Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. VI (of 8) - The United States of North America, Part I

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. VI (of 8) - The United States of North America, Part I
Author: Various
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. VI (of 8) - The United States of North America, Part I" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

AMERICA, VOL. VI (OF 8)***

generously made available by Internet Archive/American Libraries
(https://archive.org/details/americana)

which includes the more than 300 original illustrations.
See 51470-h.htm or 51470-h.zip:
Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive/American Libraries. See
https://archive.org/details/narrcrithistory06winsrich

Transcriber’s note:

Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).

A carat character is used to denote superscription. A
single character following the carat is superscripted
(example: Doct^r). Multiple superscripted characters are
enclosed by curly brackets (example: Eq^{re}).

NARRATIVE AND CRITICAL HISTORY OF AMERICA

The United States of North America
Part I

[Illustration]

NARRATIVE AND CRITICAL HISTORY OF AMERICA

Edited by

JUSTIN WINSOR

Librarian of Harvard University
Corresponding Secretary Massachusetts Historical Society

VOL. VI

Boston and New York
Houghton, Mifflin and Company
The Riverside Press, Cambridge

The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Mass., U. S. A.
Electrotyped and Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company.

CONTENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.

[_The cut on the title shows the obverse of the Washington medal,
struck to commemorate the siege of Boston._]

CHAPTER I.

THE REVOLUTION IMPENDING. _Mellen Chamberlain_ 1

ILLUSTRATIONS: George III., 20; Lord North, with Autograph,
21; Rockingham, 31; Fac-simile of _Glorious News_, May 16,
1766, 33; John Adams, 36; Fac-simile of Adams's Writing, 37;
Samuel Adams, with Autograph, 40; Samuel Adams, 41; Revere's
Plan of State Street at the time of the Boston Massacre, 48;
Autographs of the Court for the Trial following the Boston
Massacre,—Benjamin Lynde, John Cushing, Peter Oliver, Edmund
Trowbridge, Jonathan Sewall, Samuel Winthrop, 50; of the
Counsel,—Robert Treat Paine, Samuel Quincy, John Adams, Josiah
Quincy, Jr., and Sampson S. Blowers, 51; Joseph Warren, 54;
Fac-simile of Broadside, June 22, 1773, 55; A Contemporary
Print, 59; Broadside, June 17, 1774, 61.

CRITICAL ESSAY 62

EDITORIAL NOTES 68

ILLUSTRATIONS: Statue of James Otis, 69; Jonathan Mayhew, 71;
Autograph of Charles Chauncey, 71; George III., 76; Fac-simile
of Handbill, Faneuil Hall Meeting, Oct. 28, 1767, 77; of
Broadside, _The True Sons of Liberty_, 78; List of Merchants
importing contrary to agreement, 79; Broadside proscribing
William Jackson, 80; Revere's Cut of the Landing of Troops in
Boston, 1768, 81; John Dickinson, with Autograph, 82; Autograph
of James Bowdoin, 83; William Livingston, 84; Liberty Song,
86; Massachusetts Liberty Song, 87; Fac-simile of Instructions
to Representatives, signed by Richard Dana and William Cooper,
87; Handbill on the Anniversary of the Boston Massacre, 89;
Handbill of Warning, Dec. 2, 1773, 92; Philadelphia Poster
about the Tea-Ships, 93; Josiah Quincy's Manuscript Dedication
of his Port-Bill Tract, 94; Quincy Mansion, 96; Handbill
announcing the Port Bill and Regulating Bill, 97; Handbill
of General Brattle's Letter, 1774, 98; Autograph of Thomas
Cushing, 99; Signers of the Congress of 1774, 102; Satirical
Print, _Virtual Representation_, 103; Josiah Quincy's Diary,
105; Lord North, 107; Chatham, 109; Richard Price, Portrait and
Autograph, 111; Autograph of Lord Dartmouth, 111.

CHAPTER II.

THE CONFLICT PRECIPITATED. _The Editor_ 113

ILLUSTRATIONS: Autograph of Admiral Graves, 114; Notice of
Committee of Correspondence, signed by William Cooper, 115;
Autograph of Jedediah Preble, 116; of Joseph Hawley, 118;
Roads of Roxbury and beyond, 120; Roads between Boston and
Marlborough, 121; Heath's Account of the Fight at Menotomy,
126; General Heath, with Autograph, 127; Autograph of Ethan
Allen, 128; Ruins of Ticonderoga, 129; Pen-and-Ink Sketch of
the Roxbury Lines, 130; Warren's Last Note, 132; Notice to the
Militia, 133; Order of the Committee of Safety, 135; Autograph
of Colonel William Prescott, 135; of John Brooks, 136; of
General Howe, 136; of John Stark, 137; of Richard Pigot, 137;
of Governor Tryon, with seal, 140; of Joseph Reed, 141;
Washington's Heads of Letter, July 10, 1775, 141; Letter of John
Hancock, June 22, 1775, 143; Autograph of General Gage, 145;
Handbill thrown within the British Lines, 147; Views of Country
around Boston from Beacon Hill, 148, 149, 150, 151; A Vaudevil
on _The Boston Blockade_, 154; Playbill of Zara, 155; Autograph
of General Knox, 156; Views of Boston and of the Castle, 157;
Proclamation of Washington, 159; Guy Carleton, with Autograph,
164; Seal of Lord Dunmore, 167; Plan of Attack on Fort Moultrie,
169; Plan of Attack on Charlestown, S. C., 170; William
Moultrie, 171.

CRITICAL ESSAY 172

NOTES 174

ILLUSTRATIONS: Colonel Parker's Lexington Deposition, 176;
Colonel Barrett's Concord Deposition, 177; Plan of Lexington,
179; of Concord, 180; Emerson's Diary, 181; Earl Percy, 182,
183; Lexington Green, 185; Richard Frothingham, 186; Ezra
Stiles, with Autograph, 188; Autograph of Samuel Swett, 191;
General Putnam, with Autograph, 192; Autograph of General
Ward, 192; Joseph Warren, 193; Handbill (Tory Account) of the
Battle of Bunker Hill, 196; View of the Battle of Bunker Hill,
197; Plans of Charlestown Peninsula and the Battle, 198, 199;
Plan of the Battle, 201; Autograph of General Heath, 203;
Plan of the Siege of Boston, 206; Boston and Vicinity, June,
1775, 208; Boston and Charlestown, 1775, 210; British Lines on
Boston Neck, 211; Map of the St. Lawrence and Sorel Rivers,
215; General Montgomery on the Capitulation of St. John, 217;
Attestation of Montgomery's Will, 218; Richard Montgomery, 220,
221; Benedict Arnold, with Autograph, 223; Montresor's Map of
the Kennebec Region, 224; David Wooster, with Autograph, 225;
Plan of Siege of Quebec, 226; Autograph of Charles Carroll
of Carrollton, 227; View of Sullivan's Island, 228; View of
Charlestown, S. C., and the British Fleet (1776), 229.

CHAPTER III.

THE SENTIMENT OF INDEPENDENCE, ITS GROWTH AND CONSUMMATION.
_George E. Ellis_ 231

CRITICAL ESSAY 252

EDITORIAL NOTES 255

ILLUSTRATIONS: Autographs of the Mecklenburg Committee, 256;
Thomas Jefferson, 258; State House, Philadelphia, 259; Original
Draft of the Declaration of Independence, 260; Autograph
of Thomas Jefferson, 261; Portrait and Autograph of Roger
Sherman, 262; Autographs of the Signers of the Declaration of
Independence, 263-266; Fac-simile of a Contemporary Broadside
of the Declaration, 267; John Dickinson, 268; John Hancock (the
Scott picture), 270; (a German picture), 271; Charles Thomson,
272; Fac-simile of a Page of Christopher Marshall's Diary, 273.

CHAPTER IV.

THE STRUGGLE FOR THE HUDSON. _George W. Cullum_ 275

ILLUSTRATIONS: Mortier House, on Richmond Hill, Washington's
Headquarters, 276; Lord Howe, 277; General Sir William Howe,
278; Lord Stirling, 280; Roger Morris House, Washington's
Harlem Headquarters, 284; Autograph of Knyphausen, 289;
Portrait and Autograph of Burgoyne, 292; another Portrait,
293; Lord George Germain, 295; General Arthur St. Clair,
297; Autograph of General Schuyler, 297; General John Stark,
301; General Horatio Gates, 302; General Horatio Gates, with
Autograph, 303; Sir Henry Clinton, Portraits and Autograph,
306, 307; General George Clinton, 308; Fac-simile of Burgoyne's
Letter to Gates, 310; Rude contemporary Cuts of Washington and
Gates, 311.

CRITICAL ESSAY 315

DISPOSAL OF THE CONVENTION TROOPS 317

EDITORIAL NOTES 323

ILLUSTRATIONS: Plan of Fort Montgomery, 324; Chain at Fort
Montgomery, 324; Plan of Constitution Island, 325; Plans of
the Battle of Long Island, 327, 328; Ratzer's smaller Map of
New York City, 332; Johnston's Map of New York Island (1776),
335; the Sauthier-Faden Plan of Campaign round New York (1776),
336; Fort Washington and Dependencies, 339; the Sauthier-Tryon
Map of New York Province (1774), 340; the Present Seat of
War, from Low's _Almanac_, 342; New York and Vicinity, from
the _Political Magazine_, 343; Campaign of 1776, from Hall's
_History_, 344; Hessian Map of the Campaign above New York
(1776), 345; Map of Arnold's Fight near Valcour Island, 347;
Trumbull's Plan of Ticonderoga and its Dependencies (1776),
352; Map of Ticonderoga (1777) used at St. Clair's Trial, 353;
Fleury's Map of Fort Stanwix, 355; Plan of the Conflict at
Saratoga, 362; Attack on Forts Clinton and Montgomery as mapped
by John Hills, 363; another Plan, from Leake's _Life of Lamb_,
365.

CHAPTER V.

THE STRUGGLE FOR THE DELAWARE.—PHILADELPHIA UNDER HOWE AND
UNDER ARNOLD. _Frederick D. Stone_ 367

ILLUSTRATIONS: Charles Lee, 369; his Autograph, 370; Fac-simile
of an Appeal of the Council of Safety, Dec. 8, 1776, 371;
Broadside of the Council of Safety, 372; Lord Howe, 380;
General Grey, 383; General Sir William Howe, 383; Alexander
Hamilton, 384; Anthony Wayne, 385; the Destruction of the
"Augusta", 388; Fac-simile of Proclamation of Washington, Dec.
20, 1777, 390; Playbill of Theatre in Southwark, February,
1778, 394.

EDITORIAL NOTES 403

ILLUSTRATIONS: Autograph of General Richard Prescott, 403;
Map, from the _Gentleman's Magazine_, of the Neighborhood of
New York, 404; Joseph Reed, 405; Charles Lee, 406; Marshall's
Map of Trenton, Princeton, and Monmouth, 408; Hessian Map
of Trenton and Princeton, 409; Faden's Map of Trenton and
Princeton, 410; Wiederhold's Map of Trenton, 411; Wilkinson's
Map of Trenton, 412; of Princeton, 413; Hall's Map of the
Campaign of 1777, 414; Galloway's Map, 415; General Sir William
Howe, 417, 418; Washington's Map of Brandywine, 420; Hessian
Map of Brandywine, 422; Hessian Map of Paoli, 423; Faden's Map
of Trudruffrin, or Paoli, 424; Approaches to Germantown, 425;
Montresor's Map of Germantown Battle, 426-427; Hessian Map of
Germantown, 428; View of Stenton, Logan's House, 429; Faden's
Map of Operations on the Delaware, 429; Lafayette's Map of the
Attack at Gloucester, N. J., 430; Map of Fort Mifflin on Mud
Island, 431; Fleury's Plan of Fort Mifflin, 432-433; Attack on
Fort Mifflin, 434-435; Plan of Mud Island Fort, 437; Attack on
Mud Island, 438; Map of Valley Forge Encampment, 439; Defences
of Philadelphia, 440, 441; Vicinity of Philadelphia, 442;
Barren Hill, 443; Plan of the Battle of Monmouth, 444; Monmouth
and Vicinity, 445.

THE TREASON OF ARNOLD. _The Editor_ 447

ILLUSTRATIONS: Portraits of Benedict Arnold, 447, 448, 449;
Arnold's Commission as Major-General, signed by John Hancock,
450; Plans of West Point, 451, 459, 462; Portraits of Major
John André, 452, 453, 454; Autographs of André, 452, 453; Plans
of the Hudson River, 455, 456, 465; Portrait and Autograph of
Benjamin Tallmadge, 457.

CHAPTER VI.

THE WAR IN THE SOUTHERN DEPARTMENT. _Edward Channing_ 469

ILLUSTRATIONS: View of Charlestown, S. C., 471; Fac-simile
of General Moultrie's Order, 471; Fac-simile of Commodore
Whipple's Letter, 472; General Benjamin Lincoln, Portrait and
Autograph, 473; Portraits of Cornwallis, 474, 475; Portrait of
General Gates, 476; Lord Rawdon, 489; Kosciusko, 492; Steuben,
497; Portrait and Autograph of Rochambeau, 498; Autographs of
French Officers, 500; Portraits of Comte de Grasse, 502, 503;
his Autograph, 502; Fac-simile of Articles of Capitulation at
Yorktown, 505; Nelson House, 506.

CRITICAL ESSAY 507

ILLUSTRATIONS: Portraits of General Nathanael Greene, 508, 509,
512, 513; his Autograph, 514.

NOTES 519

ILLUSTRATIONS: Map of Siege of Savannah (1779), 521; Plan of
Charleston (1780), 526; Siege of Charleston, 528; Battle of
Camden, 531; Gates's Defeat, 533; Battle of Guildford, 540; Map
of Cape Fear River, 542; Action at Hobkirk's Hill, 543; Diagram
of the Naval Action of De Grasse, 548; Plans of the Yorktown
Campaign, 550, 551, 552.

EDITORIAL NOTES ON EVENTS IN THE NORTH 555

ILLUSTRATIONS: Hessian Map of the Hudson Highlands, 556; Stoney
Point, 557; Verplanck's Point, 557; Faden's Plan of Stony
Point, 558; Paulus Hook, 559.

CHAPTER VII.

THE NAVAL HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. _Edward E. Hale_ 563

ILLUSTRATIONS: Fac-simile of Commodore Tucker's Orders to
command the "Boston", 566; Esek Hopkins, 569; Autograph of
Joshua Barney, 575; of Captain John Barry, 581; Fac-simile of
Captain Tucker's Parole at Charleston, 583.

GENERAL EDITORIAL NOTES 589

SPECIAL EDITORIAL NOTES 589

ILLUSTRATIONS: Paul Jones, 592; Richard Pearson, 593; Count
D'Estaing, 594, 595; his Autograph, 595; Plan of the Siege of
Newport, 596; Blaskowitz's Plan of Newport, 597; Sullivan's
Campaign Map, 598; View of the Fight on Rhode Island, 599;
Lafayette's Map of Narragansett Bay, 600; his Plan of the
Campaign on Rhode Island, 602; Autograph of General Solomon
Lovell, 603; Map of the Attack on Penobscot (Castine), 604.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE INDIANS AND THE BORDER WARFARE OF THE REVOLUTION. _Andrew
McFarland Davis_ 605

ILLUSTRATIONS: Guy Johnson's Map of the Country of the Six
Nations, 609; Joseph Thayendaneken (Brant), 623; Brant, by
Romney, 625; his Autograph, 625; St. Leger's Order of March,
628; Peter Gansevoort, 629; the Butler badge, 631; General
Sullivan, 637.

CRITICAL ESSAY 647

NOTES 673

ILLUSTRATION: Map of Colonel Williamson's Marches, 675.

CHAPTER IX.

THE WEST, FROM THE TREATY OF PEACE WITH FRANCE, 1763, TO THE
TREATY OF PEACE WITH ENGLAND, 1783. _William Frederick Poole_ 685

ILLUSTRATIONS: Henry Bouquet, 692; Plan of Bushy Run Battle,
693; Bouquet's Council with the Indians, 695; Bouquet's
Campaign Map, 696; Map of the Illinois Country, 700; Ruins of
Magazine at Fort Chartres, 703; Daniel Boone, 707; Plan of
Kaskaskia, 717; Lieutenant Ross's Map of the Mississippi, 721;
Fac-simile of Colonel Clark's Summons to Governor Hamilton, 727.

THE CLOSING SCENES OF THE WAR. _The Editor_ 744

ILLUSTRATIONS: Captain Asgill, 745; Fraunce's Tavern in New
York, 747.

INDEX 749

NARRATIVE AND CRITICAL HISTORY OF AMERICA.

CHAPTER I.

THE REVOLUTION IMPENDING.

BY MELLEN CHAMBERLAIN,

_Librarian Boston Public Library._

THE American Revolution was no unrelated event, but formed a part
of the history of the British race on both continents, and was not
without influence on the history of mankind. As an event in British
history, it wrought with other forces in effecting that change in the
Constitution of the mother country which transferred the prerogatives
of the crown to the Parliament, and led to the more beneficent
interpretation of its provisions in the light of natural rights. As an
event in American history, it marks the period, recognized by the great
powers of Europe, when a people, essentially free by birth and by the
circumstances of their situation, became entitled, because justified
by valor and endurance, to take their place among independent nations.
Finally, as an event common to the history of both nations, it stands
midway between the Great Rebellion and the Revolution of 1688, on the
one hand, and the Reform Bill of 1832 and the extension of suffrage
in 1884, on the other, and belongs to a race which had adopted the
principles of the Reformation and of the Petition of Right.

The American Revolution was not a quarrel between two peoples,—the
British people and the American people,—but, like all those events
which mark the progress of the British race, it was a strife between
two parties, the conservatives in both countries as one party, and
the liberals in both countries as the other party; and some of its
fiercest battles were fought in the British Parliament. Nor did it
proceed in one country alone, but in both countries at the same time,
with nearly equal step, and was essentially the same in each, so that
at the close of the French War, if all the people of Great Britain had
been transported to America and put in control of American affairs,
and all the people of America had been transported to Great Britain
and put in control of British affairs, the American Revolution and the
contemporaneous British Revolution—for there was a contemporaneous
British Revolution—might have gone on just the same, and with the
same final results. But the British Revolution was to regain liberty;
the American Revolution was to preserve liberty. Both peoples had a
common history in the events which led to the Great Rebellion; but in
the reaction which followed the Restoration, that part of the British
race which awaited the conflict in the old home passed again under the
power of the prerogative, and, after the accession of William III.,
came under the domination of the great Whig families. The British
Revolution, therefore, was to recover what had been lost. But those
who emigrated to the colonies left behind them institutions which were
monarchical, in church and state, and set up institutions which were
democratic. And it was to preserve, not to acquire, these democratic
institutions that the liberal party carried the country through a long
and costly war.[1]

The American Revolution, in its earlier stages at least, was not a
contest between opposing governments or nationalities, but between two
different political and economic systems, to each of which able and
honest men then adhered, and now adhere. The motives and conduct of
each party, therefore, ought to be stated with exact impartiality. It
was not only inevitable, but wise, and on the whole wisely conducted in
accordance with the traditions and methods of political action to which
our British race had been accustomed. It was also honestly and fairly
opposed by those who neither accepted revolutionary principles, nor
recognized the validity of the reasons assigned for their application
to the existing state of affairs.

Readers of American history from the Restoration of Charles II.,
in 1660, to the Revolution find frequent reference to the King's
Prerogatives, Navigation Laws, Acts of Trade, and in later years to
Writs of Assistance, as subjects of complaint between Great Britain
and her colonies; and as these were among the immediate causes of the
war, they require explanation. When the Earl of Hillsborough (April 22,
1768) required the House of Representatives of Massachusetts, through
Governor Bernard (June 21st), in his majesty's name, to rescind the
resolution which had given birth to their Circular Letter of February
11, 1768, the order was a claim of right by the king to control the
legislative action of that province; and the refusal of the House was
regarded by the prerogative party both in Great Britain and in the
colonies as in derogation of the king's constitutional power.

What was the foundation of this alleged authority of the king over the
colonies? By the public law of all civilized nations in the fifteenth
century, the property in unoccupied lands belonged to the crown of the
country by which they were discovered;[2] and if, as was generally the
case, these lands were inhabited by savages, still the fee was in the
crown, subject only to such use as might be made of them by wandering
tribes. Such is the law to-day. This title to the English colonies was
not in the people of England nor in the state, but in the crown, and
descended with it. The crown alone could sell or give away these lands.
The crown could make laws for the inhabitants, and repeal them; could
appoint their rulers, and remove them. Parliament could do neither.
The political relations of the colonists were to the crown, not to
the government of England; nor were they in any respect subject to
parliamentary legislation.[3] They were not citizens within the realm,
nor, except in a qualified sense, of the empire, but subjects of the
crown, having only such rights as it granted to them in their charters;
and even these charters the crown claimed, and exercised the right to
amend or revoke. James I. amended that of Virginia in 1624, and Charles
II. revoked that of Massachusetts in 1684. They were regarded merely
as charters of incorporated land companies, and, as such, subject to
revocation by the king who granted them; and when these companies had
developed into municipal governments, they were considered as still
subject to alteration or repeal by the sovereign power,[4] although in
both cases rights of property were saved to the owners. Strange as this
doctrine may seem, it is now substantial law in England and in America.

To all these rights, privileges, and disabilities the emigrants agreed
when they purchased lands from the crown; and the rights and duties,
whether of the crown or of its subjects, descended to their respective
successors. With such rights, though not in all cases with such views
in respect to them, the colonists came to America; and such rights, and
no more, their children possessed, under the British Constitution, at
the time of the American Revolution, in the days of George III.

These claims of the crown every colony resisted as incompatible with
its essential rights, and yet they were legal and constitutional
prerogatives, admitted by the greatest judges of England, and most
necessarily have been admitted in the colonies not only by Hutchinson
and Oliver, but by James Otis and John Adams, had they sat as judges.
It was on this legal and constitutional ground that the prerogative
party stood both in England and in America.

But in England from the time of James I., and in America from the
coming of Winthrop, there had been an anti-prerogative party; and as
the prerogative party in England and the prerogative party in America
were one and the same, so the anti-prerogative party in England and the
anti-prerogative party in the colonies were one and the same, having
similar views, and, though separated by a thousand leagues, working to
the same end. On this question came the first political contest of the
Revolution; that of parliamentary supremacy came later. The strength of
one side was in legal and constitutional principles, as they were then
interpreted by judicial tribunals; that of the other lay in the changes
which were taking place in the British Constitution,—in short, in
revolution. The revolutionary party succeeded in both countries: in
America, by war; in England, by more silent influences which have
greatly modified, if not destroyed, the prerogative.

Although the prerogative was a cardinal right in the British
Constitution, and freely exercised by popular sovereigns like
Elizabeth, it began to be questioned under James I., and resisted
under Charles I., who lost his life in its defence, as James II. lost
his crown.[5] But the progress of this revolution was not steady,
nor did it always hold what it had gained. There came periods of
reaction, one of which was in the early days of George III. He was
strenuous in maintaining his prerogative, and, by the support of the
"King's Friends", probably held it with a firmer hand than any of
his predecessors since Elizabeth. The contest about the prerogatives
encountered this difficulty: that successful resistance in a particular
instance settled no principle, but left all other cases untouched.[6]
The extension of the navigation acts to the colonies by Parliament,
though assented to by King Charles II., was in derogation of his
prerogatives; and so in the time of William III. (1696) was the
attempt to transfer certain colonial affairs from the Privy Council,
which represented the king, to a proposed Council of Commerce, which
would have been the creature of Parliament. In consistency with
these proceedings, the king's power over the colonies ought to have
been transferred to Parliament; and instead of remaining the king's
colonies, they ought to have become a part of the empire, and his
authority over them no greater than that over the territory within the
four seas. But it was otherwise. The colonists remained the king's
subjects. He appointed their governors; he frequently set aside their
laws, and over them he exercised his royal prerogatives. One capital
point, however, had been gained by the revolutionary party on both
sides of the water. Successful invasions of the prerogative had at
length created what was called the "spirit of the constitution."[7]
The loyalists, however, seemed to be firmly entrenched in their
constitutional position, nor did the anti-prerogative party avoid a
dilemma: how to escape out of the hands of the king without falling
into the hands of Parliament. If, as some claimed when they resisted
the royal prerogative, they were British subjects, entitled to the same
rights and privileges as native-born subjects within the realm, why
then should they, more than other subjects, be free from the burdens
imposed by the imperial policy? But when, in pursuance of that policy,
Parliament undertook to tax the colonies, then they were forced by the
logic of the situation to claim that, though subjects of "the best of
kings", they owed no more allegiance to Parliament than the Scotch did
before the union.[8]

Probably no one more heartily detested the claims of the prerogative
than Franklin; and yet the phase which the controversy had assumed
compelled him to take high prerogative ground. Such was his position
with regard to the Stamp Act, as is seen in the note below.[9] Andros
himself could have asked for nothing better, in 1686; and when Franklin
was asked what the king could do, should the colonies refuse just
requisitions, he had no other answer than this,—that they would not
refuse!

Such is the doctrine of the prerogative which gave rise to constant
conflicts between the king and the colonists, from 1660 to 1774,
and in every colony was among the political causes which led to the
Revolution. But it was an English question as well as an American
question,—a party question in both countries, and it was finally
settled with the same result in each, though by different means. We
must look further for the real controversy between the English people
and the American people.

Another cause of the Revolution, but one which, in no strict sense,
concerned the political relations between the people of Great Britain
and the American colonists, was the attempt of the British merchants
to monopolize the trade of the colonies, not for the benefit of the
British people, but for their own. This also was a party question,
on one side of which were arrayed the adherents of the Mercantile or
Protective System, and on the other those of the Economic or Free
Trade System. The mercantile class endeavored to subordinate colonial
interests to the protective system by navigation laws and acts of
trade; and the resistance of the colonists to these acts was a claim
for free trade which finally involved them in a war with the mother
country.

What were those navigation laws and acts of trade which called forth
the invective of James Otis when he argued the Writs of Assistance, and
revived in the bosom of the octogenarian John Adams the hearty curse
he bestowed upon them in his youth; and on what foundation did they
rest?[10]

Nations acquire new territories, and maintain and defend them, to
promote their own interests, and not the interests of those who inhabit
them; still less the interests of other nationalities. This has been
the case in all ages and under all forms of government, to which
our own age and nation form no exception. By the right of discovery
the British crown became possessed of the territory included in the
thirteen American colonies, settled mainly by British subjects. Lands
were granted to individuals, or companies, with the expectation that
they would build up prosperous communities, to contribute by their
products and trade to the wealth of the mother country. On these
purely selfish considerations she protected them; and when their trade
was grown to be considerable and their markets valuable, the British
merchants took measures to secure both, instead of sharing them
with other nations, or allowing them to follow the interests of the
colonists. Such was the policy of Great Britain at the dictation of the
mercantile class; and in the maintenance of that policy, in sixty years
between 1714 and 1774, she paid out of her Exchequer the enormous sum
of £34,697,142 sterling, a sum greater than the estimated value of the
whole real and personal property in the colonies.[11]

Between 1660 and 1770 Parliament enacted various laws whose enforcement
produced irritation from the beginning, and had no inconsiderable
influence in promoting the final rupture. These acts may be classed
as,—First, navigation laws, designed to secure the naval and maritime
supremacy of Great Britain throughout the world; these were aimed at
the Dutch. Second, acts of trade, procured by the mercantile class, to
monopolize the trade of the British colonies. Like the corn-laws of a
later generation, these formed part of the protective system, and were
dictated by class interest. Third, acts for the protection of British
manufactures by preventing their growth in the colonies, where their
best market was found. Fourth, acts designed to secure the strict
execution of the preceding acts by establishing colonial admiralty
courts, custom-houses, and boards of customs. Fifth, acts which
imposed and regulated duties and port charges in commercial towns.
In no sense were these acts for revenue, British or colonial. They
brought nothing into the British Exchequer, but drew large sums from
it.[12] They were passed solely in the interest of the mercantile and
manufacturing classes, whose protection had much to do with bringing on
the Revolution, but whose clamors happily prevented efficient measures
for its suppression. These demonstrations, which gained them great
credit in the colonies, grew out of their fear of losing not only the
£4,000,000 due by their colonial debtors, but also their future trade.

Before the Grenville Act of 1764 no measures had been taken to relieve
the Exchequer from demands on account of the colonies. The people and
the government had suffered the mercantile and manufacturing classes
to dictate their colonial policy. Not that the prosperity of these
classes did not contribute to the general prosperity of the realm;
for, on the contrary, it had made Great Britain the most affluent and
powerful country on the globe. But this system did not promote the
welfare of all classes alike; and when the time came, as it did after
the frightful expenditure in the French War, that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was compelled to ask for ready money to pay the interest on
the debt and to meet current expenses, neither the merchants nor the
manufacturers, who had grown rich by the war, offered on that account
to pay larger taxes, but they were quite willing that the British
farmer should do so, or that a revenue should be sought from the
American colonies.

Some account of these famous laws is essential at this point. There
were three statutes embraced under the general term Navigation Laws
and Acts of Trade, in which are to be found the principles of the
Mercantile System. They were passed in 1660, 1663, and 1672, during the
reign of Charles II., and may be found in the _Statutes at Large_,[13]
with the following titles respectively: "An Act for the Encouraging and
Increasing of Shipping and Navigation", "An Act for the Encouragement
of Trade", and "An Act for the Encouragement of the Greenland and
Eastland Trades, and for the Better Securing the Plantation Trade."[14]

The navigation laws will be more readily understood if we attend solely
to their effect on the American colonies, and disregard unimportant
exceptions and limitations. By the act of 1660, none but English or
colonial ships could carry goods to or bring them from the colonies.
This excluded all foreigners, and especially the Dutch, who at that
time were the principal carriers for Europe. The result was that the
colonists lost the advantage of their competition. Far more serious
was the provision which restricted them from carrying sugar, tobacco,
cotton, wool, indigo, ginger, fustic and all other dyeing wood, the
product of any English colony, to any part of the world, except Great
Britain, or some other English colony. This affected the English sugar
islands of the West Indies and the Southern colonies, which were
obliged to send their products to the overstocked English or colonial
markets, more than it affected New England, whose great staples,
lumber, fish, oil, ashes, and furs, were free to find their best
market, provided only they were sent in English or colonial vessels.

British merchants not satisfied with this monopoly procured a more
stringent act in 1663, which provided that no commodity, the growth,
product, or manufacture of Europe, should be imported into the
colonies, except in English-built ships, sailing from English ports. By
this act England became the sole market in which the colonists could
purchase the products or manufactures of Europe, nor could they send
their own ships for them, unless English-built or bought before October
1, 1662. They were obliged to buy in English markets and import in
English vessels.[15] This discouraged ship-building for the European
trade in a country full of timber, and compelled the payment of charges
and profits to English factors dealing in Continental goods for the
American market.

By these two acts British merchants had undertaken to monopolize,
with certain exceptions, the carrying trade of the colonies and their
markets for the sale and the purchase of goods. But avarice was not
satisfied. There had grown up a trade, especially profitable to New
England, with the Southern colonies which were without shipping. By the
act of 1660, foreign and intercolonial trade in certain articles was
permitted, with the expectation that it would be limited to necessary
local supply. But Boston merchants, shipping to that port tobacco and
some other colonial products in excess of the local demand, sent the
surplus to Continental Europe, without payment of British or colonial
duties, and thus undersold the British trader, who had paid heavy
import duties. To suppress this profitable irregularity, it was enacted
in 1672 that the enumerated products shipped to other colonies should
be first transported to England, and thence to the purchasing colony.
The colonial merchants had the option, however, of bringing tobacco,
for instance, from Virginia direct to Massachusetts, first paying an
export duty equivalent to the English import duty.[16]

These enactments subjected colonial interests to those of British
ship-owners and merchants; and as they had been thus duly protected,
the manufacturers in turn claimed similar protection by statutes
which should prevent the colonists from setting up competing
manufactories.[17] How could there have been any difference of opinion
among the colonists respecting such statutes? A general answer is,
that the colonial system, which regarded the colonies as feeders for
the navigation, trade, and manufactures of the parent state, was the
accepted doctrine of European statesmen. Pitt was its stanchest
advocate, and Burke its rational friend. Adam Smith, who assaulted
it in 1776,[18] did not succeed in overthrowing it. Twenty-five
years later, Henry Brougham controverted Smith's views.[19] It is
not strange, therefore, that it found advocates among the colonists
themselves. It was also far from being a one-sided question.

James Otis's arguments on the Writs of Assistance and John Adams's
letters to William Tudor, by dwelling on the injurious features of
these acts, and passing over all compensating considerations, give an
erroneous notion of them. The idea that they originated in a hostile
disposition of the British people or merchants towards the colonists
is not entitled to a moment's consideration. They formed a commercial
policy, not a political policy. The more numerous, wealthy, and
prosperous the colonists became, the more useful they were to the
British merchants, so long as they could monopolize the trade. That
was their object; and where the freedom of colonial trade would not
interfere with British trade, it was left free. For example, the most
profitable trade of New England was with the French and Spanish West
India Islands and the Spanish Main. The short distance favored small
vessels and small capitals. The exchange of lumber, grain, cattle, and
fish for sugar and molasses, with an occasional voyage to the coast
of Africa for slaves, during that traffic,[20] yielded rich returns.
This trade was free; and so was that of Asia and Africa, and some
ports of Europe, except for certain enumerated articles. It was not
only permitted, but with respect to some commodities was encouraged by
bounties. Between 1714 and 1774, the colonists, chiefly those of New
England, received £1,609,345 sterling on their commodities exported
to Great Britain;[21] and through a system of drawbacks, by which the
duties on goods imported into England were repaid on their exportation
to America, the colonists often bought Continental goods cheaper than
could the subjects within the realm. These favors no more indicated
good will than the restrictions indicated hostility. Both rested on
purely commercial considerations. There were other compensations. The
naval supremacy of Great Britain, due chiefly to the navigation laws,
protected colonial commerce in whatever seas it was pushed; and the
stimulus of monopoly withdrew British capital from other less lucrative
enterprises, and directed it to the colonies, where it was freely
used by planters in developing lands which otherwise would have been
uncultivated for lack of capital.[22] And although certain colonial
produce was obliged to find its only European market in England, it had
the monopoly of that market.

If it was a hardship to the tobacco growers of Maryland and Virginia to
be compelled to send that product to England, they had this advantage,
that no Englishman could use any other. He was forbidden by penal
statutes to grow his own supply even in his own garden. As to those
laws which restrained manufactures in the colonies, it was the opinion
of Henry Brougham,[23] who cites Franklin as an authority, that they
merely prohibited the colonist from making articles which could have
been more cheaply purchased.[24] He could import a hat from England
for less than it cost to make one, and he did so. But the best ground
for nominal submission to the navigation laws and acts of trade was
found in their easy evasion, and the fact that they never were, and
never could have been, rigidly enforced. From the first, all attempts
to enforce them led to dissatisfaction. Randolph's revenue seizures
in the time of Charles II. and James II. had no small influence in
overthrowing Andros's government in the revolution of 1689, and so had
Charles Paxton's in bringing on the American Revolution.

Before the new policy of enforcing these laws was entered upon, the
colonies enjoyed British naval protection; they possessed the monopoly
of the British market; they drew bounties from the British Exchequer;
they purchased European goods more cheaply than the British people
could do; and, stating the facts somewhat broadly, they manufactured
whatever they found to be for their advantage, and sent their ships
wherever they pleased, notwithstanding the navigation laws and acts of
trade. The result was that the colonies, especially barren and frozen
New England, engrossed most profitable commerce which England had
attempted to monopolize, and increased in wealth beyond all colonial
precedent.[25] But these halcyon days were destined to pass under
clouds. British merchants had seen from the beginning the amassing of
fortunes in the colonies by illicit trade, and the falling off of their
own. They had striven to enforce the laws, and Parliament had lent its
assistance,—but in vain. Under the first charter of Massachusetts, the
collector of customs was the governor, whose annual election depended
upon the good will of those who were evading the navigation laws; under
the second charter, the governor was appointed by the king, and sworn
to enforce those laws. But colonial juries generally checkmated the
king's representative. Then followed admiralty courts without juries,
which produced indignant protests. The new system was irritating rather
than efficient on a long line of coast filled with bays, creeks,
and ports not patrolled by revenue cutters. The British merchant
was foiled, and anger was the result. The attempt to monopolize the
commerce of the colonies was a failure; and so long as the navigation
laws were a dead letter the advantages of the situation were with the
colonists. They were content.

But the time came at the close of the French War when the mercantile
system was subordinated to a revenue system, and the enforcement of
the navigation laws and acts of trade, made more stringent by some
new ones, became the policy of the government. Its instruments were
admiralty courts with enlarged jurisdiction, commissioners of customs,
writs of assistance, and an adequate naval force. When that time came,
the Revolution was not far off![26]

In 1755, Shirley, then governor of Massachusetts, had persuaded the
General Court to attempt by a stamp act to meet the expenses of the
French War. This produced an irritation like that which followed in
1765 the act of the British ministry;[27] and to Shirley, as much as to
any other man, perhaps, was due the suggestion of those parliamentary
measures which led to the Revolution. Long residence in Boston and
his profession as a lawyer had made him familiar with the evasions of
the navigation laws; and his larger duties as commander-in-chief, in
which he found much difficulty in bringing the colonial assemblies into
concerted and efficient action, doubtless suggested measures which
were adopted by the British ministry. However this may have been, the
enforcement of the navigation laws was taken in hand for the first time
by the government, and no longer left to depend upon private interests.
This unwonted activity was shown as early as 1754. Its most formidable
weapon was the Writ of Assistance.

More than four years before the passage of the Stamp Act, James Otis
had resisted the granting of these writs before the Superior Court
of Massachusetts. John Adams, then a student of law, took notes of
Otis's argument, and fifty-six years later wrote: "Then and there
was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary
claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child Independence was
born."[28] This was no mere rhetorical phrase.[29] The influence of
this controversy in producing the Revolution is not wholly due to the
fiery eloquence of Otis, whose words, said John Adams, "breathed into
the nation the breath of life", nor to the range of his argument,
which called in question the mercantile and political systems of
Great Britain, but to their effect upon the commercial interest—then
the leading one—of New England; for if the latent powers of these
writs were set free, and used by the revenue officers, the commerce
of Boston, Salem, and Newport would have been effectually crippled.
Authorized in England, they were extended to the colonies by an act of
William III.[30] The officers of customs, however, instead of applying
to the courts for them, relied upon the implied powers of their
commissions, and forcibly entered warehouses for contraband goods.
The people grew uneasy, and some stood upon their rights against the
officers, whose activity was stimulated by documents like that given in
the note below.[31]

Governor Shirley issued these writs, though the power to do so was
solely in the court.[32] But they would have held a less important
place in the history of the Revolution had it not been for the
concurrence of several circumstances. All writs become invalid on the
demise of the crown and six months thereafter. George II. died October
25, 1760, and the news reached Boston December 27th. The government
had already resolved upon a more vigorous enforcement of the revenue
laws. The king had instructed Bernard, the newly appointed governor
of Massachusetts, to "be aiding and assisting to the collectors and
other officers of our admiralty and customs in putting in execution"
the acts of trade. Pitt also directed the colonial governors to prevent
trade with the enemy and a commerce which was "in open contempt of
the authority of the mother country, as well as to the most manifest
prejudice of the manufactures and trade of Great Britain."[33] Seizures
of uncustomed goods were frequent. The third part of the forfeiture of
molasses which belonged to the province amounted before 1761 to nearly
five hundred pounds in money. Bernard arrived in August, 1760. Chief
Justice Sewall, who had expressed doubts as to the legality of writs
of assistance, died September 11th; and Hutchinson, his successor,
took his seat January 27, 1761. As the outstanding writs had become
invalid, their renewal became necessary. But when Charles Paxton, the
surveyor at Boston, appeared for that purpose in the Superior Court,
February term, 1761, he was confronted by a petition signed by sixty
inhabitants of the province, chiefly merchants of Boston, who desired
to be heard in opposition, in person and by their counsel, James Otis
and Oxenbridge Thacher. Otis, Advocate-General for the crown, had
resigned his office to avoid supporting the writ.[34] Gridley, the
Attorney-General, appeared in his stead. No complete report of the
arguments has been preserved.[35] Gridley, who treated the question as
purely one of law, to be determined by statutes and precedents, said of
Otis's argument, that "quoting history is not speaking like a lawyer;"
and as to the arbitrary nature of the writ which allowed the entry of
private houses in search of uncustomed goods, he reminded him that by
a province law a collector of taxes, without execution, judgment, or
trial, could arrest and throw a delinquent taxpayer into prison. "What!
shall my property be wrested from me? Shall my liberty be destroyed by
a collector for a debt unadjudged, without the common indulgence and
lenity of the law? So it is established; and the necessity of having
public taxes effectually and speedily collected is of infinitely
greater moment to the whole than the liberty of any individual."

Otis's argument is well known. Carried to its logical results, it was a
plea for commercial and political independence of the colonies, and was
fully vindicated by the result of the conflict it precipitated. But as
a legal argument it is less conclusive.[36]

The majority of the court, however, were with Otis; and had judgment
been given at the time, the decision would have been in his favor.
But Hutchinson counselled delay until the practice in England could
be learned; and as it appeared that such writs were issued, of
course, from the Exchequer, on the 18th of November, the court, after
re-argument, pronounced them to be legal. Thenceforth they were freely
used. Otis's argument, without doubt, secured his election to the
General Court in May, in which his influence was second to that of no
other in bringing on the struggle which ended in independence. Nor was
its effect limited to Massachusetts. It reached the remotest colonies,
and, as John Adams said, led to "the revolution in the principles,
views, opinions, and feelings of the American people."[37]

Revolution, however, had been long impending. The treaty of
Aix-la-Chapelle in October, 1748, which put an end to the long war
between England and France, opened with the declaration that "Europe
sees the day which the Divine Providence had pointed out for the
reëstablishment of its repose. A general peace succeeds to a long and
bloody war." But neither the peace, nor the treaty by which it was
secured, was satisfactory to one of the belligerents; for England had
failed to secure the commercial advantages for which the war had been
undertaken, and the terms of the treaty, requiring her to give hostages
for the restoration of Cape Breton to France, excited the indignation
of the British people. Nor were other causes for the renewal of
the war wanting. The aggressive policy of France in respect to the
English possessions in Acadia and along the Ohio and the Mississippi,
notwithstanding the treaty, soon produced its legitimate results. The
Seven Years' War followed. In Asia and in the West Indies, the maritime
powers measured their strength by sea. At the same time in North
America, England and her colonies on the one side, and France on the
other, contended for the empire of the continent. Led by Clive, Wolfe,
Amherst, and Rodney, and inspired by the genius of Pitt, the forces of
England everywhere prevailed, and she took the first place among the
nations.

On the 10th of February, 1763, at Paris, was signed the treaty that
recognized the extinction of the French empire in North America. This
treaty marks an epoch in the history of America, as well as in that of
England and of France. To the latter it was a period of humiliation,
not only in the loss of colonies upon which, for nearly a century, she
had expended vast sums without any adequate return, but also in the
frustration of her purpose of gaining sole possession of the continent.

By England it was regarded as the close of a contest to maintain
her power on the same continent, and make it subservient to her
commercial and manufacturing interests, which had lasted for nearly a
hundred years. Yet there was a well-founded apprehension, expressed
at the time, that her colonies, relieved from the fear of French
aggressions, would throw off the authority of the mother country.[38]
What was the fear of the mother country, on the other hand, was the
hope and expectation, more or less remote, of the colonies. For the
experience gained in the French wars was of great value to them in the
revolutionary struggle. Officers had become familiar with the direction
of large bodies of troops, and with the means of their transport
and supply; and soldiers had learned that efficiency depended upon
discipline. Provincial assemblies also had been taught to look for
safety in strategic operations remote from their own territory. But at
no time before the assembling of the congress of 1754 had the colonies
been called to consider such a union of all as would give unity to
military operations, and secure the semblance, at least, of a general
government. The union proposed at that time would have involved some
loss of independence, without securing any efficient means of enforcing
the recommendations of the congress, and so the colonies hesitated, and
finally laid it aside. But there can be no doubt that the consideration
given to it by the several colonies led them more readily to come
together for concerted action in the congress of 1765.

* * * * *

The year 1763 is usually regarded as the beginning of the American
Revolution, because in that year the English ministry determined to
raise a revenue from the colonies. This led to a contest, which, like
most civil wars, was long and embittered. It engendered feelings
which have not yet passed away,—feelings which interfere with a calm
and dispassionate review of the motives of the parties concerned,
and of the circumstances which attended their controversy. It was
a war between Britons and the descendants of Britons, who, with a
common ancestry, laws, and manners, retained their essential race
characteristics in spite of the lapse of time or the change of place:
everywhere and always lovers of liberty, but in power haughty,
insolent, and aggressive on the weak, and in subjection turbulent and
impatient of restraint; proud of ancestry, partial to old customs
and precedents, but quick to resist laws which impede the course of
equity, and never permitting forms to prevent the accomplishment of
substantial justice. Such was the parent and such was the child: and in
the light of these facts we are to read the history of the Revolution.
It exhibited the race in no new light, nor did the contest involve
any new principle. Its sentiments were expressed in the old idiomatic
language,—petition, remonstrance, riot, war.

