoming the soldiers were massacred, but the citizens were spared. At Cherry Valley most of the soldiers escaped, but in the first heat of the attack the citizens were indiscriminately slaughtered. It would have been better for Brant's reputation if he had been present at Wyoming rather than at Cherry Valley,—although so far as his influence is concerned it was evidently exerted to prevent excesses.[1388]

Among the Sparks MSS. (no. xlvii.) in the Harvard College library, there are some extracts from the diary of Benjamin Warren, who was in the fort at Cherry Valley at the time of the attack. He says the attack on the fort was renewed early on the morning of the 12th, but was easily repelled.

The _Boston Gazette and Country Journal_ of Dec. 7, 1778,[1389] contains an account from an officer who was in the fort November 11th, when it was attacked. He says it rained hard that morning. The enemy "passed by two houses, and lodged themselves in a swamp a small distance back of Mr. Wells's house, headquarters; half past eleven A. M. Mr. Hamlin came by and discovered two Indians, who fired upon him and shot him through the arm. He rode to Mr. Wells's, and acquainted the colonel, the lieutenant-colonel, major, and adjutant. The two last (the house at this time being surrounded by Indians) got to the fort through their fire; the colonel was shot near the fort." The fort was subjected to a brisk fire for three hours and a half. On the 12th the enemy collected the cattle, and at sunset left. McKendry's account of the attack on Fort Alden agrees in substance with that of Benjamin Warren.[1390]

The expedition of General Sullivan (1779) against the Indian towns in New York has proved a fertile field for discussion. Its policy has been assailed; its management condemned; its results belittled. There is no want of records of occurrences in the campaign,[1391] but their interpretation has not been settled, and probably never will be. The account of Gordon is especially bitter against Sullivan, and he cuts down the number of villages from forty, as given by Sullivan, to eighteen.[1392]

Thomas C. Amory, in his _Military Services of General Sullivan_, aims at a vindication of Sullivan by the use of material which was not known to his detractors, and he has diligently pursued this purpose elsewhere.[1393] The character of the charges against Sullivan has been partially indicated in the quotations already given. He has been attacked because he demanded so many troops for the expedition. Whether it would have been wise to venture with a smaller force so far into Indian country, which was within easy supporting distance of the outposts of the enemy, is a matter of opinion, concerning which no new facts have been recently brought to light. We know that Sullivan expected help from the Oneidas which he did not receive, and that he anticipated that the Indians would receive aid from Niagara, in which he was agreeably disappointed. I have already stated that in my judgment he had a right to expect formidable opposition, and the only explanation of his not meeting with greater resistance is to be found in the perplexity in Haldimand's mind occasioned by the boats which Clinton had collected in the Mohawk Valley. On this mental confusion Sullivan could not have counted.[1394] The number of men demanded by Sullivan in the preliminary discussions about the campaign was much larger than the number actually furnished him. It was perhaps not out of place for him to secure, if he could, a force large enough to place his campaign beyond failure, but, taking into consideration the general condition of army matters, the number demanded was entirely disproportionate to the work to be performed. He wanted 2,500 men to march up the Susquehanna, and 4,000 men to invade the towns by way of the Mohawk (F. Moore, _Corresp. of Laurens_, N. Y., 1861, p. 136). In fact, he had 2,500 men in his own command, and Clinton's force brought the numbers up to 4,000.[1395] He has been accused of making demands for supplies which were unreasonable, both as to quality and as to quantity, and it is evident from Washington's correspondence that he feared Sullivan was not willing to march light enough for such a campaign. While Sullivan was not familiar with Indian campaigns, and perhaps demanded more supplies at the outset than Brodhead, or Clarke, or Williamson would have asked for, the numbers of his command must not be forgotten. Nor must the fact be overlooked that the provisions which were delivered to him proved to have been put up in bad packages, and had spoiled.[1396]

Sullivan has also been found fault with for not protecting from Indian raids the neighborhood in which his army was stationed while waiting for supplies. His action in this respect was deliberate. He was of opinion that the blows struck along the border during this interval of time were intended to divert him from the purposes of the campaign, and that any attempts to check these desultory attacks, by sending out expeditions here and there, would simply be playing into the enemy's hands.[1397] The charge of extravagant living during the march seems absurd. At a time when the army was on half rations and the men were using ingenious devices to take advantage of the growing crops, he could hardly have had much opportunity for riotous living. When the expedition started the corn was green and suitable to roast. As they advanced it became too mature for this, and the soldiers were compelled in other ways to prepare it for food.[1398]

Curious differences of opinion prevailed in the several accounts as to the numbers of the enemy who opposed the army at Newtown. Some of the accounts place them as low as 700, while others put them as high as 1,500.[1399]

Sullivan has been ridiculed for the language used in describing the Indian settlements; but his descriptions, though misleading, are the natural expressions of a man who found in these settlements evidences of a higher civilization than he had expected. A comparison of the entries in the various diaries and journals will show that many were surprised at the excellence of the Indian houses, while others saw only the discomforts of life under such surroundings.[1400] General Sullivan has been assailed because he did not attack Niagara. There had been some discussion about a second campaign against Canada and an attempt on Niagara, but Washington's correspondence shows that it had been abandoned in connection with the campaign against the Indian towns, unless it could be accomplished through the Indians themselves. The instructions to Sullivan show this,[1401] and a letter from Sullivan, given in the _Laurens Correspondence_ (p. 141), shows that Sullivan did not conceive it to be a part of the campaign, even if he had deemed an attack on Niagara possible.

In his report to the Committee of Congress, January 15, 1776, Washington discusses the possibilities for the forthcoming campaign.[1402] For the reduction of Niagara he estimates that an army of twenty to twenty-one thousand men would be required; thirteen thousand to remain in the East, and seven or eight thousand to operate against Niagara. The expenses incident to such a campaign, and the great number of men required, practically put it out of the question, and his conclusion was as follows: "It is much to be regretted that our prospect of any capital offensive operations is so slender that we seem in a manner to be driven to the necessity of adopting the third plan,—that is, to remain entirely on the defensive; except such lesser operations against the Indians as are absolutely necessary to divert their ravages from us." January 18 he wrote to General Schuyler: "It has therefore been determined to lay the Niagara expedition entirely aside for the present, and to content ourselves with some operations on a smaller scale against the savages and those people who have infested our frontier the preceding campaign."[1403]

The details of the work performed by the New Jersey contingent have been fully set forth in _General Maxwell's Brigade of the New Jersey Continental line in the Expedition against the Indians in the year 1779_. By William S. Stryker, Adjutant-General of New Jersey (Trenton, 1885), a paper read before the New Jersey Historical Society, January 17, 1884.[1404] Various order-books of the campaign have been preserved.[1405]

_The Centennial Celebration of General Sullivan's Campaign against the Iroquois in 1779. Held at Waterloo, September 3d, 1879_ (Waterloo, N. Y., 1880), was edited by Diedrich Willers, Jr., and contains a carefully prepared and clearly written historical address by the Rev. David Craft, which the editor calls "the most complete and accurate history of General Sullivan's campaign which has yet been given to the public." The diligence of Craft in his search for the sources of authority for the campaign is shown in his "List of Journals, Narratives, etc., of the Western Expedition, 1779"[1406] (_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, iii. 673), in which the titles of nineteen journals, narratives, etc., which had at that time been published, are given, with information as to the places of deposit of the MSS., and as to the newspapers, magazines, or books in which they were published. The titles and what was known about the places of deposit of eight journals, etc., which had not been published, and of one journal which relates to the Onondaga expedition, and which had been published, are also given.[1407] Of the journals which had not been published when Craft wrote, three, or portions of three, were used by Gen. John S. Clark in his account of the Sullivan campaign in the _Collections of the Cayuga Historical Society, Number One_ (Auburn, 1879,—250 copies), including the journal of Lieut. John L. Hardenburgh, of the Second New York Continental Regiment, from May 1 to October 3, 1779, with an introduction, copious historical notes, and maps of the battlefield of Newtown and the Groveland ambuscade. General Clark also makes use of "parts of other journals never before published,"[1408] which give the work of detachments, thus placing before the reader a complete account of the whole work of the expedition, in the words of those who participated in it, together with a list of journals, etc., similar to that of Craft, but sufficiently different in details to show independent work.