For more than a hundred years the colonies had been regarded as
appendages to the crown rather than as an integral part of the
empire; and when Parliament, at the instigation of the mercantile
classes and in derogation of royal prerogative, began at the close
of the seventeenth century to assume control over them, and, a few
years later, to vote large sums from the imperial treasury for their
protection, and, in some cases, for the support of their civil
governments, that body looked for reimbursement to the profits which
would inure to British merchants from the monopoly of colonial trade
and navigation, and flow indirectly into the national Exchequer.
But with the close of the French War a new policy seemed to become
necessary. The debt had swelled to frightful proportions. The British
people were groaning under the weight of the annual interest and their
current expenses. Every source of revenue seemed to be drained, and the
ministry turned their eyes for relief to the colonies; not, indeed,
for relief from the present debt, but from the necessity of adding to
it the whole expense of defending the colonies. This was the fatal
mistake which precipitated the Revolution. On this subject, however,
there seems to be some misapprehension. The popular idea was, and still
is, that the colonists were to be taxed to pay the interest on the
national debt and the current expenses of the government, and that all
moneys raised in the colonies were to pass into the British Exchequer
(thus draining them of their specie), there to remain subject to the
king's warrant. Such, however, was not the scheme of the ministry.
Not a farthing was to leave America. All sums collected were to be
deposited in the colonial treasuries, and only certificates thereof
were to be sent to the Exchequer. These were to be kept apart from the
general funds, and, after defraying the charges of the administration
of justice and the support of the civil government within all or any of
the colonies, they were to be subject to parliamentary appropriation
for their defence, protection, and security, and for no other
purpose.[39]

The alleged necessity was this: The government had broken the French
power in Canada, and shaken its hold upon the lakes and great rivers of
the West. This achievement, so glorious to the empire, and therefore to
the colonies as parts of it, and more immediately for their benefit,
had added one hundred and forty millions to the national debt, under
which the subjects within the realm were staggering. While some
colonies had been tardy or negligent in furnishing their quotas of men
and money for the war, yet it was acknowledged that as a whole they had
borne their fair proportion of the expense, and that some had exceeded
their share. So far all was clear. Although Canada had been conquered
mainly for the colonies, still the conquest added to the security
and glory of the empire, and the accounts for past expenditures
were squared. But what of the future? As these possessions had been
acquired, a stable government was needed for them, both for the
safety of the colonies and for the honor of England. They were still
inhabited by Indians under French influence, and they might become
dangerous unless controlled by military power. Choiseul, the great
French minister, informed by the reports of his secret agent, foresaw
the complications likely to arise in the government of the colonies,
and was not without hope of retrieving by diplomacy the losses which
had occurred from war. Forts and garrisons were necessary. Although
the Northern colonies were comparatively secure, the Carolinas and
Georgia were menaced by powerful and hostile tribes. The government
must regard the colonies as a unit, of which all parts were entitled
to imperial protection. To this view of the case there could be no
sound objection. Twenty thousand troops,—Pitt thought more would be
needed,—besides civil officers to regulate such affairs as did not
fall within colonial jurisdictions, were to be sent to the colonies. At
whose expense ought these military and civil forces to be maintained?
The British farmer objected to pay for the protection of his untaxed
colonial competitor in the British market. If the colonies were to
continue to be governed in the interest of the mercantile classes,
upon them might reasonably fall the expense of their protection. But
the acquisition of vast territories required a new policy, and it was
deemed equitable that they should be defended at the expense of the
empire of which the colonies were a part. They had claimed and received
imperial protection, and they ought to bear a proportional part of the
cost, which might be collected under the imperial authority with the
same certainty and promptness as were taxes on other subjects of the
king. This was the ministerial view of the matter as I gather it from
the debates in Parliament.

This claim of the ministry was met by the liberal party on both sides
of the water in two ways. It was asserted that the late war, and in
fact all the wars which affected the colonies, had been waged in the
interest of commerce and for the aggrandizement of the realm of which
they were no part, and that the newly acquired territories were of
doubtful advantage to colonies as yet sparsely populated. But if these
considerations were not conclusive, still the colonists ought not to
be taxed, because the imperial government by monopolizing their trade
received far more than the colonial share of the expense attending
their defence. The liberals also asserted that there was no disposition
on the part of the colonists to seek exemption from a reasonable share
of these imperial expenses; but as in the past they had voluntarily
contributed their part, and in some cases even more, so they would in
the future; and that in the future, as in the past, these contributions
ought to be voluntary, and the frequency and amount to be determined by
the provincial assemblies. Moreover, as the colonists neither had, nor
could have, any equitable or efficient representation in the imperial
Parliament, they could not consent to have their property taken from
them by representatives not chosen by themselves.

The ministry and their adherents replied that the foregoing arguments,
even if sound, were such as no party charged with the administration of
affairs, and obliged to raise a certain amount of money from a people
clamorous for relief from present taxes, could accept; that no reliance
could be placed on voluntary contributions; that the necessities of
government required that money should be raised by some system which
would act with regularity and certainty, and reach the unwilling as
well as the willing; that even in the last war, when the existence of
the English colonies was threatened by a foe moving with celerity by
reason of its unity, the movements of English troops had been delayed
by the backwardness of the colonies in furnishing their quotas; and now
that the pressure of the French power was removed from New England,
that section would leave the Middle and Southern colonies to their own
resources, especially when it was remembered how remiss those colonies
had been in assisting the north and east when attacked.[40] It was also
answered that so far from the monopoly of the colonial trade being a
set-off to the expenses incurred by the mother country in defending the
colonies, the fact was notorious that by the evasion of the navigation
laws and acts of trade the colonists had escaped the restrictions
intended by those laws, and at the same time had received bounties and
drawbacks from the British Exchequer which enabled them to undersell
the British merchants in the markets of Europe.

Here was a deadlock. The arguments on both sides seemed conclusive.
No practical solution of the difficulty was proposed at the time, nor
has been since. Both parties were firm in their convictions. Neither
could yield without the surrender of essential rights. A conflict
was unavoidable unless one party would relinquish the authority
claimed by the imperial government; unavoidable unless the colonies,
essentially free by growth, development, and distance, would yield to
pretensions incompatible with their rights as British subjects. The
new policy contemplated after the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748
was carried into effect after the treaty of Paris in 1763. But nothing
could have been more unfortunate than the time at which Great Britain
inaugurated this policy, and no ministers than those by whom it was
to be carried out. On essential political questions which divided the
colonists and the mother country Great Britain herself was in the midst
of a revolution. The new policy which was inaugurated fell into the
hands of those opposed to it. Whig ministers were charged with the
execution of an illiberal and reactionary scheme. Consequently, the
administration of American affairs was weak and vacillating. The result
was inevitable. Had Pitt, with his large views and great administrative
abilities, been at the head of affairs for ten years after the peace,
the Revolution might have been postponed. On the other hand, had the
mercantile system during the same period been administered with the
unity of purpose and thoroughness of measures which characterized
Carleton's administration in Canada, and had it been enforced by the
military genius of Clive, the rebellion might have been temporarily
suppressed.

In the journals and statutes of the provincial assemblies we find
from the beginning a similarity of causes leading to the final
rupture. There are the same quarrels about the royal prerogative; the
same repugnance to the navigation laws and acts of trade; the same
unwillingness to make permanent provision for the support of the royal
governors and judges, and the same restiveness under interference
with their internal affairs; but owing either to differences in their
original constitutions or of interests, commercial and agricultural,
or because of varied nationality and religion, or by reason of all
these causes combined, discontent was less general in the Southern than
in the Northern colonies. Of the Northern colonies, in Massachusetts
we find the causes which brought on the war operative and continuous
from the beginning. Party strife between friends and opponents of
prerogative existed in other colonies, but in Massachusetts the
conflict broke out with special virulence between the adherents of
Otis and those of Hutchinson. It was also intensified by the pecuniary
interests of a large part of the inhabitants of Boston, which were
affected by the enforcement of the navigation laws through the aid of
writs of assistance. It was for this enforcement that Hutchinson was
held responsible when the mob sacked his house, and were ready to do
violence to his person.

The province had received from the British Exchequer more than £60,000
sterling for the war expenses of 1759, and nearly £43,000 for those of
1761. Money was plentiful, and more was expected from the same source.
There was a lull in the angry storm of local politics when news of the
preliminaries of peace reached Boston in January, 1763. With this came
assurances that Parliament would reimburse the colonies for expenses
incurred, beyond their proportion, in the last year of the war; and
the two Houses of the General Court agreed upon an address expressing
gratitude to the king for protection against the French power, and
full of loyalty and duty. But quiet was not of long continuance.
The close of the war dried up several sources of profitable trade
or adventure,[41]—some legal, such as furnishing supplies to the
king's forces, and some illicit. Then came orders from the Board of
Trade to enforce the navigation laws, heretofore chiefly evaded, but
now to be enforced with the aid of writs of assistance. At the same
time plans were entertained by the cabinet for making changes in the
constitutions of the colonies; and what was hardly less opportune, the
English bishops incessantly pressed upon the ministry the adoption of
archbishop Secker's scheme of introducing an episcopal hierarchy into
America, which would have carried with it some of the worst features
of the prerogative.[42] The history of the period from the treaty of
1763 to the meeting of the Continental Congress at Philadelphia in
1774 is a narrative of an attempt by the British ministry to enforce
certain measures upon unwilling colonists, and of the resistance of the
colonists to those measures. Who were the ministers, what were their
measures, and how did the colonists resist them?

Pitt had carried the country through a long and glorious war; but
he was not satisfied with the results. The cost had been heavy, and
as a guaranty against future expense he meditated the substantial
annihilation of the French power. He knew that France and Spain had
entered into the Family Compact with a view to a war with England. War
with Spain was only a question of time, and he would have anticipated
its declaration by seizing the immense treasure belonging to that
power, then on the sea. This would have replenished the British
Exchequer, and perhaps have deferred a resort to American taxation.
Pitt urged this measure at a cabinet meeting, September 18, 1761.
His advice was not followed, and he resigned October 5. But war was
declared against Spain, January 1, 1762, and carried on with brilliant
results, though the golden opportunity of securing the Spanish treasure
was lost. The preliminaries of peace were signed at Fontainebleau,
November 3, 1763.

[Illustration: GEORGE III.

(From Andrews's _Hist. of the War_, London, 1785, vol. i. It follows a
painting by Reynolds. Cf. cut in Murray's _History_, vol. i.—ED.)]

This virtually ended Pitt's connection with the ministry and with the
conduct of American affairs as a leader; for although he was again at
the head of the ministry from August 2, 1766, to October, 1768, his
direction was merely nominal. It was during his administration that
the Townshend Acts were passed, and the Mutiny Act extended to the
colonies,—facts which show divided counsels and the lack of uniform
purpose. Pitt seldom appeared in the ministry except to oppose his own
government. Whenever his great powers were most needed by sore-pressed
colleagues to devise some practicable policy for replenishing the
Exchequer, or for governing the colonies, he was in the country
wrestling with the gout. This was a serious loss to the mother country,
but it hastened the independence of America.

[Illustration: LORD NORTH.

From Doyle's _Official Baronage_, ii. 89. It follows Dance's picture.
Cf. J. C. Smith's _Brit. Mez. Portraits_, i. p. 135; Gay's _Pop. Hist.
U. S._, iii. 365; Walpole's _Last Journals_.—ED.]

The terms of peace with France were settled by Bute and Bedford,
against the views of Pitt; but on April 16, 1763, Bute retired from
the ministry, before the new policy for the government of the colonies
had been fully developed. He was succeeded by George Grenville, who
continued at the head of the government until July, 1765. Grenville was
able, well informed, and thoroughly honest. His knowledge of financial
matters was extensive and accurate, and, as Chancellor of the Exchequer
during the preceding administration, he had become familiar with the
difficulties of providing for the expenses of government. No question
could have been more perplexing at this time. A certain amount of
revenue was required to meet the interest on the public debt, and to
defray current expenses. Economic theories of commercial policy would
not serve as an item in the budget. The minister needed the money,
and the Stamp Act was framed and passed. He also encountered other
difficulties when public sentiment had become inflamed by the question
of General Warrants. His relations to the king were unfriendly. Pitt
threw his influence into the scale of the opposition, and Grenville's
administration was a failure.

[Illustration]

The Rockingham ministry began July 13, 1765, and ended August 2,
1766. The colonists themselves could hardly have chosen one more to
their mind. It was weak and vacillating. It repealed the Stamp Act,
and passed the Declaratory Bill. To Dowdswell, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, the Massachusetts House voted their thanks. Then came
the Chatham-Grafton ministry, which was in power until December 31,
1769. This was nominally Pitt's ministry; but his elevation to the
peerage impaired his influence with the people, and after nine months
he retired from public affairs by reason of ill health. Men of such
opposite views and character as Shelburne, Hillsborough, Charles
Townshend, and Lord North were of this ministry.

Lord North was premier from February 10, 1770, to September 6, 1780.
Long after he wished to retire he continued to hold power at the
personal solicitation, and even by the command, of the king. He was
able, faithful, and patriotic; but his heart was not in the work of
subduing the colonies, nor could he pilot the ship of state through
dangerous seas.

Such were the ministers at one of the most critical periods in English
history. No first-class man is to be found among them save Pitt, and
his real attitude was that of opposition. He raised the storm, but when
his hand ought to have been on the helm he was prostrate in the cabin.

Nor were the governors of Massachusetts, during a period when affairs
needed a firm hand, although worthy gentlemen, altogether such as a
far-seeing ministry would have chosen to carry out the new policy.
Shirley was the only governor of Massachusetts who possessed the
favor of the people; and yet he believed in the king's prerogative,
and valued himself highly as its representative. He endeavored to
suppress illicit trade and to enforce the navigation laws; and from
his conferences with Franklin, it is certain that he contemplated some
radical changes in the constitutions of the colonies.[43] But he got
more money from the people for public uses than any previous governor,
and even persuaded them to pass a provincial stamp act.[44] The secret
of Shirley's influence may have been that he was less eager to secure
his own salary than some of his predecessors had shown themselves to
be, and that he had displayed unequalled activity in conducting the
French war, which engaged the attention of the people. Pownall, who
succeeded Shirley, belonged to the popular party. He gave no particular
attention to the navigation laws, and was on the opposite side from
Hutchinson, who was lieutenant-governor during the latter part of his
term, which closed in 1760.

After Pownall came Bernard, and with him the beginning of the
Revolution. Bernard was not without ability, accomplishments, and
good intentions; but he was a Tory. More firmly even than Shirley,
he believed in the royal prerogatives, and in some modification of
the provincial charters to bring their action into harmony with the
imperial system. During his administration, and in some cases at his
suggestion, the ministry entered upon that series of measures which
lost the colonies to Great Britain: the enforcement of the navigation
laws; the use of writs of assistance; Grenville's revenue acts in 1764;
the Stamp Act of 1765; the Townshend duties of 1767; and the arrival of
military forces in 1768.

The purposes contemplated by these successive administrations were not
unreasonable, nor were the measures by which they sought to accomplish
them unwise in themselves. The general policy was the same as that
afterwards pursued by the colonies when they had become a great
empire,—homogeneity, equal contributions to expenses, a preference for
their own shipping, and protection to their own industries.

The difficulty arose from a misconception of the relations of the
colonies to the mother country. They were not a part of the realm, and
could neither equally share its privileges nor justly bear its burdens.
The attempt to bring them within imperial legislation failed, and
could only fail. They were colonies; and the chief benefit the parent
state could legitimately derive from them was the trade which would
flow naturally to Great Britain by reason of the political connection,
and would increase with the prosperity of the colonies.

Early in 1763 the Bute ministry, of which George Grenville and Charles
Townshend were members, entered upon the new policy. To enforce the
navigation laws, armed cutters cruised about the British coast and
along the American shores; their officers, for the first time, and
much to their disgust, being required to act as revenue officers.
To give unity to their efforts, an admiral was stationed on the
coast. To adjudicate upon seizures of contraband goods, and other
offences against the revenue, a vice-admiralty court, with enlarged
jurisdiction, and sitting without juries, was set up.[45] Royal
governors, hitherto chiefly occupied with domestic administration,
were now obliged to watch the commerce of an empire. It was seen long
before this time that the successful administration of the new system
would require some modification of the provincial charters; but the
difficulties were so serious that the matter was deferred.

Such was the new order of things. The student who reflects upon the
complete and radical change effected or threatened by these new
measures, so much at variance with the habits and customary rights
of the colonists, breaking up without notice not only illicit but
legitimate trade, and sweeping away their commercial prosperity, is no
longer at loss to account for the outburst of wrath which followed the
Stamp Act, a year later.[46] To avert these hostile proceedings, the
colonists memorialized the king and Parliament. They employed resident
agents to act in their behalf. They availed themselves of party
divisions and animosities in England. They alarmed British merchants
by non-importation and self-denying agreements. When these measures
seemed likely to prove ineffectual, they aroused public sentiment
through the press, by public gatherings and legislative resolutions, by
committees of correspondence between towns and colonies, and finally
by continental congresses. They did not scruple to avail themselves of
popular violence, nor, in the last extremity, of armed resistance to
British authority.

So far as trade and commerce were concerned, it was a struggle between
British and colonial merchants. The colonial merchants desired freedom
of commerce; the British merchant desired its monopoly. But this does
not state the case precisely; for the colonial merchants were desirous
of retaining what they possessed rather than of acquiring something
new. By the navigation laws the British merchant had a legal monopoly
of certain specified trades; but by evading these laws, the colonial
merchants had gained a large part of this trade for themselves.
One party, standing on legal rights, wished to recover this lost
trade; the other party, basing their claim on natural equity and long
enjoyment, wished to retain it. This was an old question, a hundred
years old; but it had acquired new interest since the government,
with the aid of writs of assistance, had undertaken to enforce the
navigation laws and acts of trade. Such was the first issue between the
parties. The second was this, and it was new: As has been said, Great
Britain had never undertaken to raise a revenue from the colonies,
though she had often contemplated doing so, and especially during
the French war just closed. At the close of the war it was estimated
that £300,000 would be required to man the forts about to be vacated
by the French, and to maintain twenty regiments to hold the Indians
in check, who were still under French influence and might become
dangerous, as happened in Pontiac's time; and to give efficiency to
civil administration by granting to governors, judges, and some other
officers fixed and regular salaries, instead of having them depend on
irregular and fluctuating grants of colonial assemblies. One third of
these expenses—£100,000—the ministry proposed to raise by laying
duties on importations, reserving a direct tax by stamps for fuller
consideration.

The colonists met this proposition by denying both the necessity and
the right of raising a revenue,—at first distinguishing between
external and internal taxes, and finally objecting to all taxes raised
by a Parliament in which they neither were nor practically could be
represented. These issues were complicated with several others of long
standing, but which may be left out of the account here.

The popular idea has been that the Revolution began with the Stamp
Act. But it seems strange that prosperous colonists, in whose behalf
the British people had expended £60,000,000 sterling, should refuse to
pay £100,000, one third of the sum deemed necessary for their future
defence, and that months before they were called upon to raise the
first penny they should fall into a paroxysm of rage, from one end of
the continent to the other, and commit disgraceful acts of violence
upon property and against persons of the most estimable character.

This view, however, overlooks several facts. If we disregard the
chronic quarrels in all the colonies, growing out of the exercise of
the royal prerogatives, Virginia and Massachusetts especially had been
aroused on the abstract questions concerning the relations of the
colonies to Great Britain, and in them the earliest demonstrations of
hostility to the Stamp Act were manifested. In the famous "Parsons
Case" argued by Patrick Henry in December, 1763, in words which rang
through Virginia because they affected every man in that colony,
he drew the prerogative into question, not only in regard to the
ecclesiastical supremacy of the Anglican hierarchy, but also on the
right of the king to negative the "Two-penny Act" of the colonial
assembly. In Massachusetts, James Otis, in 1761, arguing the writs of
assistance, assumed the natural rights of the colonists to absolute
independence. But the promulgation of none of these theories of
abstract rights accounts for the general outbreak in 1765. Its
most potent influence was the enforcement of the navigation acts in
the great commercial centres, and the ruin threatening New England
through the breaking up of her trade with the French West Indies and
the Spanish Main[47] by the modification of the Sugar Act in 1764.
The staples of New England were fish, cattle, and lumber. The better
quality of fish found a market in Europe, but this trade was subject
to competition. For the poorer quality the chief market was in the
French West Indies, where by the French law it could be exchanged only
for molasses. This was shipped to New England, and used not only in
its raw state, but distilled into rum, which, besides supplying home
consumption, was to some extent exported to Africa in exchange for
slaves. This trade and commerce with the Spanish Main was the chief
source of the wealth of New England. But in 1733, to protect the
sugar industry of the English West India islands, a duty amounting
to prohibition was laid on all sugar and molasses imported into the
American colonies from the French islands. So long as this act was not
enforced, it did little harm; but if enforced, it would not only ruin
the trade in rum and lumber, but injure the fisheries also, for the
English islands were limited in population and had no liking for poor
fish. The French, besides being more numerous, were less particular
as to their diet; but if they could not sell molasses, they would not
buy fish. It was proposed to modify and enforce this act. Minot[48]
says: "The business of the fishery, which, it was alleged, would be
broken up by the act, was at this time estimated in Massachusetts at
£164,000 sterling per annum; the vessels employed in it, which would be
nearly useless, at £100,000; the provisions used in it, the casks for
packing fish, and other articles, at £22,700 and upwards; to all which
there was to be added the loss of the advantage of sending lumber,
horses, provisions, and other commodities to the foreign plantations
as cargoes, the vessels employed to carry fish to Spain and Portugal,
the dismissing of 5000 seamen from their employment, the effects of the
annihilation of the fishery upon the trade of the province and of the
mother country in general, and its accumulative evils by increasing the
rival fisheries of France. This was forcibly urged as it respected the
means of remittances to England for goods imported into the province,
which had been made in specie to the amount of £150,000 sterling,
beside £90,000 in the treasurer's bills for the reimbursement money,
within the last eighteen months. The sources for obtaining this money
were through foreign countries by the means of the fishery, and would
be cut off with the trade to their plantations." This was what the
enforcement of the molasses act meant. Neither the duties laid in 1764
nor the collection of the taxes anticipated from the Stamp Act of 1765
would have produced a tithe of the evil that would have followed. John
Adams,[49] confirming the statement of Minot, says: "The strongest
apprehensions arose from the publication of the orders for the strict
execution of the molasses act, which is said to have caused a greater
alarm in the country than the taking of Fort William Henry did in
the year 1757."[50] Rumors of the intention of the ministry had been
rife for some time, and in January, 1764, the Massachusetts Assembly
wrote to their agent in London that the officers of the customs, in
pursuance of orders from the Lords of the Treasury, had lately given
public notice that the act, in all its parts, would be carried into
execution, and that the consequences would be ruinous to the trade of
the province, hurtful to all the colonies, and greatly prejudicial to
the mother country.[51]

Besides the rumors of the modification of the Sugar Act came others
respecting new duties, and a Stamp Act. In its alarm, the General
Court determined to send Hutchinson to London as special agent, to
prevent, if possible, the intended legislation. He was in favor of
allowing the colonies the freest trade, but acknowledged the supremacy
of Parliament.[52] No man knew the colonies better, or was better able
to present their just claims, than Hutchinson. He had much at stake
in the colony in which he was born, and to which he had rendered many
and honorable services. No man loved her better, or was more worthy
of honor from her. He was chosen by both Houses; but Governor Bernard
suggested doubts as to the expediency of his going to England without
the special leave of the king; and subsequently the project was laid
aside in consequence of some rising suspicions as to his political
sentiments.[53]

Ruin threatened New England. A Stamp Act was not needed to set her
aflame; and the other colonies soon had reasons of their own for
joining her in the general opposition. All parties were agreed as to
the danger, but they differed as to the remedy.

The reports which reached America in the winter of 1764, respecting
the intentions of the ministry to raise a revenue from the colonies,
were verified in the following spring. The substance of Grenville's
resolutions (with the exception of that respecting stamps, which was
laid aside for the present) became a law April 6, 1764. Bancroft has
summarized this act as "a bill modifying and perpetuating the act
of 1733, with some changes to the disadvantage of the colonies; an
extension of the navigation acts, making England the storehouse of
Asiatic as well as of European supplies; a diminution of drawbacks on
foreign articles exported to America; imposts in America, especially
on wines; a revenue duty instead of a prohibitory duty on foreign
molasses; an increased duty on sugar; various regulations to restrain
English manufactures, as well as to enforce more diligently acts of
trade; a prohibition of all trade between America and St. Pierre and
Miquelon."[54]

Organized opposition to the ministerial measures began in Boston, and
perhaps, at that time, could have begun nowhere else. For not only were
the interests of that town, in the fisheries, trade, and navigation,
the most considerable in the colonies, but there, as nowhere else in
the same degree, for more than a century, had been operative causes of
dissatisfaction connected with the navigation acts, the exercise of the
royal prerogatives, and ecclesiastical affairs; and in no other section
had Otis's declaration of the general principles of liberty found such
ready acceptance.

The Grenville Act of April, 1764, was to take effect September 30. News
of its passage had scarcely arrived in Boston before the citizens in
town meeting, May 24, voted instructions[55] to their representatives
in the General Court, which had been presented by Samuel Adams. They
were directed to endeavor to prevent proceedings designed to curtail
their trade, and to impose new taxes,—"for if their trade might be
taxed, why not their lands?"—and to obtain from the General Assembly
all needed advice and instruction, so that their agent in London might
effectually "demonstrate for them all those rights and privileges which
justly belonged to them either by charter or birth." Since the other
colonies were equally interested, their representatives were also to
endeavor to obtain coöperation in that direction.

Thus at the very outset the patriots sought counsel and union with
the sister colonies. These instructions were scattered far and wide.
The General Court came in on the 30th. June 1, letters from the
London agent were referred to a committee of which Otis was one. On
the 8th, _The Rights of the British Colonies_ was read,[56] and
again on the 12th, when it was referred to the committee of which
Otis was a member.[57] On the 13th a letter to Mauduit, their agent,
was reported, which must have made his ears tingle,[58] for it was
a scathing rebuke for neglect and inefficiency in not preventing
the injurious legislation, and for making unwarranted concessions
in behalf of the colony.[59] Otis went over the whole question of
colonial rights and grievances, but by implication he admitted that
representation in Parliament would prove satisfactory.[60] The same
committee was directed to correspond with the other governments,
requesting coöperation in their endeavors to effect the repeal of the
Sugar Act and to prevent the Stamp Act. The letter of the committee,
drawn by Otis, together with his _Rights of the Colonies_, was sent
to the agent in London, to make the best use of them in his power. As
this action taken by the House of Representatives, which did not seek
the concurrence of the Council as usual, was not regarded as judicious
by the moderate party, the governor was induced to call the General
Court together on the 12th of October. In the mean time the temper of
the merchants had become soured by revenue seizures to the amount of
£3,000.[61]

The General Court (November 3), in answer to the governor's speech,
elaborately discussed the act of Parliament, and the same day agreed
upon a petition to the House of Commons, setting forth the injurious
nature of the new measures and of the navigation laws, as well as
deprecating their enforcement. This was accompanied by a letter to
their agent, showing historically the services and expenses of the
colony in various wars, and their willingness to share in the defence
of the empire.[62] These papers—the petition and the letter—were
drawn up by Hutchinson; but though able, candid, and convincing,
their tone did not satisfy the more ardent patriots, especially when
they were contrasted with Otis's fiery letter to the agent in June,
or when compared with similar documents emanating from some other
colonies,—that of New York in particular: for the discontent of the
colonies, to which the Boston instructions doubtless contributed,
was general, and manifested itself in petitions, remonstrances, and
correspondence.[63]

The events of 1764 left no doubt as to the manner in which the people
would receive the Stamp Act of 1765; nor, although with grievances
of their own, were they unobservant of what was going on in England.
"Wilkes and Liberty" was a familiar cry in Boston as well as in London,
and the names Whig and Tory became terms of reproach.[64]

Notwithstanding the memorials and petitions of the colonial assemblies,
and the remonstrances of their agents in London, George Grenville
persevered in his determination to bring in a stamp bill. Since its
first suggestion, he had listened patiently to the colony agents and
other friends of America; but they proposed nothing better, or so
good, if the colonies were to be taxed at all. They admitted that the
stamp tax would be inexpensive in its collection, and general in its
effect upon different classes of people. Indeed, so little did the
agents understand the real feeling in America that they—and Franklin
was among them—were quite ready, when the time came, to solicit
positions as stamp-distributors for their friends, and Richard Henry
Lee even asked a place for himself.[65] February 6, 1765, Grenville
introduced his resolutions for a Stamp Act, and put forward his plan in
a carefully prepared speech. Colonel Barré's opposition called forth
the well-known question of Charles Townshend, and the still more famous
rejoinder of the former. Pitt was away and ill. The debate occupied
but one session of the Commons, and the ministers were directed to
bring in a bill, which was done on the 13th. Numerous petitions
against it, presented by colonial agents, were rejected under the rule
which allowed no petition against a money bill. The bill passed both
Houses, and on March 22 received the royal assent. But in America
there was no apathy. If there had been a calm, it presaged the coming
storm. The passage of the bill was known in America before the end
of May, and from Virginia came the first legislative response. She
spoke through the voice of her great orator. Of Patrick Henry's six
resolutions, though supported by a powerful speech, only four, however,
were carried, May 30, by a small majority, in a House in which the
Established Church and the old aristocracy were very powerful.[66]

The General Court of Massachusetts did not meet until May 27, but
set to work so promptly that the House, June 6, under the lead of
James Otis, who had recovered from a fit of vacillation, voted that
it was highly expedient that there should be a meeting, as soon as
might be, of committees from the several colonial assemblies, "to
consult together on the present circumstances of the colonies, and
the difficulties to which they are and must be reduced by operation
of the late acts of Parliament for levying duties and taxes on the
colonies." It was agreed to send them a circular letter to that effect,
recommending a congress, in the city of New York, the first Tuesday
of October. This measure, which led to the Stamp Act Congress, was
pushed through with an unanimous vote of the House (June 6), though
probably not with the equally concordant opinion of the members; and
the circular, which was dated June 8, was immediately dispatched.[67]
James Otis, Oliver Partridge, and Timothy Ruggles—the last two having
little heart in the matter—were chosen delegates. The response to
the Massachusetts circular was neither unanimous, nor, from some of
the assemblies, enthusiastic.[68] At this stage of the Revolution,
in high offices and in provincial assemblies were friends of the
royal government able to make their influence felt in opposition to
popular measures. Nine of the colonies, however, were represented in
the congress, and from others came expressions of good-will. In the
mean time public sentiment was rapidly shaping itself into violent
opposition to the act. In Boston the Sons of Liberty were on the alert.
When the name of Andrew Oliver appeared among the stamp-distributors
he was hanged in effigy from the Liberty Tree on the night of the 13th
of August; and the next night the frame of a building going up on his
land, and supposed to be intended as a stamp-office, was broken in
pieces and used to consume the effigy before his own door.[69] On the
26th of the same month the records of the hated Vice-Admiralty Court
were burned by the mob, the house of the comptroller of the customs
sacked, and that of Chief Justice Hutchinson forcibly entered and
left in ruins. His plate and money were carried off, and his books
and valuable manuscripts were thrown into the streets. Nor did he or
his family escape without difficulty. The militia were not called
out to maintain order, for many of the privates were in the mob. Men
of standing secretly connived at proceedings which they afterwards
insincerely condemned. Though these violent outbreaks came earlier
and were carried to greater excess in Massachusetts than in any other
province, similar demonstrations followed in Rhode Island, Connecticut,
New York, and Pennsylvania.[70]

When the Stamp Act Congress met in New York, October 7, 1765, that
city was the headquarters of the British forces in America, under the
command of General Gage. Lieutenant-Governor Colden, then filling the
executive chair, was in favor of the act, and resolved to execute it;
but the Sons of Liberty expressed different sentiments. The Congress
contained men some of whom became celebrated. Timothy Ruggles was
chosen speaker, but Otis was the leading spirit. In full accord with
him were the Livingstons of New York, Dickinson of Pennsylvania,
McKean and Rodney of Delaware, Tilghman of Maryland, and Rutledge and
the elder Lynch of South Carolina. New Hampshire, Virginia, North
Carolina, and Georgia failed to send delegates, but not for lack of
interest in the cause. The Congress prepared a Declaration of Rights
and Grievances, An Address to the King, a Memorial to the House of
Lords, and a Petition to the House of Commons, and adjourned on October
25th. For a clear, accurate, and calm statement of the position of the
colonies these papers were never surpassed; nor, until the appearance
of the Declaration of Independence, was any advance made from the
ground taken in them.[71]

It is not to be inferred from the results of their proceedings that
there were no differences of opinion among the delegates. Several of
them afterwards took sides with the king; and there was doubtless
diversity of sentiment on the Stamp Act, as well as in Parliament,
which reassembled January 14, 1766, under a different ministry from
that which had carried the measure less than a year before. For in
a few months after the passage of the act, George III., chiefly on
personal grounds, had changed his legal advisers. After negotiations
with Pitt had failed, a new ministry, with the Marquis of Rockingham
as chief, and the Duke of Grafton and General Conway as Secretaries
of State, was installed, July 13, 1765. It was a Whig ministry. With
it, though not of it, was associated Edmund Burke, private secretary
of Rockingham, and not long after, through his influence, a member of
the House of Commons. This change of the ministry was regarded with
favor by the colonists, and doubtless encouraged their resistance to
the Stamp Act. The action of the colonists produced a great effect
on the new ministry, and alarmed the British merchants trading with
America. Their trade had been threatened by non-importation agreements
made to take effect January 1, 1766, and their debts were imperilled by
the determination of the colonists to withhold the amount of them as
pledges for good conduct. The general confusion likely to arise in the
administration of justice, and the transactions of the custom-house,
from want of stamps, brought the ministry to their wits' end.
Parliament assembled December 17th. But notwithstanding an effort by
Grenville to bring on a general consideration of American affairs, the
subject was postponed until after the holidays.

[Illustration: ROCKINGHAM.

From Doyle's _Official Baronage_, iii. 170.—ED.]

In the mean time some embarrassment was anticipated from the want of
stamps, November 1,[72] when the act was to go into operation. Governor
Bernard (September 25) had called the attention of the House of
Representatives to the courts, which guarded the property and persons
of the inhabitants, and to the custom-houses, upon which depended legal
trade and navigation. The House, in its answer, October 23, had not
shared his excellency's apprehensions, but was not then quite ready to
say, as it said three months later (January 17, 1766), "The courts of
justice must be open,—open immediately,—and the law, the great rule
of right in every county of the province, executed."[73] But this
attitude had not been taken without intermediate steps. In December the
town of Boston presented a petition to the governor and council for
the reopening of the courts, which was supported by John Adams, who
then first publicly identified himself with the patriot cause, of which
he became one of the most efficient advocates. After some delay and
inconvenience, the courts and custom-houses throughout the colonies,
early in the spring, took the risk of proceeding without stamped
papers, trusting to find their justification in necessity.

Parliament reassembled January 14, 1766. The king's speech opened with
a reference to "affairs in America, and Mr. Secretary Conway laid
before the House of Commons important letters and papers on the same
subject." On the 17th a petition of the merchants of London trading
with North America against the Stamp Act was presented. Then (January
28) followed the examination of Franklin, in relation to the Stamp
Act, before the House, in committee.[74] With this mass of information
before them, American affairs received an exhaustive discussion. The
Stamp Act was repealed, and the royal assent was given March 18th. The
debates on the Declaratory Act were no less full. It was a memorable
session,—memorable for the first speech of Burke; for those great
speeches of Pitt which placed him at the head of modern orators, for
Grenville's masterly defence of his colonial policy, and for Franklin's
examination. It was also memorable for the constitutional discussions
of Mansfield and Camden in the House of Lords. If the reader finds
it difficult to resist Mansfield's judicial interpretation of the
British Constitution adverse to the American claim, he recognizes in
the great principles then enunciated the force which popularized that
Constitution and marked a forward movement of the British race.

The Declaratory Act—that the king, with the advice of Parliament, had
full power to make laws binding America in all cases whatsoever—was
passed. This gave Pitt some trouble, considering his emphatic
declaration in that regard; but the liberal party in the colonies
soon met it with the counter-affirmation that Parliament possessed
no authority whatever in America except by consent of the provincial
assemblies. If the colonists had not forced the British government from
its position, they had advanced from their own. The repeal, however,
caused great rejoicing on both sides of the Atlantic. British merchants
expected no further trouble from non-importation agreements, and hoped
that the colonists would now pay their debts,—amounting to £4,000,000.
But there were misgivings on both sides. The ardent patriots were
outspoken in condemning the Declaratory Act, which Franklin had thought
would give no trouble. But the act of 1764, laying duties, remained;
and the enforcement of the navigation laws—their real grievance—lost
none of its vigor. Governor Bernard was under instructions to enforce
the laws against illicit trade; and in addition to these official
obligations, his share in the forfeitures of condemned goods laid his
motives open to suspicion. Nothing could have been more unfortunate for
his administration. It was also alleged that merchants were encouraged
in schemes to defraud the revenue; and that when their ships and
cargoes were compromised, they were seized and condemned. At a time
when conciliatory measures were needed to reassure the colonists,
the harshest were followed. Nevertheless, the repeal weakened the
prerogative party on both sides of the water, and encouraged the
liberal party by a knowledge of its power.

[Illustration: GLORIOUS NEWS

Fac-simile of an original in the library of the Mass. Hist.
Society.—ED.]

Governor Bernard opened the General Court, May 29, 1766, with
congratulations on the repeal of the Stamp Act. If he had stopped
there he would have acted wisely; but he alluded to the "fury of
the people" in their treatment of Hutchinson, and to some personal
matters, which called forth a reply from the House couched in terms
showing no abatement of animosity. This was increased on the receipt
of another message from the governor (June 3), enclosing the Act of
Repeal and the Declaratory Act, and at the same time informing them
that he had been directed by Secretary Conway to recommend "that full
and ample compensation be made to the late sufferers by the madness
of the people", agreeably to the votes of the House of Commons. He
also complained of their exclusion of the principal crown officers
from the Council by non-election.[75] The General Court promptly
availed themselves of this last topic for reply, instead of committing
themselves on the matter of compensation. They did not fail, however,
to vote a politic address of thanks to the king for assenting to the
repeal of the Stamp Act, and to offer their grateful acknowledgments
to Pitt and those members of the two Houses who had advocated it.[76]
But the subject of compensation could not be passed by. The governor
urged prompt compliance with the recommendation of Conway. The House,
however, professing the greatest abhorrence of the madness and
barbarity of the rioters, and promising their endeavors "to bring the
perpetrators of so horrid a fact to exemplary justice, and, if it be
in their power, to a pecuniary restitution of all damages", regarded
compensation by the province as not an act of justice, but rather of
generosity, and wished to consult their constituents. Therefore they
referred the matter to the next session.[77]

In December the two Houses passed a bill granting compensation to those
who had suffered losses in the Stamp Act riots, but, on the suggestion
of Joseph Hawley, accompanied it with a general pardon, indemnity and
oblivion to the offenders. Why they should have been so solicitous for
the safety of those who had committed crimes, condemned in June in
the severest terms, does not appear; and this invasion of the royal
prerogative of pardon did not fail to attract the attention of the
Parliament.[78]

In the late contest with Parliament the colonists had gained a victory,
but it was neither final nor precisely on the right ground. As a matter
of practical politics, they were ready to accept Pitt's distinction
between commercial regulations and internal taxes. They took the repeal
of the Stamp Act with thanks, but not as a finality. They participated
in the lively demonstrations of joy which followed that event on both
sides of the Atlantic; but thoughtful observers on both sides perceived
that one of the most powerful agencies in effecting the repeal was
the mercantile class, which had no intention of relinquishing its
grasp upon colonial commerce. Nor was the popular feeling without
guidance. It was the good fortune of the colonists, all through the
long contest, to have statesmen like John Adams, Jay, and Dickinson,
who could supplement the passionate appeals of Otis and some of his
associates with the calm reasons of political philosophy. None rendered
more valuable services in this respect than John Adams. In a series
of papers which appeared in the _Boston Gazette_ in the summer and
fall of 1765,—when the minds of the people were inflamed by the Stamp
Act,—and were afterwards republished in London as _A Dissertation on
the Canon and Feudal Law_, he combated the ecclesiastical and feudal
principles which lay at the bottom of the monarchical and Anglican
system.

The substantial grievance of the commercial colonies was not the Stamp
Act, which had not taken a farthing from their pockets. It was the
enforcement of trade regulations, which impaired the value of the
fisheries and dried up a principal source of revenue. A renewal of
the contest, and for the first time on its true grounds, was not long
postponed. The Rockingham ministry gave way, and Pitt, gazetted Earl
of Chatham July 30, 1766, took the helm of state August 2d, and was
the nominal head of the government until October, 1768. Among those
associated with him were the Duke of Grafton, Charles Townshend,
Conway, and the Earl of Shelburne. It was Pitt's misfortune—and his
country's—during these stormy times, that when he was most needed he
was disabled by sickness. Historians have speculated as to the probable
pacification of America had Pitt—not Chatham—guided affairs.[79]
Pitt's was a great name in America as well as in Europe. By his genius
the French power in America had been destroyed. This the colonists
knew. He had been generous in reimbursing their expenses in the late
war. This, and his efforts in effecting the repeal of the Stamp Act,
they remembered with gratitude. Whatever man could do in restoring
things to their old order Pitt could have done. He might even have
relinquished something of his claims for parliamentary supremacy in
respect to trade and general legislation; but it is doubtful whether,
even at that early period, he could have eradicated the ideas of
independence which had taken possession of the colonists, or have
arrested the movement which resulted in the independence of America and
the overthrow of the royal prerogative in England.

[Illustration: JOHN ADAMS. (_Amsterdam print._)

The Amsterdam edition, 1782, of _Geschiedenis van het Geschil tusschen
Groot-Britannie en Amerika ... door zijne Excellentie, den Heere John
Adams_.

There is a likeness of John Adams as a young man engraved in his _Life
and Works_, vol. ii. He says of himself at the time of the famous scene
when Otis was making his plea against the Writs of Assistance, and he
was taking notes of it, that the artist depicting it would have to
represent the young reporter as "looking like a short, thick Archbishop
of Canterbury" (_Works_, x. 245). There was a print published in London
in 1783 showing a head in a circle, which is reproduced in the _Mag.
of Amer. Hist._, xi. 93. Copley painted him once, in 1783, in court
dress, and the painting now hangs in Memorial Hall, Cambridge. The
head of this full-length picture was engraved for Stockdale's edition
of Adams's _Defence of the Constitutions_, published in 1794; and the
painting was never engraved to show the entire figure till it appeared
in vol. v. of the _Works_ (A. T. Perkins's _Copley_, p. 27). Cf. the
head in Bartlett Woodward's _United States_.

Stuart first painted him in 1812, and this picture belongs to his
descendants, and is engraved in the _Works_, vol. i. There are copies
of this picture by Gilbert Stuart Newton and B. Otis, both of which
have been engraved. The Newton copy is in the Mass. Hist. Society
(_Catal. of Cabinet_, no. 47; _Proc._, 1862, p. 3). The Otis copy
has been engraved by J. B. Longacre (Sanderson's _Signers_, vol.
viii.). Stuart again painted Adams in 1825, the year before he died,
representing him as sitting at one end of a sofa. It is engraved on
steel in the _Works_, vol. x., and on wood in the _Mem. Hist. Boston_,
iii. 192. (Cf. Mason's _Stuart_, p. 125.) Another Stuart is owned by
Mr. T. Jefferson Coolidge, of Boston.

A portrait by Col. John Trumbull also hangs in Memorial Hall,
Cambridge; and Adams's likeness is also in Independence Hall. (Cf.
Irving's _Washington_, quarto ed., vol. v.) A cabinet full-length by
Winstanley, painted while Adams was at the Hague (1782), is in the
Boston Museum (Johnston's _Orig. Portraits of Washington_, p. 93).

Among the contemporary popular engravings, mention may be made of that
by Norman in the _Boston Magazine_, Feb., 1784; one in the _European
Magazine_ (vol. iv. 83).

Stuart also painted a portrait of the wife of John Adams, which is
engraved in the _Works_, vol. ix. A picture of her by Blythe, at the
age of twenty-one, accompanies the _Familiar Letters_.

Views of the Adams homestead in Quincy, Mass., are given in the _Works_
(vol. i. p. 598); in _Appleton's Journal_ (xii. 385); in Mrs. Lamb's
_Homes of America_. An india-ink sketch, showing a distant view of
Boston beyond the house, is in the halls of the Bostonian Society.—ED.]

The Massachusetts Assembly was in no amiable frame of mind. When there
was no cause for quarrel, they made one. Bernard had probably been
advised to preserve a prudent silence respecting political affairs.
At the opening of the session, January 28, 1767, in a message of less
than ten printed lines, he recommended "the support of the authority
of the government, the maintenance of the honor of the province, and
the promotion of the welfare of the people", as the chief objects for
their consultation. This called forth a captious reply, and a complaint
because Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson, who had not been reëlected to
the Council, appeared in the council-chamber at the opening of the
session, at the request of the governor and as matter of courtesy.
The House found in his presence, if voluntary, "a new and additional
instance of ambition and lust of power."

[Illustration: AUTOGRAPH OF JOHN ADAMS, 1815.

Part of a letter in Smith and Watson's _Hist. and Lit. Curios_., 1st
ser., pl. vii.—ED.]

In the spring of 1767, Parliament had occasion to inquire into some
colonial legislation. In April, 1765, the Mutiny Act had been extended
to the colonies. This was intended in part to provide for military
offences not within the jurisdiction of civil courts, and in part
to require the colonies in America, as in England in like cases,
to provide for quartering the king's troops. The New York Assembly
made only partial provision. When Sir Henry Moore, the governor,
communicated to them the letter of Earl Shelburne, to the effect that
the king expected obedience to the act, the Assembly resolved not to
comply, and called in question the authority of Parliament. Parliament
then took the matter in hand, and suspended their legislative authority
until compliance.[80] This action brought them to terms. It made
considerable stir throughout the colonies, and was regarded as a
serious invasion of their rights.

The arrival of several companies of royal artillery at Boston, in
the fall of 1766, and the quartering of them at the expense of the
province, by order of the governor and council, gave the General Court
occasion, at their session in January, 1767, to express their opinion
about unauthorized expenditures of the public money, and to enquire if
more troops were expected.[81] The governor explained the quartering
of the troops, and said he had no expectation, except from common
rumor, of the arrival of additional forces. But his statement failed to
allay apprehensions of a design on the part of the ministry to support
their measures by military power. Added to other causes of alarm in
1767 was a report that Anglican bishops were about to be supported in
the colonies, at the expense and under the patronage of the British
government.

In 1767 strife was renewed on what are known as the Townshend
Acts. Charles Townshend was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the
Chatham-Grafton ministry. He had reluctantly voted for the repeal of
the Stamp Act, and still held to his opinions that the colonists should
pay some share of the civil and military expenses arising from their
defence and government; and if, to secure promptness and uniformity of
action, some modification of their charters should be found necessary,
then that ought to follow. In conformity with these views, he had
given some pledges in respect to deriving a revenue from America,
and, during Chatham's retirement, had brought forward his scheme of
taxation in certain resolutions of the Committee of Ways and Means,
April 16, 1767,[82] the substance of which was enacted June 29th, to go
into effect November 20th. There were two acts known as the Townshend
Acts: the first[83] providing for the more effectual execution of
the laws of trade, and for the appointment of commissioners for that
purpose; and the second[84] granting duties on glass, paper, colors,
and tea, and legalizing writs of assistance. The revenue thus raised
was to be applied to "defraying the charge of the administration of
justice, and the support of the civil government in such provinces
where it should be found necessary; and towards further defraying the
expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the said dominions."
Before the act went into operation Charles Townshend died (September
4, 1767), and Chatham's powers continued to be enfeebled by disease.
It was the misfortune of Great Britain that both these able men should
have been withdrawn from the public service during this critical
period, and that the policy of each had to be represented by inferior
men. Chatham's conciliatory methods had no fair trial; and Townshend's
coercive measures were pressed neither with unity of purpose nor vigor
of execution.

Between the passage of Townshend's Acts in the summer of 1767 and their
taking effect in November, the colonists had ample time to study and
organize opposition, stimulated by the arrival (November 5, 1767) of
Burch and Hulton, two of the five commissioners of customs who had
been sent over to enforce them. At first the people expressed their
resentment, in which, as usual, those of Boston took the lead, by
renewing their non-importation agreements. In the mean time efforts
had been made to introduce domestic manufactures.[85] These practical
measures in Massachusetts were supplemented by one of the ablest
discussions of colonial rights which had yet appeared. In the early
winter of 1767-8 John Dickinson published in a Philadelphia newspaper a
series of essays entitled _The Farmer's Letters_, which soon attracted
notice both in America and England.

[Illustration:

From _An impartial History of the War in America_ (Boston, 1781), vol.
i. p. 325, engraved by J. Norman, a Boston engraver.

In 1772, when Adams was forty-nine, John Hancock commissioned Copley
to paint pictures of Adams and himself, to commemorate their political
union, and the two portraits hung for many years in the Hancock mansion
on Beacon Street in Boston, before they were given to the town. That of
Adams is a three-quarters length, and shows him standing at a table,
holding a paper, in the attitude of speaking (Perkins's _Copley_, p.
28). As engraved by H. B. Hall, it is given in Wells's _Life of Samuel
Adams_, vol. i.; and it is also engraved in Delaplaine's _Repository_
(1815); in Bancroft, vol. vii. (orig. ed.), and in other places, as
well as, on wood, in the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_ (iii. 35). After having
hung for some years in Faneuil Hall, it has now been transferred to the
Art Museum. It was engraved—the bust only—by Paul Revere, for the
_Royal American Mag._, April, 1774, and a reproduction of this is given
by Wells (vol. ii.). A copy of the original was made by J. Mitchell,
and from this a mezzotint by Samuel Okey was issued at Newport in 1775.

Another and smaller picture, also by Copley (Perkins, p. 29), and
said to have been painted in 1770, hangs in Memorial Hall, Cambridge,
and has been engraved in the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, ii. 438. Cf.
Sanderson's _Signers_, vol. ix.

The Copley type of head characterizes the engraving by J. Norman, given
above from the Boston edition of a current history. The London edition
(1780) of the same book has a picture which has little resemblance to
the Copley type, as will be seen by the fac-simile likewise herewith
given, and marked "London, 1780."

There was a picture made late in life by John Johnson, which has been
destroyed; but from a mezzotint of it, made in 1797 by Graham, H. B.
Hall reëngraved it for Wells's third volume, and on wood in Higginson's
_Larger History_, p. 255.

The statue by Miss Whitney follows the Copley head. One copy of this
is in the Capitol at Washington, and another in Dock Square, in
Boston.—ED.]

Their influence among all classes was widespread and profound.

[Illustration: SAMUEL ADAMS, LONDON, 1780.]

The year 1768 was one of the most momentous of the Revolutionary
period. Hitherto the colonists, in defence of their property, had
denied the supremacy of Parliament as based on usurpation; but now,
in defence of their privileges, they denied the prerogative of the
king, the source of their political existence. This grew out of the
Massachusetts Circular Letter. The General Court came together December
30, 1767. John Hancock, James Otis, and Joseph Hawley were prominent
members, but though James Otis was still active, Samuel Adams was
the master spirit. Never was his practical sagacity more serviceable
to the cause; never did his genius for politics shine brighter. His
fruitful pen is apparent in the remarkable series of state papers
called forth by the Townshend Acts, comprising the letter of the
House to their London agent (January 12, 1768), the Petition to the
king (January 20), and the Circular Letter to the assemblies of the
several colonies (February 11).[86] If the Townshend Acts were to be
successfully resisted, union of sentiment and action among all the
colonies was essential. This was the object of the circular letter.
It was an arraignment of Parliament and the ministry in respect to
the revenue acts, and the system by which the British government
proposed to make civil officers, including the judges, the instruments
for its enforcement; and it solicited an interchange of opinions on
these subjects.[87] Governor Bernard watched the proceedings of the
House with the deepest interest, nor was he long in doubt as to the
nature of the circular letter, for two days after its adoption a
copy of it was proffered, in case he desired it.[88] This letter was
preceded (besides the documents already mentioned) by letters to the
Marquis of Rockingham, General Conway, Lord Camden, and to the Lords
Commissioners of the Treasury. The details of these papers cannot
be given here. They present the whole case of the colonies, their
rights, their grievances, their remonstrances, and their petitions.
They proceeded mainly from the pen of Samuel Adams, who, when he
had shaken himself clear from profuse professions of loyalty and
disclaimers of "the most distant thoughts of independence", rose to
the annunciation of the loftiest principles of statesmanship, in
the declaration that "the supreme legislative, in any free country,
derives its power from the constitution, by the fundamental rules of
which it is bounded and circumscribed;"—"that it is the glory of the
British Constitution that it hath its foundation in the law of God
and nature;"—"that the necessity of rights and property is the great
end of government;"—"that the colonists are natural-born subjects by
the spirit of the law of nature and nations;" and "that the laws of
God and nature were not made for politicians to alter." Nor does he
confine himself to the enunciation of abstract principles, but states
the rights of the colonists of Massachusetts on historical grounds,
and shows the oppressive and impolitic nature of the acts complained
of.[89] Changes were taking place in the Grafton ministry which boded
evil to the colonies. Shelburne, the most liberal friend of the
Americans, was succeeded by Hillsborough in December, 1767, and Conway
by Weymouth, January 20, 1768. While the circular letter was on its
way to the colonies and to Westminster (for it was intended also for
England), events were occurring at Boston which showed the temper of
the people, and had no inconsiderable influence upon the action of the
British government. The anniversary of the repeal of the Stamp Act,
March 18, 1768, did not pass without popular demonstrations of ill-will
to the customs officials, nor did the governor escape abusive language
from the mob.[90] For some years these officers had been resisted in
making seizures of uncustomed goods, which were frequently rescued
from their possession by interested parties, and the determination of
the commissioners of customs to break up this practice frequently led
to collisions; but no flagrant outbreak occurred until the seizure of
John Hancock's sloop "Liberty" (June 10, 1768), laden with a cargo of
Madeira wine. The officer in charge, refusing a bribe, was forcibly
locked up in the cabin, the greater part of the cargo was removed,
and the remainder entered at the custom-house as the whole cargo.
This led to seizure of the vessel, said to have been the first made
by the commissioners, and for security she was placed under the guns
of the "Romney", a man-of-war in the harbor. For this the revenue
officers were roughly handled by the mob. Their boat was burned, their
houses threatened, and they, with their alarmed families, took refuge
on board the "Romney", and finally in the Castle. These proceedings
undoubtedly led to the sending additional military forces to Boston in
September.[91]

The General Court was in session at the time, but no effectual
proceedings were taken against the rioters. Public sympathy was with
them in their purposes, if not in their measures. But the inhabitants
of Boston, in town meeting on the 14th, in an address to Governor
Bernard, probably drawn by Otis,[92] among other matters complained
of being invaded by an armed force. With grim humor, the address
represents the commissioners, who had fled for safety to the Castle,
as having "of their own notion" relinquished the exercise of their
commission, and expressed the hope that they would never resume it, and
demanded of the governor to give immediate order for the removal of
the "Romney" from the harbor. Some weeks later (June 30) the Council
passed the customary resolution, setting forth "their utter abhorrence
and detestation" of the riotous proceedings, and desiring that the
governor, through the attorney-general, would prosecute all guilty
persons, that they and "their abettors might be brought to condign
punishment."[93]

When the circular letter was laid before the ministry, April 15,
1768, it caused great excitement in parliamentary circles, and led
to the gravest mistake which was made by the government during
the entire Revolutionary period. Other measures, perhaps without
exception, had a show of necessity; nor, as the British Constitution
was then interpreted by the highest authority, were they clearly
unconstitutional. But when the Earl of Hillsborough, speaking
for the king, June 21, 1768, required the Massachusetts House of
Representatives to rescind their circular letter on pain of immediate
dissolution, there was a violation of the constitutional right of
the House to express their opposition to measures deemed injurious
to their constituents, and to communicate their sentiments to other
colonies whose interests were similarly affected. Equally unwise was
Hillsborough's letter to the colonial assemblies, requiring them to
disregard the Massachusetts circular. Responses to the circular letter,
when they expressed the sentiments of the assemblies rather than those
of the royal governors, were in full sympathy with Massachusetts.[94]
The representatives, says Bernard, "have been much elated, within
these three or four days, by some letters they have received in
answer to the circular letter",[95] and Hutchinson thought that "the
strength which would be derived from this union confirmed many who
would otherwise have been wavering."[96] But when Governor Bernard
(June 21, 1768) communicated to the House instructions from the king
to rescind the circular letter, and recommended immediate action as
of important consequence to the province, no doubt it caused anxiety.
Under a similar pressure New York had receded. The House apprehended
the gravity of the situation, and took seven or eight days for
consideration, and even then desired to consult their constituents. But
when Bernard informed them that further delay would be considered as
a refusal, they voted, 92 to 17, not to rescind, and "the number 92",
Hutchinson says, "was auspicious, and 17 of ill omen, for many months
after, not only in Massachusetts Bay, but in most of the colonies on
the continent."[97] They doubtless were influenced by Otis, who spoke
with great power, and, according to Bernard, unsparingly denounced the
ministry and "passed an encomium on Oliver Cromwell."[98] Massachusetts
deliberately disobeyed the king's command, and defied his power. Before
dissolution, the House agreed (June 30, 1768) upon a message to the
governor, arguing the question very fully, and declaring their refusal
to rescind; a letter to the Earl of Hillsborough; and a Report and
Resolves, in which they repeat the story of their grievances, doings,
and rights with great fullness and ability.[99]

The effect of this action, so honorable to the House, was unfavorable
upon the ministry. De Berdt, the London agent, in a letter to the
House, August 12, 1768, giving the substance of a conversation with
the Earl of Hillsborough, says that his lordship informed him that he
would have used his influence for the repeal of the Townshend Acts, and
believed he could have obtained it; but since the news respecting the
non-rescinding of the circular letter, the matter was in doubt. "The
crown must be supported, or we sink into a state of anarchy."

In July, 1768, General Gage, then at New York, had been directed by the
ministry to remove one or two regiments to Boston; and when the news
of the riots of March 18 reached England, on August 14, two additional
regiments were ordered from Ireland. When rumors of these orders became
rife in Boston, there were indications that the country would be raised
to prevent the landing of the troops; but different counsels prevailed.
A town meeting was held in Faneuil Hall on the 12th and 13th of
September, which agreed to call a meeting of the towns.[100] Ninety-six
towns and eight districts were finally represented in the convention
which assembled at the time appointed (September 22). Their first
act was a petition to the governor setting forth their apprehensions
in respect to a standing army. This the governor refused to receive,
but he expressed his opinion of the unauthorized meeting they were
holding, directed them to separate instantly, and threatened to assert
the prerogatives of the crown. After a recital of grievances, with
declarations of loyalty and promises of assistance to civil magistrates
in suppressing disorders, they adjourned on the 29th. Their proceedings
were moderate,—a moderation induced, as some supposed, by the arrival
at Nantasket, September 28, from Halifax of a fleet of seven armed
vessels, with nearly a thousand troops.[101] If contempt of the royal
prerogative, after the refusal to rescind the circular letter, could
have been more pointedly expressed, it was by holding a provincial
convention without sanction of law. Between these measures and April
19, 1775, no step involving a new principle was taken. The burning of
the "Gaspee" in 1772 and the destruction of the tea in 1773 were merely
the filling in of a picture firmly sketched in outline.

The refusal of the provincial council and of the town to provide
for quartering the royal troops on their arrival was a practical
nullification of the Mutiny Act, which served still further to
strain the relations between Massachusetts and the British ministry.
Parliament came together November 8, 1768. Both Houses were swift to
condemn the late proceedings of the General Court of Massachusetts
and of the town of Boston. On December 15 these acts were made the
basis of eight resolutions, introduced by the Earl of Hillsborough,
and an address to the king, moved by the Duke of Bedford, to obtain
information respecting the actors in the riotous proceedings since
December 10, 1767, with a view, if deemed advisable, of ordering
their transportation to England for trial. These were passed by the
House of Commons (January 26, 1769), after a debate in which the
whole subject of American affairs was discussed.[102] The news of
these proceedings at first created some uneasiness in Boston among
those implicated; but apprehension subsided when it was learned from
their friends in England that the voting of Bedford's Address by the
two Houses was merely political;[103] that lenient, not rigorous,
measures were intended by the ministry; and that the late act laying
duties would be repealed. This intelligence reassured the patriotic
party, but correspondingly depressed the tories, who saw no hope in
the vacillating policy of the ministry.[104] A policy was much needed.
Chatham had resigned in October, 1768, and the Duke of Grafton became
the nominal, as he had long been the real, head of the ministry. Lord
North, Chancellor of the Exchequer, had charge of the revenue. The
Duke of Grafton favored the total repeal of the Townshend duties,
but Lord North favored the retention of that on tea, as a matter of
principle; and so it was decided by a majority of one in the Cabinet
Council. Parliament rose May 9, and four days later the Earl of
Hillsborough reported to the several colonies the resolutions of the
government on the circular letter. Lord Hillsborough's letter gave
little comfort to the Massachusetts House of Representatives, whose
firmness was commended by Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the threat
of transportation of the Bostonians to England for trial under a
statute of Henry VIII. called forth from the latter colony vigorous
resolutions and an address to the king, May 16, 1769.[105] Jefferson
has given the history of these resolutions.[106] This action did not
meet the approval of Lord Botetourt, the governor of Virginia, and he
dissolved the House of Burgesses. This, however, did not prevent the
delegates from meeting at the Apollo, in the Raleigh tavern, and, as
citizens, entering into a non-importation agreement which bore the
names of Henry, Randolph, Jefferson, and Washington, and became an
example to all the colonies.[107] During the remainder of the year 1769
the progress of the Revolution was confined chiefly to Massachusetts,
and there it assumed the form of an altercation between the House of
Representatives and the governor in respect to the presence of the
king's forces.[108] Coming in for their annual session near the end
of May, the House, unwilling even to organize in the presence of the
military, sent a message to the governor, remonstrating against so
gross a breach of its privileges, and requesting him to give orders to
remove the standing army, the main guard of which was kept with cannon
pointed at the very door of the State House.[109] There was no design
in this arrangement, but it was very menacing, nevertheless. For nearly
two weeks messages kept passing back and forth, to the purport, on the
governor's side, that he had no authority to remove the troops, they
being under the commander-in-chief; and on the part of the House, that
they would do no business while the troops remained. It occurred to the
governor that, if he could not remove the troops, he could remove the
General Court; and this he did by directing the secretary to adjourn it
to Cambridge. The Court did not appreciate this stroke of humor, and
proceeded to business only after a protest of necessity. But Bernard's
career was drawing to a close. June 28th he informed the House that the
king desired him to repair to Great Britain. July 8th the House passed
nineteen resolutions,[110] covering the whole ground of dispute with
the home government, and arraigning the governor for various political
misdemeanors. They petitioned for his recall; and Governor Bernard
left the province, accompanied by the reproaches of the House and
manifestations of joy by the people. He did not succeed in a position
in which all who had preceded him and all who followed him failed. He
could not serve well two masters.

[Illustration: PLAN OF KING STREET AND VICINITY.

NOTE.—The plan on the following page is a reduction from that used in
the trial following the massacre, and was made by Paul Revere. It now
belongs to the MS. collections of the writer of this chapter. The key
to the letters in the street, a part of the original drawing, is lost.
Those attached to the buildings, etc., are substituted for the legends
which are in the original, and which would be illegible in the reduced
scale of the present reproduction. They signify as follows:—

A, Doct^r Jones; B, Doct^r Roberts; C, Brigdens, goldsmith; D, John
Nazro, store; E, Main Street; F, Town house; G, Brazen Head; H, Benj.
Kent, Esq., house; I, Mrs. Clapham; J, Exchange Tavern; K, Exchange
Lane; L, Custom House; M, Col. Marshall's house; N, "N.B. The pricked
line is the Gutter;" O, Mr. Paine's house; P, Mr. Davis's house; Q,
Mr. Amory's house; R, Quaker Lane; S, Warden and Vernon's shop; T,
Levi Jening, shop; U, Mr. Peck, wa[t]ch maker, shop; V, Court Square;
W, whipping-post; X, J. & D. Waldo, shop; Y, Pudin Lane; Z, G. C.
Phillips, house; 1, Ezk. Prince, Esq., office; 2, Guard House; 3, Mr.
Bowse, shop.

Revere engraved a large folding picture of the massacre, which appeared
in the official _Short Narrative_, which has been reproduced in the
_Old State House Memorial_ (Boston, 1882, p. 82) and in the _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._ (Jan., 1886, p. 9), in an article on Revere by E. H. Goss.
A reëngraving of Revere's plate is in the London (Bingley) edition of
the same, and on a smaller scale in the other London (Dilby) edition,
and this last is reproduced in the _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 40.
Thomas's _Mass. Kalendar_ (1772) has a woodcut representation, after
Revere's drawing. Cf. nos. 579 to 583 of the _Catal. of the Cab. of the
Mass. Hist. Soc._—ED.]

When Sir Francis Bernard[111] sailed for England on board the
"Rippon", in August, 1769, he left the administration in the hands
of Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson. For several months nothing of
importance took place, except misunderstandings growing out of the
non-observance of the non-importation agreements (which were renewed
March, 1770), and quarrels between the troops and the populace which
resulted in the deplorable scenes of March 5, 1770. The circumstances
which led to this affair are too well known to need recital in
detail. While the town was occupied by British regiments, collisions
were constantly occurring. None knew better than the populace the
helplessness of the soldiers to resent insult or injury by arms.
Even in case of riots, the reading of the Act and the intervention
of the civil power were necessary preliminaries to firing upon the
crowd. Nothing but confinement of the soldiers to their barracks could
have prevented collisions with the populace. The patriot leaders had
determined to get rid of the regiments at all cost. The affair at
Gray's wharf on Saturday, March 2, led to the more serious affray on
Monday, the 5th. On the evening of that day, between seven and eight
o'clock, the cry of fire and ringing of bells drew together a large
crowd, which was followed by a collision with the troops, and resulted
in the death of three persons and wounding of several others, two
mortally. The Boston Massacre soon became known throughout the country,
and aroused a spirit of resistance hitherto unfelt. Its immediate
effect was the withdrawal of the troops from the town to the Castle,
on account of the resolute attitude assumed by Samuel Adams. The men
who lost their lives in this affray were buried in one grave, to which
they were followed by an immense procession, and for some years the
anniversary of their death was observed by commemorative ceremonies.
All classes in the community joined in execrating the soldiers, and
gave no ear to justifying or mitigating circumstances. Inflamed and
grossly inaccurate accounts of the transactions were drawn up and
scattered through the colonies and sent to Great Britain. But time
somewhat allayed the first feeling of animosity; and when the facts
became better known, it clearly appeared that the soldiers had fired,
without orders, upon the crowd only when it had become necessary in
defence of their lives. Captain Preston (October 24) and the soldiers
(November 27) engaged in the affray were brought to trial on a charge
of murder, and were all acquitted, except two soldiers who were
convicted of manslaughter. These were slightly branded, and all of them
were liberated. John Adams and Josiah Quincy, Jr., appeared in their
defence, and with equal honor the jurors did their duty in accordance
with the law and the evidence. The news of the events of March 5
became known in London April 21, through Mr. Robertson. one of the
commissioners of the customs.[112]

[Illustration: THE COURT AT THE TRIAL

A fac-simile of a group of original autographs belonging to the
writer of this chapter. Winthrop was the clerk of the court. The
Attorney-General Sewall drew the indictment, but did not appear for the
king.—ED.]

The Townshend act, though drawn conformably to the colonial
distinctions between internal and external taxes, produced the
same dissatisfaction as the Stamp Act had done. There was no real
difference. If Parliament could lay external taxes, it could lay
internal taxes. Non-importation agreements in the several colonies
followed in 1769, and so long as they were observed, even without
great strictness, were disastrous to British merchants, the value of
whose exports to the American colonies between Christmas in 1767 and
Christmas in 1769 fell off nearly £700,000 sterling; or, if we take
the figures for those colonies where the agreement was most effective,
in New England from £419,000 to £207,000, in New York from £482,000 to
£74,000.[113] Though the agreement was not observed equally in all the
colonies, nor in entire good faith in any,—Massachusetts and Rhode
Island, particularly, suffered some discredit in this respect, as
compared with New York and Philadelphia,—the general result seriously
alarmed British merchants, who petitioned Parliament for the repeal of
the Townshend act.[114] These petitions were considered in the House
of Commons March 5, 1770, and Lord North, in accordance with Earl
Hillsborough's circular letter, proposed to take off all the duties
laid by the Townshend act of 1767, except that on tea, which he would
preserve as a sort of declaratory act, especially since the conduct of
the Americans had been such as to prevent an entire compliance with
their wishes.[115] Governor Pownall offered as an amendment the entire
repeal of the act, and supported his motion in an extremely able and
interesting speech.[116]

[Illustration: THE COUNSEL OF THE GOVERNMENT AND OF THE ACCUSED

A fac-simile of a group of signatures belonging to the writer of this
chapter.—ED.]

Pownall's amendment was lost by a vote of 204 to 142. The merchants
failed to procure a repeal of the duties, although Alderman Trecothic
made one more effort in their behalf, on the 9th of April, "in a very
sensible speech."[117]

When the news of the Boston Massacre reached England late in April,
1770, it recalled attention to American affairs, which, after the
defeat of Trecothic's motion, seemed to have been laid aside for the
remainder of the session. Trecothic called for the papers.[118] While
waiting for them, Governor Pownall made a speech on the "powers of
government [which] the crown can and ought to grant to the dependencies
of the realm; what form and power of government the British subject
in those parts ought to be governed by; what powers are granted,
both civil and military; and what arrangements, and means taken, for
administering and executing these powers."[119] Burke, in the second of
eight resolutions, affirmed "that a principal cause of the disorders
which have prevailed in North America hath arisen from the ill-judged
and inconsistent instructions given, from time to time, by persons in
administration, to the governors of some of the provinces of North
America."[120] Later, the same resolutions were brought forward in
the House of Lords by the Duke of Richmond. But Burke was not acting
in good faith. A close observer wrote at the time: "It is plain
enough that these motions were not made for the sake of the colonies,
but merely to serve the purposes of the opposition, to render the
ministry, if possible, more odious, so that they may themselves come
into the conduct of affairs, while it remains very doubtful whether
they would do much better, if at all, than their predecessors."[121]
This resulted well for the colonies, and, in the long run, for the
progress of liberal ideas in both countries. But to those who wished
for the continuance of the British connection, and believed in its
practicability, it must have been a matter for profound regret that
the liberal leaders, from Chatham to Fox, simply found fault with the
acts of the ministry, and proposed nothing instead. The ministry,
conciliatory to-day and severe to-morrow, had no fixed policy. American
affairs gave way to the exigencies of a general election, just as
we have lately seen in this country, great interests jeopardized by
the unwillingness of both political parties to treat them on the
eve of a presidential election. If, instead of this vacillating
and inconsistent policy, both parties had given their attention to
devising some rational system of colonial administration, as proposed
by Pownall,[122] leaving local affairs to the colonists, but placing
imperial affairs under a permanent board, not changeable with every
ministry, the colonies and the mother-country might have remained
united, perhaps for a generation, longer.

The Townshend duties, except those on tea, were repealed in April; but
this did not satisfy the colonists, and dissensions arose among the
merchants of the several colonies in regard to the non-importation
agreement. Those of New York became dissatisfied with Boston and
Newport merchants, who had agreed to import non-dutiable articles,
even before the news of the repealing act; and in October, 1770, all
sections fell into the same plan, but no teas were to be imported. The
Sons of Liberty in New York in vain resisted this arrangement.

In Massachusetts the patriots were seldom without causes of just
complaint. Governor Hutchinson, in obedience to instructions of General
Gage, had delivered (September 10) the keys of Castle William, in
Boston harbor, which belonged to the province, to Colonel Dalrymple,
who was the servant of the king; and following royal instructions, had
refused to convene the General Court at Boston, instead of Cambridge,
or to assent to any bill by which the assessors (in 1771) could tax the
officers of the crown.[123] These exercises of the royal prerogative,
and the payment of the governor's salary by the crown, involved
constitutional questions of higher import, as the British Constitution
then stood, than the question of parliamentary supremacy, and were
matters of unceasing contention. In 1770, Franklin was chosen London
agent of the colony, although not without some objection, in the place
of De Berdt, recently deceased (May), and Hutchinson was appointed
governor in March, 1771.

In 1772, although it was a year of general quiet, two events happened,
which, in different ways, promoted the purposes of the more ardent
patriots,—the burning of the "Gaspee" at Providence in June, and the
formation of committees of correspondence in November. On the 9th of
June, Lieutenant Dudingston, commander of the "Gaspee", who had shown
great activity in the revenue service at Rhode Island, in undertaking
to intercept the "Providence Packet", Captain Lindsay, ran aground on
Namquit Point. While in this position, the "Gaspee" was boarded on the
following night by a party of citizens led by John Brown, a respectable
merchant. In the _mêlée_ the lieutenant was wounded and the vessel was
burned. The affair created a great sensation in England, and it was
ordered that those engaged in it should be sent to England for trial.
For this purpose the home government appointed colonial commissioners,
who sat at Newport from the 4th to the 22 January, 1773, to inquire
into the matter.[124] At the end of their deliberations they required
Wanton, the governor of Rhode Island, to arrest the offenders, for
trial in England. He appealed for directions to the Assembly, as did
Stephen Hopkins, the chief-justice of the highest court. That body
referred the matter to the discretion of the chief-justice, and he
accordingly refused to arrest, or to allow the arrest of, any person
for transportation.[125] Nothing came of the order except ill-humor in
England and indignation in the colonies, where it was regarded as an
invasion of their constitutional right of trial by their peers.

Samuel Adams was always busy on political subjects; nor were subjects
wanting. The Earl of Hillsborough had been succeeded in the American
department (August 4, 1772) by Lord Dartmouth; but the change in
administration made no change in the policy of paying the salaries
of the provincial judges by the king, and thus rendering them less
dependent on the popular will. This was thought to be in derogation of
colonial rights, especially so long as the judges held their seats only
during the king's pleasure.

[Illustration: JOSEPH WARREN.

From a pastel owned by the heirs of the late Hon. C. F. Adams. It is
unfinished below the chest.—ED.]

Accordingly, a town meeting assembled in Faneuil Hall, October 28,
and adjourned November 2d. Samuel Adams moved "that a committee of
correspondence be appointed, to consist of twenty-one persons, to state
the rights of the colonies, and of this province in particular, as
men, as Christians, and as subjects; to communicate and publish the
same to the several towns in this province and to the world, as the
sense of this town, with the infringements and violations thereof that
have been, or from time to time may be, made; also requesting of each
town a free communication of their sentiments on this subject."[126]
This was the beginning of an organization (November 22), entered into
with hesitation by some of the leading patriots of Boston, which
finally secured the public confidence, and became a great power for the
concentration of popular sentiment.

[Illustration: PRINTED PAGE.

Slightly reduced from an original in the Boston Public Library.—ED.]

It undoubtedly led to the larger measure of intercolonial
correspondence instituted by Virginia during the next spring; and not
the least of its claims to consideration is the fact that it engaged
the attention and secured the services of Joseph Warren as the trusted
lieutenant of Samuel Adams.[127]

The American Revolution rests upon grounds so high and clear, and was
carried forward by measures so honorably conceived and so persistently
adhered to, that all who adopt its principles must regret any
circumstance in its history by which the opinion of candid people is
divided. Such a division is found in connection with the Hutchinson
letters. The story is briefly this:—In the years 1768 and 1769
Thomas Hutchinson and Andrew Oliver, then officers in Massachusetts,
appointed by the crown, and sworn to a faithful discharge of their
duties, with several other persons, in a private correspondence with
Thomas Whately, an English gentleman, formerly, but not then, connected
with the government, communicated facts about colonial affairs the
truth of which has never been impugned, and expressed opinions which
Tories might honestly entertain. These letters in some unexplained
manner found their way—either from the cabinet of the person to whom
they were addressed, after his death, or, as is more likely, from the
papers of George Grenville, to whom Whately had probably entrusted
them for perusal—into the hands of Franklin, the colony agent in
London, by whom they were sent in 1773, with an unsigned letter, to
the speaker of the Massachusetts House. The injunctions in respect to
them were loosely regarded, and they were published by a breach of
faith which implicated a large body of men. They were made the basis of
a petition by the General Court to the king for the removal of their
writers from the offices which they held; but after a hearing before
the Privy Council, January 29, 1774, the petition, which the province
did not attempt to support by evidence, was dismissed as "groundless,
vexatious, and scandalous." Two days later, Dr. Franklin was removed
from the office of deputy postmaster-general for the colonies,—a
circumstance of great consequence to the American cause, since it
irrevocably committed to it one who had been thought its lukewarm
promoter.

Massachusetts, which had led in most of the Revolutionary movements,
did not take the lead in establishing committees of correspondence
between the colonies. That honor belongs to Virginia; and its
chief cause was the action of the commissioners in the "Gaspee"
case. March 12, 1773, Dabney Carr, who had been put forward at the
suggestion of Jefferson, moved certain resolutions in the Virginia
House of Burgesses, which, supported by Richard Henry Lee and Patrick
Henry, were unanimously adopted. Rhode Island followed in adopting
similar measures. On May 28th the Massachusetts House responded to
Virginia.[128] Hutchinson justly considers this as one of the most
important and daring movements of the patriotic Party during the
Revolution.[129] It paved the way for the union of the colonies and
for the General Congress which was convened at Philadelphia the next
year.

To the patriots of Philadelphia belongs the credit of making the first
public demonstration against the project of the East India Company for
transporting their accumulated stock of tea to America, in a series
of resolutions passed October 18, at a meeting held in the State
House.[130] News of the intention of the company to do this had reached
America in August. Samuel Adams was ready. The towns in the province
of Massachusetts were aroused by Joseph Warren's circular letter in
behalf of the Committee of Correspondence, September 21, 1773, and
the Philadelphia resolutions were adopted in Faneuil Hall. Constant
communications were kept up between the importing colonies. Ships
loaded with tea were dispatched about the month of August to Boston,
New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston, but the tone of the public
press in those towns indicated a determination not to allow the sale of
the cargoes. The Charleston consignees, on the request of the people,
resigned; those at Boston refused. November 28, one of the tea ships
arrived in Boston, followed not long after by two more. These were
placed under guard by the patriots. The consignees would neither resign
nor return the tea, and the time was near at hand when they would
be seized for non-payment of duties. Thursday, December 16, a large
meeting of the citizens was held at the Old South Church, at which
Josiah Quincy, Jr., spoke in words that have become historical. After
all efforts to induce Hutchinson to grant a pass for the return of the
tea (which he thought would be illegal) had proved futile, a war-whoop
was sounded at the door of the Old South, and a large company of men
disguised as Indians rushed to Griffin's wharf. Teas to the value
of £18,000 were thrown from the vessels into the sea, and the same
treatment was bestowed upon another cargo which came some weeks later.
This act, although applauded throughout the colonies, was not imitated
by them; other means were found to prevent the sale of the teas.[131]

While the news of these events was on its way to England, John Adams
signalized his zeal in the patriotic cause and evinced his faith in the
provincial constitution by leading in the impeachment of Chief-Justice
Oliver for having accepted his salary from the crown instead of the
people, in derogation of their fundamental rights.[132]

Governor Hutchinson, finding himself powerless to quell the storm,
determined to put himself in closer communication with the ministry by
going to England, but was delayed by the death of Lieutenant-Governor
Oliver, until he was finally superseded by General Gage, who arrived in
Boston May 13, 1774. As he was about to leave, he received an address,
dated May 30, approving his conduct, and signed by many respectable
Tories; but some of them were afterwards obliged by threats of popular
violence to make their recantations in the newspapers. June 1, he
sailed from Boston, and never saw his native shore again.[133] In
the mean time an account of the destruction of the teas had reached
England, and produced great indignation, which was shared to some
extent by the most ardent friends of the colonists, whose efforts to
mitigate and delay the punishment visited upon the offending people of
Boston were unavailing. On the 7th of March, the king sent a message
communicating the despatches from America; and on the 14th Lord North
brought in the Boston Port Bill, which transferred the commerce of
Boston, after the 1st of June, to Salem, but gave power to the king, in
council, to restore it, upon the return of order and full compensation
to the owners for the teas destroyed. Having passed both Houses, this
received the king's assent March 31, and took effect June 1. While
the measure was pending in the House of Lords, Lord North introduced
another bill, which provided for the appointment of councillors by the
crown, the appointment and removal by the governor of judges of the
superior courts, justices of the peace, and other minor officers, and,
with the consent of the council, of sheriffs. The governor's permission
was made necessary for the holding of town meetings, except for the
choice of officers. It was also provided by another act that offenders
and witnesses might be transported for trial to the other colonies, or
to England.[134]

These severe measures did not pass without resistance or protest by the
liberal party in Parliament. They reached Boston June 2, 1774, were
printed in the newspapers on the 3d, and soon found their way into all
the colonies, where they excited indignation against the ministry and
sympathy for the people of Boston, which was manifested by liberal
contributions for relief when afterwards the loss of business had
brought distress. If anything more was needed to arouse the anger of
New England, it was supplied by the Quebec Bill, less objectionable
to that section because it extended the bounds of Canada over regions
for which the colonies had contended, than because it perpetuated
civil and ecclesiastical institutions hateful to the descendants of
Puritans. Hutchinson thought that these severe measures would bring
the recalcitrant Bostonians to reason. But he was mistaken. The matter
had already passed from the forum of reason, and was reserved for the
arbitrament of impending war. Instead of being subdued, the spirit of
the people became more resolute.

The Boston Port Bill, designed as a punishment for the destruction of
the tea, brought ruin to the commerce of Boston, and distress to all
whose subsistence depended upon it; but its political effect was to
draw the colonies together, and that was so effectually promoted by the
vigorous action of the committee of correspondence that the idea of a
continental congress soon became general.

[Illustration: A CONTEMPORARY PRINT.

Sketched from a finely executed mezzotint, published in London in 1774.
The man thrown from his horse seems to be Gage. The original belongs to
the Boston Public Library.—ED.]

On May 26, 1774, Governor Gage informed the General Court that by
the king's command its sessions would be held at Salem from June 1st
until further orders. The court was convened at that place, and the
patriots, guided by Samuel Adams, were making arrangements for a
general congress at Philadelphia, when the governor, getting a hint of
their action, sent Flucker, the provincial secretary, with a message to
dissolve them. The secretary, however, found the door of the chamber
of the Representatives locked; and before it was opened, that body had
determined that "a committee should be appointed to meet, as soon as
may be, the committees that are or shall be appointed by the several
colonies on this continent, to consult together upon the present state
of the colonies", and had chosen James Bowdoin, Samuel Adams, John
Adams, Thomas Cushing, and Robert Treat Paine delegates thereto. Such
was the origin in Massachusetts of the first Continental Congress which
met at Philadelphia September 5, 1774.[135]

The 17th of June, the day on which delegates to the Continental
Congress were chosen, is also notable for "the Port Act" meeting in
Faneuil Hall. From the general distress among the laboring classes in
Boston the Tories had expected a reaction in favor of the ministry;
consequently a counter demonstration by the patriots was deemed
advisable. In the absence of Samuel Adams, then at Salem, John Adams
was chosen moderator, and from this time he was one of the most
conspicuous actors in the American Revolution. Joseph Warren was also
present, and active in the cause which, a year later, he consecrated
with his blood. The action of the town became widely known from a
broadside, which is here reproduced.

After the repeal of the Stamp Act and the modifying of the Townshend
act, there remained nothing to threaten seriously the pockets of
the colonists. The tea duty had been retained to save the claim
of parliamentary supremacy, which was not likely to be asserted
in any offensive way. The navigation acts must soon have given
way to a more liberal and equitable policy, and everything out of
Massachusetts—certainly out of New England—indicated that the people
were becoming tired of strife, and were ready for a return to more
cordial relations with the mother country. This was what Samuel Adams
feared, and determined to prevent. To this end nothing could have been
more efficient than his policy in respect to the teas, and nothing
more to his mind than the consequent action of Parliament. After this
a contention which had been mainly local became general. The essential
modification of the Massachusetts charter was a blow which imperilled
every colonial government, and made the cause of Massachusetts that of
every other colony,—a cause for which other colonies manifested their
sympathy not only in relieving the distress occasioned by the closing
of the port of Boston, but by uniting in declarations of their common
right to maintain the integrity of a system of government which had
been forming through many generations.

The Congress of 1774 was the inevitable result of the conduct of the
British ministry subsequent to the peace of 1763. This served only to
engender discontent in the colonies, and to strengthen the purpose
of the patriotic party to hasten a revolution which many regarded as
inevitable in time. The parliamentary government of the colonies fell
into confusion for want of a well-defined policy and a consistent
administration. But instead of such a policy, colonial affairs were
regulated by ministers as wide apart in their views as Grenville,
Rockingham, Townshend, Grafton, Shelburne, Hillsborough, Lord North,
and Earl Dartmouth. Nothing could have kept the colonies as an integral
part of the empire except some plan such as Franklin or Pownall might
have devised and Shelburne might have administered. But the colonies
were remote and but little known, and in the complication of European
affairs, and amid the contentions of parties, they received only slight
and intermittent attention from the ministry or the Parliament. No
statesman save Choiseul seems to have understood the completeness of
the change in interests which had been brought about by the extinction
of the French power in America, or the necessary advance of the
colonies under a new régime to a place among the great powers of the
world. The colonists themselves felt, rather than understood, their
relations to nationality and to the commerce of the world. This was the
time chosen by the British ministry to impose upon them the restrictive
mercantile system of Charles II.

[Illustration: BROADSIDE, JUNE 17, 1774.

The original is in the Boston Public Library. There are other
significant broadsides of about this time. On June 8th, the citizens of
Boston issued an address to their countrymen relative to the blockade
of their port, and on July 26th they adopted a letter on the blockade,
which was sent to the several towns,—both in broadside.—ED.]

It is doubtful, however, whether any policy could have rendered
permanent the subjection of the colonies, even such a nominal
subjection as that in which they had always been held. In looking
for the causes of the Revolution, it is well to discriminate between
those which were general in their effects and those which were local.
The latter had been more actively operative and of longer existence
in Massachusetts, where the Revolution began, than in any other
colony. These were interwoven with the civil and ecclesiastical
history of her people, which made them peculiarly apprehensive in
respect to threatened invasion of rights which they had secured only
by expatriation. Although the peculiar experience of Massachusetts
did not cause the Revolution, it is doubtful whether, except for that
experience, the Revolution would have occurred for some years. Nor was
resistance to the Anglican ecclesiastical pretensions, connected as
they were with the most odious features of the prerogative, confined
to New England, but made itself felt in New York and in Virginia.[136]
The general causes were the ever present and ever active strife between
parties,—the liberals and the conservatives,—arising from a diversity
of political ideas, and intensified by ambition, interest, and personal
animosities. But the proximate causes of the Revolution will be found
in that change of policy which led the ministry, at the close of a war
that had strained the colonies to the utmost, to enforce the navigation
laws, to lay taxes, to invoke the prerogative, and finally to overthrow
the government of Massachusetts, and thus to threaten the autonomy of
the people under the provincial constitutions.

CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THE change in British colonial policy contemplated by the ministry
during the progress of the French War, and entered upon between 1763
and 1774, developed those causes of dissatisfaction which had been
intermittently operative for more than a century, and finally led to
war in 1775. In the preceding chapter I have omitted, or passed lightly
over, many incidents of the period which had no particular political
significance, and dwelt more at length on the principles and causes
which led to the Revolution. I shall pursue the same course in this
essay.

The growth and development of the colonies brought forward, in
succession, two practical questions. The first was, how far the
interests of the colonies, as appendages to the crown, but subject,
nevertheless, to an undefined parliamentary authority, could be
subordinated to the interests of the trading and manufacturing classes
in England. This was purely an economic question, and the answer to
it in England assumed the subjection of the colonies and the validity
of the mercantile system, neither of which was vigorously contested
by the colonists so long as neither was rigidly enforced. But the
question changed during the progress, and more especially at the close,
of the French War, and then became this: How far could the interests
of the colonies be subordinated to the necessities of an imperial
revenue and the political policy of an empire? Hence arose the second
question: What degree of autonomy could be allowed to the colonies, as
integral parts of the empire, entitled to its privileges and subject
to its burdens, when both were to be determined consistently with the
constitutional prerogatives of the king and the supremacy of Parliament
on the one side, and on the other with the natural and acquired rights
of the colonies?

Regarded purely as an economic question, it was a matter of
indifference to the colonists whether their pockets were depleted
by the enforcement of an old policy or by the adoption of a new
policy. The Sugar Act of 1733, if enforced, would have produced a
parliamentary tax. The Grenville Act of 1764 did no more. But the
former was intended as a regulation of trade; the latter to produce a
revenue. This difference of intent raised a constitutional question,
and it was on this constitutional question, behind which lay the real
economic question, that the patriotic party chose to fight the battle.
Grenville's Act, as an external tax, produced but little; and the Stamp
Act, as an internal tax, not a farthing.

It was, therefore, mainly on the constitutional question—of the right
to tax, rather than to throw off intolerable burdens—that people
divided into parties. As Webster said, "They went to war against a
preamble. They fought seven years against a declaration."[137] To
understand the attitude of the tories on the economic question as
well as on the constitutional question, we must consider the state of
colonial affairs which led to the Congress of 1754, and the tentative
efforts of that body to find consistent and reciprocal relations of the
colonies to the imperial government, for union, defence, and revenue.
To understand the attitude of the patriots, we must consider the
reasons of the ministry for rejecting such a union, and their efforts
to force each colony into relations to the crown and Parliament deemed
by them consistent and reciprocal, but regarded by the colonists as
subversive of their rights as Englishmen, and of their rights acquired
by charters, growth, development, and usage, which, as they justly
claimed, had become constitutional.

Though the enforcement of the navigation laws and acts of trade, at
the close of the French War, is regarded by historians as one of the
principal causes of the Revolution, I fail to find a satisfactory
or entirely accurate account of them, either as the basis of the
mercantile system, or, later, of a revenue system. Such a treatment
would hardly be practicable in the limits of a general history. These
laws have been elaborately discussed by Thomas Mun, Sir Josiah Child,
Sir William Patty, Charles Davenant, Joshua Gee, John Ashley, and, not
to mention others, Adam Smith and Henry Brougham. But these authors
wrote with reference to their influence, as part of the mercantile
system, on British interests. How they affected colonial interests is
the question which chiefly concerns us.

To answer this question we must know not merely what those laws
enacted, but to what state of colonial trade they originally and
successively applied. For instance, what, from time to time, by
development of agricultural or other industries, between 1640 and 1774,
had the colonists to sell, and what, as they increased in wealth, did
they wish to purchase; and where, left to the unrestricted course of
trade, would they have carried their products, and where purchased
their merchandise? In other words, what would they have done and become
under free trade?

Then we must know what changes in this normal condition of trade were
intended by the navigation laws, and to what extent and with what
effect their partial enforcement operated before 1763. With these facts
before us, we could estimate with some exactness the valid objections
to the new system on the part of the colonists, when enforced by the
British navy, commissioners of customs, admiralty courts, and writs of
assistance, and what was their influence in bringing on the Revolution.

Having made up the debit account, we should be able to set against
it the compensations in naval protection, bounties,[138] drawbacks,
British capital, and long credits, in developing colonial agriculture
and commerce.[139]

Unfortunately there does not exist any history of the commerce of
the American colonies, from the Commonwealth to 1774, as affected
by navigation laws, acts of trade, and revenue measures. No one who
has read the twenty-nine acts which comprise this legislation will
recommend their perusal to another; for, apart from their volume, the
construction of these acts is difficult,—difficult even to trained
lawyers like John Adams, whose business it was to advise clients
in respect to them.[140] Nor have special students, like Bancroft,
stated their effect with exact precision, as in respect to the Act of
1663;[141] and notably in respect to the Townshend Act of 1767,[142]
where his error amounts to a perversion of its meaning. Palfrey has
been more successful, though not entirely free from error.[143] The
author of the _Development of Constitutional Liberty_,[144] a work
of uncommon research and ability, reads the act of 1672 as though it
prohibited the carrying of fish from Massachusetts to Rhode Island
except by the way of England, failing to notice that it was not one
of the "enumerated articles", or that even those could pass directly
from colony to colony upon payment, at the place of export, of duties
equivalent to those laid upon their importation to England. To give a
monographic treatment to the subject would require familiarity with
the construction of statutes, and exact information not only of the
shifting conditions of colonial trade, but of the evasions which called
forth supplemental acts, or constructions of existing acts by the Board
of Trade.[145]

In Burke's _Account of the European Settlements in America_[146] much
may be found respecting colonial products and commerce, and especially
those of New England (in ch. vii.), which leaves little to be desired
concerning the sources of her wealth, and the complaints of British
merchants of the methods by which it had been acquired. But I have
found nowhere else so full and clear an account of the course of trade
of Boston at the time of the Revolution, and the effect upon it of the
enforcement of the navigation laws and acts of trade in 1770, as in an
anonymous pamphlet entitled _Observations of the Merchants at Boston in
N. E. upon Several Acts of Parliament, 1770_.[147]

An essential part of this history is that which relates to the medium
of exchange, and to the attempts of Parliament to regulate the
issue of paper money as a legal tender in the interests of British
merchants.[148]

The history of the navigation laws suggests the similarity of the
causes which led to the successive revolutions of 1689 and 1775 in
Massachusetts. The violation of these laws was a principal reason for
the abrogation of the first charter, in 1684, graphically described
by Palfrey,[149] and their enforcement by courts of admiralty, under
Dudley, Andros, and Randolph, was one cause of the overthrow of
the Andros government in 1689.[150] The resistance to the same and
additional enactments, when enforced as revenue measures, led to
the alteration of the second charter in 1774, and this again led to
revolution by the united colonies.