The remains of Lieutenant Boyd and those who fell with him, in their desperate attempt to cut their way through the enemy by whom they were surrounded, were in 1842 removed from their place of burial, and deposited with appropriate ceremonies at Mount Hope. A collection of the various proceedings on this occasion was edited by Henry O'Reilly, as _Notices of Sullivan's Campaign, or the Revolutionary Warfare in Western New York; embodied in the addresses and documents connected with the funeral honors rendered to those who fell with the gallant Boyd in the Genessee Valley, including the remarks of Gov. Seward at Mount Hope_ (Rochester, 1842).

Brodhead's campaign against the Indian settlements on the Alleghany, in Western New York and Pennsylvania, was carried out while Sullivan was on his march. Like Van Schaick's raid on the Onondaga towns, although independently executed, it formed part of the scheme of the season's work. In Gay's _Popular History of the United States_ (vol. iv.) there is a good general account of Sullivan's campaign, but in a note (p. 7) it is said that "Brodhead's expedition has usually been considered of little moment, and it has been denied, or doubted, by some writers, that it ever took place. Its incidents are for the first time collated and fully told by Obed Edson, in the _Magazine of [Amer.] History_, for November, 1879." As a matter of fact, however, there has never been occasion for investigators to doubt that this campaign had taken place, or to underestimate its value. The report of Brodhead was given to the public at the time,[1409] and was published in full in the _Remembrancer_ (ix. p. 152). Washington, in his letter to Lafayette, which has already been quoted, mentioned the work done by Brodhead with evident appreciation of its extent and value.[1410]

The details of the Mohawk Valley invasions are given in the works by Stone, Simms, and Campbell, which have so frequently been quoted, and in the _Remembrancer_.[1411] The joint expeditions in 1780 were separately treated by Franklin B. Hough in the _Northern Invasion of October, 1780_ (New York, 1866,—no. 6 Bradford Club Series; 75 copies printed). The work is described as "a series of papers relating to the expedition from Canada under Sir John Johnson and others against the frontiers of New York, which were supposed to have connection with Arnold's treason, prepared from the originals, with an introduction and notes." Reference has already been made to the fact that Hough differed from Stone as to the cause for the removal of the Oneidas from their castles in the winter of 1779-1780, and their establishment near Schenectady. Hough says (p. 32): "Some of the Oneidas evinced a willingness to join the enemy. To prevent such a misfortune, four hundred of their people were removed to the neighborhood of Schenectady, and there supported at public cost." In a note he adds: "We find nothing among the Clinton Papers to justify the statement of Colonel Stone[1412] (_Brant_, i. 55) relative to the destruction of the Oneida settlements by the enemy during the winter of 1779-80, and are led to believe that the removal of these people to a place of safety in the interior was a measure of policy rather than of actual necessity from the presence of the enemy." There is among the _Sparks MSS._ actual evidence that Hough's conclusion was correct. In a letter from General Haldimand, dated at Quebec, Nov. 2, 1779, he says: "He [Sir John Johnson] halted at Oswego, with an intention to cut off the Oneida nation, who have uniformly and obstinately supported and fought for the rebels, notwithstanding the united remonstrances and threats of the Five Nations, joined to every effort in our power to reclaim them. In this he has likewise been disappointed, the Indians of Canada refusing their assistance", etc.[1413] A letter of Guy Johnson to Lord Germain makes the same statements.

NOTES.

=A.= OPINIONS OF PROMINENT AMERICANS ON THE EMPLOYMENT OF INDIANS IN WAR.