One of the most efficient instruments in the execution of the
navigation laws was the writs of assistance granted by the court in
Massachusetts in 1761.[151]

If the student of American history finds difficulty in accepting the
common accounts of the constitutional opinions and motives of two
fifths of the colonists, among whom were many who must be regarded as
intelligent and respectable, his doubts as to the accuracy of these
narratives receive some confirmation when he becomes familiar with the
history of the Congress of 1754, the circumstances which led to it, and
the opinions of some of its representative men. A comparison of their
views will show how far they were willing to go in the "abridgment of
English liberties", for the sake of union, defence, and government.
Franklin, Hutchinson, and Pownall formed plans for union, and all were
at Albany in 1754, and participated in the discussions, though Pownall,
not being a member, explained his views outside the congress.[152]

The difference between Pownall, Hutchinson, and Franklin was this:
that while all contemplated the union of the empire under one general
government as something dictated by the interest of all the parts,
Hutchinson limited the power of the President more than Franklin,
and Pownall was unwilling to contemplate the transfer of its seat
to America; the prospect of which gave Franklin no concern. "The
government cannot be long retained without union. Which is best, to
have a total separation, or a change of the seat of government?"[153]
Speculations as to the results of such a union are now idle, unless
for the interest drawn towards them by Professor Seeley's _Expansion
of England_, and Franklin's belief, expressed in 1789, "that if the
foregoing plan [that of 1754], or something like it, had been adopted
and carried into execution, the subsequent separation of the colonies
from the mother country might not so soon have happened, nor the
mischiefs suffered on both sides have occurred, perhaps, during another
century."[154]

A comparison of the views of such men as Franklin, Hutchinson, and
Pownall, expressed before they were forced into partisan relations to
the impending conflict, help us in forming opinions respecting their
conduct when affairs, no longer within the control of individuals, were
swept onward by an uncontrollable impulse. Neither the colonies[155]
nor the ministry approved of the proposed union; and when the new
policy of raising a revenue was inaugurated the colonies were without
defined integral relations to the mother country, and the government
without administrative machinery for their regulation. The result was
confusion. The press became heated, and an angry war of pamphlets
ensued. At first the controversy was confined to the distinction
between internal taxes and commercial regulations, but soon it involved
the whole question of parliamentary power. This was elaborately and
temperately discussed in the _Farmer's Letters_, by John Dickinson,
but nowhere in America with more fulness (within the period covered by
this chapter) than by Governor Hutchinson and the two Houses of the
Massachusetts General Court, in messages and answers respectively, in
January and February, 1773.[156]

So far as the Revolution grew out of the Massachusetts controversy
between the king's representatives and the General Court, its progress
may be traced in the _Speeches of the Governors of Massachusetts,
1765 to 1775, and the Answers of the House of Representatives to the
same_.[157] These authentic documents, with the _Journals of the House_
and the _Records of the Town of Boston_, may be referred to as showing
the temper with which the parties treated each other, and the questions
that were of paramount interest. The student will not find it easy
to ascertain the facts which should make the history of the period.
Contemporaneous accounts were generally drawn up with a partisan
disregard of truth, and too much has been written subsequently in the
same spirit. For the critical period of 1768, when the troops were sent
over on account of the revenue riots, we have Bernard's _Letters_,
which, though representing only one side, were written under a sense of
official responsibility to the government. Though much complained of
at the time as wanting in candor, their statements were evaded rather
than controverted by the _Answer of the Major Part of the Council_, in
a letter to the Earl of Hillsborough (April 15, 1769), as well as in
_The Vindication of the Town of Boston_ (Oct. 18, 1769), drafted by
Samuel Adams. For the entire period covered by this chapter, I find no
narrative apparently more just, or opinions more candidly expressed,
than in Ramsay's _History of the American Revolution_. Remote from the
scene of the conflict, Ramsay shared the passions of neither party.

The most important events of this period were the passage of the Boston
Port Bill, and other related measures. The reasons which led to these
acts are set forth at length in _The Report from the Committee on the
Disturbances in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay_, April 20, 1774.[158]
In this report may be seen the strength of the British case. Franklin's
view of the matters referred to in the Report of the Lords may be found
in a paper entitled _Proceedings in Massachusetts_,[159] and the bill
itself was discussed in an interesting pamphlet by Josiah Quincy, Jr.,
_Observations on the Act of Parliament_.[160]

Franklin's paper was a clever argument in which he treated facts so as
to serve his purpose rather than that of historic truth. His use of
Oliver's phrase, "to take off the original incendiaries", which was a
pleasant _ad hominem_ hit, has been adopted seriously by Bancroft,[161]
in a chapter entitled "A Way to Take off the Incendiaries." The
concessions which Franklin was willing to make for a settlement of
the difficulties, as late as December 4, 1774, may be seen in "Some
Special Transactions of Dr. Franklin in London, in Behalf of America",
in Ramsay.[162]

[Illustration]

EDITORIAL NOTES.

THE argument of Otis on the Writs of Assistance is the first
well-arranged expression of the gathering opposition,[163] and what
John Adams called "the heaves and throes of the burning mountain",
forerunning the eruption, were shown in James Otis's _A vindication
of the conduct of the House of Representatives of the province of
the Massachusetts-Bay; more particularly, in the last session of the
general assembly_ (Boston, 1762).[164]

John Dickinson and Joseph Galloway were already pitted against each
other on the question of maintaining the proprietary government of
Pennsylvania, or of seeking a royal one.[165]

Frothingham[166] says the earliest organized action against taxation
was when the town of Boston passed instructions to its representatives,
May 24, 1764, the original writing of which is among the Samuel Adams
MSS. The paper was printed in the newspapers of the day, and shortly
afterwards in the famous tract of Otis, _The Rights of the British
Colonies asserted and proved_,[167] in which, however, he failed, with
all his fervid and cogent reasoning, to stand in every respect by the
advanced position which he had taken in his plea against the Writs of
Assistance.[168]

[Illustration: JAMES OTIS.

After a statue of James Otis, by Crawford, in the chapel at Mount
Auburn. The usual portrait of Otis is by Blackburn, painted in 1755,
and now owned by Mrs. H. B. Rogers. The earliest engraving of it which
I have noticed is by A. B. Durand in Tudor, and again in the _Worcester
Magazine_ (1826), vol. i. It has been engraved by W. O. Jackman, J.
R. Smith, O. Pelton, and best of all by C. Schlecht, in Gay's _Pop.
Hist. U. S._, iii. 332. Cf. Loring's _Hundred Boston Orators_, and
the woodcut in the _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 6. The earliest engraved
likeness is probably a rude cut on the title of Bickerstaff's _Almanac_
(1770), which is reproduced in Lossing's _Field-Book of the Rev._, i.
486.

There is a photograph of the house where Otis was killed by lightning
(May 28, 1783) in Bailey's _Andover_, p. 86. Cf. _Appleton's Journal_,
xi. 784. The principal detailed authority on the career of Otis (born,
1724; died, 1783) is William Tudor's _Life of James Otis_, which
Lecky, in his _England in the Eighteenth Century_ (iii. 304), calls "a
remarkable book from which I have derived much assistance." Francis
Bowen wrote the life in Sparks's _Amer. Biog._, vol. xii. John Adams
had an exalted opinion of Otis, and Otis's character receives various
touches in Adams's _Works_ (x. 264, 271, 275, 279, 280, 284, 289-295,
299, 300). Bancroft depicts him in 1768 (vol. vi. 120, orig. ed.),
but he failed rapidly later by reason of the blows he received in an
assault in Sept., 1769, provoked by him. Cf. Greene's _Hist. View_ (p.
322); D. A. Goddard in _Mem. Hist. Boston_ (iii. 140); Barry's _Mass._
(ii. 259).]

One of the ablest as well as one of the most temperate expressions of
the stand taken by the colonies was in Stephen Hopkins's _Rights of the
Colonies examined; published by Authority_ (Providence, 1765).[169]

Similar arguments were set forth in behalf of Connecticut by its
governor.[170]

Already, in 1764, when Oxenbridge Thacher printed his _Sentiments
of a British American_, he had formulated the arguments against the
navigation acts and British taxation, which ten years later, in
the Congress of 1774, Jay embodied in his Address to the British
People.[171]

John Adams, in later years, when distance clarified the atmosphere,
looked upon the conflict which Jonathan Mayhew waged with Apthorpe, and
with the abettors of all schemes for imposing episcopacy on the people
by act of Parliament, as the repelling of an attack upon the people's
right to decide such questions for themselves, and as but a forerunner
of the great subsequent question.[172]

[Illustration: JONATHAN MAYHEW.

Copied from a mezzotint engraving in the American Antiquarian Society's
possession, marked "Richard Jennys, jun., pinxt et fecit."

A portrait by Smibert, and engraved by J. B. Cipriani, is in Hollis's
_Memoirs_ (1780), p. 371; and a reëngraving has been made by H. W.
Smith. Cf. Bradford's _Life of Mayhew_; Thornton's _Pulpit of the
Rev._; _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, ii. 245, with note on his portraits.

The principal source of detailed information about Mayhew is Alden
Bradford's _Memoir of the life and writings of Jonathan Mayhew_
(Boston, 1838). Cf. Tudor's _Otis_ (ch. 10); Thomas Hollis's _Memoirs_;
Tyler's _Amer. Lit._ (ii. p. 199); touches in _John Adams's Works_ (iv.
29; x. 207, 301); and on his death, Dr. Benjamin Church's _Elegy_, Dr.
Chauncy's discourse, both in 1766, and the _Life of Josiah Quincy,
Jr._, p. 384.]

The issue on the question of taxation without representation was
forced, after many indications of its coming,[173] when the British
Parliament passed the Grenville Act in 1764, and in the next year what
is known as the Stamp Act, a tax on business papers, increasing their
cost at different rates, but sometimes manyfold.[174] The question
of the authorship of the bill is one about which there has been some
controversy,[175] and, contrary to the general impression, the truth
seems to be that the consideration of the bill caused little attention
in and out of Parliament, and the debates on it were languid.[176]

In May a knowledge of the passage of the Stamp Act reached Boston,[177]
and it was to go into effect Nov. 1st. In June the Massachusetts
legislature determined to invite a congress of all the colonies in
October. In August it was known that Jared Ingersoll for Connecticut
and Andrew Oliver for Boston had agreed to become distributors of the
stamps. The mob hanged an effigy of Oliver on the tree afterwards
known as Liberty Tree,[178] and other outrages followed. The governor
did not dare to leave the castle. Dr. Mayhew delivered a sermon,
vigorous and perhaps incendiary, as Hutchinson averred when he traced
to it the passions of the mob which destroyed his own house in North
Square on the evening of August 26th.[179] The town contented itself
with passing a unanimous vote of condemnation the next day.[180] On
Sept. 25th Bernard addressed the legislature in a tone that induced
them to reply (Oct. 25th), and to fortify their position by resolves
(Oct. 29th).[181] Finally, in December, Andrew Oliver,[182] the stamp
distributor, was forced to resign, and on the 17th to sign an oath that
he would in no way lend countenance to the tax.[183]

The spirit in Boston was but an index of the feelings throughout all
the colonies.[184] The histories of the several States and the lives of
their revolutionary actors make this clear.[185]

In October, 1765, what is known as the Stamp Act Congress assembled
in New York, in the old City Hall.[186] Its proceedings are in print,
and its deliberations are followed in the general histories and in the
lives of its members.[187]

Franklin had, with considerable opposition, been appointed the London
agent of Pennsylvania in 1764, and, being in that city, was accused by
James Biddle of promoting the passage of the Stamp Act, but his letters
show how he seems only to have yielded when he could not prevail in
opposing.[188]

In July, 1765, the Rockingham administration came in, followed by
the parliamentary sparring of Grenville and Pitt. In February, 1766,
Dr. Franklin was examined before the House of Commons as to the
temper of the colonies respecting the Stamp Act. He gave them some
good advice,[189] and a full report of the questions and answers is
preserved.[190] Parliament having passed the so-called Declaratory
Act (March 7th) in vindication of its prerogatives, Pitt and Conway
effected the repeal of the Stamp Act (March 18th), and vessels
immediately sailed to carry the news to the colonies.[191] The whole
question of taxation, thus brought squarely to an issue by the
controversy over the Stamp Act, induced frequent rehearsals of argument
in debates and pamphlet, and the later historians have summarized the
opposing views.[192]

Josiah Tucker, the Dean of Gloucester, began in 1766 a series of
tracts, which he continued for ten years, in which he advanced
sentiments respecting the colonies, not very flattering, while at the
same time he held to arguments which few at the time admitted the force
of, when he advocated the peaceful separation of America from the
crown.[193]

The most important presentation of the Tory insistence in defence
of the Stamp Act policy came directly—or, at least, through his
secretary, Charles Lloyd—from Grenville himself, in his attack on the
Rockingham party, in the _Conduct of the late Administration examined,
with Documents_.[194]

[Illustration: GEORGE THE THIRD.

Reproduction of a print in Entick's _General Hist. of the Late War_
(3d ed., 1770), iv. frontispiece. A profile likeness, showing the king
in armor, is in Murray's _Impartial History of the present War in
America_, (London, 1778).]

The movements for organization to suppress importation, which had
begun in 1765, taking shape particularly in Philadelphia in Oct.
and Nov.,[195] were brought into definite prominence by the votes
of Boston, Oct. 28, 1767,[196] copies of which were circulated in
broadside, as shown in the annexed fac-simile.[197] The influence of
these had more marked effect in England than had followed any previous
manifestations of that kind.[198]

[Illustration: PRINTED PAGE]

[Illustration: HANDBILL

Copy of a broadside in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society.]

Some other fac-similes are also given indicative of the prevailing
coercive measures, which soon became popular. The next year (1768)
committees were appointed in New York to consider the expediency of
entering into measures to encourage industry and frugality and to
employ the poor, and by 1769 the movement looking to independence of
the British manufacturers became general through the colonies.[199]

[Illustration: FROM EDES AND GILL'S NORTH AMERICAN ALMANACK, 1770.]

In February, 1768, the Massachusetts House of Representatives, by
a circular letter addressed to the other colonies, invited them to
consultation.[200] It drew from Hillsborough a circular letter of
warning to the continent,[201] and in May Virginia issued a letter
inviting a conference.[202] On June 10, 1768, the seizure of the sloop
"Liberty" brought further riotous proceedings in its train.[203]

[Illustration: PROSCRIBING AN IMPORTER.

After an original handbill in the Mass. Hist. Soc. library.]

What is known as the "War of the Regulators", or "Regulation", a series
of riotous disturbances in North Carolina, 1768-1771, has usually been
held to be one of the preliminary uprisings against British oppression.
A. W. Waddell, in a paper in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._ (1871,
p. 81), contends that it was nothing but a lawless outburst, and
advances evidence to prove that the participants were but a small
majority of the people, with no great principle in view; that they were
ignorant, never republicans, became Tories, and were opposed by the
prominent Whig leaders. He considers that Caruthers and other local
historians[204] are responsible for the common misconception arising
from their attempt to reflect credit on North Carolina for what is
claimed to be an early patriotic fervor.

[Illustration: LANDING OF THE TROOPS IN BOSTON, 1768.

Fac-simile of an engraving by Paul Revere, which appeared in _Edes and
Gill's North American Almanack_, Boston, 1770. It is reëngraved in S.
G. Drake's _Boston_, p. 747, and in S. A. Drake's _Old Landmarks of
Boston_, p. 119. KEY: 1, The "Beaver", 14 guns; 2, "Senegal", 14; 3,
"Martin", 10; 4, "Glasgow", 20; 5, "Mermaid", 28; 6, "Romney", 50; 7,
"Launaston", 40; 8, "Bonetta", 10.

Revere also engraved a large copperplate of the same event, which is
given in heliotype fac-simile, on different scales, in the _Boston
Evacuation Memorial_ (p. 18) and _Mem. Hist. of Boston_ (ii. 532). Cf.
also Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 356; Dearborn's _Boston Notions_,
126, etc. The same view of the town was again used by Revere, but
extended farther south, in a cut in the _Royal American Mag._ (1774),
which is given in fac-simile in the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, ii. 441.
There is also a water-color mentioned in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 2d
ser., ii. 156. On Revere as an engraver, see W. S. Baker's _American
Engravers_, Philad., 1875, and the list in _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._,
1886, p. 204.

In Sept. (dated 14th) the selectmen of Boston sent a circular to the
other towns, calling a convention (_Boston Rec. Com. Rept._, xvi. 263)
to consider the declaration of Bernard "that one or more regiments
may soon be expected in this province" (original broadside in Mass.
Hist. Soc., _Misc. MSS._, 1632-1795). It is printed and explained in
that society's _Proceedings_, iv. 387. The convention sat from Sept.
22d to 29th. On the 30th, in the early morning, the British fleet
took soundings along the water-front, and in the afternoon a number
of war-ships came up from the lower harbor and anchored with springs
on their cables. On Oct. 1st the landing took place. The news spread
through the land, and the irritation was increased. (Cf. _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, xx. 9; Barry, _Mass._, ii. 370; Loring, _Boston Orators_,
75; _Franklin's Works_, vii. 418.)

The question of the expense of quartering troops had been raised by
Massachusetts and New York in 1767 (Hutchinson, iii. 168), and a letter
of Gage on the subject is in the Shelburne Papers, vol. li. (_Hist.
MSS. Com. Rept._, v. 219). Cf. Hillsborough to Governor Franklin in _N.
J. Archives_, x. p. 12. The message of the Assembly to Bernard, praying
for their removal (May 31, 1769), is in Hutchinson (iii. App. 497).]

A contemporary vindication of the movement, and of Herman Husband,
the leader, bringing the history of the commotions down to 1769 only,
evidently based on material furnished by Husband, was printed in Boston
in 1771.[205] Husband himself seems, during the preceding year, to
have printed anonymously, giving no place of publication, a narrative
of his own, fortified by the letters of Tryon and others, with the
remonstrances and counter-statements.[206]

[Illustration:

This cut from Nathaniel Ames's _Astronomical diary or Almanack_, 1772,
Boston, is inscribed "The Patriotic American Farmer, J-N D-K-NS-N,
Esq., Barrister-at-Law, who with Attic Eloquence and Roman spirit hath
asserted the liberties of the British Colonies in America." Cf. Scharf
and Westcott's _Philadelphia_, i. 276.

C. W. Peale's portrait of Dickinson (1770) was engraved by I. B.
Forrest. Cf. _Catal. of Gallery of Penna. Hist. Soc._ (1872), no. 161;
Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 476.

On Dickinson's influence, see "The great American essayist" in the
_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Feb., 1882, p. 117; Sept., 1883, p. 223; Read's
_Life of George Read_, 49, 79; Wells's _Adams_, ii. 38; Quincy's
_Josiah Quincy, Jr._, 104; Green's _Hist. View_, 370; Lossing's
_Field-Book_, i. 476. Cf. letters of Dickinson in _Mem. Hist. Boston_,
iii. 22; Lee's _Life of A. Lee_, ii. 293, 296, etc.]

The most conspicuous presentation of the American side in 1768 were
the famous _Farmer's Letters_, as they were usually called, of John
Dickinson.[207]

Some of the most important of the documents of the Boston patriots
were printed in London under the supervision of Thomas Hollis, long a
devoted friend of the colonists.[208]

During 1768 and 1769 we find record of the workings of political
sentiments in the colonies in abundant publications.[209]

The most important development in 1769 came from some letters which had
been addressed by Governor Bernard and General Gage to the ministry,
and to which, in the exercise of his rights as a member of Parliament,
Alderman Beckford had obtained access and taken copies, subsequently
delivered by him to Bollan, who transmitted them to Boston, where they
were at once printed. From these letters the public learned of the
urgency which the governor had used with the government to induce it to
institute more stringent measures of repression.[210]

The publication of these letters led to the printing of _An appeal to
the world; or a vindication of the town of Boston, from many false
and malicious aspersions contain'd in certain letters and memorials,
written by Governor Bernard, General Gage [etc.]. Published by order of
the town_ (Boston, 1769),[211] and induced also a letter to the Earl of
Hillsborough.[212]

[Illustration: WILLIAM LIVINGSTON.

Fac-simile of the engraving in Sedgwick's _Life of William Livingston_.
Cf. Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 330.]

There are in the _Sparks MSS._ (no. xx.) copies of annotations which
Franklin, then in London, made on the margins and fly-leaves of sundry
pamphlets, which just at this time were engaging attention in London,
and these comments show how the struggle was regarded by a mind of
Franklin's astuteness, amid the influences of the British capital.
Sparks printed parts of these annotations in his _Familiar letters and
miscellaneous pieces by Dr. Franklin_, and again in his edition of
_Franklin_, vol. iv.[213] Some letters which passed between Franklin
and William Strahan in 1769 are also of great interest.[214]

The Boston Massacre of March, 1770, was the violent culmination of
prevailing passions, and was in a measure induced by the sacrifice of
life which resulted from the boarding by a press-gang from the "Rose"
frigate of a ship belonging to Hooper, of Marblehead,[215] and by the
riotous proceedings which, in Jan., 1770, brought about the death
of the boy Snider.[216] Soon after the affray of March, the town of
Boston published a _Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre in Boston_
(Boston, Edes and Gill, 1770),[217] which depicted the condition
of the people at the time, and gave an appendix of depositions,
including one of Jeremy Belknap.[218] Copies were sent to England at
once,[219] but the rest of the edition was kept back till after the
trial, when "Additional Observations" were appended.[220] The volume,
thus completed, was reprinted in New York in 1849, with notes and
illustrations by John Daggett, Jr.; and again in Frederick Kidder's
_History of the Boston Massacre_ (Albany, 1870), which is the most
considerable monograph on the subject.[221]

[Illustration: FROM BICKERSTAFF'S BOSTON ALMANAC, 1769.

This song was written by John Dickinson, with some assistance from Dr.
Arthur Lee, and was sent (printed in the _Penna. Chronicle_, July 4,
1768) by Dickinson from Philadelphia to Otis, accompanied by a letter
dated July 4, 1768. It was sung to the tune "Hearts of Oak", and was
made conspicuous in Boston by being sung at Liberty Hall and the
Greyhound Tavern in Aug., 1768. It had been reprinted in the _Boston
Gazette_, July 18th. An amended copy, "the first being rather too
bold", was given in the _Penna. Chronicle_ July 11th. In September it
appeared as a broadside, with the music. Edes and Gill's _Almanac_, in
reprinting it in 1770, says it is "now much in vogue in North America."
(Cf. Tudor's _Life of Otis_, pp. 322, 501; Moore's _Songs and Ballads
of the Rev._, p. 37; Drake's _Town of Roxbury_, p. 166; _Mem. Hist. of
Boston_, iii. p. 131.)

A parody appeared in the _Boston Gazette_, Sept. 26, 1768 (Moore, p.
41). This parody gave rise to the "Massachusetts Song of Liberty",
which is given in Edes and Gill's _Almanac_ (1770), as well as in
Bickerstaff, under the full title of _The Parody parodized, or the
Massachusetts Liberty Song_. It has been ascribed to Mrs. Mercy Warren.
(Cf. Moore, p. 44; Lossing, _Field-Book of the Rev._, i. 487.) The
_Almanac_ (Edes and Gill) of 1770 also contains "A new Song composed by
a Son of Liberty and sung by Mr. Flagg at Concert Hall, Boston, Feb.
13, 1770."]

A stenographic report was made of the trial of Preston, and sent to
England, but it has never been published.[222]

The trial of eight of the soldiers took place Nov. 27, 1770, and John
Hodgson,[223] the stenographer of the earlier trial, made a Report,
_The trial of William Wemms, ... published by permission of the Court_
(Boston, 1770),[224] which gives the evidence and pleas of counsel,
and a report of the trial of Edward Manwaring and others, accused of
firing on the crowd from the windows of the custom-house. They were
acquitted.[225] [Illustration: FROM BICKERSTAFF'S BOSTON ALMANAC,
1770.]

[Illustration: PART OF INSTRUCTIONS TO BOSTON REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 15,
1770.

The original draft of these instructions, in the handwriting of Josiah
Quincy, Jr., is among the Quincy MSS. in the cabinet of the Mass.
Hist. Society. This is a reproduction of the last page, showing the
signatures of Richard Dana and of Cooper, the town clerk.]

The principal statement on the government side was _A Fair Account of
the late unhappy disturbance at Boston, extracted from the depositions
that have been made concerning it by persons of all parties, with an
appendix containing affidavits and evidences not mentioned in the
narrative that has been published at Boston_ (London, 1770).[226]
This _Fair Account_ contained a deposition of Secretary Andrew
Oliver, tending to show that the soldiers were justifiably defending
themselves; and making public the doings of the governor's council
thereupon. This "breach of a most essential privilege" excited
animadversion, and the council censured Oliver.[227] The purport of the
English presentations is to show that the soldiers did not fire till
duly provoked by assaults, and the more candid American writers, like
Ramsay, Abiel Holmes, Hildreth, and others, seem to allow this.[228]

Bancroft (orig. ed., vi. 347) has a long note on the evidence about
the provocation and first assault. He gives ten reasons for thinking
Preston gave orders to fire, and six reasons for thinking the
provocation was not sufficient to justify the firing. The evidence in
this form is omitted in the final revision of Bancroft.

The anniversary of the Massacre was observed in Boston till the
struggle for Independence was passed, and a series of annual orations
commemorates the continued and aroused feelings of the people.[229]

The appendix to the third volume of Hutchinson's _History_ records
the sparring of Hutchinson and the legislature during the next six
months.[230]

The list of Haven in Thomas (ii. 606) gives the American tracts
published in 1770; but the more significant ones of the year appeared
in London.[231]

The year 1771 was less eventful. In England, it seemed for a while as
if the worst had passed. W. S. Johnson had written at the close of
the preceding year (Dec. 29, 1770), "The general American controversy
is at present looked upon here as very much at an end."[232]
Franklin had been made the agent for Massachusetts;[233] he was
still putting tersely to his correspondents the American view of the
controversy,[234] and he had a conference with Hillsborough.[235]

Hutchinson in March had succeeded to the governor's chair, with
reluctance, as he professed.[236] The American tracts may be gleaned in
Haven's list.[237]

The events of 1772 are of more interest. The Boston patriots emphasized
their arguments in their instructions to their representatives in
May.[238] Later (July 14th) they passed a remonstrance against taxation
and sent it to the king.[239]

[Illustration:

NOTE.—The annexed cut is part of a handbill in the library of the
Mass. Hist. Society.]

There are diverse views as to the originator of the committees of
correspondence. Gordon's opinion (i. 312) that James Warren was the
instigator was adopted by Marshall, but is held by Bancroft (vi.
428) to be erroneous. John Adams gave the first movement to Samuel
Adams.[240] One of the first-fruits of the committee, as a provincial
measure, was the report drafted by Samuel Adams (Nov. 2, 1772), which
was printed as the _Rights of the Colonies_.[241] The vote passed by
Virginia, March 12, 1773, was the immediate cause of intercolonial
activity.[242]

The seizure and destruction of the revenue vessel Gaspee in
Narragansett Bay, June 10, 1772, is considered by Rhode Island writers
as the earliest aggressive conduct of the patriots. John Russell
Bartlett,[243] in the _R. I. Colonial Records_ (vol. vii. pp. 57-192),
gathers all the documentary evidence, and this was in 1861 published
separately as _A History of the Destruction of his Britannic Majesty's
Schooner Gaspee ... accompanied by the Correspondence connected
therewith; the action of the General Assembly of Rhode Island thereon,
and the official journal of the ... Commission of Inquiry appointed by
King George III._[244]

Early in 1773 the patriots of Boston produced what is called "the most
elaborate state paper of the Revolutionary contest in Massachusetts."
This is the reply of the House of Representatives to the governor in
the contest then waging with him.[245]

The act which included the duty on tea had passed Parliament June 29,
1767, and in March, 1770, it had been repealed, except, in order to
maintain the theoretical right of Parliament to tax, the tax on tea had
been retained in force. Pownall[246] had exerted his utmost to make the
repeal include tea. The test was deferred till it was announced[247]
that the East India Company was assisted by government in sending over
a surplus of tea which they had. A series of impassioned gatherings in
Boston, and demonstrations not so boisterous in the other colonies, led
to the destruction of the tea in Boston harbor, and elsewhere resulted
in the transshipment of the tea whence it came.[248]

[Illustration: A BOSTON WARNING.

After an original in the Mass. Hist. Society.]

[Illustration: A PHILADELPHIA POSTER.

After an original in the library of the Pennsylvania Hist. Society.]

Another significant event of 1773 was the episode of the Hutchinson
letters. They had been written (1767-1769), from Boston, to Thomas
Whately, and came, after the latter's death (June, 1772), by some
unknown means, into Franklin's hands. When Cushing[249] and the
patriots printed them,—for the rumor of their existence led the
"people abroad" to compel their publication,[250]—Franklin made no
complaint, and bore with reserve the defamation which was visited
upon him in England, and which is still repeated by later English
writers,[251] Franklin finally prepared a statement in vindication,
but it was not published till Temple Franklin printed his edition
of _Franklin's Works_.[252] The letters were printed without any
indication of Franklin's connection with them; but when a duel grew
out of the publication, in which a brother of Whately was wounded
by Mr. Temple,[253] who had been accused of purloining the letters,
Dr. Franklin, to prevent a further meeting, published a note in the
_Public Advertiser_, acknowledging his agency.[254] Sparks appends a
note in his edition,[255] in which he refutes the claim of Dr. Hosack
(_Biographical Memoir of Dr. Hugh Williamson_, 1820) that Williamson
had been the medium of transmitting the letters.[256]

Mr. R. C. Winthrop, in discussing the question,[257] introduces a
paper of George Bancroft, "Whence came the papers sent by Franklin to
Cushing in his letter of Dec. 2, 1772?" Bancroft's conclusion is that
Whately sent the letters to Grenville (who died Nov. 13, 1770), and
they were found among his papers, and through some agency or consent of
Temple passed into Franklin's hand.[258]

[Illustration: QUINCY'S DEDICATION.

This is the original draft of the dedication to Quincy's tract on the
Port Bill, the MS. of which is among the Quincy MSS. in the cabinet of
the Mass. Hist. Society. Its full title is _Observations on the act of
parliament commonly called the Boston port-bill; with thoughts on civil
society and standing armies_ (Boston, 1774; Philad., 1774; London,
1774. It is reprinted in the _Life of Josiah Quincy, Jr._ Cf. Sabin,
xvi. 67,192, etc.)]

The letters, when laid before the Massachusetts Legislature, produced
some resolutions (June 25, 1773),[259] followed by a petition to the
king,[260] asking that Hutchinson and Oliver might be removed from
office. This led to the presence of Franklin before the Privy Council,
and the attack on Franklin's character by Wedderburn.[261]

[Illustration: THE QUINCY MANSION.

After a water-color painted by Miss Eliza Susan Quincy in 1822. The
house was built in 1770, by the father of the patriot, Josiah Quincy,
Jr. The original sketch is among the Quincy MSS. in the Mass. Hist.
Soc. cabinet. Cf. cut in _Appleton's Journal_, xiv. 161. Of Josiah
Quincy, Jr., there was an engraving made in his lifetime, which was
held to be a good likeness, and from this, and with the family's
assistance, Stuart, fifty years after Quincy's death, painted the
picture which is engraved in the _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 37.]

[Illustration: HEADING OF A HANDBILL.

Fac-simile of the top portion of an original broadside in Mass. Hist.
Society's library. The bills were that for the impartial administration
of justice, and that for better regulating the government of the
province of Massachusetts Bay.]

The earliest significant movement in 1774 was the impeachment
of Peter Oliver, chief justice, and younger brother of the late
lieutenant-governor, for receiving his salary from the crown,—the
controversy respecting the governor and other officers being thus made
independent of the people, having been one which had been active for
two years past.[262]

Gen. Gage had landed in Boston May 17th, to put in force, June 1st,
what is known as the Boston Port Bill (approved March 31, 1774), or _An
Act to discontinue, in such manner, and for such time as are therein
mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping, of goods,
wares, and merchandise, at the town, and within the harbour of Boston,
in the province of Massachuset's Bay, in North America_.[263]

While Salem and Marblehead were thus made chief ports of entry, the
commerce of Boston was suddenly checked, and the town was forced to a
dependence for succor upon other towns and other colonies.[264]

The effect of the measures on the other colonies was instant and
widespread.[265]

One of the immediate results in Massachusetts because of these
oppressive acts was a retaliatory "Solemn League and Covenant" agreed
upon in the provincial assembly,—a combination made more or less
effectual by the active agency of Boston and Worcester in issuing
broadsides against the use of imported British goods.[266]

In July, 1774, close upon his arrival in London, Hutchinson held an
interview with the king, and set forth his opinions of the condition of
affairs in the colonies.[267]

In August, 1774, Gage received the two acts mentioned in the annexed
fac-simile of a handbill.[268]

It is claimed by Dawson[269] that the movements of 1774 in New York
Were precipitated by the merchants and their adherents, "aristocratic
smugglers", who formally organized themselves in May, 1774; and it was
on the 6th of July that Alexander Hamilton made his stirring appeal at
"the great meeting in the fields."[270] Further south a similar spirit
prevailed.[271]

[Illustration: HANDBILL.

Fac-simile of an original in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society,
where is another, dated Sept. 2, 1774, quoting this, and including an
address by Gen. Brattle to the public, deprecating the current belief
that his action in writing that letter was inimical to the cause. Cf.
H. Stevens's _Catal._ (1870), no. 261. See on this mater John Andrews's
diary in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, viii. 351, 354.]

The question of originating the Congress of 1774 is one upon which
there has been some controversy. It seems evident that the first
proposal for a congress for general purposes was in a vote of
Providence, R. I., May 17, 1774.[272] Cushing of Massachusetts and Dr.
Franklin appear to have exchanged views on the subject in 1773.[273]
Hancock seems to have suggested a congress in March, 1774.[274] In May
the Sons of Liberty in New York formally proposed a Congress.[275] A
resolution of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, June 17th,
looked towards one, and similar action took place in the House of
Burgesses in Virginia.[276]

[Illustration]

The Congress opened with a concession of the New England members, when
Samuel Adams proposed the Episcopalian Duché for chaplain.[277] John
Adams tells how the scheme of the Congress struck him,[278] and we
learn from him something of the appearance and bearing of an assembly,
where the "Tories were neither few nor feeble", and the political
feelings were far from being in unison. "One third Whigs, another
Tories, the rest mongrel", he says.[279] Franklin thought that only
unanimity and firmness could conduce to any good effect from it.[280]

For the local feeling in Philadelphia and among the members assembled
there at the time, see John Adams's diary, Ward's diary,[281] and
Christopher Marshall's diary.

The original edition of the _Journal of the Proceedings of the Congress
held in Philadelphia, Sept. 5, 1774_ (Philad., 1774), bore the earliest
device of the colonies, twelve hands grasping a column based on Magna
Charta, surmounted by a liberty cap with the motto _Hanc tuemur_.[282]

What we know of the debates, apart from the proceedings, is chiefly
derived from some brief notes by John Adams.[283]

The Congress put forth a Declaration of Rights, and a draft of it
is preserved in a hand thought to be that of Major Sullivan, of New
Hampshire. Wells (_Sam. Adams_, ii. 234) thinks that Samuel Adams had a
hand in it, as it resembles the pamphlet issued by the Boston Committee
of Correspondence in 1772. The original draft of it, with the final
form, is given in the _Works of John Adams_,[284] who claimed the
authorship of article iv.

The petition of Congress to the king was drafted by John
Dickinson.[285] It was signed in duplicate, and both copies were
successively sent to Franklin, one of which is in the Public Record
Office, and the other, retained by Franklin, is among the Franklin MSS.
in the library of the Department of State at Washington.[286]

The petition to the king was first printed in London by Becket in
_Authentic Papers from America, submitted to the dispassionate
consideration of the public_ (London, 1775). This produced a card
(Jan. 17, 1775) from Bollan, Franklin, and Arthur Lee, calling the
copy of the petition "surreptitious as well as materially and grossly
erroneous" (_Sparks Catal._, p. 84).

It is sometimes said that R. H. Lee, and sometimes that John Jay,
wrote the "Address to the People of Great Britain" which the Congress
adopted.[287] They also passed a "Memorial to the inhabitants of the
colonies."[288]

On the 9th of September the people of Boston and the neighborhood met
outside the limits of the town, and passed a paper, drawn up by Joseph
Warren, more extreme and less dignified than was demanded, known as
the "Suffolk Resolves",[289] and this was transmitted to the Congress,
where, when the Resolves were read, as John Adams says, there were
tears in the Quaker eyes. Jones[290] says that the loyalists had joined
the Congress to help in claiming redress for grievances, but that the
approval of these Resolves rendered their continuance with the Congress
in its measures impossible. Hutchinson[291] says that when the Resolves
were known in England, they were more alarming than anything which had
yet been done.[292]

On Sept. 28th Joseph Galloway introduced his plan of adjustment,
calling for a grand council to act in conjunction with Parliament in
regulating the affairs of the colonies. The scheme was finally rejected
by a vote of six colonies to five, after having allured many of the
leading men to its support.[293]

The Congress, Oct. 20th, adopted the Articles of Association, pledging
in due time the country to non-importation, non-exportation, and
non-consumption, so as to sever completely all commercial relations
with England.[294]

In the summer of 1774 the British Parliament had, after some
opposition, passed what is known as the "Quebec Bill", restoring the
old French law in the civil courts of Quebec, securing rights to the
Catholic inhabitants, and extending the limits of that province south
of Lake Erie as far as the Ohio.[295]

[Illustration: CONGRESS OF 1774.]

The debates[296] in Parliament caused much diversity of opinion, and
gave rise to a number of pamphlets.[297] The Congress of 1774 sought
to counteract this action by an address to the inhabitants of Quebec,
which was distributed both in English and French.[298]

[Illustration]

Pownall in London told Hutchinson that every step of the Congress was
known to the ministry.[299] We know that Dartmouth, probably through
Galloway, received accounts of the temper of the delegates,[300] and
that Joseph Reed was in communication with Dartmouth at the time.[301]

The revolutionary measures advocated by the Congress were far from
receiving general acceptance,[302] and in New York they elicited some
sharp and vigorous controversial pamphlets.[303] It was the general
opinion at the time that Samuel Seabury was the author of two of the
ablest of these tracts, though the claims for their authorship are now
divided between Seabury and Isaac Wilkins, while each may have assisted
the other in a joint production[304] which rendered at this time the
name of a "Westchester Farmer" famous.[305]

[Illustration: JOSIAH QUINCY'S DIARY.

This is reproduced from a page of the diary of Josiah Quincy, Jr.,
which was kept while he was in London in 1774. It is the beginning of
his description of an interview with Lord North. The original diary is
among the Quincy MSS. in the cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Society. Quincy
had sailed from Salem Sept. 28, 1774, and was not averse to having the
Tories think that he was going for his health; but Gage seemed to have
had a suspicion that about this time somebody was going over with bad
designs (P. O. Hutchinson, 296). We learn from the same source (p.
301) that North thought his interviewer was "a bad, insidious man,
designing to be artful without abilities to conceal his design",—a
view that Hutchinson no doubt had helped the minister to form. With
Quincy's spirit, we can imagine how North's warning that there must
be submission before reconciliation would be taken. There was some
suspicion also that Quincy was making observations upon Franklin to
discern how far that busy genius could be trusted. Franklin seems to
have satisfied him, and on his homeward voyage Quincy dictated to a
sailor the report to the patriots that he had every reason to fear
he would not live to deliver in person, as indeed he did not. It is
preserved, and printed in his _Life_, where will be found his journal
kept in London. Joseph Reed's letters to him, while in London, are in
_The Life of Joseph Reed_, i. 85, etc. Quincy made out lists in London
of the friends and foes of America among the merchants. Cf. letter of
William Lee, April 6, 1775, in _Sparks MSS._, xlix. vol. ii.]

Another leading Tory writer at this time was Dr. Myles Cooper, the
president of King's College, who was as sharply assailed for his
_Friendly Address_[306] as the "Westchester Farmer" was.

Something of an official character belongs to _A true state of
the proceedings in the Parliament of Great Britain, and in ...
Massachusetts Bay, relative to the giving and granting the money of the
people of that province, and of all America, in the House of Commons,
in which they are not represented_ (London, 1774), for Franklin is said
to have furnished the material for it, and Arthur Lee to have drafted
it.[307]

One of the most significant of the American tracts of 1774 was John
Dickinson's _Essay on the constitutional power of Great Britain over
the colonies in America_.[308]

The journals of the provincial congress of Massachusetts (1774-1775)
are in the _Mass. Archives_ (vol. cxl.), and have been printed as
_Journal of each Provincial Congress of Mass. 1774-75, and of the Com.
of Safety, with an Appendix_ (Boston, 1838). The proceedings of the
session of Nov. 10, 1774, were circulated in a broadside.

In England we have the debates of Parliament, such correspondence as is
preserved, and the records of passing feeling, to help us understand
the condition of public opinion.[309]

The Assembly of New York met in January, 1775. Dawson contends that
the usual view of the loyal element controlling its action is not
sustained by the facts, and that in reality neither patriot nor Tory
was satisfied with its action.[310]

The feeling in Virginia is depicted in Giradin's continuation
of Burk's _Virginia_ (which was written under the cognizance of
Jefferson), in Rives's _Madison_, and in Wirt's _Patrick Henry_.[311]

[Illustration: LORD NORTH.

From Murray's _Impartial History of the Present War_, i. 96. Cf.
_London Mag._ (1779, p. 435) for another contemporary engraving.]

The Congress of 1775 met in Philadelphia, May 10th. Quebec had been
invited to send delegates.[312] Lieut.-Gov. Colden kept the majority
of the New York Assembly from sending delegates.[313] John Hancock was
chosen president, May 24th.[314]

The proceedings are given in the _Journals of Congress_.[315]

Perhaps the best expression of argumentative force on both sides was
reached in the controversy waged by John Adams against Jonathan Sewall,
as he always supposed, but in reality against Daniel Leonard, of
Taunton, as it has since been made evident.[316]

[Illustration: CHATHAM.

From the title of _Bickerstaff's Boston Almanac_ for 1772,—the common
popular picture of him. Cf. the head in _Gentleman's Mag._, March, 1770.

In 1768, Edmund Jennings of Virginia, being in London, and seeking,
probably unsuccessfully, to get a portrait of Camden for some
"gentlemen of Westmoreland County" who had subscribed for that purpose,
contented himself with commissioning young "Peele, of Maryland", then
in London, to make a picture of Chatham, following "an admirable bust
by Wilton, much like him, though different from the common prints."
Jennings presented it to R. H. Lee in a letter dated Nov. 15, 1768, and
the _Virginia Gazette_ of April 20, 1769, says it had just arrived. The
picture was placed in Stratford Hall, Lee's house, but was transferred
to the Court-House of Westmoreland in 1825, or thereabouts. In 1847 it
was transferred to the State of Virginia, and placed in the chamber
of the House of Delegates in Richmond, where it now is. It represents
Chatham "in consular habit, speaking in defence of American liberty."
Cf. _Va. Hist. Reg._, i. p. 68; _Richmond Despatch_, Sept. 26, 1886.
There is an engraving of Hoare's portrait of Chatham, representing him
sitting and holding a paper, given in fac-simile in _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, Feb., 1887. On the statue of Pitt at Charleston, S. C., see
_Mag. of Amer. History_, viii. 214. For medals, see account by W. S.
Appleton in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xi. 299. D'Auberteuil, in his
_Essais_, ii. 93, gives a curious picture of Pitt in Parliament on
crutches, with more gout in his features than in his legs. Cf. Doyle's
_Official Baronage_, i. 359.]

One of the most powerful pleas for conciliation was made in Richard
Price's _Observations on the nature of civil liberty ... and the
justice and policy of the war with America_ (London, 1776, in six
editions, at least; Boston, 1776, etc.).[317]

[Illustration: DR. PRICE.

From the _London Magazine_, May, 1776 (p. 227). "Published by R.
Baldwin, June 1, 1776."]

For the mutations and progress of opinion in England at this time we
may follow Bancroft (orig. ed., vol. viii.) and Smyth (_Lectures_, nos.
31-33), and the latter compares the expressions of this progress as
recorded in Ramsay and the _Annual Register_.[318]

[Illustration]

For the aspects of political leadership in Parliament during 1775-76,
and the struggles in debates, see the _Parliamentary History_ and the
_Amer. Archives_,[319] and we may offset among the general histories
the Tory sympathies of Adolphus (_England_, ii. ch. 24) with the
liberal tendencies of Massey (_Hist. of England_), but the lives of
the principal leaders bring us a little nearer to the spirits of the
hour.[320]

During 1775 Franklin in London was maintaining his correspondence with
his American friends,[321] and conferring with Chatham upon plans of
conciliation,[322] and discussing the ways of compromise with Lord and
Lady Howe.[323]

CHAPTER II.

THE CONFLICT PRECIPITATED.

BY JUSTIN WINSOR,

_The Editor_.

"YOU must be firm, resolute, and cautious; but discover no marks
of timidity", wrote one from London to James Bowdoin, February 20,
1774.[324] Firm, resolute, cautious, but bold! This was the impelling
spirit of the hour. Hutchinson was at the same time writing to
Dartmouth that anarchy was likely to increase, till point after
point was carried, and every tie of allegiance was severed.[325]
Indications were increasing that the conflict of argument and the
burst of political passion were before long to give way to the trial
of force, and to the inevitable severing of friends which a resort to
arms would entail. All this was prefigured on the first of June, 1774,
when Hutchinson, bearing with him the addresses of his admirers,[326]
left his house on Milton Hill forever, and walked along the road,
bidding his neighbors good-bye at their gates; when, as he approached
Dorchester Neck, he got into his carriage, which had followed him, and
was driven to the point, where he took boat, was conveyed to a frigate,
and in a short time was passing out by Boston light, leaving behind the
line of ships at their moorings, which, with shotted guns, marked the
beginning of the Boston blockade. That severing of friends and that
threat of war was at that moment, away off in Virginia, accompanied
by the tolling of bells out of sympathy for Boston. The Massachusetts
yeomanry had not yet openly seized the musket, but their tribune, Sam.
Adams, a few days later, turned the key upon the governor's secretary
in Salem, when that officer was sent to dissolve the assembly. It was
then that Adams and his associates proceeded to pass votes, with no
intention of submitting them to the executive approval,—the beginning
of the end, which we have seen Hutchinson but a few months before had
anticipated. Between the upper and the nether mill-stone, between the
patriots of Massachusetts and the Tories of Parliament, the charter
of William and Mary was rapidly crushed. Parliament determined that
all power should come from them, and the province leaders determined
otherwise. So the distribution of authority provided under the charter
ceased. The rival powers in and around Boston could not long abstain
from force. Each watched the other, in the hopes of a pretext to be
beforehand, without being the aggressor.

[Illustration]

On the first of July, 1774, when Hutchinson, in London, was convincing
the king that the ministry's aggressive measure was going to bring the
recalcitrant Bostonians to terms, Admiral Graves, in his flag-ship,
was entering Boston harbor, and new regiments soon followed in their
transports. Presently one could count thirty ships of war at their
moorings before the town, and the morning drum-beats summoned to the
roll-call strong garrisons at Castle William, in Boston itself, and
at Salem, now the capital. It was known that arms were stopped, if
any one tried to carry them from Boston; and it soon became evident
to Gage that it was best to concentrate his force, for he removed his
headquarters from Danvers[327] to Boston, and thither his two regiments
followed him. Perhaps he had heard of the enthusiasm of a certain young
officer, whom he had seen twenty years before, saving all that was
saved, on Braddock's bloody day; and how, surviving for the present
crisis, he had just declared, in distant Virginia, that he was ready
to raise, subsist, and march a thousand men to Boston. Gage must have
known George Washington quite as well as the Bostonians did, who were,
it is to be feared, better prepared on their part to look upon Israel
Putnam, as he marched into town from Connecticut with a drove of sheep
for the hungered populace, as a greater hero than the Virginian colonel.

September came in, and it did not look as if the conflict could be put
off longer.[328] On the first of that month Gage sent a detachment to
the Powder House beyond Quarry Hill, in the present Somerville, and it
brought away ammunition and cannon and took them to the castle.

[Illustration: NOTICE OF THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE.

From an original in the volume of _Proclamations_, etc., in the library
of the Mass. Hist. Society.]

News of the inroad spread, and on the next day crowds gathered
in Cambridge with arms in their hands. They assembled before
Lieutenant-Governor Oliver's house[329] and forced him to resign.
Joseph Warren, in Boston, heard of the tumult and hastened to the spot.
His influence prevailed, and the sun went down without the shedding of
blood. It was ominous, however, to Gage, and he set to work rebuilding
the old lines across Boston Neck, and constructing barracks. He soon
encountered difficulties. Somehow laborers could not be hired, nor
provisions be bought. Somehow his freight-barges sunk, his carts of
straw got on fire, his wagons were sloughed; and somehow, with all his
vigilance, a few young men made up for the loss of the powder-house
pieces by stealthily carrying off by night some cannon from
Boston,[330] besides some others from an old battery in Charlestown.
It was soon found that the men on the Neck lines needed protection,
and Admiral Graves tried to send up a sloop of war into the South bay
to enfilade the road from Roxbury, if occasion came; but her draught
was too much, and so he employed an armed schooner. By November the
works were finished. Warren thought them as formidable as Gage could
make them, but the old Louisbourg soldiers laughed at them and called
them mud walls.

Meanwhile, in October, the military spirit was taking shape throughout
the province. On the 5th the legislative assembly, which had met at
Salem on Gage's call, though he sought to outlaw them by rescinding
(September 28) his precept, had declared his attempted revocation
without warrant in law, and had resolved itself into a provincial
congress. The body then adjourned to meet in Concord, where, under
John Hancock's presidency, they appointed a Committee of Safety
to act as the executive of the province, and chose three general
officers,—Preble,[331] Ward, and Pomeroy. The militia was organized,
and minute-men were everywhere forming into companies. Gordon tells how
the country was astir with preparations. Connecticut was not far behind
in ordering her militia to be officered, and in directing her towns to
double their stock of ammunition, while she voted to issue £15,000 in
paper money,—the first of the war.

"An armed truce", wrote Benjamin Church, "is the sole tenure by which
the inhabitants of Boston possess life, liberty, and property." Away
from Boston, the towns made common cause. "Liberty and Union" was to
be read on a flag flying in Taunton. When news of these and similar
events reached England, Lord North told Hutchinson that, for aught he
could see, it must come to violence, with consequent subjection for the
province.[332] When such tidings reached Virginia it found her officers
just sheathing their swords after their conflict with the Indians in
the mountains, and resolving next to turn their weapons against the
oppressors of America. Gage, in Boston, whom Warren really felt to
be honest and desirous of an accommodation, was awaking to a juster
measure of the task of the ministry, which might, he said, require
20,000 troops to begin with. As he pondered on such views, he might
have heard, on the evening of the 9th of November, 1774, the ringing
of the bells which greeted the return of Sam. Adams and his colleagues
from the Philadelphia congress. Shortly after the middle of the month
the British in Boston went into winter quarters.[333] So November
passed;—the Committee of Safety had arranged to raise and support
an army, and the recommendation of the Continental Congress had been
approved.

December came. Boston was not yet burned, as some in London believed it
was when Quincy heard them laying wagers in the coffee-houses,[334] and
if Sam. Adams was not the first politician in the world, as others told
the same ardent young Bostonian, he was sharing conspicuous honors at
home, with his distant kinsman, John Adams. The latter, as Novanglus,
in his public controversy with the unknown Massachusettensis, was just
attracting renewed attention. But that sturdy patriot, while he was
arguing in public, was comforting himself in private by reckoning that
Massachusetts could put 25,000 men in the field in a week; and New
England, he counted, had 200,000 fighting men, "not exact soldiers",
he confessed, "but all used to arms."[335] Tidings were coming in
which told how this warlike spirit might be tested. Governor Wanton,
of Rhode Island, had spirited away from the reach of the British naval
officers forty-four cannon, which were at Newport. Paul Revere had
gone down to Portsmouth and harangued the Sons of Liberty, till they
invaded Fort William and Mary and (December 14, 1774) carried off the
powder and cannon.[336] From Maryland, where they had lately been
burning a tea-ship,[337] the word was that its convention had ordered
the militia to be enrolled. From Pennsylvania it appeared that Thomas
Mifflin was conspicuous among the Quakers in advocating the measure
of non-intercourse. From South Carolina the news was halting. Could
her rice-planters succeed in getting their product excepted from such
a plan? They did. Gage had some time before[338] written to Dartmouth
that they were as mad in the southern Charlestown as in northern
Boston; and when one of their Tory parsons had intimated that clowns
should not meddle with politics, they had been as fiery as they could
have been in Massachusetts.[339] Gordon, of Jamaica Plain, in appending
notes to a sermon which he had just preached on the Provincial
Thanksgiving of December 15, 1774, refers to the brave lead of Virginia
in the present time, as nine years before she had been foremost in
the stamp-act time.[340] Governor Dunmore was reporting to Dartmouth
(December, 1774) that every county in Virginia was arming a company of
men, to be ready as occasion required.

John Adams, at Philadelphia, read to Patrick Henry from a paper of
Joseph Hawley, that the result of the action of the ministry rendered
it necessary to fight. "I am of that man's opinion", replied the
ardent Virginian.[341] With the new year (1775) that opinion was
becoming widespread. _Ames' Almanac_ (1775), published in Boston, was
printing, for almost every family in New England to read, "a method for
making gunpowder", so that every person "may easily supply himself with
a sufficiency of that commodity." Day by day news came to Boston from
every direction of the indorsement of Congress, and of the wild-fire
speed of the dispersion of the military spirit. Those who remembered
the 40,000 men who marched towards Boston at the time of the D'Anville
scare, thirty years before, said the enthusiasm then was nothing like
the present. Somehow Gage began to feel more confident. He had in
January 3,500 men in his Boston garrison, and almost as many more were
expected, and he did not hesitate to send (January 23) Captain Balfour
and a hundred men, with two cannon, to Marshfield, to protect the two
hundred loyalists there, who had signed the articles by which Timothy
Ruggles was hoping to band the friends of government together, and the
reports which Balfour sent back seemed to satisfy the governor that the
measure was effective.[342]

On the first of February, 1775, the second provincial congress
assembled at Cambridge, and they soon issued a solemn address to
the people, deprecating a rupture, but counselling preparations for
it.[343] It was not then known that Gage had won over Dr. Church, and
that through this professing patriot the British headquarters in Boston
were informed of the doings of congress. Church's defection encouraged
the tories, and on the 6th, handbills appeared in Boston, reminding the
patriots of the fate of Wat Tyler.[344] A few days later Cambridge was
alarmed by the report that troops were coming out of Boston to disperse
them; but the day passed without the proof of it. The Committee of
Safety were anxious, for they knew that the other colonies and their
friends in England were fearful that the conflict would be precipitated
without the consent of congress; and the authority of congress was
now so dominant that its cognizance of such measures was essential to
the continuance of the sympathy with Massachusetts which now existed.
No one at this time was more solicitous for this prudent measure than
Joseph Hawley, and no one in Massachusetts had a steadier head. On the
18th Peter Oliver wrote from Boston to London: "Great preparations on
both sides for an engagement, and the sooner it comes the better."[345]
"Every day, every hour widens the breach!" wrote Warren to Arthur Lee,
two days later.[346] Already the provincial congress had conferred
on the Committee of Safety (February 9) the power to assemble the
militia, and John Thomas and William Heath had been added to the
general officers. The committee, on the 21st, had voted to buy supplies
for 15,000 men, including twenty hogsheads of rum. On the same day Sam.
Adams and Warren signed a letter to the friends of liberty in Canada,
and secret messengers were already passing that way. Presently, on the
26th, the impending conflict was once more averted.

Colonel David Mason, of Salem, had been commissioned by the Committee
of Safety as an engineer, and was now at work in that town mounting
some old cannon which had been taken from the French. Gage heard of it,
and by his orders a transport appeared at Marblehead, with about 300
men under Lieutenant-Colonel Leslie, who rapidly landed and marched
his men to Salem. Their purpose was seasonably divined; the town was
aroused, and, in the presence of a mob, the commander thought it safer
to turn upon his steps.[347] A British officer, Colonel Smith, with
one John Howe, was at about the same time sent out in disguise to
scour the country towards Worcester, and pick up news for Gage;[348]
and two others, Brown and Bernière, were a few weeks later prowling
about Concord.[349] The patriots did not scour for news. It came in
like the wind,—now of county meetings, now of drills, now of Colonel
Washington's ardor in Virginia, and now of Judge Drayton's charge to
the grand jury in Carolina.

[Illustration: ROADS OF ROXBURY AND BEYOND.

Sketched from a MS. map in the library of Congress, which is apparently
one of the maps made by Gage's secret parties of observation.]

Early in March came the anniversary of the Boston massacre. Two days
before, Judge Auchmuty, in Boston, wrote to Hutchinson: "I don't see
any reason to expect peace and order until the fatal experiment of arms
is tried.... Bloodshed and desolation seem inevitable."[350] While this
tory was writing thus, the patriots, in a spirit that somewhat belied
their professed wish to avoid a conflict, were arranging for a public
commemoration of the massacre. It could have been omitted without any
detriment to the cause, and to observe it could easily have begotten
trouble amid the inflamed passions of both sides. "We may possibly be
attacked in our trenches", said Sam. Adams. It little conduced to peace
that Joseph Warren was selected to deliver the address, which, as the
fifth came on Sunday, was delivered on Monday, the sixth. The concourse
of people suggested to Warren to enter the Old South meeting-house,
where the crowd was assembled, by a ladder put against a window in
the rear of the pulpit. Forty British officers were present, and the
moderator offered them front seats, and some of the officers placed
themselves on the pulpit stairs. A contemporary story says that it was
a set purpose of the officers to break up the meeting,[351] and that
one of them took an egg in his pocket, to be thrown at the speaker for
a signal. This man tripped as he entered the building, and the egg
was broken before its time. Another officer, below the desk, held up
some bullets in his open palm as Warren warmed in his eloquence. The
speaker quietly dropped his handkerchief on the leaden menace, and went
on. So the meeting came to an end, with no outbreak; though there was
some hissing and pounding of canes when the vote of thanks was put.
As the crowd came out of the meeting-house there was an apprehensive
moment,[352] for the Forty-third Regiment chanced to be passing, with
beating drums, and for an instant the outcome was uncertain.[353]
Gage had suffered the commemoration to pass without recognition, but
ten days later his officers made the event the subject of a provoking
burlesque, when Dr. Thomas Bolton delivered from the balcony of the
British Coffee House in King Street a mock oration in ridicule of
Warren, Hancock, and Adams.[354] There was no knowing what purpose this
ridicule might mask; and a committee of the patriots, mostly mechanics,
were constantly following the progress of events, meeting secretly
at the Green Dragon[355] for consultation, and setting watches at
Charlestown, Cambridge, and Roxbury, to give warning if there were any
signs that the royal troops were preparing to move from the town.

On the 22d March, 1775, the provincial congress assembled again at
Concord, and set to work in organizing their army, and in devising
an address to the Mohawks, with the purpose of securing them to the
patriot side. They also prepared to use the Stockbridge Indians as
mediators with their neighbors, who were already tampered with, as was
believed or alleged, by emissaries from Canada. It was already known
that the people of the New Hampshire Grants were preparing to seize
Ticonderoga as soon as the war-cloud should burst.

[Illustration: BETWEEN BOSTON AND MARLBOROUGH.

Sketched from a MS. map in the library of Congress, which is seemingly
the original or copy of the map made by one of Gage's secret parties
sent to observe the country.]

News sped rapidly by relays of riders. It was not long after Patrick
Henry had said in Virginia, "We must fight; an appeal to arms and
to the God of hosts is all that is left for us",[356] before the
words were familiar in Massachusetts, and John Adams, who knew, said
that Virginia was planting wheat instead of tobacco. At Providence
they were burning tea in the streets, and men went about erasing the
advertisements of the obnoxious herb from the shop-windows. Everywhere
they were quoting the incendiary speech of John Wilkes, the lord mayor
of London, whose retorts upon the ministry were relished as they were
read in the public prints. As if to test whether March should pass
without bloodshed,[357] Gage on the 30th sent Earl Percy out of town
with a brigade, in light marching order, and he went four miles, to
Jamaica Plain, and returned. The minute-men gathered in the neighboring
towns, but no encounter took place.[358]

So April came, with the rattle of the musket still unheard. On the
second day two vessels arrived at Marblehead, bringing tidings that
Parliament had pledged its support to the king and his ministers, and
that more troops were coming. On the 8th a committee reported to the
provincial congress on an armed alliance of the New England colonies,
and messengers were sent to the adjacent governments.[359] Connecticut
responded with equipping six regiments; New Hampshire organized her
forces as a part "of the New England army", and Rhode Island voted to
equip fifteen hundred men. In Virginia it looked for a while as if
the appeal to arms would not be long delayed, for Dunmore fulminated
against their convention; and he even threatened to turn the slaves
against their masters, and he did seize the powder at Williamsburg, of
which the province had small store at best. Calmer counsels prevailed,
and the armed men who had gathered at Fredericksburg dispersed to
reassemble at call.

* * * * *

The contest meanwhile had been precipitated in Massachusetts. The rumor
had already gone to England that it was close at hand. Hutchinson,
in London, on the 10th, when writing to his son in Boston, had said:
"Before this reaches you it will be determined;" and while tidings
of the actual conflict was on the way, Hutchinson learned in London
that Pownall had been prepared by letters from Boston for something
startling.[360] The circle of sympathizers with America were in this
suspense while Franklin was on the ocean, hither bound, and, if we may
believe Strahan, he had left England in a rancorous state of mind,
causing men to wonder what he intended on arriving, whether to turn
general and fight, or to bolster in other ways the spirits of the
rebels.[361] When he arrived the fight had begun.

On the 15th of April the provincial congress had adjourned. On the
16th, Isaiah Thomas spirited his press out of Boston and took it to
Worcester, where, in a little more than a fortnight, the _Massachusetts
Spy_ reappeared.[362] Families, impressed with the forebodings of
the sky, were moving out of town. Samuel Adams and Hancock had been
persuaded to retire to Lexington,[363] to be beyond the grasp of Gage,
who was shortly expected to order the arrest of the patriots, for which
he had had instructions since March 18th.[364] The Boston committee
of observation was watchful. It had noticed that on the 14th the
"Somerset" frigate had changed her moorings to a position intermediate
between Boston and Charlestown, and on the 15th the transports were
hauled near the men-of-war. Notice of these signs was sent to Hancock
and Adams, and preparations were begun for removing a part of the
stores at Concord. When, during the afternoon of the 18th, some of the
precious cannon were trundled into Groton, her minute-men gathered
for a night march to Concord. During that same day Gage sent out from
Boston some officers to patrol the roads towards Concord, and intercept
the patriot messengers, and to discover, if possible, the lurking-place
of Adams and Hancock. In the evening it was observed in Boston that
troops were marching across the Common to the inner bay. William Dawes
was at once dispatched to Concord by way of Roxbury, for the patriot
watch had not been without information before the troops actually
moved. Gordon tells us that they got a warning from a "daughter of
liberty unequally yoked in point of politics", and as Gage's wife was
a daughter of Peter Kemble, of New Jersey, it has been surmised that
the informer may have been one very near to headquarters.[365] Paul
Revere immediately caused the preconcerted signal-light to be set in
a church-tower at the north end of Boston, and crossing the river in
a boat, he mounted a horse on the Charlestown side and started on his
famous midnight ride. It was none too soon. At eleven o'clock eight
hundred men, under Lieutenant-Colonel Smith, were passing over the
back bay in boats to Lechmere Point. Here they landed at half past two
in the morning, and the moon at this hour was well up. They marched
quietly and rapidly, but not unobserved, and when they approached
Lexington Green they found drawn up there a company of minute-men.
Smith had become alarmed when, as he was advancing, he found the
country aroused in every direction, and sent back for reinforcements.
Earl Percy, with the succor, was by some stupidity[366] delayed, and
did not get off from Boston till between nine and ten the next morning,
and he then took the circuitous route by Roxbury and Cambridge.

The critical moment on Lexington Green had then long passed. Major
Pitcairn, who commanded Smith's advance-guard, would not or could
not prevent that fatal volley in the early morning light, by which
several of the small body of provincials were killed before they broke,
while, by a scattering return fire, one or two of the British were
wounded.[367] Smith, without being aware that Hancock and Adams were at
the moment within sound of his musketry, and just then being conducted
farther from his reach, waited while his troops gave three cheers, and
then resumed his march, passing on towards Concord. The provincials
gathered their dead and wounded, and managed as the British passed on
to pick up a few stragglers, the first prisoners of the war.[368]

On the redcoats went as the day broadened.[369] They followed the road
much as it runs to-day, though in places steeps and impediments are
now avoided by a better grade. Their march went by the spots which the
genius of Hawthorne and Emerson have converted into shrines. In the
centre of Concord they halted, while the gathering provincials, who
had retired before them, watched the smoke of devastation. Smith had
detailed two detachments to find and destroy stores. One of these,
sent to Colonel Barrett's, beyond the North Bridge, had some success,
and while it was absent the provincials, now increased in numbers from
the neighboring towns, approached a guard which had been left at the
bridge. Here the British fired at the Americans across the stream, and
the volley being returned, a few were killed on both sides, before the
British guard retreated upon the main body, whither they were soon
followed by the other detachment which was out. Smith took two hours to
gather wagons for his wounded and make preparations for his retreat,
which had now become imperative, for the militia were seen swarming on
the hills.[370] When Smith started he threw out a flanking party on his
left, which followed a ridge running parallel to his march; but when
the sloping of the land compelled the flankers to descend to the level
of the road, the British lost the advantage which the ridge gave them,
and the minute-men, who now began to strike the British line of march
at every angle, waylaid them at cross-roads, and dropped an incessant
fire upon them from copse, hill, and stone wall, until the retreating
troops, impeded with their wounded, and leaving many of their dying
and dead, huddled along the road like sheep beset by dogs. Just on the
easterly outskirts of Lexington they met Percy, whose ranks opened
and received the fugitives; and Stedman, the British historian who
was with Percy, tells us how the weary men hung out their tongues as
they cumbered the ground during their halt. It was near two o'clock,
and Percy planted his cannon to keep his assailants at bay, while his
troops, now about eighteen hundred in number, rested and refreshed
themselves. Before this, his baggage train, which had been delayed in
crossing the bridge from Brighton to Cambridge so as to fall far behind
his hastening column, had been captured, with its guard, by a crowd
of old men some distance below, at Menotomy.[371] When Percy limbered
his pieces and his troops fell again into column, the hovering militia
renewed the assault. As pursuer and pursued crossed West Cambridge
plain the action was sharp. Percy did not dare attempt to turn towards
the boats which Smith had left at Lechmere Point, and any intention he
may have had of halting at Cambridge and fortifying was long vanished.
So he pursued the road which led towards Charlestown Neck. Several
hundred militiamen, who had come up from Essex County,[372] were nearly
in time at Winter Hill to cut the British off in their precipitate
retreat, and "God knows", said Washington, when he learned the facts,
"it could not have been more so." Percy, however, slipped by, and as
darkness was coming on, the fire of the pursuers began to slacken
as they approached Bunker Hill. Here, with the royal ships covering
their flanks, the British halted, and, facing about, formed a line and
prepared to make a stand. General Heath, who during the latter part
of the day had been on the ground, drew off his militia, and at the
foot of Prospect Hill held the first council of war of the now actual
hostilities. Warren, early in the day hastening from Boston across the
river, had galloped towards the scene of conflict. When he encountered
Percy's column on its way out, he seems to have evaded it and joined
General Heath, then taking cross-roads to intercept the pursuing
militia. Heath took the command of the provincials soon after Percy
resumed his march. From this time Warren, as chairman of the committee
in Boston, kept near Heath, for counsel if need be, and Heath says that
on the West Cambridge plain a musket-ball struck a pin from Warren's
earlock.

No one could tell what would happen next, after this suddenly
improvised army had begun to rendezvous that night in Cambridge. As the
straggling parties, in bivouac and in what shelter they could find,
compared experiences and counted the missing, messengers were hurrying
in every direction with the tidings of the war at last begun![373]

On the 20th of April there was much to do beside picking up the dead
that may have been left over night along the road from Concord. The
Committee of Safety[374] were summoning all the towns to send their
armed men to Cambridge.[375] Warren was writing to Gage to beg better
facilities for getting the women and children, with family effects,
out of Boston.[376] These were busy days for that ardent patriot. The
militia were beginning to pour in, and Warren must do the chief work in
reducing the mob to order. Congress comes to Watertown, and Warren, in
the absence of Hancock, must preside. He bids God-speed to Samuel Adams
and John Hancock[377] as they start for the Continental Congress. He
hears with a sinking heart of the vessel which arrived at Gloucester
on the 26th, bringing the body of Josiah Quincy, so lately warm that,
when the tidings reached Cambridge of his death, Warren supposed he had
lived to get ashore.[378]

[Illustration: HEATH'S ACCOUNT OF THE FIGHT AT MENOTOMY.

From a slip of paper in the _Heath Papers_, vol. i. no. 71.]

[Illustration

After a copperplate in _An Impartial Hist. of the War in America_,
Boston, 1784, vol. iii. The background is much the same as that of
a portrait of Washington in the same work, and the print, issued in
Boston, where Heath was well known, shows what kind of effigies then
passed current. A portrait of Heath by H. Williams has been engraved by
J. R. Smith. (_Catal. Cab. Mass. Hist. Soc._, p. 46.) There is extant
a likeness owned by Mrs. Gardner Brewer, of Boston. Cf. _Mem. Hist.
of Boston_, iii. 183. Heath was born in Roxbury, March 2, 1737, and
died Jan. 24, 1814. His service was constant during the war, though
his deeds were not brilliant. He seems conspicuously to have acquired
the regard of Washington; though Bancroft calls him vain, honest, and
incompetent. His papers are in the Mass. Hist. Soc. Cabinet.]

Another day Warren is busy carrying out the behests of the Committee
of Safety respecting their scant artillery. At another time he is
encouraging wagoners to go into Boston to bring out the friends of
the cause and their property; but it was not so easy to get Gage's
permission, and as the tories made a plea that these Boston patriots
were necessary hostages, obstacles were thrown in the way.[379] There
were rumors, too, of an intention of the royal troops once more to
raid upon the country. Only two days after the 19th of April, Ipswich
was wild with such rumors, and the alarm spread to the New Hampshire
line[380] and beyond.[381]

The patriots at Cambridge were not pleased when they found that the
Connecticut assembly had sent a committee to bear a letter from
Governor Trumbull (April 28) and to confer with Gage.[382] There was a
feeling that the time had passed for such things, and Warren wrote (May
2) a letter beseeching the sister colony to stand by Massachusetts,
which elicited from Trumbull a response sufficiently assuring.[383]

[Illustration: Ethan Allen]

Already there was a proposition warlike enough from a Connecticut
captain who had just led his company to Cambridge, and was now urging
the seizure of Ticonderoga and its stores. The proposition was timely.
During the previous winter the patriots had learned that the British
government was intending to separate the colonies by securing the line
of the Hudson.[384] Accordingly the instigator of this counter-movement
was ordered, May 3d, to carry it out, and Benedict Arnold makes his
first appearance in American history. Meanwhile, however, acting upon
hints which Arnold had already dropped before leaving Connecticut, or
perhaps anticipating such hints, some gentlemen in that colony, joining
with others of Pittsfield, in Massachusetts, had gone to Bennington,
where, on the day before Arnold was commissioned, they had been joined
by Col. Ethan Allen. Thus the plan which Arnold had at heart was likely
to be carried out before he could arrive from Cambridge. A few days
later the command of the force which had gathered naturally fell to
Allen as having the largest personal following, and this following was
loyal enough to their leader to threaten to abandon the enterprise if
Arnold, who arrived very soon, should press his rights to the command.
By a sort of compromise, Allen and Arnold now shared amicably the
leadership. Less than a hundred men had reached the neighborhood of
the fort on the morning of May 10, when, in the early dawn, the two
leaders, overpowering the sentinels at the sally-port, reached the
parade-ground with their men, and forced an immediate surrender from
the commandant, still in his night-clothes. Fifty men and nearly two
hundred cannon, and many military stores, were thus promptly and easily
secured. More than a hundred other pieces were added, when, on the
12th, Colonel Seth Warner,[385] with a coöperating detachment, seized
the post at Crown Point, and shortly afterwards Bernard Romans took
possession of Fort George.[386]

[Illustration: RUINS OF TICONDEROGA, 1818.

From a plate in the _Analectic Magazine_ (Philadelphia, 1818). Cf.
views in Lossing's _Field-Book_, and _Harper's Monthly_ (vii. p. 170);
Von Hellwald's _America_, pp. 134, 135.]

On the 14th some of Arnold's belated men reached him with a captured
schooner, which Arnold immediately put to use in conveying a force
by which he surprised the fort at St. John's, on the Sorel, and then
returned to Ticonderoga.[387]

* * * * *

Meanwhile the provincials had begun to use the spade in Cambridge,
and here and there a breastwork appeared.[388] On the 5th of May the
provincial congress pronounced Gage "an unnatural and inveterate
enemy",[389] and issued a precept for a new congress to convene.

[Illustration: ROXBURY LINES.

Follows a contemporary pen-and-ink sketch, showing the American lines
as seen from the British lines on Boston Neck. The original is in the
library of Congress.]

The military anxiety was increasing. Thomas had but 700 men at Roxbury,
which he tried to magnify in the British eyes by marching them in and
out of sight, so as to make the same men serve the appearance of many
more. On the 8th of May there was an alarm that the royal troops were
coming out, and the militia of the near towns were summoned.[390] To
put on an air of confidence, a few days later (May 13), Putnam, from
Cambridge, marched with 2,200 men into Charlestown and out again,
without being molested, though part of the time within range of the
enemy's guns. It was the military assertion of the idea, which the day
before the Watertown congress had expressed, of governing themselves.
"It is astonishing how they have duped the whole continent", wrote
Gage to Dartmouth,[391] and perhaps he had not heard even then of the
last victory of opinion down in Georgia, where parishes of New England
descent were forcing issues with their neighbors.

The Committee of Safety now resolved to remove the live-stock from
the islands in Boston Harbor; and Gage, on his part, determined on
securing some hay on Grape Island, near Weymouth. These counter-forays
led to fighting, and for some weeks the harbor was alive with
skirmishing.[392] Meanwhile the Massachusetts congress had urged
Connecticut to let Arnold bring some of the cannon captured on
Lake Champlain to Cambridge,[393] and the day before the brush
occurred at Grape Island they had delivered (May 20) a commission
as commander-in-chief of the Massachusetts troops to Artemas Ward.
In Boston the remaining loyalists were soon cheered by advices
promising large reinforcements, which they now confidently began to
expect,[394] and the feeling grew apace among the beleaguerers that
a better organization and a closer dependence of the colonies among
themselves were necessary to meet the impending dangers. Dr. Langdon,
the president of Harvard College, in the election sermon[395] on the
day when the new provincial congress met (May 31), had recognized
the general obedience which was already paid to the advice of the
Continental Congress. There were not a few who remembered how, twenty
years before, the young Virginian, Colonel George Washington, had come
to Boston, and who recalled the good impression he had made. They had
heard lately of the active interest and sympathy with the patriots'
cause which he was manifesting among his neighbors in that colony. On
the 4th of May, Elbridge Gerry, with the approval of Warren, wrote to
the Massachusetts delegates at Philadelphia, that they would "rejoice
to see this way the beloved Colonel Washington" as generalissimo.[396]
This was the feeling, while the army which lay about Boston was a mere
inchoate mass, far from equal to the task which they had undertaken;
but brave words did much; brave spirits did more; and John Adams
was writing from Philadelphia that one "would burst to see whole
companies of armed Quakers in that city, in uniforms, going through
the manual."[397] The tories in Boston looked on with mingled fear and
confidence. "We are daily threatened", wrote Chief-justice Oliver from
Boston (June 10), "with an attack by fire-rafts, whale-boats, and what
not."[398]

[Illustration: WARREN'S LAST NOTE.

The original is among the Heath Papers (Mass. Hist. Soc.), and is given
in fac-simile in Frothingham's _Warren_, p. 506; and reduced (as above)
in G. A. Coolidge's _Brochure of Bunker Hill_, p. 34.]

One of the new British generals now lent his literary skill to his
commanding general, for Burgoyne was a playwright and had an easy way
of vaporing, which was quite apparent in Gage's proclamation of June
12,[399] to warn the rebellious and infatuated multitudes, and to hold
out forgiveness to all but Samuel Adams and John Hancock.[400] The
provincial congress, through Warren, prepared a counter-manifesto, but
events were rushing too speedily to leave time for its publication. On
the very day of issuing his proclamation Gage wrote to Dartmouth that
he was intending to attack the rebels, "which every day becomes more
necessary."[401]

[Illustration: NOTICE TO THE MILITIA.

After an original in the volume of _Proclamations_ in the library of
the Mass. Hist. Society.]

On the 14th Warren was made the second major-general of the
Massachusetts forces, and his active spirit gave encouragement, since
the inalertness of Ward was creating much concern. Early in the
morning of the 17th Warren left Watertown, and the provincial congress
convened without him, but they knew the emergency. A broadside exists
of this day, in which they call upon the neighboring militia to hold
themselves in readiness. In the anxious hours of this, St. Botolph's
day,[402] with all eyes on Boston, the Continental Congress had chosen
Washington to be their military chief,[403] and had adopted the forces
which were about to show that Boston was not besieged idly. It took
time then for Cambridge to know what was happening in Philadelphia;
but the assembled legislators at Watertown might well hope for what had
really happened, when, as the fateful day wore on, messengers arrived,
declaring that the Continental funds were to be used to help supply
this beggared army, and that all the aspirations of its provincial
congress to set up a civil government of their own had met the approval
of the continent.[404]

Now to look at the military situation. Already John Thomas, a physician
of Kingston, had been made second in command under Ward; and Richard
Gridley, an old Louisbourg artilleryman, had been made chief engineer.
As yet the New England colonies were the only ones which had sent
their armed men to the scene. The Massachusetts men had taken post
mostly at Cambridge, near the college; and here, as the days went on,
came also a Connecticut regiment under Israel Putnam, who had left
his plough in its furrow. So, as June began, there had assembled on
this side of Boston between seven and eight thousand men, eager, but
poorly equipped, and with a small supply of powder. On the Roxbury
side, fronting the British lines on Boston Neck, there were about four
thousand Massachusetts men, under John Thomas, supported by a camp
a little farther out, at Jamaica Plain, to which Joseph Spencer had
come with another Connecticut regiment, and Nathanael Greene, with a
body of Rhode Islanders. Thomas had some field-pieces and a few heavy
cannon, and his force constituted the army's right wing. Its left wing
was upon the Mystick at Medford, and near Charlestown Neck, and here
were the New Hampshire men, and among their officers the old Indian
fighter, John Stark, was conspicuous. Three companies of Massachusetts
men constituted the extreme left at Chelsea. So, as the summer came
on, perhaps about 16,000 men in all were encamped as a fragile army
besieging Boston. General Ward exercised by sufferance a superior
authority over all, though as yet no colony but New Hampshire had
instructed its troops to yield him obedience. As Massachusetts claimed
three quarters of the entire force thus drawn together, the assumption
of chief command by her first officer was natural enough in a common
cause.

The force which this sixteen thousand loosely organized men dared to
hold imprisoned in Boston was a well-compacted army of somewhere from
five to ten thousand men, for it is difficult amid conflicting reports
to determine confidently a fixed number. On the 25th of May Gage had
been joined by a reinforcement, accompanied by three other general
officers,—Burgoyne, Clinton, and Howe.

The council of war at Cambridge was meanwhile directing new works
to be constructed, strengthening and stretching their lines of
circumvallation. Its opinions were divided on the question of
occupying so exposed a position as the most prominent eminence on
the peninsula of Charlestown, the defence of which might bring on a
general engagement, which their stock of powder could not support. On
the 13th of June the American commanders had secretly learned that
Gage intended on the 18th to take possession of Dorchester Heights, the
present South Boston. There was but one counter-move to make, and that
was to seize in anticipation the summit of the ridgy height which began
at Charlestown Neck and extended, in varying outline, to the seaward
end of the peninsula,—an eminence known as Bunker Hill. On the 16th of
June, a council of war, held in the house near Cambridge common, known
then as the Hastings and later as the Holmes House,[405] decided, upon
the recommendation of the Committee of Safety, to occupy Bunker Hill at
once.

[Illustration: ORDER OF THE COMMITTEE OF SAFETY.

This has before appeared in G. A. Coolidge's _Brochure of Bunker Hill_,
1875.]

That evening about 1,200 men, of whom 200 were from Connecticut under
Thomas Knowlton, the whole being under the command of Colonel William
Prescott, first listened to a prayer of the president of the college,
and then marched, with their intrenching tools, in the darkness, to
Charlestown Neck.

[Illustration]

Here the purpose was for the first time disclosed to the men. They
resumed their march, going up the slope of the hill before them, while
Nutting's company and a few Connecticut men were sent along the shore
opposite Boston, to patrol it. The highest summit of the hill was the
one first reached; but, after a consultation, it was decided to proceed
to a lower one, more nearly before Boston. Here Richard Gridley marked
out a redoubt, and at midnight the men took their spades and began
to throw up the breastworks. Putnam, who seems to have accompanied
Prescott, now returned to Cambridge, and while the men worked busily,
Prescott sent an additional patrol to the river, and twice went down
himself, to be satisfied, as he heard the "All's well" of the watch on
the men-of-war moored opposite, that no noise of the intrenching tools
had reached the enemy. Soon after the first glimmer of dawn on the
17th, the sailors on the ships discovered the embankments, now about
six feet high, when one of the vessels, the "Lively", at once opened
fire upon them. This lasted only till Admiral Graves could send orders
to cease, but was shortly renewed from the ships and from the batteries
on Copp's Hill, in Boston, as soon as the British generals comprehended
the situation. Prescott's men meanwhile kept at their work. One man
was soon killed by a cannon-ball. The commander and others walked the
parapet, encouraging their men, and Willard, one of the councillors
who stood by Gage as they surveyed the hill through their glasses,
recognized the Pepperell colonel, and told the British general what
sort of man he had got to encounter. A promise had been given to
Prescott that in the morning a relief and refreshments would be sent
from Cambridge; but nothing came to the hungry men, as they still
worked. Ward, who heard the firing, yielded to Putnam's persuasion
to send reinforcement, only so far as to despatch a part of Stark's
regiment, for he feared that Gage would seem to prepare to assault
in Charlestown, while his intention might be to attack in Cambridge.
Finally, about ten o'clock, Major John Brooks[406] reached headquarters
with a request from Prescott for help and food. Richard Devens pressed
Ward to comply, and at eleven the rest of the New Hampshire men were
ordered to march.

[Illustration]

Meanwhile, as the tide rose, some floating batteries were sent up the
stream to take the works in flank, and later, to rake the Neck. A few
stray shots were returned from a single field-piece in the redoubt,
one of whose balls passed over Burgoyne's head, as he tells us, while
he was watching at Copp's Hill. Putnam came again from Cambridge,
and induced Prescott to send off a large number of his men with the
intrenching tools, and under Putnam's direction this detail soon began
to use them in throwing up earthworks on the higher summit in the
rear,—labor wasted, as it turned out.

[Illustration]

As the day wore on, Gage held a council of war, and it was determined
not to land troops at the Neck and attack in rear, as Clinton urged,
but to assault in front. This decision was long the ground of severe
criticism upon Gage, and ruined his military reputation. The ships
were put into better positions, and redoubled their fire. By noon
the British troops in Boston were marching to the wharves, where
they embarked in boats, and, under the command of General Howe, they
rowed to Moulton's or Morton's Point, where the landing was quickly
made.[407] Howe drew up his men on the rising ground which makes the
least of the three heights of the peninsula, and anticipating sharp
work, sent back the boats for more men.

Prescott observed all this from the hill, but looked longingly up the
peninsula for his own reinforcements. A few wagons came, not with men,
but with beer, though nothing adequate even of this. The feeling began
to spread among the men on the hill that they had been treacherously
left to their fate; but they got encouragement from a few brave souls
who came straggling in from Cambridge. Pomeroy, the French war veteran,
was one. James Otis, wreck as he was, came.[408] So did Warren, whose
presence the men recognized by a cheer, and, major-general as he
was, he came to fight under Colonel Prescott. Putnam, too, had again
returned, and was seen riding about the field in a restless way, with
a word of encouragement here and there, and pointing out to a few
reinforcements now arriving where best to go.

[Illustration]

Prescott's eye, observing Howe's dispositions, saw he was aiming to
advance along the Mystick and take the redoubt in reverse. So Knowlton,
with two field-pieces and the Connecticut troops, were sent down the
hill towards the Mystick, where they began to make a line of defence of
a low stone wall, which was topped by a two-rail fence. Stark and Reed,
with the New Hampshire regiments, diminished somewhat by details which
Putnam had taken from them to help the work in the trenches on the
higher hill, soon came up and ranged their men in a line with Knowlton.
There was, however, an interval between this part of the field and
the breastwork and redoubt, which offered a chance for the enemy to
intervene and break the line. An attempt was made to prepare for such a
contingency by grouping the few guns which they had at this point. New
troops, in small numbers, continued to come up, and they were placed in
position as best they could be to keep the line strong in all parts as
it sloped away from the crowning redoubt towards either river.

[Illustration]

It was nearing three o'clock when the British boats returned from
Boston; and when their troops landed Howe had about 3,000 men in array.
He pushed his guns forward and got them in position to play upon the
American field-pieces, and soon drove them away, while at the same
time some skirmishing took place on the British flanks, whose main
body was now advancing in a measured step in two columns: one led by
Howe against the rail-fence, the other by Pigot against the redoubt.
The assault was become one of infantry only, for the British guns
were soon mired in some soft ground, and the balls in reserve had
proved of an over-calibre.[409] Pigot's front got near the redoubt
before the Americans poured in their fire, which was deadly enough to
send the staggered column wildly back. At the same time, along the
Mystick Howe's advance was met by the American field-pieces, some
of which had been drawn to the rail-fence. Their musketry fire was
reserved, as at the redoubt, and when it belched upon the deployed
enemy it produced the same effect. So there was a recoil all along the
British line. In the respite before they advanced again, Putnam tried
to rally some troops in the rear, and to get others across the Neck,
which the raking fire of the British vessels was now keeping pretty
clear of passers.[410] But there was not time to do much, for Howe
was soon again advancing, his artillery helping him more this time;
and to add to the terror of the scene, he had sent word to Boston
to set Charlestown on fire by shells, and the conflagration had now
begun.[411] The smoke did not conceal the British advance,[412] and
Prescott and Stark kept their men quiet till the enemy were near enough
to make every shot tell. The result was as during the first attack. The
royal troops struggled bravely; but all along the line they wavered,
and then retreated more precipitately than before.

There was a longer interval before Howe again advanced, and Prescott
used it in making such a disposition of his men as would be best in a
hand-to-hand fight, for neither adequate reinforcements nor supplies
had reached him, and his powder was nearly gone. There was a good
deal of confusion and uncertainty in the rear, all along the road to
Cambridge. Ward had ordered a plenty of troops forward, but few reached
the peninsula at all, or in any shape for service. Putnam did what he
could to bring order out of confusion; but his restless and brandishing
method, and his eagerness to finish the works on Bunker Hill, were not
conducive to such results as a quiet energy best produces. The brave
men at the front must still do the work left for them, with such chance
assistance as came.

Howe was rallying his men for a third assault. Major Small had landed
400 marines, to make up in part for the losses. Clinton had seen how
confused the troops were as he looked across the river with his glass,
and had hurried over from Boston to render Howe help as a volunteer
aid. The British general determined now to concentrate his attack
upon the works on the crown of the hill, making only a demonstration
against the rail-fence. He brought his artillery to bear in a way that
scoured the breastwork which flanked the redoubt, and then he attacked.
His column reserved their fire and relied on the bayonet. They met
the American fire bravely, but soon perceived that it slackened; and
surmising that the American powder was failing, they took new courage.
Those of the defenders who had ammunition mowed down the assailants
as they mounted the breastworks, Major Pitcairn among them;[413]
but as soon as Prescott saw the defence was hopeless, he ordered a
retreat, and friend and foe mingled together as they surged out of the
sally-port amid the clouds of dust which the trampling raised, for a
scorching sun had baked the new-turned soil. It was now, while the
confused mass of beings rocked along down the rear slope of the hill,
that Warren fell, shot through the head. No one among the Americans
knew certainly that he was dead, as they left him. The British stopped
to form and deliver fire, and there was thus time for a gap to open
between the pursuers and the pursued. The New Hampshire men and others
at the rail-fence, seeing that the redoubt was lost, tenaciously faced
the enemy long enough to prevent Prescott's men from being cut off,
and then stubbornly fell back. Some fresh troops which had come up
endeavored to check the British as they reached the slope which led
to the intrenchments that Putnam had been so solicitous about; but
the British wave had now acquired an impulse which carried it bravely
up the hill; and Putnam, skirring about, was not able to make anybody
stand to defend the unfinished works. So down the westerly slope of
the higher summit to the Neck the provincials fled, and the British
followed. The vessels poured in their fire anew as the huddled runaways
crossed the low land, and not till they got beyond the Neck was there
any effectual movement by fresh troops to cover the retreat. General
Howe fired a few cannon shot after them, as he mustered his forces on
the hill. It was now about five o'clock. There was time in the long
summer's day to advance upon Cambridge, but Howe rejected Clinton's
advice to that end, and began, with other troops which had been sent to
him from Boston, to throw up breastworks on the inland crown of Bunker
Hill. Thus spading for their defence, the British passed the night,
while the Americans lay on their arms on Winter and Prospect hills, or
straggled back to Cambridge. There was no disposition on either side to
renew the fight.

Prescott did not conceal his indignation at not having been better
supported, when he made his report at Ward's headquarters. He knew
he had fought well; but neither he nor his contemporaries understood
at the time how a physical defeat might be a moral victory. Not
knowing this, there was little else than mortification over the
result,—indeed, on both sides. A wild daring had brought the battle
on, and something like bravado had led the British general into a
foolhardy direct assault, while more skilful plans, availing of their
ships, might have accomplished more without the heavy loss which they
had endured.[414] The British folly was increased by the way in which
they allowed the provincials to make the first great fight of the war a
political force throughout the continent.

[Illustration: TRYON'S SEAL AND AUTOGRAPH.

From a plate in Valentine's _N. Y. City Manual_, 1851, p. 420.]

The general opinion seems to be that the Americans had about 1,500 men
engaged at one time, and that from three to four thousand at different
times took some part in it.[415] The British had probably about the
same numbers in all, but were in excess of the Americans at all times
while engaged.[416] The conflict with small arms lasted about ninety
minutes.

On the morning of the 18th of June (Sunday) the British renewed the
cannonading along their lines, as if to cover some movement, but
nothing came of it, and each side used the shovel busily on the
intrenchments. A shower in the afternoon stopped the firing.

* * * * *

[Illustration]

There was a dilemma in New York a few days later. Governor Tryon, who
had been in England, was already in the harbor ready to land on his
return, and Washington was approaching through Jersey on his way to
Boston. It was determined by the city authorities to address and extend
courtesies to both. The American general chanced to be ahead, and got
the parade and fair words first. Tryon disembarked a few hours later,
and received the same tributes.[417]

It was Sunday, June 25, when Washington reached New York. He found the
town excited over the recent battle, the news of which he had met a few
hours out of Philadelphia.[418]

[Illustration: WASHINGTON'S HEADS OF LETTER, JULY 10, 1775.

This is about half of the whole as given in fac-simile in Wilkinson's
_Memoirs_, i. p. 855. The original is now among the Reed-Washington
letters in the Carter-Brown library. It was the basis of Washington's
first formal official letter to the president of Congress, which, as
written out by Joseph Reed, is given in Sparks' _Washington_, iii. p.
17. It shows the degree of attention which the general bestowed on his
minutes for his secretary's use.

Washington, on his first arrival, had taken temporary quarters in the
house of the president of the college, known now as the Wadsworth house
(_Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 107; Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 408),
till the finest house in the town, one of a succession of mansions on
the road to Watertown, was made ready for his use. These houses, which
had all been deserted by their Tory owners, gave the name of Tory Row
to this part of Cambridge. The one assigned to Washington's use was
a Vassall house, later, however, known as the Craigie house, when it
became the property of Andrew Craigie, from whose family it passed to
the ownership of Longfellow, who died in it. Sparks lived in it when
he edited _Washington's Writings_. It is familiar in engravings. Cf.
_Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. p. 113, with a note on various views of
it; and for its associations, see Samuel Longfellow's _Life of H. W.
Longfellow_; Irving's _Washington_, ii. p. 11; Greene's _Hist. View
of the Amer. Rev._, p. 220; _Manhattan Mag._, i. 119; Mrs. Lamb's
_Homes of America_; Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 415. Among the other
buildings of Revolutionary associations still standing in Cambridge
are the Brattle house, the headquarters of Mifflin; the Vassall house,
where Dr. Church was confined; the house where Jonathan Sewall lived,
later occupied by General Riedesel; the Oliver house, now owned by
James Russell Lowell; the "Bishop's Palace", where Burgoyne was
quartered; and Christ Church, where Washington attended service (view
in _Mass. Mag._, 1792, and compare Nicholas Hoppin's discourses, Nov.
22, 1857, and Oct. 15, 1861). For more of the historical associations
of these Cambridge sites, see the _Harvard Book_; Drake's _Landmarks
of Middlesex_; the Cambridge _Centennial Memorial_ (1875); William
J. Stillman's _Poetic Localities of Cambridge_ (Boston, 1876); T.C.
Amory's _Old and New Cambridge_; an illustrated paper in _Harper's
Monthly_, Jan., 1876, another by Alexander Mackenzie, in the _Atlantic
Monthly_, July, 1875; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, June, 1858, and Sept.,
1872; and the book edited by Arthur Gilman, _Theatrum Majorum, The
Cambridge of 1776_, which has an eclectic diary (by Mary W. Greely) of
the siege, purporting to be that of one Dorothy Dudley.]