IT is not easy to determine the position of prominent individuals on this question prior to the date when Congress had come to a conclusion. The passage of the Quebec Bill in 1774, and the ample powers which were conferred upon Carleton to suppress revolt, had occasioned alarm. Perhaps the circumstances justified suspicion, but there was no special cause for it. The language used in Carleton's commission was copied from the commission of James Murray. If there had been no change of governors, the powers conferred upon the governor could never have been supposed to have been specially directed against the rebellious colonies.[1414] After the outbreak of hostilities, we meet, in the published correspondence of the day, with occasional expressions of opinion on the question of employing Indians. It must not be forgotten that when these letters were written rumors were current that the English in Canada were endeavoring to secure the services of Indians, and to the extent that the writers believed these statements their opinions were doubtless influenced by them. On May 14th, Joseph Warren wrote to Samuel Adams, saying: "It has been suggested to me that an application from your Congress to the Six Nations, accompanied with some presents, might have a very good effect. It appears to me to be worthy of your attention, etc." (Frothingham's _Warren_). On August 4th, Washington communicated to the President of Congress the opinion of a Caughnawaga chief, that if an expedition against Canada was meditated the Indians in that quarter would give all their assistance. On Sept. 21st, he reported to the honorable Congress that, "encouraged by the repeated declarations of Canadians and Indians, and urged by their requests", he had dispatched the Arnold expedition (Sparks's _Washington_ and his _Corresp. of the Rev._). On August 27th, Schuyler wrote to Washington that he was informed that "Carleton and his agents are exerting themselves to procure the savages against us." While he did not believe that Carleton would be successful except in procuring some of the remote Indians to act as scouts, he nevertheless added, "I should, therefore, not hesitate a moment to employ any Indians that might be willing to join us" (Lossing's _Schuyler_). Judge Drayton, of South Carolina, on September 25th addressed the Cherokee warriors at Congaree in the following words: "So should we act to each other like brothers; so shall we be able to support and assist each other against our common enemies; so shall we be able to stand together in perfect safety against the evil men who in the end mean to ruin you, as well as ourselves, who are their own flesh and blood." In January, 1776, Washington felt that the important moment had arrived when the Indians must take a side. He knew that if the Indians concerning whom he wrote did not desire to be idle, they would be "for or against us." "I am sensible", he added, "that no artifices will be left unessayed to engage them against us." On April 19th he wrote to the President of Congress: "In my opinion it will be impossible to keep them in a state of neutrality; they must, and no doubt soon will, take an active part either for or against us. I submit to Congress whether it would not be better immediately to engage them on our side." On July 13th he reported to the President of Congress that, without authority from Congress, he had directed Gen. Schuyler to engage the Six Nations in our interest on the best terms he and his colleagues could procure. "I trust", he added, "the urgency of the occasion will justify my proceeding to Congress." On the day of the Declaration of Independence he again wrote to Congress, submitting the propriety of engaging the Eastern Indians. Notwithstanding the various arguments against employing them, John Adams thought "we need not be so delicate as to refuse the assistance of Indians, provided we cannot keep them neutral." In June, the Rev. Samuel Kirkland said that the Indians were generally of opinion that it was impracticable for them to continue longer in a state of neutrality. Gen. Schuyler, notwithstanding his early expressions of readiness to "employ any Indians that might be willing to join us", seemed reluctant, when the time came, to avail himself of their services. He preferred to get decently rid of the offer of the Caughnawagas rather than to employ them. As to the Six Nations, he evidently felt that the utmost to be hoped for was to hold a portion of them quiet through the influence of such men as Kirkland and Deane.[1415] Schuyler's labors as Indian commissioner had been in the direction of neutrality; and even after direct instructions from Congress to engage the Six Nations on the best terms that could be procured, he wrote in reply, with evident satisfaction, when the news of the disaster to our forces in Canada was spread among the Indians, that "our conduct in demanding a neutrality in all former treaties has been greatly applauded in all their councils." _The Life of Jonathan Trumbull, Sen., Governor of Connecticut_, by I. W. Stuart (Boston, 1859), gives particulars concerning the contact of this active participant in affairs with some of these questions of policy. Trumbull, as well as the Massachusetts committeemen, was in correspondence with Major Brown in Canada, and through him as well as through them information was conveyed to the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts Bay of rumors of a projected attempt to recapture Ticonderoga and Crown Point with a force of regulars and Indians.

=B.= EVENTS AT THE NORTH, NOT CONNECTED WITH THE SIX NATIONS.