[Illustration]

Among the letters now passing through New York was one upon that
battle, addressed to the President of Congress, which Washington
took the liberty of opening for his own guidance. After instructing
Schuyler, who was to be left in charge of the forces in New York, to
keep watch upon Tryon[419] and Guy Johnson,[420] Washington the next
day (26th) started for Cambridge. On the 2d of July Washington reached
Watertown, and on the 3d, under a tree still standing,[421] he took
command of the army, which thus passed, in effect, under Continental
control, numbering at the time nearly 15,000 men fit for duty.[422]
To brigade this army, rectify the circumvallating lines, watch the
constant skirmishes, and assign the new bodies of troops arriving to
places in the works, was the labor to which Washington devoted himself
at once. On the 9th of July he held his first council of war,[423] and
on the 10th he addressed his first letter to Congress, describing the
condition of the siege as he had found it.

[Illustration]

To guard against surprise, and replenish the magazines, required
constant diligence, and the supply of powder never ceased to be a cause
of anxiety in the one camp, while the diminishing stock of provisions
produced almost as much concern in Boston. The beleaguered British,
however, got some relief from the exodus of the Boston people, which
the stress of want forced the royal commander to permit.[424] So the
summer was made up of anxious moments. The independent husbandmen
of New England made but intractable raw recruits, and Washington,
who had expected to find discipline equal to that which the social
distinctions of the South gave to the masses there, was disappointed,
and did not wholly conceal his disgust.[425] He grew, however, to
discern that campaigns could produce that discipline as well, if not
better, than a life of civil subservience. Recruits came in from the
South, and when some of the Northern officers saw the kind of men that
Morgan and others brought as riflemen from Virginia, their comment was
scarcely less austere. "The army would be as well off without them",
said Thomas, who, next to Washington, was the best disciplinarian
in the camp. Of the generals, Lee was, however, by much the most
conspicuous. There was a glamour about the current rumors of his
soldierly experience that obscured what might have been told of his
questionable character.[426] His eccentricities were the camp talk,
and rather served to magnify his presence, while it proved dangerous
to perambulate the lines with him and his crowd of dogs, since the
exhibition tempted the enemy to drop their shells in that spot.[427]
Early in July a trumpeter approached the American lines bringing a
letter from General Burgoyne to General Lee, and the camp straightway
proceeded to invest the strange general with political importance.
Burgoyne and Lee were old campaigners together, and Lee, before he
left Philadelphia, had written a stirring letter to the British
general on the bad prospects of the ministerial policy. The letter
which now came was a reply, and proposed a conference on Boston Neck,
to which Congress advised Lee not to accede, and the momentary ripple
subsided.[428]

In August there was some correspondence with Gage respecting the
treatment of prisoners, in which Washington appears to the better
advantage.[429] The correspondence of the American general during
the summer constantly dwells upon the scarcity of powder, though for
prudence' sake he veils his expressions as much as he can. His own
troops and even Congress had no conception of his want, and while
Washington hardly dared fire a salute because of the powder it would
take, Richard Henry Lee, from Philadelphia, was urging him to plant
batteries at the mouth of Boston harbor, and keep the enemy's vessels
from coming in and going out.[430] Governor Cooke, of Rhode Island,
who was doing his best to get powder from Bermuda, was compelled to
keep the secret too. Apparently Washington did not let his brigade
commanders know the whole truth.[431] Under these circumstances
Washington had no courage to attack, and Gage, on his part, was content
to keep his men from deserting as best he could.

During September the threatening manœuvres of the British cruisers
along the Connecticut coast[432] kept Governor Trumbull from sending
what powder he had, and there was little hope, when Washington called a
council of war on the 11th, that anything would come of it. There had
been just then some internal manifestations not very reassuring.[433]
A letter which Dr. Benjamin Church had tried to get to the British
in Newport harbor had been intercepted, and its cypher interpreted.
There was no expressed defection made clear by it, but suspicions were
aroused, and Church, being arrested, was summoned before the congress
at Watertown, where he made a speech protesting his innocence, but
scarcely quieting the suspicions. He was put under control, and removed
from the neighborhood of the army.[434]

There was scarce less gratification in the camp at Cambridge in getting
rid of their doubtful associate than was experienced in Boston in
getting a release from their sluggish general. The ministry had saved
that soldier's pride as much as they could in desiring to have him
nearer at hand for counsel;[435] and the sympathetic loyalists whom he
had befriended paid him their compliments in an address. Gage finally,
on October 10, issued his last order, turning over the command to
Howe.[436]

In the middle of October, the burning of Falmouth, the modern Portland,
in Maine, seemed to make it clear that the war was to be conducted
ruthlessly on the British part. Captain Mowatt, with a small fleet,
had entered the harbor and set the town on fire, and to those who
communicated with him it was said that he announced his doings to
be but the beginning of a course of such outrages. When the news
reached Washington, he dispatched Sullivan to Portsmouth, with orders
to resist as far as he could any similar demonstration there.[437]
What a modern British historian[438] has called a "wanton and cruel
deed" seems to have been but the hasty misjudgment of an inferior
officer, without orders to warrant the act, and the ministry promptly
disowned the responsibility.[439] During October, also, a committee of
Congress,[440] visiting Washington's camp, could see for themselves
the troubles of their heroic commander. They had not yet heard in
Philadelphia the roar of hostile guns,—a sensation they might now
experience. They could share Washington's perplexities as the new
enlistments halted upon the expiration of the old,[441] and perhaps
join in some of his kindly merriment when Phillis Wheatley, the
negress, addressed his Excellency in no very bad verses.[442]

[Illustration: HANDBILL.] [443]

[Illustration: FROM BEACON HILL, 1775, No. 1. (_Looking towards
Dorchester Heights._)]

[NOTE.—This and the three companion sketches are drawn from a
panoramic view in colors, now in the Cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Soc.,
of which a much reduced heliotype is given in the _Mem. Hist. Boston_,
iii. 80. This view is a copy by Lieutenant Woodd of the Royal Welsh
Fusiliers, from the original by Lieutenant Williams, of the same
regiment, which is preserved in the King's Library (Brit. Museum). Cf.
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iv. 397, 424; _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 80.

The foreground on the left is the summit of Beacon Hill, not far
from the spot where the State House now stands, though at a level
considerably higher than the present one. Two of the guns now standing
on Cambridge Common were taken from the dock in Boston after the
British evacuated it, and they resemble the cannon here sketched, and
one of them may possibly be that identical gun. The spire at the left
would seem to be that of the First Church, which stood on the present
Washington Street nearly opposite the head of State Street. (Cf. view
of it in _Memorial History of Boston_, ii. 219.) The spire next to the
right must have been that of the Old South Church. That on the extreme
right would seem to be the steeple of the New South (Church Green) in
Summer Street, now disappeared.]

[Illustration: FROM BEACON HILL, 1775, No. 2. (_Looking towards
Roxbury._)

In No. 2 the Hancock House is in the foreground. The earliest sketch
of this house is a very small one, making part of the Price-Faneuil
View of Boston (1743), and its presence in which and other data led
to the suspicion that this 1743 view was from an old plate, which had
been originally cut twenty years earlier, and this was subsequently
proven. Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xviii. 68; xxi. 249. The earliest
enlarged view of the house is in the _Mass. Mag._, 1789. Cf. _Mem.
Hist. Bost._, iii. 202. An oil painting, belonging to Mrs. F. E. Bacon,
is on deposit in the halls of the Bostonian Society, where, also, are
some interior views of the house.

The British encampments on Boston Common are indicated in the
foreground at the left. The parallel lines (8) show the neck connecting
Boston with Roxbury. The meeting-house (10) on the distant land is that
of the First Religious Parish in Roxbury, on the site now occupied by
the church near the Norfolk Home. The American fort just beyond (at 11)
was on a rocky summit, where now the stand-pipe of the Cochituate Water
Works is placed.]

[Illustration: FROM BEACON HILL, 1775, No. 3. (_Looking towards
Brookline and the outlet of Charles River._)

No. 3 shows in the foreground the most westerly of the three summits of
Beacon Hill (Louisbourg Square—though much lower, the hill having been
cut down—represents its present site), and the rope walks. There is a
similar water-color drawing among the Peter Force maps and views in the
library of Congress.

The inward curve of the nearer shore on the right of the picture
represents the area now including Cambridge Street and the territory
north of it, below Blossom Street, covering the approaches to the
bridge now leading to Cambridge, the oldest parts of which near the
College are shown at 16; while at 17 we have the American encampments
at Prospect Hill, the modern Somerville. The American works between the
College and Charles River seem to be intended by 15. The mouth of the
river is seemingly indicated by the point of land just below the number
14, which apparently stands for the Brookline fort and its connections,
in the modern Longwood. Between the man in the foreground and the
somewhat abrupt eminence beyond him, was a depression in the outline of
the ridge, not far from the head of the present Anderson Street.]

[Illustration: FROM BEACON HILL, 1775, No. 4. (_Looking towards
Charlestown._)

No. 4 has the Old West Church in the foreground, where Jonathan Mayhew
preached. Its spire was subsequently taken down by the British to
prevent its use as a signal station for the friends of the provincials.
It stood till 1806, when the present edifice was built. (Drake's
_Landmarks_, 374.)

This picture is substantially duplicated on another page, in the Rawdon
view, sketched during the continuance of the battle of Bunker Hill. The
Mount Pisca (Pisgah) at 19 the present Prospect Hill in Somerville.
The lines of Winter Hill and Ploughed Hill would be in the direction
of 20. At 27 is a glimpse of the Mystick River seen beyond Charlestown
Neck, the armed British transport at 16 commanding the road over that
neck. At 22 are the new works of the British, begun after the battle
of Bunker Hill, and shown in the contemporary plan of the Charlestown
peninsula, given on another page, while the British encampment is on
the inner slope of the hill, at 23. Below, and along the shore (24,
24), are indicated the ruins of Charlestown, while the figures 25 mark
the position of the redoubt which was defended by Colonel Prescott and
his men. The house on the hither shore, below the transport, marks
nearly the spot where the present bridge to East Cambridge begins. In
the foreground on the extreme right are somewhat vague indications of
the dam inclosing the mill-pond, in which the present Haymarket Square
occupies a central position.]

Perhaps they may have had the grim satisfaction of riding to distant
parts of the lines in Thomas Hutchinson's coach, kept now for the
general's use, if we may believe the refugee himself.[444]

A little later, Josiah Quincy, who from his house at Braintree could
look out upon the harbor, had been urging Washington to block the
channel, and thus imprison the British ships there at anchor, and
prevent the coming of others. Washington appreciated the motives of
that ardent patriot, but he would have liked better the cannon and
powder that would have rendered the plan feasible.[445] At all events,
the possible chances of the plan made not a very pleasant prospect
for Howe, who had already set his mind—as, indeed, the ministry had
already advised[446]—upon evacuating the town; but his ships were as
yet not sufficient for the task, and hardly sufficient to protect his
supply-boats from the improvised navy which Washington had been for
some time commissioning.[447]

John Adams, in Philadelphia, was getting uneasy over the apparent
inaction of Washington, and wrote in November (1775) to Mercy Warren
that Mrs. Washington was going to Cambridge,[448] and he hoped she
might prove to have ambition enough for her husband's glory to
give occasion to the Lord to have mercy on the souls of Howe and
Burgoyne![449]

The left wing of the beleaguering army was now pushed forward and
occupied Cobble Hill, the site of the present McLean Asylum, and the
two armies watched each other at closer quarters than before, the
almost foolhardy Americans feeling increased confidence when the
fortunate captain of an ordnance brig gave them a supply of munitions.
In December, Massachusetts and New Hampshire[450] promptly supplied the
loss of Connecticut and Rhode Island troops, who were not to be induced
to prolong their enlistments. Washington was cheered with this alacrity
of a portion, at least, of the New England yeomen, and he suffered as
many as he could of those who had come hastily to the camp in the
spring to go home on brief furloughs to make winter provision for their
families. Before the year was out, Congress had authorized Washington
to destroy Boston if he found it necessary. The British general was,
on his part, organizing in that town a Royal Regiment of Highland
Emigrants,[451] and other loyalist battalions, putting Ruggles,
Forrest, and Gorham in command of them.[452]

On the first of January, 1776, the federal flag, with its thirteen
stripes and British Union,[453] was first raised over the American
camp, and their council of war was inspirited to determine upon an
attack, as soon as the chances of success seemed favorable; but the
prudent ones trusted rather to Howe's evacuating through his straits
for provisions, and held back from the final decision. It was not
forgotten that 2,000 men were still without firelocks, and there was
not much powder in the magazines. The total environing army scarce
numbered ten thousand men fit for duty, and they were stretched out in
a long circumvallation, while the enemy could mass at least half that
number on any one point, and had a fleet to sustain them. Howe had not
shown a much more active spirit than Gage had displayed, and there was
a feeling in the British camp that he was too timid for the task,[454]
and there could not have been much hopefulness in seeing so much better
a general as Clinton sent off in January with several regiments, to
join other forces and a fleet on the coast of North Carolina.[455]
Washington meanwhile kept up a show of activity, and when, on the
evening of January 8, he sent Knowlton on a marauding scout into
Charlestown, there was a little flutter of excitement in Boston for
fear it foreboded more serious work, and the British officers were
hastily summoned to their posts from the play-house, where they were
diverting themselves,[456]—the play on this particular occasion being
something they had planned, and called _The Boston Blockade_.

* * * * *

As early as the middle of June, 1775, General Wooster, with some
Connecticut troops, had by invitation of Congress marched to the
neighborhood of New York, to be prepared for any demonstration from
British ships which might attempt to land troops, for the British naval
power was and continued to be supreme in the harbor till Washington
occupied the city.

[Illustration: NOTE.—This broadside, and the opposite one, are given
in fac-similes from copies in the Massachusetts Historical Society's
library, and they pertain to theatrical performances given by the
British officers in Boston during the siege.]

[Illustration]

Before Clinton had left Boston, Washington, under Lee's urgency, had
decided to possess New York, and the plan, which was submitted to
John Adams, as representing the Congress, met with that gentleman's
approval.[457] Lee was accordingly sent into Connecticut to organize
such a force as he could for advancing on that city.[458] He kept
Washington informed of his success in these preliminaries, and finally
reached New York himself on February 4,[459] and here he remained till
it was ascertained that Clinton was proceeding to the South, where
he was instructed to follow that general and confront him as best he
could, as we shall presently see.[460]

The chief event of February, 1776, was the arrival of the cannon
captured at Ticonderoga, and the placing them in the siege batteries
along the American lines, for Washington had dispatched Knox to bring
these much needed cannon to him. John Adams records meeting them on
their way at Framingham, January 25;[461] and when the train of fifty
pieces and other munitions reached the lines, there was something less
of anxiety than there had been before.[462] The army, however, was
still deficient in small arms, and Washington wrote urgently to the New
York authorities for assistance of that kind.[463]

By the first of March powder had been obtained in considerable
quantities, and Washington opened a bombardment from all parts of his
lines, which was deemed necessary to conceal a projected movement.
During the night of March 4-5, General Thomas, from the Roxbury
lines,[464] with 2,500 men, took possession of Dorchester Heights.[465]
It was moonlight, but the men worked on without discovery, and by
morning had thrown up a cover. Both armies now laid plans for battle.

[Illustration: BOSTON.

After a photograph of a view in the British Museum. Cf. similar views
in _Moore's Diary of the Amer. Rev._, i. 97; _Mem. Hist. Boston_,
iii. p. 156; Lossing's _Field-Book_; Grant's _British Battles_, ii.
138. The house in the left foreground is the house built by Governor
Shirley. It is still standing, but much changed. See a view of it in
the frontispiece of _Mem. Hist. Boston_, vol. ii.

There is a view of the town and harbor in the _Pennsylvania Mag._,
June, 1773; and others of a later date are in the _Columbian Mag._,
Dec., 1787; _Mass. Mag._, June, 1791. Cf. Winsor's _Readers' Handbook
of the Amer. Rev._, p. 66, for other views and descriptions.]

[Illustration: BOSTON CASTLE.

After a photograph of a view in the British Museum.]

Howe determined to attack the Heights by a front and flank assault.
Washington reinforced Thomas, and planned at the same time to move
on Boston by boats across the back bay. The British dropped down on
transports to the Castle, but a long storm delayed the projected
movement. This so effectually gave the Americans time to increase
their defences that the British general saw that to evacuate the town
was the least of all likely evils. As he began to show signs of such
a movement, the Americans began to speculate upon their significance.
Heath, at least, was fearful that the appearances were only a cloak
to cover an intention to land suddenly somewhere between Cambridge
and Squantum.[466] But the genuineness of Howe's intention gradually
became apparent, as, indeed, evacuation with him was a necessity,
while Admiral Shuldam also saw that his fleet, too, was immediately
imperilled from the newly raised works on Dorchester Heights. So Howe
had scarce an alternative but to give a tacit consent to a plan of the
selectmen of Boston for him to leave the town uninjured, if his troops
were suffered to embark undisturbed. Washington entered upon no formal
agreement to that end, but acquiesced silently as Howe had done.[467]
There was still some cannonading as Washington pushed his batteries
nearer Boston on the Dorchester side, at Nook's Hill, teaching Howe
the necessity of increased expedition. By early light on the 17th of
March it was discovered that Howe had begun to embark his troops,
and by nine o'clock the last boat had pushed off, completing a roll,
including seamen, fit for duty, of about 11,000 men, with about a
thousand refugees.[468] The Continentals were alert, and their advanced
guards promptly entered the British works on the several sides. The
enemy's ships fell down the harbor unmolested; but that night they
blew up Castle William, and the vessels gathered together in Nantasket
Roads. Here they remained for ten days, causing Washington not a little
anxiety; and he wrote to Quincy, at Braintree, to have all the roads
from the landings patrolled, lest the British should send spies into
the country.[469] On the 27th, all but a few armed vessels, intended
to warn off belated succor,[470] had disappeared in the direction of
Halifax.[471]

Ward was left with five regiments to hold the town and its
neighborhood,[472] while Colonel Gridley, "whom I have been taught to
view", said Washington, "as one of the greatest engineers of the age",
was directed to fortify the sea approaches.[473]

[Illustration: OCCUPATION OF BOSTON.

After an original in the collection of _Proclamations_ in the library
of the Mass. Hist. Society. Cf. _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. p. 181;
Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 322; Niles's _Principles and Acts_ (1876),
p. 127. Curwen records, when the proclamation reached London, that its
prohibition of plunder "was a source of comfort."]

Washington gradually moved his remaining army to New York, not without
apprehension at one time that he would have to direct them to Rhode
Island, for a fog had befooled some people in Newport into sending
him a message that the British fleet was in the offing there. He left
Cambridge himself April 4th, not for Virginia, as some good people
imagined he would do, out of loyalty to his province,[474] but to
defend as he could the line of the Hudson, of which signs were already
accumulating that it was the game for each side to secure. A few of
the enemy's ships still hung about Nantasket Roads, and some desultory
fighting occurred in the harbor.[475] The British, however, failed to
prevent some important captures of munition vessels being made. It was
not till June that General Lincoln, with a militia force, brought guns
to bear upon the still lingering enemy, when they sailed away, and
Boston was at last free of a hostile force.

It is now necessary to follow two other movements, which had been begun
while the siege of Boston was in progress, the one to the north, and
the other to the south.

The exploits of Allen and Arnold at Ticonderoga, already related, had
invited further conquests; but the Continental Congress hesitated to
take any steps which might seem to carry war across the line till
the Canadians had the opportunity of casting in their lot with their
neighbors. On the 1st of June, 1775, Congress had distinctly avowed
this purpose of restraint; and they well needed to be cautious, for
the Canadian French had not forgotten the bitter aspersions on their
religion which Congress had, with little compunction, launched upon its
professors, under the irritation of the Quebec Act. Still their rulers
were aliens, and the traditional hatred of centuries between races
is not easily kept in abeyance. Ethan Allen was more eager to avail
himself of this than Congress was to have him; but the march of events
converted the legislators, and the opportunity which Allen grieved to
see lost was not so easily regained when Congress at last authorized
the northern invasion. Arnold and Allen had each aimed to secure the
command of such an expedition, the one by appealing to the Continental
Congress, the other by representations to that of New York. Allen had
also gone in person to Philadelphia, and he and his Green Mountain
Boys were not without influence upon Congress, in their quaint and
somewhat rough ways, as their exuberant patriotism later made the New
York authorities forget their riotous opposition to the policy which
that province had been endeavoring to enforce in the New Hampshire
Grants. Connecticut had already sent forward troops to Ticonderoga to
hold that post till Congress should decide upon some definite action;
and at the end of June, 1775, orders reached Schuyler which he might
readily interpret as authorizing him, if the Canadians did not object,
to advance upon Canada.[476] He soon started to assume command, but
speedily found matters unpromising. The Johnsons were arming the
Indians up the Mohawk and beyond in a way that boded no good, and they
had entered into compacts with the British commanders in Canada. Arnold
had been at Ticonderoga, and had quarrelled with Hinman, the commander
of the Connecticut troops. Schuyler heard much of the Green Mountain
Boys, but he only knew them as the lawless people of the Grants, and
soon learned that Allen and Warner had themselves set to quarrelling.
Presently, however, Allen reported at Ticonderoga for special service,
as he had been cast off by his own people. Another volunteer, Major
John Brown, was sent by Schuyler into Canada for information.
Schuyler's position was a trying one. He had few troops of his own
province. The Connecticut troops were too lax in discipline to suit his
ideas of military propriety, and his temperament had little to induce
him to make concessions to the exigencies of the conditions.[477] With
the best heart he could, he tried to organize his force for an advance,
and assisted, in Indian conferences at Albany, to disarm, as far as he
might, the Mohawks of their hostility.

In August the news from Canada began to be alarming. Richard
Montgomery, an Irish officer who had some years before left the army
to settle on the Hudson and marry, was now one of the new brigadiers.
He urged Schuyler to advance and anticipate the movement now said to
be intended by Carleton, the English general commanding in Canada. At
this juncture Schuyler got word from Washington that a coöperating
expedition would be dispatched by way of the Kennebec, which, if
everything went well, might unite with Schuyler's before Quebec.

Montgomery had already started from Ticonderoga, and it was not till
the foot of Lake Champlain had been reached that Schuyler overtook
him, and, with an effective force of about 1,000 men, he now prepared,
on the 6th of September, to advance upon St. Johns. The demonstration
caused a little bloodshed, but, getting information which deceived
him, he fell back to the Isle-aux-Noix, and prepared to hold it
against a counter attack, and to prevent any vessel of the enemy
penetrating to the lake. The outlook for a while was not auspicious.
Malaria made sad inroads among the men, and of those who were left on
duty, insubordination and lack of discipline, and perhaps a shade of
treachery, impaired their efficiency. Schuyler was prostrate on his
bed, and Montgomery was forced to unmilitary expedients because of the
temper of his troops. Schuyler's disorder seeming to have permanently
mastered him, he resigned the command to Montgomery and returned up
the lake. He had, at least, the satisfaction of meeting reinforcements
pushing down to the main body. Before these arrived Montgomery had
begun the siege of St. Johns, and he was pressing it, when Ethan Allen,
whom Montgomery was expecting to join him, met with Brown, and these
two planned an attack on Montreal. It was attempted, but Brown and
his men failed to coöperate, and Allen and those he had with him were
finally captured.[478] When the Canadians heard that the redoubtable
Green Mountain leader was in irons on board an English vessel bound for
Halifax,[479] a great deal was done towards awakening them from that
spell of neutrality upon which the American campaign so much depended
for success.

So Montgomery continued to keep his lines about St. Johns with great
discouragement. He met every embarrassment which a hastily improvised
and undisciplined mass of men could impose upon a man who was of high
spirit and knew what soldierly discipline ought to be. A gleam of hope
at last came. He detached a party to attack Fort Chamblée, further
down the Sorel, and it succeeded (October 18), and he was thus enabled
to replenish his store of ammunition, which was by this time running
low.[480] So Montgomery was enabled to press the siege of St. Johns
with renewed vigor. When Wooster, the veteran Connecticut general,
joined him with the troops of that colony, there was some apprehension
that the younger Montgomery might find it difficult to maintain his
higher rank against the rather too independent spirit of the old
fighter.[481] No disturbance, however, occurred, and both worked
seemingly in union of spirit. Every effort of Carleton to relieve the
British commander at St. Johns failing, that officer surrendered the
post, and, on November 3d, Montgomery took possession.

* * * * *

We may turn now to the expedition that Washington had promised to
dispatch from Cambridge, and which had been thought of as early as May.
Benedict Arnold had hurried from Crown Point to lay his grievances
before the commander-in-chief. It seemed to Washington worth while
to assuage his passions and to profit by his dashing valor, for he
had by this time become convinced that Howe had no intention of
venturing beyond his lines. So Arnold was commissioned Colonel, and
given command of the new expedition, and the satisfied leader saw
gathering about him various quick spirits, better recognized later.
Such was Morgan, who led some Virginia riflemen, and Aaron Burr, who
sprang to the occasion as a volunteer.[482] Washington provided
Arnold with explicit instructions, and with an address to circulate
among the Canadians.[483] About eleven hundred men proceeded from
Cambridge to Newburyport, whence, by vessel and bateaux, they reached
Fort Western (Augusta, Maine), towards the end of September. Here the
expeditionary force plunged into the wilderness, up the Kennebec,
environed with perils and the burdens of labor. Suffering and nerving
against vexations and weariness that grew worse as they went on, they
saw the sick and disheartened fall out, and found their rear companies
deserting for want of food.[484] Those that were steadfast were forced
to eat moccasins and anything. On they struggled to the ridge of land
which marked the summit of the water-shed between the Atlantic and the
St. Lawrence. Then began the descent of the Chaudière, perilous amid
the rush of its waters, which overturned their boats, and sent much
of what stores they had left on a headlong drive down the stream. At
last the open country was reached, and Arnold stopped to refresh the
survivors. He dispatched Burr to see if he could find Montgomery,[485]
and, making the most of the friendly assistance of the neighboring
inhabitants, Arnold advanced to Point Levi, and began to make
preparations for crossing the St. Lawrence. The city of Quebec looked
across the basin in amazement on a stout little army, of whose coming,
however, they had had an intimation; while Arnold's men were hard at
work making or finding canoes and scaling-ladders.

Meanwhile where was Montgomery, whom Burr, disguised as a priest, and
speaking French or Latin as required, was seeking up the river? He had
got possession of Montreal without a blow, and sending Colonel Easton
down to the mouth of the Sorel, that officer intercepted the little
flotilla with which Carleton was trying to reach Quebec, and captured
all of the fugitives except Carleton himself, who escaped in a disguise
by night. The news of Arnold, which Burr at last brought to Montgomery,
made that general more anxious than ever to push on to Quebec, but the
expiration of the enlistments of some of his men much perplexed him,
and he was obliged to make many promises to hold his army together.
Before Montgomery could reach him, Arnold had in the night taken about
550 men across the river, and ascending at Wolfe's Cove, he had paraded
them before the walls and demanded a surrender. The garrison was small,
and in part doubtful, and the inhabitants were more than doubtful, but
the lieutenant-governor, Cramahé, with his stanchest troops, the Royal
Scotch, overawed the rest, and kept the gates closed. The vaporing
Arnold had been known in the past within the town as a horse-jockey,
and his promise as a general, with his shivering crowd, did not greatly
impress those whom he had somewhat farcically beleaguered. In a day or
two Arnold became frightened and drew off his men, strengthened now a
little by others who had crossed the river. Unmolested he went up the
river, to keep within reach of Montgomery, perceiving as he went up
the banks the succor for Quebec which Carleton, having picked up men
here and there, was bringing down by water.

[Illustration: Guy Carleton

From the _Political Mag._, iii. 351. Cf. Jones's _Campaign for the
Conquest of Canada_, p. 112; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, June, 1883, p.
409; Moore's _Diary of the Revolution_, p. 454; B. Sulte's _Hist. des
Canadiens français_ (as Lord Dorchester, to which rank Carleton was
subsequently raised).]

By the 1st of December, Montgomery, with three armed schooners and only
300 men, reached Arnold at Point-aux-Trembles. The united forces now
turned their faces towards Quebec, less than a thousand in all, with a
body of two hundred Canadians, under Colonel James Livingston, acting
in conjunction; and on the 5th were before the town. Carleton haughtily
scorned all advances of Montgomery to communicate with him, and devoted
himself to overawing the town, quite content that the rigors of winter
should alone attack the invaders. While the Americans were making some
show of planting siege-batteries, plans for assault were in reality
maturing, and a stormy night was awaited to carry them out. It came on
the night before the last day of the year. While two feints were to be
made on the upper plain, the main assaults were to be along the banks
of the St. Charles and the St. Lawrence, from opposite sides, with a
view to joining and gaining the upper town from the lower. Montgomery
led the attack beneath Cape Diamond on the St. Lawrence side, and while
in advance with a small vanguard, and unsuspecting that his approach
was discovered, he was opened upon with grape, and fell, with others
about him.[486] His death was the end of the assault on that side.
Arnold was at first successful in carrying the barriers opposed to
him, but was soon severely wounded and taken to the rear. Morgan, who
succeeded to the command, was pressing their advantage, when Carleton,
relieved by Montgomery's failure, and by the discovery that the other
attacks meant nothing, sent out a force, which so hemmed Morgan in,
that, having already learned of Montgomery's failure, he found it
prudent to surrender with the few hundred men still clinging to him.
The Americans elsewhere in the field hastily withdrew to their camp,
and Carleton was too suspicious of the townspeople to dare to take any
further advantage of his success.

The command of the Americans now devolved on Lieutenant-Colonel Donald
Campbell, who sent an express to Wooster at Montreal, urging him to
come and take the control. That general thought it more prudent to
hold Montreal as a base,[487] and remained where he was, while he
forwarded the dismal news to his superior, Schuyler, at Albany, who had
quite enough on his hands to overawe Sir John Johnson and the Tories
up the Mohawk. The succession of Wooster to the command in Canada
boded no good to the New York general, and led to such crimination and
recrimination between the two that Congress, towards spring (1776),
took steps to relieve Schuyler of the general charge of the campaign.
Thomas, who had rendered himself conspicuous in driving the British
from Boston, was made a major-general (March 6), and was ordered to
take the active command in Canada. A New England general for troops in
the main from those colonies seemed desirable, and Thomas was certainly
the best of those furnished by Massachusetts during the early days of
the war.

Meanwhile Arnold, amid the snows, was audaciously seeming to keep up
the siege of Quebec in his little camp, three miles from the town.
Small-pox was beginning to make inroads on his little army, scarce at
some periods exceeding five hundred effective men. Wooster finally
came from Montreal on the first of April, and assumed command. For the
influence intended to soothe and gain the Canadians to pass from the
courtly Montgomery to the rigid and puritanical Wooster was a great
loss, and it soon became manifest in the growing hostility of the
people of the neighboring country. It was by such a pitiful force that
Carleton allowed himself to be shut up in Quebec for five months.

This was the condition of affairs when a commission, consisting of
Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase, and Charles Carroll, was sent by
Congress, with delegated powers, to act with prompter decision on
the spot.[488] They reached Albany early in April, and found Thomas,
from Boston, already there. So the two generals, Schuyler and Thomas,
pushed on ahead of the commissioners, and, with the reinforcements now
setting towards Canada, before and behind them, it seemed as if a new
vigor might be exerted upon the so far disastrous Northern campaign.
Thomas directed his course to Quebec, while the commissioners went to
Montreal, where they found the most gloomy apprehensions existing, and
were soon convinced that, without hard money and troops, Canada must be
relinquished. Franklin returned to Philadelphia to impress this upon
Congress, while Schuyler was at his wits' ends to find men, provisions,
and money to send forward, till Congress should act.

Washington, by this time in New York with the troops which had
forced the evacuation of Boston, yielded to the orders of Congress,
and sent Sullivan of New Hampshire with a brigade, carrying money
and provisions, to reinforce the wretched army in Canada, thereby
diminishing, with great risk, his own force to less than 5,000 men.
Thomas had at this time reached Quebec (May 1), where he found, out
of the 1,900 men constituting the beleaguering army, only about a
thousand not in hospital, and scarcely five hundred of these were
effective troops. It was necessary to do something at once, for the
breaking ice told the American general that a passage was preparing
for a British fleet, which was known to be below. Plans for an assault
on the town miscarried, and while Thomas was beginning to remove his
sick preparatory to a retreat, three British men-of-war appeared in the
basin. They landed troops, and gave Carleton an opportunity to hang
upon the rear of the retreating invaders, and pick up prisoners and
cannon. He did not pursue them far.[489]

Near the same time a force of British and Tories, coming down the river
from Ontario, had fallen upon Arnold's outpost at Cedar Rapids, above
Montreal, and had captured its garrison. Thus disaster struck both
ends of the American line of occupation. The force under Thomas was
withdrawing to the Sorel, when Burgoyne, with large reinforcements,
landed at Quebec. Up the Sorel the Americans retreated, joined now
by the troops under Thompson, which Washington had earlier sent from
New York. Thomas[490] soon died (June 2) of small-pox at Chamblée;
and Wooster being recalled, Sullivan, who now met the army, took the
command, and pushing forward to the mouth of the Sorel, prepared to
make a stand. He soon sent a force under Thompson towards Three Rivers,
to oppose the approaching British, now reaching 13,000 in number,
either at Quebec or advancing from it,—a number to confront, of which
apparently Sullivan had no conception. This general himself possessed
hardly more than 2,500 men, for Arnold, instead of reinforcing him,
as directed, had left Montreal for Chamblée. The action at Three
Rivers, of which the cannonading had been heard at the Sorel, proved
a disastrous defeat. It was followed by the British vessels pushing
up the river, and as soon as they came in sight Sullivan broke camp
and also retreated to Chamblée, followed languidly by Burgoyne. Here
Sullivan joined Arnold, and the united fugitives, of whom a large
part were weakened by inoculation, continued the retreat to the
Isle-aux-Noix, thence on to Crown Point, where early in July the poor
fragmentary army found a little rest,—five thousand in all, and of
these at least one half were in hospital.[491]

[Illustration: DUNMORE'S SEAL.

From a plate in Valentine's _N. Y. City Manual_, 1851.]

* * * * *

We may glance now at the progress of events to the southward. In
Virginia, Dunmore, the royal governor, hearing of Gage's proclamation
proscribing Hancock and Adams, feared that he might be seized as a
hostage, and took safety on board a man-of-war in Yorktown harbor.
Events soon moved rapidly in that quarter.[492] Patrick Henry, perhaps
a little unadvisedly, was made commander of their militia.[493] In
due time, from his floating capitol, Dunmore issued his proclamation
granting freedom to slaves of rebels,[494] and had directed a motley
crew of his adherents to destroy the colonial stores at Suffolk,
and this led to a brisk engagement at the Great Bridge (December 9,
1775), not far from Norfolk, in which the royalists were totally
defeated.[495] The destruction of that town, now under the guns of the
royal vessels, soon followed, on the first of January, 1776.[496]

On the 27th of February, 1776, the Scotch settlers of North Carolina,
instigated by Martin, the royal governor, and under the lead of their
chief, Macdonald,[497] endeavored to scatter a force of militia at
Moore's Creek Bridge, but were brought to bay, and compelled to
surrender about half of a force which had numbered fifteen or sixteen
hundred.[498]

Early in 1776 the task was assigned to Clinton, who had in January
departed from Boston, as we have seen, to force and hold the Southern
colonies to their allegiance, and Cornwallis, with troops, was sent
over under convoy of Sir Peter Parker's fleet, to give Clinton the
army he needed. The fleet did not reach North Carolina till May. In
March, Lee, while in New York, had wished to be ordered to the command
in Canada, as "he was the only general officer on the continent who
could speak and think in French." He was disappointed, and ordered
farther south.[499] By May he was in Virginia, ridding the country of
Tories, and trying to find out where Parker intended to land.[500] It
was expected that Clinton would return north to New York in season
to operate with Howe, when he opened the campaign there in the
early summer, as that general expected to do, and the interval for
a diversion farther south was not long. Lee had now gone as far as
Charleston (S. C.), and taken command in that neighborhood, while in
charge of the little fort at the entrance of the harbor was William
Moultrie, upon whom Lee was inculcating the necessity of a slow and
sure fire,[501] in case it should prove that Parker's destination, as
it might well be, was to get a foothold in the Southern provinces, and
break up the commerce which fed the rebellion through that harbor.

[Illustration: FORT MOULTRIE, 1776.

Reduced from the plan in Johnson's _Traditions and Reminiscences of the
Amer. Revolution in the South_ (Charleston, S. C., 1851). It shows that
the rear portion of the fort had not been finished when the attack took
place. The same plate has an enlarged plan of the fort only. See the
maps in Drayton's _Memoirs of the Amer. Rev. in the South_ (Charleston,
1821, two vols.), ii. 290, which is similar to Johnson's Ramsay's _Rev.
in S. Carolina_, i. 144, which is of less area; and that in Gordon's
_Amer. Revolution_, iii. 358. These are the maps of American origin.
Lossing (ii. 754) follows Johnson.]

The people of Charleston had been for some time engaged on their
defences, and "seem to wish a trial of their mettle", wrote a
looker-on.[502] The fort in question was built of palmetto logs, and
was unfinished on the land side. Its defenders had four days' warning,
and the neighboring militia were summoned. On the 4th of June the
hostile fleet appeared,[503] and having landed troops on an adjacent
island, it was not till the 27th that their dispositions were made for
an attack.

[Illustration: ATTACK ON CHARLESTON, 1776.

From _Political Mag._ (London, 1780), vol. i. p. 171,—somewhat
reduced. Carrington notes (p. 176), as dated Aug. 31, 1776, and
belonging to the _North Amer. Pilot_: "An exact plan of Charleston and
harbor, from an actual survey, with the attack of Fort Sullivan on the
26th June, 1776, by his Majesty's squadron, commanded by Sir Peter
Parker." Cf. no. 37 of the _American Atlas_ (Faden's), and the _Amer.
Military Pocket Atlas_, 1776, no. 5. Mr. Courtenay, in the _Charleston
Year Book_, 1883 (p. 414), gives a folded fac-simile of a broadside
map, _A plan of the Attack on Fort Sullivan ... with the disposition of
the King's land forces, and the encampments and entrenchments of the
rebels, from the drawings made on the spot. Engraved by Wm. Faden_, by
whom it was published Aug. 10, 1776. The dedication to Com. Parker is
signed by Lieut.-Col. Thomas James, royal regiment of artillery, June
30, 1776. It has a corner plan of the "Platform in Sullivan's Fort",
by James, on a larger scale. Appended to the map are a list of the
attacking ships, and extracts from Parker's and Clinton's despatches.
The channel between Long and Sullivan's islands is given as seven feet
in the deepest part. The original MS. of this Faden map is in the Faden
Collection in the library of Congress (no. 41), where is also a MS.
map of Charleston and its harbor, a topographical drawing, finished
in colors (no. 40). Cf. _Plan de la Barre et du hâvre de Charlestown
d'après un plan anglois levé en_ 1776. _Rédigé au dépôt général de la
marine_ [Paris], 1778. (_Brit. Mus. Maps_, 1885, col. 764.)

These are the different English maps. In the same _Charleston Year
Book_, p. 478, is an account of the successive forts on the same spot.
A view of Charleston is in the _London Mag._ (1762, p. 296), and one by
Thomas Leitch, engraved by S. Smith, 1776, is noted in the _Brit. Mus.
Map Catal._, 1885, col. 764.]

Their ships threw shot at the fort all day, which did very little
damage, while the return fire was rendered with a precision surprising
in untried artillerists, and seriously damaged the fleet,[504] of which
one ship was grounded and abandoned.

[Illustration: WILLIAM MOULTRIE.

From the copperplate in his _Memoirs of American Revolution, on far as
it related to States of N. and S. Carolina and Georgia. Compiled from
most authentic materials, the author's personal knowledge of various
events, and including an Epistolary Correspondence on Public Affairs,
with Civil and Military Officers, at that period_. (New York, 1802, two
volumes.) The likeness in the _National Portrait Gallery_ (New York,
1834) is Scriven's engraving of Trumbull's picture.

There is a portrait in the cabinet of the Penna. Hist. Soc., no. 58.
See the paper on General Moultrie in South Carolina in _Appleton's
Journal_, xix. 503, and Wilmot G. Desaussure's _Address on Maj.-Gen.
William Moultrie_, before the Cincinnati Society of South Carolina,
1885.]

The expected land attack from Clinton's troops, already ashore on
Long Island, was not made. A strong wind had raised the waters of the
channel between that island and Sullivan's Island so high that it
could not be forded, and suitable boats for the passage were not at
hand.[505] A few days later the shattered vessels and the troops left
the neighborhood, and Colonel Moultrie had leisure to count the costs
of his victory, which was twelve killed and twice as many wounded. The
courage of Sergeant Jasper, in replacing on the bastion a flag which
had been shot away, became at once a household anecdote.[506]

CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THE earliest attempt with any precision to enumerate the various
sources of information upon the whole series of military events about
Boston during 1775 and 1776 was by Richard Frothingham, in the notes of
his _Siege of Boston_ (1849), where, in an appendix, he groups together
the principal authorities. Later than this, Barry (_Massachusetts_,
iii. ch. 1), Dawson (_Battles_, vol. i.), and others had been full in
footnotes; but the next systematized list of sources was printed by
Justin Winsor in 1875, in the _Bulletin_ of the Boston Public Library.
This last enumeration was somewhat extended in the _Bunker Hill
Memorial_, published by the city of Boston,[507] and still more so by
the same writer in his _Handbook of the American Revolution_, Boston,
1879. It is condensed in the _Memorial Hist. of Boston_, iii. 117.

* * * * *

Salem, because of a little alleged pricking of bayonets when Leslie's
expedition was harassed there in February, 1775, has sometimes claimed
to have witnessed the first shedding of blood in the war. The principal
monograph on the subject is C. M. Endicott's _Account of Leslie's
retreat at the North Bridge in Salem, on Sunday, Feb. 26, 1775_ (Salem,
1856).[508] Early resistance to British arms, and even bloodshed in
the act, had undoubtedly occurred before the affair at Lexington, and
writers have cited the mob at Golden Hill,[509] in New York, and the
massacre at Westminster, in the New Hampshire Grants, when an armed
body of settlers arose against the authority of the king, as asserted
in favor of the jurisdiction of New York in March, 1775.[510]

The precipitation of warfare, however, can only be connected with the
expedition to Lexington and Concord. Every stage of the affair has been
invested with interest by discussion and illustration. The ride of Paul
Revere to give warning has grown to be a household tale in the spirited
verse of Longfellow; but, as is the case with almost all of that poet's
treatments of historical episodes, he has paid little attention to
exactness of fact, and has wildly, and often without poetic necessity,
turned the channels of events. In literary treatment, the events of
Lexington and Concord form so distinct a group of references that they
can be best considered in a later note (A), as can also the sources of
information respecting the fight at Bunker Hill (B).

Of the siege of Boston, the chief monograph is Frothingham's, already
referred to. Other contributions of a monographic nature are the
address and chronicle of the siege by Dr. George E. Ellis in the
_Evacuation Memorial of the City of Boston_ (1876); W. W. Wheildon's
_Siege and Evacuation of Boston and Charlestown_ (Boston, 1876,
pp. 64); and the chapters on the siege in Dawson's _Battles of the
United States_, vol. i., and Carrington's _Battles of the Revolution_
(1876).[511]

Among the general historians, Bancroft has made an elaborate study
of the siege, devoting to it a large part of his vol. viii. (orig.
edition), and all the histories of the United States, Massachusetts,
and Boston necessarily cover it.[512]

The principal of the later British historians is Mahon, in his _Hist.
of England_, vol. vi. Lecky (_England in the Eighteenth Century_, ii.
ch. 12), while he goes little into details, gives an admirable account
of the two respective camps. _The Life of Burgoyne_, by Fonblanque, is
the fullest of the biographies of the actors on the British side.

On the American side, the lives of leading officers all necessarily
yield to those of Washington,[513] whose letters, as contained in
vol. iii. of Sparks's ed. of his _Writings_, can well be supplemented
by those of Reed, then his secretary.[514] Of the contemporary
general historians, Gordon and Mercy Warren were familiar with the
actors of the time. The _Journals_ of the Continental Congress and
of the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts follow the development
of events, and show how in some ways the legislation shaped
them.[515] Contemporary records and comments are garnered in Almon's
_Remembrancer_, Force's _Archives_, Niles's _Principles and Acts of the
Revolution_, and Moore's _Diary of the Amer. Revolution_. The life and
daily routine of both camps are to be traced in abundant orderly books,
diaries, and correspondence, of which the register is given in the
notes (C and D) following this essay.

Of the Canada expedition, in its combined movements by the Kennebec
and Lake Champlain, the authorities for detail may well be reserved
for later notes (G and H), but for comprehensive treatment references
may be made to the general historians and a few special monographs. As
respects the campaign in general, the only considerable special study
is Charles Henry Jones's _History of the Campaign for the Conquest of
Canada in_ 1776 (Philad., 1882). The book does not profess, however,
to follow the movements before the death of Montgomery, nor to touch
at all the coöperating column of Arnold before it had united with the
other. A principal interest of its writer is, furthermore, to chronicle
the share of Pennsylvanians in the campaign. The study is therefore
but an imperfect one, and the author gives the student no assistance
in indicating his sources. The reader most necessarily have recourse,
then, for a survey of the whole campaign, to such general works as
Bancroft's _United States_ (vol. viii.), Carrington's _Battles_ (p.
122), and other comprehensive and biographical works.[516]

The political aspects of the movement on Canada arise in the main from
the mission of the Commissioners of Congress to the army, and their
efforts to affect the sympathies of the Canadians. The sources of this
matter are also traced in a subsequent note.[517]

[Illustration]

NOTES.

=A.= LEXINGTON AND CONCORD.—The details of Revere's connection with
the events of the 18th and 19th April are not altogether without
dispute. Revere's own narrative was not written till 1798,[518] and
was printed in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Collections_, vol. v., but not
so accurately as to preclude the advisability of reprinting it in the
same society's _Proceedings_, Nov., 1878. Richard Devens's nearly
contemporary account of the signal lanterns is printed in Frothingham's
_Siege of Boston_, p. 57.[519] The traditional story of the other
messenger of that eventful night is told in H. W. Holland's _William
Dawes and his ride with Paul Revere_.[520]

In a book which was published at Boston in 1873 as _Historic Fields and
Mansions of Middlesex_, but whose title in a second edition, in 1876,
reads _Old Landmarks and Historic Fields of Middlesex_, Mr. Samuel
Adams Drake follows (ch. xvi.-xviii.) the route of the British troops
from Lechmere Point to Concord and back to Charlestown, pointing out
the localities of signal events in the day's course.

The provincial congress ordered depositions[521] to be taken of those
who had participated in the events of the day, with a main purpose of
establishing that the British fired first at Lexington. These were
signed in several copies. One set of them, accompanied by a request
from Warren to Franklin to have them printed and dispersed in England,
was entrusted to Capt. John Derby, of Salem, who took also a copy of
the _Essex Gazette_, in which an account of the fighting was printed,
and sailed in a swift packet for England four days after Lieutenant
Nunn, bearing Gage's despatches, had sailed from Boston (April 24).
Derby reached Southampton on the 27th of May, and was in London the
next day.[522] London had been stirred three weeks before with rumors
of a bloody day with Gage's troops,[523] and now two days later the
government felt called upon to announce they had no tidings; whereupon
Arthur Lee, who, since Franklin had sailed for America, had succeeded
to his place as agent of Massachusetts, and had received the papers,
made a counter-announcement that the public could see the affidavits at
the Mansion House.[524] The tidings spread. Hutchinson communicated the
news to Gibbon, and he recorded it in a letter, May 31.[525] On the 5th
of June Horace Walpole wrote it to Horace Mann. On the 7th, Dartmouth
spoke of the "vague and uncertain accounts of a skirmish, made up for
the purpose of conveying misrepresentation."[526]

[Illustration: LEXINGTON DEPOSITION.

Fac-simile of the original in the Arthur Lee Papers in Harvard College
library. The fac-simile on the opposite page, relating to the action
at Concord, is reproduced from an original in the same collection of
papers.]

[Illustration]

On the same day the friends of America, forming the Constitutional
Society, met at the King's Arms in Cornhill, and raised a subscription
of £100, to be paid to the widows and families of the provincials who
had been killed.[527] On the 8th another vessel reached Liverpool,
confirming the news, but giving no particulars. Finally, on the 10th,
the official report of Gage, with the statements of Percy and Smith,
reached the government.[528]

Meanwhile, both sides at home had been busy with circulating their
pleas of vindications. The provincial congress at once despatched
messengers south,[529] and the Rev. William Gordon, an Englishman
settled in Jamaica Plain, drew up (May 17, 1775) for the patriots their
authoritative _Account of the Commencement of hostilities_;[530] and
various other contemporary accounts on the provincial side have come
down to us,[531] and of importance among them are the narratives of
the ministers of Lexington and Concord, the Reverends Jonas Clark and
William Emerson.[532]

[Illustration: LEXINGTON, 1775.

After a plan in Hudson's _Lexington_, p. 173. The British approached
from Boston up the road, past the Munroe Tavern, still standing (C),
past Loring's house and barn (I J); and opposite Emerson's house (H)
they sighted, looking beyond the meeting-house (L), the Lexington
militia, under Capt. John Parker, drawn up along the farther side of
the triangular green, in front of the houses of Daniel Harrington
(E) and Jonathan Harrington (D, still standing) (who was one of the
killed), which were separated from each other by a blacksmith's shop
(G). The house on the opposite side of the common (F) was Nathan
Munroe's (still standing), and on the third side was Bucknam's Tavern
(B, still standing), where Parker's company was mostly assembled
when the order was given to form on the common. When the minute-men
scattered, most of them ran across the swamp; but some fled up the
Bedford road, in the direction of the Clarke House (A), still standing,
where Adams and Hancock had spent the night, but from which they were
now hurrying towards Burlington for better protection.

On the return of the British from Concord, they met Percy's column
on the road between Munroe's Tavern and Loring's. Percy now kept the
provincials at bay by planting his field-pieces at M and N, while some
of the wounded were carried into the tavern, which is still standing.
The buildings (I J) were set on fire and burned down. Balls from
Percy's cannon have been dug up since in the town. One went through the
meeting-house (L). Several of these balls are preserved. While Percy
was halting, General Heath arrived among the provincials and assumed
the command. Cf. the plans in Josiah Adams's _Address at Acton_;
Moore's _Ballad History of the Revolution_.

There are views of the Clarke House in Hudson's _Lexington_, 430;
Drake's _Landmarks of Middlesex_, 364-368; Lossing's _Field-Book_, i.
523; and of the Munroe Tavern in Hudson, part ii. p. 161.]

The _Memoirs_ of General Heath are, of course, of first importance; for
he was on the ground soon after Percy took the command on the British
side.[533]

[Illustration: CONCORD, 1775.

This follows a plan in Hudson's _Lexington_, p. 191. The British
approached from Lexington by the road (1), and halted in the middle of
the town (3). The provincials, who were assembled by the liberty-pole
(2), retired along the road (5) by the Rev. William Emerson's house
[Hawthorne's "Old Manse"], and across the North Bridge (between 5 and
8) to the high land (6), where they halted, and where reinforcements
from the neighboring towns reached them. Colonel Smith, the British
commander, now sent out two parties to seek for stores. One, which went
by the road (4) to the South Bridge, found little. The other followed
the road (5) by the North Bridge, and passing beneath the provincials
at 6, turned to their right, and took the road (5) to Colonel Barrett's
house, where they destroyed some cannon and other stores. This second
party had left a detail at the North Bridge to secure their retreat by
that way, for the road (10) did not then exist. The provincials, after
the party bound to Colonel Barrett's passed on, descended from 6 to the
North Bridge, when the detail defending it, who were near 8, recrossed
the bridge. Here the first firing took place, and some were killed
on both sides, the river being between the combatants. The British
detail now retired towards the centre of the town, the Americans
following them across the bridge, but immediately dispersing without
military order. While thus scattered, the British party, returning from
Barrett's house, recrossed the North Bridge without molestation, and
rejoined the main body at the centre of the town. Here the British,
after destroying other stores and delaying for about two hours, formed
for the return march towards Lexington, the main body following the
road (2), while a flanking party took the ridge of high land (2).

Cf. also the plans in Frothingham's _Siege of Boston_, 70.]

A few days after the 19th, John Adams tells us[534] he rode along "the
scene of action toward Lexington for many miles, and inquired of the
inhabitants the circumstances." He gives us no particulars, but what he
learned was not calculated to diminish his ardor in the cause.[535]

The accounts on the British side are almost equally numerous, including
the official reports of Gage, Percy, and Smith, already referred to.
General Gage sent (April 29)[536] to Gov. Trumbull, of Connecticut,
a statement, which was printed at the time in a handbill as a
_Circumstantial Account_, and he refers to it "as taken from gentlemen
of indisputable honor and veracity, who were eye-witnesses of all the
transactions of that day."[537]

In 1779 there was printed at Boston a pamphlet containing General
Gage's instructions to Brown and De Bernière,[538] from a MS. left in
Boston by a British officer, to which is appended an account of the
"transactions" of April 19, with a list of the killed, wounded, and
missing,[539] and in 1775 there was printed at London a contemporary
summary in _The Rise, Progress, and Present State of the Dispute_.[540]

The question of firing the first shot at Lexington was studiously
examined at the time, each side claiming exemption from the charge
of being the aggressor, and Frothingham[541] and Hudson[542] collate
the evidence. It seems probable that the British fired first, though
by design or accident a musket on the provincial side flashed in the
pan before the regulars fired.[543] That some irregular return of the
British fire was made seems undeniable, though at the time of the
semi-centennial celebration certain writers, anxious to establish
for Concord the credit of first forcibly resisting the British arms,
denied that claim on the part of the neighboring town. The controversy
resulted in Elias Phinney's _Battle of Lexington_, published in
1825,[544] with depositions of survivors, taken in 1822; and Ezra
Ripley's _Fight at Concord_, published in 1827.[545] The parts borne by
the men of other towns have had their special commemorations.[546]

[Illustration: PART OF EMERSON'S RECORD IN HIS DIARY, APRIL 19, 1775
(from Whitney's _Literature of the Nineteenth of April_).]

[Illustration: PERCY.

From Andrews's _Hist. of the War_, Lond., 1785, vol. ii. A portrait
engraved by V. Green is noted in J. C. Smith's _Brit. Mezzotint
Portraits_, ii. 576. Cf. also _Evelyns in America_, 304; _Memorial
Hist. of Boston_, iii. 57, 58; "Percy family and Alnwick Castle" in
Jewitt's _Stately Homes of England_. In the _Third Report_ of the Hist.
MSS. Commission there are (1872) various papers of the Percy family
touching the American war. Some of these papers have been procured
from England by the Rev. E. G. Porter, of Lexington. Several letters
of Percy, addressed to Bishop Percy, sold not long since at a sale of
the Bishop's MSS., were bought by a London dealer, and are now in the
Boston Public Library. They are quoted from in this and other chapters.
On July 30, 1776, a picture of Percy was placed in Guildhall, London,
by the magistrates of the city and liberties of Westminster, in token
of his services in America. Cf. also Doyle's _Official Baronage_, ii.
670.]

[Illustration: PERCY.

From Murray's _Impartial Hist. of the present War_, i. 382.]

=B.= BATTLE OF BUNKER HILL, _June 17, 1775_.—There are four sufficient
authorities for tracing all that is known respecting the battle of
Bunker Hill, even to minute particulars, especially with respect
to the testimony of those who, from nearness to the event, or from
opportunity, are best entitled to be considered in the matter. The
earliest master of the literature and records of the fight was Richard
Frothingham, who through life was identified with the story of Bunker
Hill, and who has on the whole, in his _Siege of Boston_ and in his
_Life of Joseph Warren_, given us the amplest details.[547] His latest
gleanings were included in _The Battlefield of Bunker hill: with a
relation of the action by William Prescott, and illustrative documents.
A paper communicated to the Massachusetts Historical Society, June
10, 1875, with additions._ (Boston: printed for the author. 1876. 46
pp.)[548]

In June, 1868, Henry B. Dawson, in a special number of the _Historical
Magazine_, entered into an elaborate collation of nearly all that had
been published up to that time, making his references in footnotes,
which serve as a bibliography of the subject.[549]

[Illustration: LEXINGTON GREEN.

From the _Massachusetts Magazine_ (Boston, 1794). Four views (12 X 18
inches, on copper) of different aspects of the day's fight were drawn
by Earl, a portrait painter, and engraved by Amos Doolittle shortly
afterward. They are reproduced in the centennial edition of Jonas
Clark's _Narrative_; in Frank Moore's _Ballad History_; in _Potter's
American Monthly_, April, 1875; in _Antique views of y^e Town of
Boston_; and separately, with an explanatory text, by E. G. Porter, as
_Four Drawings of the Engagement at Lexington and Concord_ (Boston,
1883). The view of the attack on Lexington Green was drawn from Daniel
Harrington's house (see plan), and was reduced by Doolittle himself
for Barber's _History of New Haven_. (W. S. Baker's _Amer. Engravers_,
Philad., 1875, p. 45.) It has also been redrawn several times by
others. See Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 421, 524; Hudson's _Lexington_,
p. 183; the Centennial edition of Phinney, etc.

Earl and Doolittle were soldiers of a New Haven company, which reached
Cambridge a few days after the fight.

There is a view of Concord taken in 1776 in the _Massachusetts Mag._,
July, 1794, which is reproduced in Whitney's _Literature of the
Nineteenth of April_.

There is an early but fanciful picture of the "Journée de Lexington"
in François Godefroy's _Recueil d'Estampes representant les different
événemens de la guerre qui a procuré l'indépendence aux États Unis de
l'Amérique_.

An account of Jonathan Harrington, the last survivor of the fight, is
in _Potter's Amer. Monthly_, April, 1875, and in Jones's _New York
during the Revolution_, i. 552.

In fiction, mention need only be made of Cooper's _Lionel Lincoln_, and
Hawthorne's _Septimus Felton_.

In 1875 there was an exhibition of relics of the fight at Lexington,
and some of them are still retained in the library hall. A printed list
of them was issued in 1875. A musket taken from a British soldier was
bequeathed by Theodore Parker to the State of Massachusetts, and now
hangs in the Senate Chamber. Cf. _Hist. Mag._, iv. 202 (July, 1880).]

In 1875 Justin Winsor published first in the _Bulletin_ of the Boston
Public Library a bibliographical commentary on all printed matter
respecting the battle, grouping his notes by their affinities; and this
was enlarged in the _Celebration of the Centennial Anniversary of the
Battle_, published by the city of Boston in 1875; and still further
augmented in a section of his _Handbook of the American Revolution_
(Boston, 1879).

In 1880 James F. Hunnewell, in his _Bibliography of Charlestown and
Bunker Hill_ (Boston), grouped everything alphabetically under such
main headings as monographs, maps and plans, contemporary newspapers,
American statements, British accounts, French accounts, anniversaries.
His enumeration is more nearly exhaustive than Mr. Winsor's, though
this may still supplement it in some particulars.

* * * * *

The earliest printed accounts which we have of the battle are in
the newspapers, and of these a full enumeration is given by Mr.
Hunnewell.[550]

What may be called the official statements on the American side were
speedily placed before the public, but, strange to say, neither of the
two officers who have been held to have directed the conduct of the
Americans vouched for any of the early accounts. From Putnam we have
nothing. Prescott made no statement, which has come down to us, earlier
than in a letter addressed to John Adams, Aug. 25, 1775,[551] though he
is said to have assisted the Rev.

[Illustration: RICHARD FROTHINGHAM.

After a steel plate kindly furnished by Mr. Frothingham's son, Mr.
Thomas Goddard Frothingham. There is a memoir of Mr. Frothingham, by
Charles Deane, in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings_, Feb., 1885, and
separately. Mr. Frothingham was born Jan. 31, 1812, and died Jan. 29,
1880. Remarks made to the society at the time of his death are in the
_Proc._ (Feb., 1880), xvii. 329. Cf. R. C. Winthrop's _Speeches_ (1878,
etc.), p. 125.]

Peter Thacher in a narrative which was prepared within a fortnight,
Thacher himself having observed the fight from the Malden side of
Mystick River.[552] This Thacher MS. was made the basis of the account
which the Committee of Safety, by order of the provincial congress,
prepared for sending to England.[553] There have been preserved a
large number of letters and statements written by eye-witnesses or by
those near at hand, some of them conveying particulars essential to
the understanding of the day's events, but most adding little beyond
increasing our perceptions of the feelings of the hour.[554]

[Illustration:

After the painting belonging to Yale College. Cf. photograph in
Kingsley's _Yale College_, i. 102; engravings in Hollister's
_Connecticut_, i. 234, and _Amer. Quart. Reg._, viii. 31, 193; and
memoir in Sparks's _Amer. Biog._, xvi. 3, by J. L. Kingsley.]

To these may be added various diaries and orderly-books, which are of
little distinctive value.[555] There are other accounts, written at a
later period, in which personal recollections are assisted by study
of the recitals of others, and chief among them are the narrative in
Thacher's _Military Journal_ (Boston, 1823), where the account is
entered as of July, 1775, and chapter xix. of General James Wilkinson's
_Memoirs_ (1816), embodying what he learned in going over the field
in March, 1776, with Stark and Reed. Col. John Trumbull saw the smoke
of the fight from the Roxbury lines, and gave an outline narrative
in his _Autobiography_ (1841).[556] The account in General Heath's
_Memoirs_ (Boston, 1798) is short.[557] A few of the earlier general
histories of the war were written by those on the American side who
had some advantages by reason of friendly or other relations with the
actors.[558] Of the still later accounts, Frothingham and Dawson have
already been referred to for their bibliographical accompaniments.
The diversity of evidence[559] respecting almost all cardinal points
of the battle's history has necessarily entailed more or less of
the controversial spirit in all who have written upon it, but for
thoroughness of research and a fair discrimination combined, the
labors of Frothingham must be conceded to be foremost. Dawson is
elaborate, and he reveals more than Frothingham the processes of his
collations, but his spirit is not so tempered by discretion, and an
air of flippant controversy often pervades his narrative. Of the more
recent general historians it is only necessary to mention Bancroft[560]
and Carrington. The former gave to it three chapters in his original
edition, in 1858, which, by a little condensation, make a single
one in his final revision, but without material change.[561] The
account in Carrington[562] is intended to be distinctively a military
criticism.[563]

The troops of Connecticut[564] and New Hampshire[565] were the only
ones engaged beside those of Massachusetts.

The question of who commanded during the day has been the subject of
continued controversy, arising from the too large claims of partisans.
Though there is much conflict of contemporary evidence, it seems well
established that Col. William Prescott commanded at the redoubt, and
no one questioned his right. He also sent out the party which in the
beginning protected his flank towards the Mystick; but when Stark,
with his New Hampshire men, came up to strengthen that party, his
authority seems to have been generally recognized, and he held the rail
fence there as long as he could to cover the retreat of Prescott's men
from the redoubt. Putnam, the ranking officer on the field, Warren
disclaiming all right to command, withdrew men with entrenching tools
from Prescott, and planned to throw up earthworks on the higher
eminence, now known as Bunker Hill proper, and near the end of the
retreat he assumed a general command, and directed the fortifying of
Prospect Hill. It is not apparent, then, that any officer, previous to
this last stage of the fight, can be said to have had general command
in all parts of the field. The discussion of the claims of Putnam and
Prescott has resulted in a large number of monographs, and has formed a
particular feature in many of the general accounts of the battle, the
mention of some of which has for this reason been deferred till they
could be placed in the appended note.[566]

A list of officers in the battle, not named in Frothingham's _Siege_,
is given in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, April, 1873; and an
English list of the Yankee officers in the force about Boston in
June, 1775, is in _Ibid._, July, 1874. The Lives of participants and
observers add occasionally some items to the story.[567]

[Illustration:

This follows the reproduction of an engraving in J. C. Smith's _Brit.
Mezzotint Portraits_, p. 1716, which is inscribed: ISRAEL PUTNAM, Esq.,
_Major-General of the Connecticut forces, and Commander-in-chief at the
engagement on Buncker's-Hill, near Boston, 17 June, 1775. Published
by C. Shepherd, 9 Sep^r 1775. J. Wilkinson pinxt._ (Cf. _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, xix. 102.) There is a French engraving, representing him
in cocked hat, looking down and aside, and subscribed "Israel Putnam,
Eq^{re}., major général des Troupes de Connecticut. Il commandait en
chef à l'affaire de Bunckes hill près Boston, le 17 Juin, 1775." Col.
J. Trumbull made a sketch of Putnam, which has been engraved by W.
Humphreys (_National Portrait Gallery_, N. Y., 1834) and by Thomas
Gimbrede.

Cf. portraits in Murray's _Impartial Hist._ (1778), i. 334; Hollister's
_Connecticut_; Irving's _Washington_, illus. ed., i. 413; and
_Geschichte der Kriege in und ausser Europa_ (Nürnberg, 1778).

For lives of Putnam, see Sabin, xvi. no. 66,804, etc. For his
birthplace, see _Appleton's Journal_, xi. 321; Miss Larned's _Windham
County, Conn._ Cf. B. J. Lossing in _Harper's Monthly_, xii. 577;
_Evelyns in America_, 273; R. H. Stoddard in _Nat. Mag._, xii. 97.]

[Illustration: JOSEPH WARREN.

After a copperplate by J. Norman in _An Impartial Hist. of the War
in America_ (Boston, 1781), vol. ii. p. 210. The best known picture
of Warren is a small canvas by Copley, belonging to Dr. John Collins
Warren, of Boston, which has been often engraved, and is given in
mezzotint by H. W. Smith in Frothingham's _Life of Warren_. The picture
in Faneuil Hall is painted after this, and Thomas Illman has engraved
that copy. A larger canvas by Copley, painted not long before that
artist left Boston for England, is owned by Dr. Buckminster Brown,
of Boston, and was engraved for the first time in the _Mem. Hist. of
Boston_, iii. 60, where will be found accounts of various contemporary
prints and memorials of Warren (pp. 59, 61, 142, 143), including his
house at Roxbury, the manuscript of his Massacre Oration, etc. Cf.
Frothingham's _Warren_, p. 546; _Hist. Mag._, Dec., 1857; Loring's
_Hundred Boston Orators_, p. 67; Mrs. J. B. Brown's _Stories of
General Warren_; _Life of Dr. John Warren_; the _Warren Genealogy_;
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Sept., 1866. The earliest eulogy was that
by Perez Morton in 1776 (Loring's _Hundred Boston Orators_, 327;
Niles's _Principles and Acts_, 1876, p. 30), and the earliest memoir
of any extent was that by A. H. Everett, in Sparks's _Amer. Biography_
(vol. x.). There are reminiscences in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal.
Reg._, xii. 113, 234, which were based by Gen. William H. Sumner on
some letters published by him in 1825 in the _Boston Patriot_, when,
as adjutant-general of the State, he arranged for the appearance of
the Bunker Hill veterans in the celebration of that year, and derived
some reminiscences from them respecting Warren's appearance and
action during the fight. All other accounts of Warren, however, have
been eclipsed by Frothingham's _Life of Warren_ (Boston, 1865). In
the _Boston Medical and Surgical Journal_ (June 17, 1875), Dr. John
Jeffries (son of the surgeon of the British army who saw Warren's body
on the field) published a paper on his death. Cf. also R. J. Speirr in
Potter's _Amer. Monthly_, v. 571; Frothingham's _Warren_, pp. 519, 523;
Barry's _Massachusetts_, i. 37, and references.

The grateful intentions expressed by the Massachusetts House of
Representatives (April 4, 1776), by the Continental Congress (April
8, 1777; Sept. 6, 1778; July 1, 1780,—see _Journals of Congress_),
and by the Congress of the United States (Jan. 30, 1846,—_Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, ii. 337), have never been carried out. Benedict
Arnold manifested a special interest in the welfare of Warren's
children (_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, April, 1857, p. 122). The
Freemasons erected a pillar to his memory on the battlefield in 1794,
which disappeared when the present obelisk was begun in 1825. There
is a view of the pillar in the _Analectic Mag._, March, 1818, and
in Snow's _Boston_, 309. Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. 65. A
statue of Warren, by Henry Dexter, was placed in a pavilion near the
obelisk in 1857. Cf. G. W. Warren's _Hist. of the Bunker Hill Monument
Association_; Frothingham's _Warren_, p. 547.]

Among the anniversary discourses upon the battle, a few will bear
reading. The earliest was by Josiah Bartlett in 1794, published by B.
Edes, in Boston, the next year. Daniel Webster made a famous address
at the laying of the corner-stone of the monument in 1825, which can
be found in his _Works_, i. 59. (Cf. _Analectic Mag._, vol. xi.; A.
Levasseur's _Lafayette en Amérique_, Paris, 1829.) The same orator, at
the completion of the monument in 1843, embodied little of historical
interest in his Address. (_Works_, i. 89.[568]) Alexander H. Everett's
_Address_ in 1836 was subsequently inwoven in his _Life of Warren_. The
Rev. George E. Ellis began his conspicuous labors in this field in his
discourse in 1841. Edward Everett spoke in 1850 (_Orations_, etc., iii.
p. 3), and Gen. Charles Devens, at the Centennial in 1875, delivered an
oration, which was published by the city of Boston. The most noteworthy
address since that time was that of Robert C. Winthrop at the unveiling
of the statue of Colonel William Prescott, June 17, 1881.[569] This
statue, of which an engraving will be found in the _Mem. Hist. of
Boston_ (iv. 410), stands near the base of the monument.[570]

* * * * *

We turn now to the accounts on the British side. The orderly-books
of General Howe are preserved among Lord Dorchester's (Carleton's)
Papers in the Royal Institution, London. Sparks made extracts from
them, now in no. xlv. of the _Sparks MSS._ in Harvard College library.
Extracts relating to the dispositions for the day of the battle, and
for subsequent days, are given by Ellis (1843) p. 88.[571] Cf. _Mag.
of Amer. Hist._, 1885, p. 214. The more immediate English notes and
comments on the battle can be best grouped in a note.[572]

During 1775 there were two English accounts, aiming at something like
historical perspective. One of these was, very likely, by Edmund Burke,
and was in the _Annual Register_ (p. 133, etc.). The other was _An
Impartial and Authentic Narrative of the Battle fought on the 17th of
June, 1775, between his Britannic Majesty's Troops and the American
Provincial Army on Bunker's Hill near Charles Town in New England_.
The author was John Clark, a first lieutenant of marines. He gives a
speech of Howe to his men, representing that it was delivered just
as he advanced to the attack, but this and much else in the book are
considered of doubtful authenticity.[573]

In 1780 there appeared in the _London Chronicle_ some letters by Israel
Mauduit, which were republished the same year as _Three letters to
Lord Viscount Howe: added, Remarks on the battle of Bunker's Hill_
(London, 1780), which in a second edition (1781) reads additionally
in the title, _To which is added a comparative view of the Conduct of
Lord Cornwallis and General Howe_. There was among the Chalmers' MSS.
(Thorpe's _Supplemental Catal._, 1843, no. 660) a writing entitled
_Some particulars of the battle of Bunker's Hill, the situation of the
ground_, etc. (8 pp., 1784), which Chalmers calls a "most curious paper
in the handwriting of Israel Mauduit, found among his pamphlets, Jan.
23, 1789."

In 1784 William Carter's _Genuine Detail of the Royal and American
Armies_ appeared in London. Carter was a lieutenant in the Fortieth
Foot, and his book was seemingly reissued in 1785, with a new
title-page. (Brinley, no. 1,789; Stevens, _Bibl. Amer._, 1885, nos. 80,
81; Harvard Coll. lib., 6351.16.)

[Illustration:

NOTE.—The fac-simile on this page is of a handbill, printed in Boston,
giving the tory side of the fight at Bunker Hill,—after an original in
the library of the Mass. Hist. Society.]

[Illustration: NOTE.—This sketch of Bunker Hill Battle, made for Lord
Rawdon, follows a tracing of the original belonging to Dr. Emmet of
New York, furnished to me by Mr. Benson J. Lossing. A finished drawing
from this sketch is given in the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, vol. iii. Cf.
_Harper's Mag._ xlvii., p. 18. The spire in the foreground is that of
the West Church, which stood where Dr. Bartol's church, in Cambridge
Street, Boston, now stands, showing that the sketcher was on Beacon
hill, 138 feet above the water. The smoke from the frigate to the right
of the spire rises against the higher hill where Putnam endeavored
to rally the retreating provincials. This hill is 110 feet above the
water, and about one mile and a half distant from the spectator. One
hundred and thirty rods to the right of this summit is the crown of the
lower or Breed's Hill, where the redoubt was, which is 62 feet above
the sea. Dr. Emmet secured this picture and another of the slope of
the hill, taken after the battle, and showing the broken fences (_Mem.
Hist. of Boston_, iii. 88), at the sale of the effects of the Marquis
of Hastings, who was a descendant of Lord Rawdon, then on Gage's staff
(_Harper's Monthly Mag._, 1875). The earliest engraved picture of the
battle is one cut by Roman, which was published the same year, and
appeared also in Sept., 1775, on a reduced scale, in the _Pennsylvania
Magazine_. It has been reproduced in Frothingham's _Centennial: Battle
of Bunker Hill_ (1875), in Moore's _Ballad History_, and in other of
the Centennial memorials. In 1781 a poem by George Cockings, _The
American War_ (London), had a somewhat extraordinary picture, which
has been reproduced in Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 401, by S. A.
Drake, and others. In 1786 Col. John Trumbull painted his well-known
picture of the battle, which has been often engraved. (Cf. Trumbull's
_Autobiography_; _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, xv.; Tuckerman's _Book
of the Artists_; _Harper's Magazine_, Nov., 1879.) Trumbull claimed
that the following figures in his picture were portraits: Warren,
Putnam, Howe, Clinton, Small, and the two Pitcairns.

In the _Mass. Magazine_, Sept., 1789, there is a view of Charlestown,
showing Bunker's and Breed's hills, with their original contours. It
is reproduced in _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 554, with a note upon other
early views. Frothingham (_Siege_, p. 121) gives one from an early
manuscript which closely resembles the topography of the Rawdon sketch;
and again (_Centennial_, etc.) another which is in fact the perspective
sketch of the town at the edge of Price's view of Boston (1743),
converted into a panoramic picture (_Mem. Hist. of Boston_, ii. 329).

The _Gentleman's Mag._, Feb., 1790, has a view of Charlestown, with the
tents of the British army on the hill, taken after the battle, and from
Copp's Hill. It shows the wharves and ruins of the town. (Cf. note in
_Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 88.)]

The account of the loyalist Jones (_N. Y. during the Rev._, i. 52) has
his usual twist of vision, though he is severe on Gage for "taking the
bull by the horns" in making an attack in front.

[Illustration: CHARLESTOWN PENINSULA, 1775.

Sketched from a plan by Montresor, showing the redoubt erected by the
British, after June 17, on the higher eminence of Bunker Hill. The
original is in the library of Congress, where is a plan on a large
scale of this principal redoubt.]

The long list of general histories on the British side, detailing the
events of the battle, begins with Murray's _Impartial Hist. of the War_
(London, 1778; Newcastle, 1782), and is made up during the rest of that
century by the _Hist. of the War_ published at Dublin (1779-85); Hall's
_Civil War in America_ (1780); _The Detail and Conduct of the Amer.
War_ (1780); Andrews's _Hist. of the War_ (1785, vol. i. 301,—quoted
at length by Ryerson, _Loyalists_, i. 461); Stedman, _Hist. Amer. War_
(London, 1794, vol. i. 125). The best of the later historians is Mahon
(_Hist. of England_, vi.), who was forced to admit, when pressed upon
the question, that the American claims of victory, which he says they
have always held, appear only in the reports of later British tourists
(vol. vi., App. xxix.). Lecky, in his brief account (_England in the
Eighteenth Century_, iii. 463), makes an intention of Gage to fortify
the Charlestown and not the Dorchester heights the incentive to the
American occupation of the former. Edw. Bernard's _History of England_
(London) has a curious "View of the Attack on Bunker's Hill, with the
burning of Charlestown."

Something confirmatory, rather than of original value, can be gained
from the histories of various regiments which took part in the
battle, as detailed in the series of _Historical Records_ of such
regiments.[574]

* * * * *

The battle almost immediately found commemoration in British ballads
(_Hist. Mag._, ii. 58; v. 251; Hale's _Hundred Years Ago_, p. 7), and
the slain were commemorated in elegiac verses, as in M. M. Robinson's
_To a young lady, on the death of her brother, slain in the late
engagement at Boston_ (London, 1776). The same year there appeared at
Philadelphia _The Battle of Bunker's Hill, a dramatic piece in five
acts, in heroic measure, by a gentleman of Maryland_.

[Illustration: PLAN OF BUNKER HILL.

NOTE.—The references in the corner of this cut, too fine to be easily
read in this reduced fac-simile, are as follows:—

"_A A._ First position, where the troops remained until reinforcements
arrived.

_B B._ Second position.

_C C C._ Ground on which the different regiments marched to form the
line.

_D D._ Direction in which the attack was made upon the redoubt and
breastwork.

_E E._ Position of a part of the 47th and marines, to silence the fire
of a barn at E.

_F._ First position of the cannon.

_G._ Second position of the cannon in advancing with the grenadiers,
but stopped by the marsh.

_H._ Breastwork formed of pickets, hay, stones, etc., with the pieces
of cannon.

_I I._ Light infantry advancing along the shore to force the right of
the breastwork _H_.

_L L._ The "Lively" and "Falcon" hauled close to shore, to rake the low
grounds before the troops advanced.

_M M._ Gondolas that fired on the rebels in their retreat.

_N._ Battery of cannon, howitzers, and mortars on Copp's Hill, that
battered the redoubt and set fire to Charlestown.

_O O O._ The rebels behind all the stone walls, trees, and brush-wood,
and their numbers uncertain, having constantly large columns to
reinforce them during the action.

_P._ Place from whence the grenadiers received a very heavy fire.

_Q._ Place of the fifty-second regiment on the night of the 17th.

_R._ Forty-seventh regiment, in Charlestown, on the night of the 17th.

_S._ Detachments in the mill and two storehouses.

_T._ Breastwork thrown up by the remainder of the troops on the night
of the 17th.

_Note._ The distance from Boston to Charlestown is about 550 yards."]

Its author is said to be Hugh Henry Brackenridge, and the frontispiece,
"The Death of Warren", by Norman, is held to be the earliest engraving
in British America by a native artist (Hunnewell, p. 13; Brinley, no.
1,787; Sabin, ii. 7,184; xiv. 58,640). In 1779 there was printed at
Danvers, _America Invincible, an heroic poem, in two books: a Battle at
Bunker Hill, by an officer of rank in the Continental army_ (Hunnewell,
p. 13). In 1781 an anonymous poem was published in London, known later
to be the production of George Cockings, and called _The American War,
in which the names of the officers who have distinguished themselves
during the war are introduced_ (Brinley, no. 1,788; Hunnewell, p. 14).
Of later use of the battle in fiction, it is only necessary to name
Cooper's novel of _Lionel Lincoln_ and O. W. Holmes's _Grandmother's
Story of Bunker Hill Battle_ (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1875, p. 33).

* * * * *

The chief enumerations which have been heretofore made of the plans
of the battle of Bunker Hill are by Frothingham, in _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, xiv. 53; by Hunnewell in his _Bibliog. of Charlestown_, p. 17;
and by Winsor in the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, iii. (introduction). The
earliest rude sketches are by Stiles in his diary (Dawson, p. 393),
and one formed by printer's rules in _Rivington's Gazetteer_, Aug. 3,
1775 (Frothingham's _Siege_, p. 397, and Dawson, p. 390). Montresor, of
the British engineers, very soon made a survey of the field, and this
was used by Lieutenant Page in drawing a plan of the action, which he
carried to England with him when, on account of wounds received while
acting as an aid to Howe, he was given leave of absence (_Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, June, 1875, p. 56). In the Faden collection (nos. 25-30)
of maps in the library of Congress there are Page's rough and finished
plans, drawn before the British works on the hill were begun, and also
plans by Montresor and R. W., of the Welsh Fusiliers. Page's plan,
as engraved, was issued in London in 1776, and called _A Plan of the
Action at Bunker's Hill_.[575]

Page's, however, was not the first engraved. One "by an officer on
the spot" was published in London, Nov. 27, 1775, called _Plan of
the battle on Bunker's Hill. Fought on the 17th of June_, which was
issued as a broadside, with Burgoyne's letter to Lord Stanley on the
same sheet. The central position of the Americans is called "Warren's
redoubt." This is reproduced in F. Moore's _Ballad History of the
Revolution_.

Another contemporary British plan—discovered probably "in the baggage
of a British officer", after the royal troops left Boston in March,
1776, but not brought to light till forty years later, when it was
mentioned in a newspaper in Wilkesbarre, Penn., as having been found in
an old drawer—was one made by Henry de Bernière, of the Tenth Royal
Infantry, on nearly the same scale as Page's, but less accurately.

[Illustration: BOSTON AND BUNKER HILL.

(_Impartial History_, _etc._, 1781.) ]

It was engraved in 1818 in the _Analectic Magazine_ (Philad., p. 150),
and a fac-simile of that engraving is annexed. The text accompanying
it states that its general accuracy had been vouched for by Governor
Brooks, General Dearborn, Dr. A. Dexter, Deacon Thos. Miller, John
Kettell, Dr. Bartlett, the Hon. James Winthrop, and Mr. [Judge]
Prescott. General Dearborn and Deacon Miller thought the rail fence
too far in the rear of the redoubt, having been really nearly in the
line of it. Judge Winthrop and Dr. Bartlett thought the map in this
particular correct. There was the same division of belief regarding
the cannon behind the fence, Dearborn and Miller believing there were
none there, Brooks and Winthrop holding the contrary. Other witnesses
represented to the editor of the _Magazine_ that there was no interval
between the breastwork and the fence, but that an imperfect line of
defence connected the redoubt with the Mystick shore, as represented in
Stedman's (Page's) map.[576]

In the _Portfolio_ (March, 1818) General Dearborn criticised the plan
(Dawson, p. 406), and, using the same plate in his separate issue of
his comments, he imposed in red his ideas of the position of the works,
and this was in turn criticised by Governor Brooks.[577] Mr. G. G.
Smith made a (plan) _Sketch of the Battle of Bunker Hill by a British
Officer_ (Boston, 1843), which grew out of the plan and the comments on
it. Bernière's plan was also used by Colonel Swett as the basis of the
one which he published in his _History of the Battle of Bunker Hill_
(1828, 1826, 1827), which has been frequently copied (Ellis, Lossing,
etc.). The latest attempt to map the phases of the action critically is
by Carrington in his _Battles of the Revolution_ (p. 112), who gives
an eclectic plan. Plans adopting the features of earlier ones are in
the English translation of Botta's _War of Independence_, Grant's
_British Battles_ (ii. 144). A plan of the present condition of the
ground, by Thomas W. Davis, superposing the line of the American works,
is given in the Bunker Hill Monument Association's _Proceedings_
(1876). A map of Charlestown in 1775 with a plan of the battle was
prepared and published in 1875 by James E. Stone. A plan of the works
as reconstructed by the British, and deserted by them in March, 1776,
is given in Carter's _Genuine detail_, etc. (London, 1784), which is
reproduced in Frothingham's _Siege_, p. 330. Other MS. plans of their
works on both hills are in the Faden maps in the library of Congress.

Before the war closed a plan was engraved by Norman, a Boston engraver,
which is the earliest to appear near the scene itself. This was a
_Plan of the town of Boston with the attack on Bunker's Hill, in the
peninsula of Charlestown, on June 17, 1775_ (measuring 11-1/2 × 7
inches), which is, however, of no topographical value as respects the
action. It appeared in Murray's _Impartial History_ (1778), i. p. 430,
and in An Impartial History of the War in America (Boston, 1781, vol.
i.), and a reduced fac-simile of it is annexed.[578]

=C.= THE AMERICAN CAMP.—A variety of journals and diaries have been
preserved, the best known of which is that of Dr. Thacher, a surgeon on
Prospect Hill.[579]

The daily life of the Cambridge camp is best seen in the letters
sent from it, and foremost in interest among such are those of
Washington.[580] From the Roxbury camp there are letters of General
Thomas in the _Thomas Papers_, where is one of Dr. John Morgan, the
medical director. Several from Jedediah Huntington are preserved in
the Trumbull Papers, and are printed in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._,
xlix.[581] The principal letters from the Winter Hill camp are those
of General Sullivan,[582] and a few have been printed written at the
Prospect Hill camp.[583]

Something of the spirit prevailing in Watertown, where the Provincial
Congress was sitting, can be seen in the letters of James Warren and
Samuel Cooper.[584]

There are in the library of the Amer. Antiq. Soc. at Worcester
several orderly-books of the siege,[585] and others are preserved
elsewhere.[586]

* * * * *

=D.= THE BRITISH CAMP.—The condition of Boston during the siege
must be learned from various sources. The _Boston News-Letter_ was
still published, but numbers of it are very scarce for this period,
and no other of the Boston newspapers continued to be published in
the town.[587] It was a convenient vehicle for the British generals,
and any morsel of news likely to be distasteful to the patriots,
like the intercepted correspondence of Washington and John Adams,
was pretty sure to reach the American lines through its columns. The
correspondence of the generals is preserved in the British Archives
and in the papers at the Royal Institution (London), and occasionally
some few letters, like those of Percy in the Boston Public Library,
have been found elsewhere. It is charged that Gage's papers were stolen
in Boston.[588] Some new glimpses were got when Fonblanque published
his _Life of Burgoyne_.[589] The best accounts of the succession
of events in the town and the daily life are found in Dr. Ellis's
"Chronicles of the Siege",[590] and in Mr. Horace E. Scudder's "Life
in Boston during the Siege", a chapter in the _Memorial Hist. of
Boston_, vol. iii.,[591] which may be consulted (p. 154) for various
sources respecting the details of the privations and amusements of the
people and the garrison, and of the vicissitudes of its buildings and
landmarks.[592] An account of the British works in Boston is given in
Frothingham's _Siege of Boston_, and the _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 79.
The current record of the outposts, etc., is noted in Moore's _Diary
of the Rev._, 109, etc. Carrington (_Battles_, 154) refers to a MS.
narrative of experiences in the town by one Edw. Stow. Some of the
correspondence of the Boston selectmen with Thomas, at Roxbury, is
in the _Thomas Papers_. It is, however, to the diaries, letters, and
orderly-books which have been preserved that we must go for the details
of life in the beleaguered town.[593]

=E.= BOSTON EVACUATED.—The letters of Washington[594] best enable
us to follow the movements, but they may be supplemented by other
contemporary accounts.[595]

Howe's despatch to Dartmouth, dated Nantasket Roads, is in Dawson,
i. 94.[596] His conduct of the siege is criticised in _A view
of the evidence relative to the Conduct of the American War_
(1779). Contemporary dissatisfaction was expressed in an ironical
congratulatory poem published in London (Sabin, iv., 15,476).

One Crean Brush,[597] acting under orders of Howe, endeavored to carry
off the merchandise from the stores of the town, so far as he could,
on a vessel put at his disposal. Howe's proclamation in his favor is
in fac-simile in the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, iii. 97. Brush's vessel
was later captured by Manly (_Evacuation Memorial_, 166). Similar
experience in trying to escape with his merchandise was suffered by
Jolley Allen, as portrayed in his _Account of a part of his sufferings
and losses_, ed. by C. C. Smith, given in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
Feb., 1878, and separately. Allen's narrative was reprinted in the
spelling of the original MS. in _An Account of a part of the sufferings
and losses of Jolley Allen, a native of London, with a preface and
Notes by Mrs. Frances Mary Stoddard_ (Boston, 1883). An inventory
of the stores left by the British is in the _Siege of Boston_,
406.[598] In the cabinet of this society is a handbill adopted by
the freeholders of Boston, Nov. 18 [1776?], calling upon all who had
suffered in property in Boston since March, 1775, to report the same to
a committee.[599]

Washington's instructions (April 4, 1776) to Ward are in the printed
_Heath Papers_, P. 4. The Mass. legislature, April 30, 1776, ordered
beacons to be set at Cape Ann, Marblehead, and Blue Hill, ready to be
fired in case of the enemy's reappearing, which was for a long time
dreaded. Ward writes to Washington of his measures in progress.[600]

The correspondence of John Adams and John Winthrop (_Mass. Hist.
Coll._, xlv.) shows constant anxiety lest the defences should not be
prepared in case of need.[601]

[Illustration: SIEGE OF BOSTON, 1776.

The westerly half of the map in the octavo atlas of Marshall's
_Washington_, which is a reduction of the map in the earlier quarto
atlas (1804). It is reproduced in the French translations of Marshall
and of Botta.]

The cut on the title of the present volume represents one side of the
medal given by Congress to Washington, to commemorate his raising the
siege of Boston.[602]

=F.= MAPS OF THE SIEGE OF BOSTON.—Plans of Boston and its
neighborhood, including its harbor, for the illustration of the siege
of Boston, are numerous, and the account of them given in the _Mem.
Hist. of Boston_ (iii., introd.) is in the main followed in the present
enumeration, which divides them into those of American, English,
French, and German origin, and adheres as far as possible to the order
of publication in each group.

The earliest American is the 1769 (or last) edition of what is known
as Price's edition of Bonner's map of Boston, which had done service
since 1722 by successive changes in the plate, this last issue showing
Hancock's Wharf, and "Esqr. Hancock's seat" on Beacon Street.[603] This
map sufficed for local use till the events of 1775 induced new interest
in the topography, when the earliest response came from Philadelphia,
where C. Lownes engraved _A new plan of Boston Harbour from an actual
survey_, for the _Pennsylvania Magazine_. It presented a reminder of
the great event of the year in its "N. B. Charlestown burnt, June 17,
1775, by the Regulars." There is another _Draught of the Harbour of
Boston and the adjacent towns and roads_, a manuscript, dated 1775,
among the _Belknap Papers_, i. 84, in the cabinet of the Mass. Hist.
Society. The same _Pennsylvania Magazine_, the next month (July, 1775),
gave as engraved by Aitkins _A new and correct plan of the town of
Boston and Provincial Camp_. The town seems to be taken from a plan
which had appeared in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ (London) the previous
January; but in one corner was added a plan of the circumvallating
lines of the besieging army.[604] Later in the season two other plans
were made, showing the American lines, which were not published,
however, till long after. One is given in Force's _American Archives_,
4th series, vol. iii.,[605] and the other was made by Col. John
Trumbull, in Sept., 1775, which was published in his _Autobiography_ in
1841.[606] Of about the same time is another very small _Plan of Boston
and its environs_, showing the circumvallating lines, which is in one
corner of a large _Map of the Seat of Civil War in America_, engraved
by B. Romans, and dedicated to Hancock. There is also, in the library
of the Mass. Hist. Society, a rude plan of the harbor and vicinity,
showing the positions of the provincials, which are reckoned at 20,000,
while the royal forces are put at 8,000. I find no other American plan
till Norman's, in 1781, reproduced on another page; and not another
till _The Seat of the late War at Boston_ appeared in the _Universal
Asylum and Columbian Magazine_, July, 1789, p. 444, but this is a
rather scant map of the country as far inland as Worcester. Gordon had
the year before this given a map in his _American Revolution_ (London,
1788) based on English sources; but it has been the foundation of most
of the eclectic maps since published in this country.[607]

In 1822 a Mr. Finch printed in _Silliman's Journal_ an account of the
traces then remaining of the earthworks of the siege, both American and
British.[608] There is an enumeration of the different sections of the
lines, within and without Boston, in the _Mem. Hist. Boston_ (vol. iii.
104).[609]

[Illustration: BOSTON AND VICINITY, JUNE, 1775.]

The earliest English plan of this period is one called _A plan of
Boston and Charlestown from a drawing made in 1771_, which occupies the
margin of a larger map, engraved for _The Town and Country Magazine_
in 1776, later to be mentioned. The _Catalogue of the King's Maps_
(British Museum) shows a colored plan of Boston and vicinity (1773)
in the centre of a large sheet, with marginal views (later to be
described).

In 1774 a _Plan of the town of Boston_ made part of a _Chart of the
Coast of New England_, which appeared in the _London Magazine_, April,
1774, and in _The American Atlas_, issued by Thomas Jefferys in London,
in 1776. This map seems to be the model of a _New and accurate Plan of
the town of Boston_, which is engraved in the corner of _A Map of the
most inhabited part of New England, by Thomas Jefferys, Nov. 29, 1774_,
usually also found in _The American Atlas_ (1776, nos. 15 and 16). This
map is found with the date 1755, even after changes of a later date had
been made in the plate.[610] The original map has also a marginal plan
of Boston harbor (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, September, 1864).