Among the Western tribes, the Delawares were divided, but the majority of the Indians were unfriendly, and completely under the influence of the English commander at Detroit. At the East the attitude of the Indians was not so pronounced, and they were slow to move. On June 20, 1776, Washington wrote to Schuyler that he was "hopeful the bounty Congress had agreed to allow and would prove a powerful inducement to engage the Indians in our service." From Schuyler he learned that "our emissaries among the Indians all agree that it would be extremely imprudent to take an active part with us, as they think it would effectually militate the contrary way." The reference in Washington's letter to bounties applies to the resolution of Congress to offer bounties, which had passed three days before the letter was written. With the same prompt attention he wrote to the General Court of Massachusetts, transmitting the resolve of Congress authorizing the employment of the Eastern Indians, exactly three days after its passage; at the same time he solicited the aid of that body in carrying it into execution. He designated five or six hundred as the number which he wished to have engaged. On the same day he wrote to the Continental Congress that he had communicated with the General Court of Massachusetts Bay, "entreating their exertions to have the Eastern Indians forthwith engaged and marched to join this army." It appears from the correspondence and from the proceedings at the conferences that he had already written a letter to these Indians, and it chanced that his letter to the Provincial Congress reached Watertown at about the same time that a delegation from the Eastern Indians reported there in consequence of his letter to them. When the Indians were called upon to state by what authority they spoke, they produced the letter from Washington, leaving it to be inferred that they were accredited upon their mission in consequence of the letter having been received. At the conference which was held with them they were full of high-sounding phrases of friendship. "We shall have nothing to do with Old England", they said, "and all that we shall worship, or obey, will be Jesus Christ and George Washington." The report of the conference states that "a silver gorget and heart, with the king's arms and bust engraved on them, were delivered to the interpreter to be returned to the Indians. He presented them to their speaker, but with great vehemence and displeasure he refused to take them, saying they had nothing to do with King George and England; whereupon the President told them they should have a new gorget and heart, with the bust of Gen. Washington and proper devices to represent the United Colonies." A treaty was exchanged with these Indians on July 17, 1776, whereby they agreed to furnish six hundred Indians to a regiment which was to be officered by the whites, and have in addition to the Indians two hundred and fifty white soldiers. As a result of all this, the Massachusetts Council subsequently reported that seven Penobscot Indians, all that could be procured, were enlisted in October for one year; and in November, Major Shaw reported with a few Indians who had enlisted in the Continental service. The Council of Massachusetts Bay expressed their regrets to Gen. Washington that the major had met with no better success. Washington's letter to the Eastern nations appears to have contained advice to them to keep the peace if they concluded it was to their advantage. These nations afterwards protested that the young men who in the character of chiefs made the treaty of war acted without authority, and they therefore returned the treaty. This practically ended efforts to secure alliance with Eastern Indians. There was further correspondence between Congress and Washington concerning the Stockbridge Indians, in which Congress first announced that the enlistment of these Indians must stop, and then at Washington's request permitted it to be renewed. Finally Congress was content to instruct the government agent to engage the friendship of the Eastern Indians, "and prevent their taking part in the unjust and cruel war against these United States."

=C.= EVENTS AT THE SOUTH.

The first result of the struggle between Great Britain and the colonies for the friendship of the Indians was felt in the North at St. John's and the Cedars. The first aggressive movement within the limits of the colonies took place in the South. The correspondence of Sir James Wright traces the progress of events in that department. The "Liberty People", as he says, asserted in June, 1775, that Stuart was endeavoring to raise the Cherokees against them, and "all that Stuart could say would not convince them to the contrary." In July Sir James heard that the Provincial Congress had agreed to send 2,000 pounds of gunpowder into the Indian country as a present from the people, "not from the king, or from the government, or from the superintendent, or from the traders, but from the people of the province."

NOTE.—Portion of the map in Drayton's _Mem. of the Amer. Rev._, ii. 343. KEY: Double dotted line shows the march of the army; the single dotted line shows the march of detachments; the + indicates battlegrounds.

There is among the Rochambeau maps (no. 36) a small but good plan (5 × 4 inches), called _An accurate map of North and South Carolina, with their Indian frontier, showing in a distinct manner all the mountains, rivers, swamps, marshes, bays, creeks, harbors, sandbanks, coasts, and soundings, with roads and Indian paths, as well as the boundary of provincial lines, the several townships and other divisions of the land in both the provinces,—from actual surveys by Henry Mouzon_. It is the same map given in Jefferys' _American Atlas_ (1776, no. 23), and was republished in Paris in 1777 by Le Rouge, and is included in the _Atlas Amériquain_. The middle, upper, and over-hill towns are given on one of the sections of Arrowsmith's map (1795-1802), and also upon the _Carte des Etats-Unis de l'Amérique Septentrionale.—Copiée et Gravée sur celle d'Arrowsmith, etc., etc. Par P. F. Tardieu_, à Paris, 1808.

Faden issued in 1780 a map of the northern frontiers of Georgia, by Archibald Campbell.—ED.]