The earliest English map of 1775 is one which appeared in the
_Gentleman's Magazine_ (January, 1775), though it is dated Feb. 1,
1775. It shows the town and harbor.[611]

In the June number of the _Gentleman's Magazine_ is a "map of the
country one hundred miles round Boston, in order to show the situation
and march of the troops, as well provincial as regulars, which are now
within sight of each other, and are hourly expected to engage."

In June, 1775, was also made a not very accurate map of the town and
its environs, which was published in London, Aug. 28, to satisfy the
eagerness for a map of the region to which the news of the battle of
Bunker Hill had turned all eyes. It is to be found in the first volume
of _Almon's Remembrancer_, and is reproduced herewith. A few weeks
after the fight at Charlestown there was probably made in Boston the
MS. plan of _Boston and circumjacent Country_, showing the present
situation of the king's troops and the rebel intrenchments. It is dated
July 25, 1775, and is owned by Dr. Charles Deane.[612]

The largest chart which we have of Boston harbor of this period
is dated August 5, 1775, and was the work of Samuel Holland, the
surveyor-general of the Northern colonies, who was for some years
employed on a coast survey.[613] It takes in Nahant, Nantasket, and
Cambridge, and was based principally on the surveys of George Callendar
(1769).[614] When Des Barres included it in his _Atlantic Neptune_
(part iii., no. 6, 1780-1783), he marked in the besieging lines, and
dated it Dec. 1, 1781, and in this state Des Barres also used it in his
_Coast and Harbors of New England_.[615]

A map showing thirty miles round Boston, and bearing date Aug. 14,
1775, is in the king's library (British Museum), and is signed by
M. Armstrong. It has marginal statistical tables, and in the upper
right-hand corner is a plan of the "action near Charlestown, 17
June, 1775."[616] There is among the Force maps in the library of
Congress the MS. original of the map (sketched herewith as _Boston and
Charlestown_, 1775), which is called _A Draught of the Towns of Boston
and Charlestown and the circumjacent country, shewing the works thrown
up by his Majesty's Troops, and also those by the Rebels during the
campaign of 1775. N. B. The rebel entrenchments are expressed as they
appear from Beacon Hill._

On August 28th the British town-major in Boston, James Urquhart,
licensed Henry Pelham to make a _Plan of Boston with its environs_. It
was engraved in aquatints in London, on two sheets, and not published
till June 2, 1777. Dr. Belknap, who was much troubled to find a correct
plan of the town for this period, thought Pelham's was the best.[617]

[Illustration: BOSTON AND CHARLESTOWN, 1775.]

There are among the Faden MSS. in the library of Congress two MS.
maps. One is probably the best plan of Boston itself of this period,
and the other the best of those of the vicinity.[618] They represent
the conditions of 1775, though they were not engraved and published
by William Faden in London till Oct. 1, 1777, and Oct. 1, 1778,
respectively. They are both, in the main, after a survey by William
Page, of the British engineers. The first is called _A Plan of the
Town of Boston, with the Intrenchments, etc., of his Majesty's forces
in 1775, from the observations of Lieut. Page and from the plans of
other gentlemen_. It gives the peninsula only, with a small portion
of Charlestown, and was again issued in Oct., 1778.[619] The second
is _Boston, its environs and harbour, with the Rebels' works raised
against that town in 1775, from the observations of Lieut. Page,
and from the plans of Capt. Montresor_. It includes Point Alderton,
Chelsea, Cambridge, and Dorchester, and there is a copy in the library
of the Mass. Hist. Society.

[Illustration: BRITISH LINES ON BOSTON NECK, 1775-76.

This is from Page's _Plan of the Town of Boston_, published in London
in 1777, and is accompanied by the following Key:—_a_, redoubt;
_b_, block-house for cannon; _c_, six 24-pounders, 2 royals; _d_,
four 9-pounders; _e_, six 24-pounders; _f_, left bastion; _g_, right
bastion; _h_, _h_, guard-houses; _i_, _i_, traverses; _k_, _k_,
magazines; _l_, _l_, abattis; _m_, _m_, _m_, routes-du-pols; _n_,
block-house for musketry; _o_, floating battery, 2 guns; _p_, _p_,
fleches, 1 sub. and 20 men. The building beyond the outer lines and
near the edge of the upland is Brown's house, the scene of skirmishes
during the siege (_Mem. Hist. of Boston_, iii. 80; Heath's _Memoirs_).
The narrowest part of the neck was at the present Dover Street where
it intersects Washington Street. The foundations of the main works
at this point were laid bare in digging a drain in March, 1860. The
outer works were just within Blackstone and Franklin squares. There
are views of these lines in the Faden Collection in the library of
Congress, dated August, 1775, probably the original of the engraved
views which accompany Des Barres' coast survey, and of which there
are reproductions in the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, iii. 80. Cf.
also Frothingham's _Siege_, p. 315. The same Faden Collection has
a pen-and-ink plan of the lines, dated Aug., 1775 (no. 37 of the
_Catal._).

During the summer of 1775, John Trumbull, then an aid to General
Spencer, crawled up, under cover of the tall grass, near enough to
the British lines to sketch them; but a continuance of the hazardous
exploit was soon rendered unnecessary by the desertion of a British
artilleryman, who brought with him a rude plan of the entire work. So
Trumbull says in his _Autobiography_, p. 22. Washington, on comparing
this surreptitious sketch with the deserter's plan, found them so
nearly to correspond that Trumbull thinks his own future promotion
probably arose from it. Trumbull's sketch and the memorandum of the
deserter "from the Welsh fusileers" seem to have been the basis
of a careful drawing of the British lines, prepared apparently at
headquarters in Cambridge, as it bears the handwriting of Washington's
aid, Thomas Mifflin, an explanatory table of the armament in the works.
This found its way into that portion of the Papers of Arthur Lee which
went to the Amer. Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, and from it a
reduced heliotype is given in the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, iii. p. 80.
Washington sent a copy of the plan, nearly duplicate, to Congress, and
this is given in Force's _Amer. Archives_, 4th ser., i. p. 29, and is
reproduced on a smaller scale in Wheildon's _Siege and Evacuation of
Boston_, p. 34. (Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, April, 1879, p. 62.)
There are two other American drawings of the lines, of less importance.
One is in the _Pennsylvania Magazine_ for Aug., 1775, and is called _An
exact plan of Gen. Gage's lines on Boston Neck in America, July 31,
1775_. The other is a small marginal view of _The Lines thrown up on
Boston neck by the ministerial army_, making part of the _Seat of the
Civil War_, by Romans. A rude powder-horn plan is noted in the _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._ (Nov., 1881), xix. 103. One of the Faden MS. plans
shows a proposed star redoubt at a point outside the lines.]

In October, 1775, an "Engineer at Boston", Lieut. Richard Williams,
made and sent over to England a plan showing the "redoubt taken from
the rebels by General Howe", the British camp on the higher summit of
Bunker Hill, together with the American lines at Cambridge and Roxbury.
In London it was compared with "several other curious drawings", from
which additions were made, when it was published by Andrew Dury, March
12, 1776, as engraved by Jno. Lodge for the late Mr. Jefferys, and
called _Plan of Boston and its environs, showing the true situation of
his Majesty's Army, and also those of the rebels_.[620] In the same
month (Oct., 1775) a _Plan of Boston_, with Charlestown marked as in
ruins, appeared in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ (p. 464). Another _Map of
Boston and Charlestown, by an English officer present at Bunker Hill_,
was published in London, Nov. 25, 1775. The last map made during the
British occupation of Boston was _An accurate map of the Country round
Boston in New England, published by A. Hamilton, Jr., near St. John's
Gate, Jan. 16, 1776_, appearing in the _Town and Country Magazine_. It
measures 11-1/2 × 12-1/2 inches, and extends from Plymouth to Ipswich,
and inland to Groton and Providence.

The evacuation of Boston in March, 1776, removed the centre of interest
elsewhere, but there was for some time an apprehension of the return of
the British for a naval attack; and while the Americans were fortifying
the harbor, the English were publishing in London several maps of
its configuration. The earliest was a _Chart of Massachusetts Bay
and Boston Harbour_, published April 29, 1776. With the date changed
to Dec. 1, 1781, it was subsequently included by Des Barres in the
_Atlantic Neptune_, and in the _Charts of the Coast and Harbors of
New England_, 1781.[621] Another _Chart of Boston Bay_, whose limits
include Salem, Watertown, and Scituate, following Holland's surveys,
was published Nov. 13, 1776, and later appeared, dated Dec. 1, 1781, in
the _Atlantic Neptune_, and in the _Coast and Harbors of New England_.
A chart of the harbor, with soundings, was also included in the _North
American Pilot for New England_ (London, 1776), showing a solitary tree
on the peninsula marked "Ruins of Charlestown." There was a second
edition of the _Pilot_ in 1800. A small plan of the harbor is also
in the margin of Carrington Bowles's _Map of the seat of war in New
England_ (London, 1776).

The first eclectic map was that published by Gordon in his _Amer.
Revolution_ (London, 1788), which he based on Pelham's map for the
country, and Page's for the harbor.[622]

* * * * *

The French maps published in Paris were almost always based on English
sources. Such were the _Carte de la baye de Baston_ (no. 30), and
_Plan de la ville de Baston_ (no. 31), in _Le Petit Atlas maritime,
vol. i., Amérique Septentrionale, par le S. Bellin, 1764_. There
are several other French maps without date, but probably a little
antedating the outbreak of hostilities. Such are a _Plan de la ville
et du port de Boston_, published by Lattré in Paris;[623] and a small
map, _Plan de la ville de Boston et ses environs_, engraved by B. D.
Bakker. An engraved map, without date, is in the British Museum, called
_Carte des environs de Boston, capitale de la N^{lle} Angleterre en
Amérique_.[624] It carries the coast from below Plymouth to above the
Merrimac. There is in the Poore collection of maps in the Mass. State
Archives a _Carte de la baye de Baston_ (marked Tome i. no. 30).

The only dated map of this period is a _Carte du porte et havre de
Boston, par le Chevalier de Beaurain_ (Paris, 1776). The corner
vignette shows a soldier bearing a banner with a pine-tree.
Frothingham, who reëngraved this picture, could find no earlier
representation of the pine-tree flag.

The English (1774) map of the "most inhabited part of New England" was
reproduced "after the original by M. Le Rouge, 1777", under the title
of _La Nouvelle Angleterre en 4 feuilles_; and it was again used in
the _Atlas Ameriquain Septentrional, à Paris, chez Le Rouge_ (1778),
repeating the map of Boston, with names in English and descriptions in
French. Another reproduction from the English appeared in the _Carte
particulière du Havre de Boston, reduite de la carte anglaise de Des
Barres par ordre de M. de Sartine_ (1780). It belongs to the _Neptune
Americo-Septentrional, publié par ordre du Roi_.

There is among the Rochambeau maps (no. 14), in the library of
Congress, a _Plan d'une partie de la rade de Boston_, done in color,
about eight inches wide by sixteen high, showing the forts and giving
an elaborate key.

* * * * *

There is a curious map of Boston and its harbor, with names in Latin,
but apparently of German make, _Ichnographia urbis Boston_ and
_Ichnographia portus Bostoniensis_, which make part of a larger map,
perhaps the _Nova Anglia_ of Homann of Nuremberg. The _Geschichte
der Kriege in und ausser Europa_, published also at Nuremberg in
1776 (erste theil) has a map of Boston. Of the same date (1776), and
belonging to the _Geographische Belustigungen für Erläuterung der
neuesten Weltgeschichte_ (Zweytes Stück), published at Leipsic, is a
_Carte von dem Hafen und der Stadt Boston_, following the French map of
Beaurain even to reproducing the group with the pine-tree banner. It
embraces a circuit about Boston of which the outer limits are Chelsea,
Cambridge, Dorchester, Long Island, Deer Island, and Pulling Point.

* * * * *

=G.= THE CAPTURE OF TICONDEROGA, 1775.—It is in dispute who planned
and who conducted the capture of Ticonderoga. On Feb. 21, 1775, Col.
John Brown had suggested it to Warren (_Force's Archives_). Arnold made
a statement of the post's defenceless condition to the Committee of
Safety in Cambridge, April 30, 1775 (_Mass. Archives_, cxlvi. p. 30;
_Amer. Bibliopolist_, 1873, p. 79). On the 2d of May he was given a
money credit and munitions, and on the 3d he was definitely instructed
to organize his party (_Mass. Archives_, cxlvi. p. 39). It is claimed
that some purpose of acting on the suggestion of Brown prompted in
part, at least, the Massachusetts provincial congress to appoint
early in April a committee to proceed to Connecticut and the other
New England colonies. Whether it was by their instigation, by certain
movements in Connecticut, or by the direct agency of Arnold that the
plan was formed, it is difficult to say. It is also claimed that the
plan grew out of a conference with the Massachusetts delegates to the
Philadelphia Congress, when, on their way, they stopped at Hartford
and held a session with Governor Trumbull and his council (_Force's
Archives_, ii. 507; Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii. 298). Bancroft and the
Connecticut antiquaries find the beginning rather in the impulses of
one Parsons, who had just returned from Massachusetts, and had got from
Benedict Arnold, whom he met on the way, a statement of the plunder to
be obtained there, and, without any formal consent of the governor and
council, proceeded in the organization of a committee in Connecticut
(Bancroft, orig. ed., vii. 338; final revision, iv. 182). Official
sanction was first evoked when Massachusetts, a few days later,
commissioned Arnold (_Mass. Archives_, cxlvi. 130, 139; _American
Bibliopolist_, 1873, p. 79; _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1844, p. 14).
The Connecticut antiquaries have mainly set forth the claims of their
colony for leadership of the affair in the papers which constitute vol.
i. (pp. 163-185) of the _Conn. Hist. Soc. Collections_, in which is the
journal of Edward Mott,[625] the chairman of the Connecticut committee,
edited by J. H. Trumbull.[626]

The part taken in the movement in Western Massachusetts arose
from confidence reposed in Brown and others of Pittsfield, by the
Connecticut men who passed through that town on their way to the
New Hampshire Grants.[627] Brown had, during the previous winter,
notified the Massachusetts committee that Ticonderoga would receive
the attention of Ethan Allen and Green Mountain boys as soon as
the outbreak came. The credit which attaches to this commander is
complicated by the relations which Arnold bore to the final capture,
and has in turn given rise to controversy. The most comprehensive
examination of the question on the Vermont side is L. E. Chittenden's
Addresses before the Vermont Historical Society, Oct., 1872 (published
at Rutland by the society), and at the unveiling of Allen's statue
at Burlington, July 4, 1873. We have Allen's own statements in his
_Narrative of his captivity, etc._[628]

Dawson thinks that the merit of originating the active measures cannot
be taken from Benedict Arnold, and in his chapter (_Battles of the
United States_, i. ch. 2) on the subject traces minutely the sources
of each step in the progress of events, and in his Appendix (p. 38)
prints the protest (May 10th, p. 38) of the Connecticut committee
against Arnold's interference and Arnold's report (May 11th, p. 38)
to the Massachusetts Congress.[629] There are some of the current
reports preserved in Moore's _Diary of the Amer. Revolution_ (i. pp.
78-80), and the account, which ignores Arnold, of the _Worcester Spy_
(May 16th) is given in the _Amer. Bibliopolist_ (1871, p. 491). There
are other contemporary accounts in the _American Archives_ (vols.
ii. and iii.); a journal by Elmer is in the _New Jersey Hist. Soc.
Proc._, vols. ii. and iii.; a Tory account in Jones's _New York during
the Revolutionary War_ (vol. i. pp. 47, 546), with a letter of May
14th.[630] Narratives by Caldwell and Beaman are in the _Historical
Magazine_, August, 1867, and May, 1868, respectively.[631]

=H.= THE CANADA CAMPAIGN, 1775-1776.—Washington in New York, June
25th, entrusted to Schuyler the command in the North (Lossing's
_Schuyler_, i. 330; Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev. War_, 58), and
Congress issued (May 29, 1775) an address to the Canadians (_Journal
of Congress_; Pitkin's _United States_, i. App. 19). In August it was
reported that this address was left at the door of every house in
Canada. Schuyler reached Ticonderoga July 18th (Lossing's _Schuyler_,
i. ch. 21; Palmer's _Lake Champlain_, ch. 6; Irving's _Washington_,
ii.), and pushed on to the foot of Lake Champlain in September
(Lossing, i. ch. 23).

Among the early reports, inducing the project of invading Canada, were
the letters of Maj. John Brown (Aug. 14, 1775) and Ethan Allen (Sept.
14th) respecting the condition of the Canadians (Sparks's _Corresp. of
the Rev._, i. 461, 464). There are other letters on the state of Canada
at this time in the _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vii. 515, 547, 561-62, 569.
The Schuyler Papers, with the letters which they contain of Montgomery,
Arnold, Wooster, and Sullivan, are a main source of information
respecting the whole campaign.[632]

[Illustration: FROM THE ATLAS OF WILKINSON'S MEMOIRS.

A modern eclectic map is given in Carrington's _Battles_, 171. The most
considerable contemporary map for the illustration of the movements
during the Revolution in Canada is one published by Jefferys, in 1776,
of the _Province of Quebec, from the French Surveys and those made by
Capt. Carver and others after the War, with much detail of names, plan
of Quebec and heights of Abraham, Montreal and isles of Montreal_ (27 x
19 inches). On Feb. 16, 1776, Sayer and Bennett published in London _A
new map of the Province of Quebec according to the royal proclamation
of 7 Oct., 1763, from the French surveys, corrected with those made
after the war by Captain Carver and other officers in his majesty's
service_. There was a French reproduction of it in Paris in 1777,
included in the _Atlas Ameriquain_ (1778), called _Nouvelle Carte de la
Province de Quebec selon l'édit du Roi d'Angleterre du 7 8{bre}, 1763,
par le Capitaine Carver, traduites de l'Anglois, à Paris chez le Rouge,
1777_.

Jefferys also issued in 1775 _An exact Chart of the River St. Lawrence
from Fort Frontenac to Anticosti_ (37 X 24 inches), which is usually
accompanied by a _Chart of the Golf of St. Lawrence, 1775_(24 X 20
inches). _North Amer. Pilot_, nos. 11, 20, 21, 22. There is in the
_Geschichte der Kriege in und ausser Europa_ [Nuremberg], 1776, a
"Karte von der Insel Montreal und den Gegenden umher", following a plan
by Bellin.

A map of Canada in 1774 is embraced in Mitchell's _Map of the British
Colonies_, and in Wright's ed. of _Cavendish's Debates in the Commons
(1774) on the Canada bill_, London, 1839. There are other maps in the
_American Atlas_ and Hilliard d'Auberteuil's _Essais_.]

Schuyler's health preventing his taking the field in person, the
interest in the campaign centres in Montgomery up to the time of his
death.[633] We have despatches of his (Nov. 3, 1775) on the capture of
St. Johns,[634] on the taking of Chamblée,[635] and on the capitulation
of Montreal,[636] with his letters from before Quebec (Sparks,
_Corresp._, i. 492, etc.). A letter from one of his aids at this time
(Dec. 16, 1775) is in _Life of George Read_, p. 115.

The principal Life of Montgomery is that by J. Armstrong, in Sparks's
_Amer. Biography_ (i. p. 181), which may be supplemented by other minor
accounts.[637]

The connection of Benedict Arnold with the Campaign is illustrated in
his letters, beginning with those before he left the column advancing
by Lake Champlain, and then following his progress on the expedition
to coöperate by the Kennebec route, which Washington proposed to
Schuyler in a letter of Aug. 20, 1775 (Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 63).
On Sept. 14th Washington sealed his instructions to Arnold (Sparks,
iii. 86; Dawson, 113; Henry's _Journal_, ed. 1877, p. 2). It is said
that the route to be taken was suggested to Arnold by the journal of an
exploration in that direction by Montresor in 1760.[638] That engineer
had, by order of General Murray, made a survey of this route in
1761.[639] There are maps to illustrate Arnold's route in the _Atlantic
Neptune, London Mag._, 1776, Marshall's Atlas to his _Washington_,
and in the 1877 edition of Henry's _Journal_.[640] All the general
histories and a few biographies and local records necessarily cover the
story.[641] Arnold himself is the best contemporary authority.

[Illustration: CAPITULATION OF ST. JOHNS.

Fac-simile, slightly reduced, of the reproduction in Smith's _Amer.
Hist. and Lit. Curios._, 2d series, p. xl., from the original in the
collection of Ferdinand J. Dreer, of Philadelphia.]

A number of his letters respecting the expedition are in Bowdoin
College library,[642] and they and others will be found in print in
the _Maine Hist. Soc. Collections_ (1831), vol. i. 357, etc., and in
Sparks's _Corresp. of the Revolution_, i. 46, 60, 88, 475, etc.[643]
His journal of his progress is unfortunately rather meagre, and covers
but a few weeks, Sept. 27 to Oct. 30, 1775. The original manuscript was
left by Arnold at West Point when he fled, and extracts from it are
printed in S. L. Knapp's _Life of Aaron Burr_, 1835; it is now owned by
Mr. S. L. M. Barlow, of New York, and a copy, made from it when owned
by Judge Edwards, of New York, is in the _Sparks MSS._ (lii. vol. ii.).

[Illustration: CONCLUSION AND ATTESTATION OF MONTGOMERY'S WILL.

Cf. _Harper's Mag._, vol. lxx. p. 356.]

Various other journals of the actors in the expedition have been
preserved.[644]

Arnold's letters at the Point-aux-Trembles and before Quebec are
in Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._ (i. App.), together with those
addressed to Wooster,[645] Schuyler, and Washington after the failure
of the assault on Quebec, Dec. 31, 1775.[646]

[Illustration: MONTGOMERY.

After the only original portrait preserved at Montgomery Place, and
representing him at about twenty-five. Cf. _Harper's Mag._, lxx. p.
350; Irving's _Washington_, illus. ed., vol. ii.

The study of Trumbull's well-known picture of "The Death of Montgomery"
is on a card less than four inches square, now owned by Major Lewis, of
Virginia, and is marked "J. Trumbull to Nelly Custis, 1790" (Johnston's
_Orig. Portraits of Washington_, p. 72).]

[Illustration: RICHARD MONTGOMERY.

From _An Impartial History of the War in America_, vol. i. p. 392
(Boston), engraved by J. Norman. Cf. the engraving in Murray's
_Impartial Hist. of the Present War_, ii. 193. Neither of these
copper-plates are probably of any value as likenesses. They show the
kind of effigy doing service at the time.]

The great resource for original material on the siege of Quebec, beside
the letters given by Sparks and Lossing, are in the gatherings of _4
Force's Archives_, vols. iv., v., and vi.; Almon's _Remembrancer_,
vol. ii.; _N. Y. Col. Docs._, viii. 663, etc.; and in a large number
of diaries and other contemporary records, which may readily be
classed as American or British, with a few emanating from the French
Canadians.[647]

On Jan. 19, 1776, a report was made in Congress that the army in Canada
be reinforced (_Secret Journals_, i. 241).

[Illustration

From an engraving of full length in _An Impartial Hist. of the War in
America_, Lond. 1780, p. 249. A mezzotint similar to this was published
in London, 1776, as "Col. Arnold, who commanded the provincial troops
sent against Quebec" (J. C. Smith, _Brit. Mez. Portraits_, iv.
1714-1717). The portrait in profile, by W. Tate,—a handsome face,—was
engraved in line by H. B. Hall in 1865, and etched by him in 1879 for
Isaac N. Arnold's _Life of B. Arnold_. Cf. Jones's _Campaign for the
Conquest of Canada_, p. 168. Other portraits of Arnold are given later
in the present volume.]

[Illustration: MONTRESOR'S MAP.

Sketched from the original (1760) among the Peter Force maps in the
Library of Congress. There is a copy in the library of the N. E. Hist.
and Geneal. Society.]

In April Arnold returned to Montreal, and Wooster took command
before Quebec,[648] to be superseded by General Thomas, who reached
the camp May 1st. Upon Carleton's being reinforced, Thomas began
to retreat.[649] Burgoyne arrived with additional troops in June
(Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_, 211). The affair at the Cedars took place
May 19, 1776.[650] The movement against Three Rivers had been begun by
orders of Thompson, who was in command upon the death of Thomas (June
2d), and remained so for a few days till Sullivan arrived.

[Illustration:

From _An Impartial History of the War in America_, Lond., 1780, p.
400, where the cut represents his full length. Cf. prints published in
London in 1776 (_Brit. Mez. Portrait_, by J. C. Smith); Hollister's
_Connecticut_, i. 390; Jones's _Campaign for the Conquest of Canada_,
28; _Geschichte der Kriege in und ausser Europa_ (Nürnberg, 1778).]

Smith, in the _St. Clair Papers_, i. 17, collates the authorities
on this movement,[651] calling in question the statements given by
Bancroft.

Sullivan's Irish precipitancy and over-confidence did not mend matters
as the retreat went on, and raised delusive hopes which were more
welcome than Arnold's gloomy views.[652]

[Illustration: SIEGE OF QUEBEC, 1775-76.

Sketched from a manuscript plan noted in the _Sparks Catalogue_ (p.
208), which belongs to Cornell University, and was kindly communicated
to the editor. The original (18½ × 15 inches) is marked as "on a
scale of 30 chaines to an Inch", and is signed "E. Antill ft." in
the corner. Mr. Sparks has marked it "Siege of Quebec, 1776." It is
endorsed on the outside, "Gen^l Arnold's plan of Quebec, with y^e
Americans besieging it, y^e winter of 1776." It bears the following
Key: "H, Headquarters. A, A, A, advanced guards. B, B, B, main guards.
C, C, C, quarter guards. D, Capt. Smith's riflemen. E, cul-de-sac,
where the men-of-war lay, F, governor's house. G, where all materials
are carried to build our batteries, out of view of the town. I, lower
town. K, the barrier, near which General Montgomery fell. K L, the
dotted line shews the route the troops took under the general, thro'
deep snow without any path." The dotted line in the river marks the
extent of ice from the shore, and in the open stream are the words:
"(Unfrose) Ice driving with y^e Tide." The roads are marked by broken
lines – – – – – – –. The position of patrols are marked by the
letter P.

The principal engraved map is a _Plan of the city and environs of
Quebec with its siege and blockage by the Americans from the 8th of
December, 1775, to the 13th of May, 1776_. _Engraved by Wm. Faden,
London; published 12 Sept., 1776._ The original MS. draft is among
the Faden maps (no. 20) in the library of Congress. There are other
plans as follows: _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, April, 1884, p. 282; Leake's
_Life of Lamb_, p. 130; Atlas to Marshall's _Washington_; Carrington's
_Battles_, p. 138; Stone's _Invasion of Canada_, p. xvii.; a marginal
plan in Sayer and Bennett's _New Map of the Province of Quebec_,
published Feb. 16, 1776; and a German "Plan von Quebec" in the
_Geschichte der Kriege in und ausser Europa_, Nuremberg, 1777, Dritter
Theil. There is a marginal map of Quebec in an edition of Carver's map
of the Province of Quebec, published by Le Rouge in Paris in 1777, and
included in the _Atlas Ameriquain_ (1778).

For views of Quebec and the points of attack, see Moore's _Diary of
the Rev._, i. 185; Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 198; and _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, April, 1884, p. 274. A view of the plains of Abraham is in
_Ibid._, p. 296.]

The retreat continued to Crown Point, and in July Sullivan was relieved
by Gates; and the campaign was over,—nothing accomplished. On July
26th Governor Trumbull reviews the condition of the army in a letter
in Hinman's _Conn. during the Rev._ (p. 560).[653] The letters of
Ira Allen and John Hurd express the uneasy state of mind along the
frontier, which now took possession of the exposed settlers (_N. H.
Prov. Papers_, viii. pp. 301, 306, 311, 315-317, 405). Insecurity was
felt at Ticonderoga (_N. H. State Papers_, viii. 576, 581).

Congress twice appointed commissioners to proceed towards Canada.
In Nov., 1775, Robert R. Livingston, John Langdon, and Robert Treat
Paine were sent, with instructions dated Nov. 8th,[654] to examine
the fortifications of Ticonderoga and the highlands, and "to use
their endeavors to procure an accession of the Canadians to a union
with these colonies;" and their report (Nov. 17th), with a letter to
Montgomery (Nov. 30th), is in the _Sparks MSS._ (lii. vol. ii.). In
March, 1776, Benj. Franklin, Samuel Chase, and Charles Carroll were
instructed (_Journals of Congress_, i. 289; Force, v. 411) to proceed
to Canada to influence, if possible, the sympathies of the Canadians.
Carroll was a Roman Catholic, and he was accompanied by his brother,
John Carroll, a priest.[655] Much was expected of the mission on
this account (Adams's _Familiar Letters_, 135). Franklin, delayed at
Saratoga (April), began to feel that the exposures of the expedition
were too much for one of his years, and sat down to write "to a few
friends by way of farewell."[656] Carroll kept a diary, which has been
since printed.[657] There are papers appertaining to the mission in
Force's _Archives_, 4th, iv., v.; Sparks's _Washington_ (iii. 390), and
his _Corresp. of the Rev._ (i. 572), and Lossing's _Schuyler_ (vol.
ii.).[658] On Jan. 31, 1850, Mr. William Duane delivered an address on
_Canada and the Continental Congress_ before the Penna. Hist. Soc.,
which is printed among their occasional publications.

[Illustration: SULLIVAN'S ISLAND.

A part of a view published in London, August 10, 1776, and made by
Lieut.-Col. Thomas James, of the Royal Regiment of Artillery. June 30,
1776. It represents the position of the fleet during "the attack on the
28th of June, which lasted nine hours and forty minutes." The position
of the ships is designated by A, "Active", 28 guns; B, "Bristol",
flag-ship, 50 guns; C, "Experiment", 50 guns; D, "Solebay", 28 guns.
The "Syren", 28 guns, and "Acteon", 28 guns, and the "Thunder",
bomb-ketch, were nearer the spectator as was the "Friendship", of 28
guns. L is Sullivan's Island; M, a narrow isthmus, defended by an armed
hulk, N; the mainland is O; myrtle-grove, P.

Faden also issued at the same time, as made by Col. James, a long
panoramic view of Sullivan's and Long islands, showing the American and
British camps on the opposite sides of the dividing inlet.]

Mr. Brantz Mayer's introduction to the Centennial ed. of Carroll's
journal is largely concerned with the question of the Catholic
pacification of Canada. Cf. Brent's _Life of Archbishop Carroll_; and
B. W. Campbell's "Life and Times of Archbishop Carroll" in _U. S. Cath.
Mag._, iii. The unfortunate comments (Oct. 21, 1774) of the Continental
Congress on the Quebec Act was much against the persuasions of the
commissioners, and it was soon evident that all their efforts, on this
side at least, were futile. (Cf. Force's _Am. Archives_, ii. 231.)

After Franklin and John Carroll had left Montreal, Charles Carroll and
Chase remained, endeavoring to support the military councils.[659]

=I.= THE ATTACK ON SULLIVAN'S ISLAND, JUNE, 1776.—Clinton's
proclamation to the magistrates of South Carolina, June 6, 1776, is
in Ramsay's _Revolution in South Carolina_, i. 330. Lee's report
to Washington (July 1, 1776) is in Sparks's _Correspondence of the
Revolution_, i. 243; to Congress (July 2d), in _Ibid._, ii. 502; in
Lee's _Memoirs_, p. 386; in Force's _American Archives_, 5th ser., i.
p. 435; _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1872, pp. 100, 107; and in Dawson (p.
139). John Adams (_Familiar Letters_, 203) notes the exhilaration which
the news caused in Philadelphia.

There are other contemporary accounts in Gen. Morris's letter in the
_N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1875, p. 438; in R. W. Gibbes's _Doc. Hist.
of the Amer. Rev._, 1776-1782, pp. 2-19; in Force's _Archives_; in
Frank Moore's _Diary of the Rev._, i. p. 257; in Moore's _Laurens
Correspondence_, p. 24. A "new war song" of the day, referring to
the battle, is given in Moore's _Songs and Ballads of the Rev._, p.
135. A broadside account was printed in Philadelphia, June 20, 1776
(Hildeburn's _Bibliog._, no. 3342). A plan of the attack after a London
original was published in Philadelphia in 1777, with a "Description of
the attack in a letter from Sir Peter Parker to Mr. Stephens, and an
extract from a letter of Lieut. Gen. Clinton to Lord Geo. Germaine"
(Hildeburn, no. 3539).

[Illustration: CHARLESTOWN, S. C., AND THE BRITISH FLEET, JUNE 29, 1776.

After a print published in London by Faden, August 10, 1776, taken by
Lieut.-Col. James, the day after the fight.

KEY.—A, Charlestown; B, Ashley River; C, Fort Johnston; D, Cummins
Point; E, part of Five-Fathom Hole, where all the fleet rode before and
after the attack; F, station of the headmost frigate, the "Solebay",
two miles and three quarters from Fort Sullivan, situated to the
northward of G; H, part of Mt. Pleasant; I, part of Hog Island;
K, Wando River; L, Cooper River; M, James Island; N, breakers on
Charlestown Bar; O, rebel schooner of 12 guns.

There is "An exact prospect of Charlestown, the metropolis of South
Carolina", in the _London Mag._, 1762, a folding panoramic view, which
shows the water-front with ships in the harbor.]

The earliest general account is by Moultrie himself in his _Memoirs of
the American Revolution_. Cf. Gordon's _Amer. Rev._; and John Drayton's
_Memoirs of the American Revolution_ [through 1776] _as relating to the
State of South Carolina_ (Charleston, 1821, two vols.). Of the later
general historians, reference may be made to Bancroft (orig. ed.),
vol. viii. ch. 66, and final revision, iv. ch. xxv., a full account;
to Dawson, i. ch. 10, to Carrington, ch. 27, 28; to Gay, iii. 467;
Irving's _Washington_, ii. ch. 29; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. p. 754.
Something can be gleaned from Garden's _Anecdotes of the Revolution_;
_Memoirs of Elkanah Watson_; the life of Rutledge in Flanders's _Chief
Justices_; and from such occasional productions as William Crafts's
address (1825), included in his _Miscellanies_; Porcher's address in
the _South Carolina Hist. Coll._, vol. i.; C. C. Jones, Jr.'s address
on Sergeant Jasper in 1876, and the _Centennial Memorial_ of that year
and the paper in _Harper's Monthly_, xxi. 70, by T. D. English.

On the British side we have Parker's despatch (July 9th) in Dawson, p.
140; a letter of Clinton (July 8th) in the _Sparks MSS._, no. lviii.;
Clinton's _Observations on Stedman's History_; the reports in the
_Gent. Mag. and Annual Register_; the early historical estimate in
Adolphus's _England_, ii. 346. Jones, _New York in the Revolutionary
War_, i. 98, gives the Tory view. There is a contemporary letter by a
British officer given in Lady Cavendish's _Admiral Gambier_, copied in
_Hist. Mag._, v. 68. Hutchinson (_Life and Diary_, ii. 92) records the
effects of the fight in England.[660]

CHAPTER III.

THE SENTIMENT OF INDEPENDENCE, ITS GROWTH AND CONSUMMATION.

BY GEORGE E. ELLIS, D. D., LL. D.,

_President Mass. Hist. Society._

THE assertion needs no qualification that the thirteen colonies would
not in the beginning have furnished delegates to a congress with the
avowed purpose of seeking a separation from the mother country; and
we may also affirm, that, with a possible forecast in the minds of
some two or three members, such a result was not apprehended. If any
deceptive methods—as was charged at the time—were engaged in turning
a congress avowedly called to secure a redress of grievances into
an agency for securing independence, they will appear in the sharp
scrutiny with which we may now study the inner history of the subject.
And if an explanation of the course of the Congress can be found,
consistent with its perfect sincerity, we must then seek to trace the
influences alike of the new light which came in upon the delegates,
and of successive aggravating measures of the British government, in
substituting independence as its object. Though it is certain that
Samuel Adams, fretting under the hesitations of Congress, had proposed
to an ardent sympathizer that the four New England colonies should act
in that direction by themselves, his own clear judgment would have
satisfied him that that step would have been futile unless the other
colonies followed it. If there were but a single colony from which no
response could be drawn, the consequences would have been obstructive.
That different sections of the country should have furnished leaders
so in accord as Samuel Adams, Richard H. Lee, and Gadsden was a most
felicitous condition. A congress, then, composed of delegates from all
the colonies was the indispensable and the only practicable method
for working out the scheme of independence, and even such a congress
must avoid basing its action on local grievances. The reserve which
the delegates from Massachusetts found it politic to practise, in not
obtruding their special grievances, was well decided upon from the
first, and proved to be effective. That the circumstances required
patience in such men as the Adamses is abundantly evident from the
frankness with which they wrote outside of Congress of the temporizing
and dilatoriness of what went on in it.

There is no general assertion which comes nearer to the truth on
this subject than that, from the first colonization of America by
the English, the spirit of independence was latent here, and was in
a steady process of natural development. George Chalmers, with the
opportunities of a clerk of the Board of Trade, made an inquisitive
private study of State Papers, and reached the full conviction that
the colonists from the start, not only quietly assumed, but really
aimed at an independence. He quotes abundant warnings, and charges the
successive crown officials here and at home with culpable negligence
in not acting on these warnings when they might have done so.[661] The
pages of Chalmers confirm and illustrate the fact that the colonists
lived in the enjoyment of a more real autonomy, and a do-as-you-please
enfranchisement, than was shared by home subjects. There went with this
a sort of assumption, a bold conceit, a sturdy truculency, which could
be easily trained into defiance.[662]

Large allowance also must be made on account of the fact that the
colonies had mastered their most critical perils wholly from their own
resources. English benevolence in private individuals had generously
fostered some enterprises of learning and charity here. But government
had left the exiles to fight their own battles against the savages
and the earliest French enemies. Far back in colonial times Governor
Winthrop records that, in some emergent strait of the exiles, a
suggestion was made of turning to England for help. The suggestion
was shrewdly put aside, lest, having asked such aid, they might incur
obligations.

It was of course admitted that the colonists had come under some
form of obligation to the home government during the exhausting
campaigns of the French and Indian wars. A question, however, soon
came under debate, as to what that obligation involved. Great Britain
assumed that it justified a demand upon the colonists for revenue.
The colonists roused themselves to repudiate any obligation to be
enforced by the payment of a tax imposed by a Parliament in which
they had no representation. It was just here that the latent spirit
of independence led the colonists to examine to the root their
relations of allegiance, and, on the other hand, their natural rights.
The General Court of Massachusetts, in 1768, had admitted "that his
Majesty's high court of Parliament is the supreme legislative power
over the whole empire." It took less than ten years to bring it about
that Massachusetts either had not understood what it said,—at least,
had not meant to say exactly that,—or had come to think differently
about it.

In the Bill of Rights coming from the first Congress the committee
say: "In the course of their inquiry they find many infringements and
violations of rights, which they pass over for the present." These
previous impositions and disabilities came in, however, afterwards for
their full share of rhetoric and argument. As we trace the method in
which the controversy with government matured, we mark these stages
of it. Objection and forcible resistance found their first occasion
when, at the close of the French war, government devised the policy
of the Stamp Act. The colonists came to distinguish this as creating
an _internal_ tax, in contrast to the previous _external_ taxes,
through the laws regulating commerce, to which heretofore they had
not objected. Vindicating their resistance to the new internal tax,
they came to find similar grievances in the former external taxes.
So they were teaching themselves first to define and then to assert
independence.

We have become accustomed to associate with the term Congress the
idea of a legally constituted organic body, with defined powers
authoritatively assigned to it, the exercise of which is binding on
its constituents. Our Continental congresses were of quite another
sort, and had no authority save what might be granted to the wisdom and
practicability of the measures they advised. Most certain it is that
only a very small minority of the people of the colonies were concerned
in calling the early congresses. As certain, also, is it that a very
large preponderance of the people of all classes were then strongly
opposed to any violent measures, to sundering ties of allegiance, or to
seeking anything beyond a peaceful redress of grievances. On the whole,
while it must be admitted that Congress was generally in advance of its
constituency, it knew how to temporize and to give intervals of pause
in steadily working on to its ultimate declaration. "Natural leaders"
always start forth in such a cause, and they learn their skill by
practice.

When it became evident that, instead of any healing of the breach,
the whole activity of the Congress tended to widen it, a regret was
expressed in some quarters that, by the connivance and consent of
the royal governors, and through the regular legislative processes,
a more legal and conservative character had not been secured to this
meeting of delegates,—as if dangerous plotting might thereby have
been averted. But the patriot leaders of the movement were too well
advised to look for any such official coöperation. The very life of
their scheme depended upon its wholly popular conception. Nor could the
consent of governors and formal assemblies have been won to it. The
whole method of the steady strengthening of the spirit of alienation
from Great Britain was a working of popular feeling in channels
different from those of ordinary official direction and oversight.

It was but fair to assume that the objects of the first Congress
would be defined by the instructions furnished by those who sent
or commissioned its members. The delegates from New Hampshire were
bid "to consult and adopt such measures as may have the most likely
tendency to extricate the colonies from their present difficulties,
to secure and perpetuate their rights, liberties, and privileges,
and to restore that peace, harmony, and mutual confidence which once
happily subsisted between the parent country and her colonies."
Massachusetts bade her delegates "deliberate and determine upon wise
and proper measures, to be by them recommended to all the colonies,
for the recovery and establishment of their just rights and liberties,
civil and religious,[663] and the restoration of union and harmony
between Great Britain and the colonies, most ardently desired by all
good men." Rhode Island's charter governor empowered the delegates
"to join in consulting upon proper measures to obtain a repeal of the
several acts of the British Parliament, &c., and upon proper measures
to establish the rights and liberties of the colonies upon a just and
solid foundation." Connecticut authorized its delegates "to consult and
advise on proper measures for advancing the best good of the colonies."
The delegates from New York were trusted without any particular
instructions, having merely a general commission "to attend the
Congress at Philadelphia." So, also, New Jersey appointed its delegates
"to represent the colony of New Jersey in the said General Congress."
Pennsylvania sent a committee from its own Assembly in behalf of the
province "to consult upon the present unhappy state of the colonies,
and to form and adopt a plan for the purposes of obtaining redress of
American grievances, ascertaining American rights upon the most solid
and constitutional principles, and for establishing that union and
harmony between Great Britain and the colonies which is indispensably
necessary to the welfare and happiness of both." The deputies from
the three Lower Counties were "to consult and determine upon all such
prudent and lawful measures as may be judged most expedient for the
colonies immediately and unitedly to adopt, in order to obtain relief
for an oppressed people, and the redress of our general grievances."

It will be observed that the instructions from these eight colonies
are moderate and pacific in terms, without menace, or a looking to any
other results than harmony. Something a little more emphatic appears
in what follows. The Maryland delegates were to use all efforts in
their power in the Congress "to effect one general plan of conduct
operating on the commercial relations of the colonies with the mother
country." Virginia bade her delegates "consider of the most proper
and effectual manner of so operating on the commercial connection of
the colonies with the mother country as to procure redress for the
much-injured province of the Massachusetts Bay; to secure British
America from the ravage and ruin of arbitrary taxes; and speedily to
procure the return of that harmony and union so beneficial to the
whole nation, and no ardently desired by all British America." The
delegates of South Carolina are instructed "to concert, agree to, and
effectually prosecute such legal measures as shall be most likely to
obtain a repeal of the said acts and a redress of those grievances."
The deputies of North Carolina were authorized "to deliberate upon the
present state of British America, and to take such measures as they may
deem prudent to effect the purpose of describing with certainty the
rights of Americans, repairing the breach made in those rights, and for
guarding them for the future from any such violations done under the
sanction of public authority."

Now it is true that one may read as between the lines of these
instructions intimations of reserved purposes, and possibly menaces
that something more will be required if what is suggested in them fail
of effect; but as they stand, their tone is not hostile or menacing.
They limit the terms and measure of what they exact. Several very
pregnant suggestions present themselves. Men of a large variety of
opinions and purposes might take part in a congress so constituted.
If the measures proposed had been restricted, so to speak, to the
programme, there might have been substantial accord among the
delegates, and no one could have been startled and offended with what
they soon regarded as rebellious manifestations in the Congress.

The case of Joseph Galloway, at first esteemed a most resolute
patriot, and then committing himself to extreme loyalty, presents
us an example. He was a lawyer of great abilities, a gentleman of
wealth and of high social position. He had made many strong protests
against the oppressive measures of government. He was a member of the
Pennsylvania Assembly eighteen years, and twelve years its speaker. He
says[664] that when he was chosen as a delegate to the first Congress
he positively refused to serve unless he was allowed to draw his own
"instructions." He was permitted to do so, and he himself signed
them as speaker. They contain this injunction: "You are strictly
charged to avoid everything indecent and disrespectful to the mother
state." Chosen a delegate to the second Congress, he positively
declined to serve, though importuned to do so by Dr. Franklin. The
instructions given to the eight associates named with him for this
second Congress contained the stringent words, "We strictly enjoin
you that you, in behalf of this colony, dissent from and utterly
reject any propositions, should such be made, that may cause or lead
to a separation from the mother country, or a change of the form of
government." The removal of this restriction on June 14, 1776, enabled
a majority of the delegates to give the vote of the province for
independence.

No man in this first Congress marked a stronger contrast to Galloway
than Samuel Adams, the "man of the people." Compared with what Joseph
Reed called "the fine fellows from Virginia", Adams was not what is
conventionally called a gentleman; but while John Hancock brought from
Massachusetts money and ambition, his colleague carried the hardier
brains of the two. The odious epithet of "demagogue" attached to Adams,
not because of any beguiling arts, but from his plain simplicity of
garb, preferred associates, manners, and mode of life. In his cheap and
homely attire, dispensing with any other mode of influence than that of
an honest heart and a vigorous mind, he had made himself the familiar
companion of the mechanics, artificers, and craftsmen of North Boston,
the shipbuilders, joiners, and calkers,—the rough, honest, and thrifty
democracy,—with whom, sitting on a spar or loitering in a workshop, he
would spend long and instructive hours. He was puritanically religious
and rigidly observant of solemnities, prayed in his family, and asked
a blessing at each meal of his simple fare. He neglected his own
business to devote himself to public interests. Of his own poverty he
was neither ashamed nor proud. It would not have been seemly for him
to have presented himself to the courtly gentry of the Congress as he
appeared in the streets of Boston. It would doubtless have confirmed
the prejudice which many entertained of him as an ill-bred mass-leader.
For deep and wide learning in legal, political, and economical science,
added to his college culture, and for debating powers, he was the
peer of any of his associates. If he had been left to himself in his
straits he would have gone on his high errand clad as he was; but
before he was to go his friends had done the best they could for him.
The tailor, the hatter, bootmaker, and haberdasher, appearing at his
house from anonymous friends, had furnished him a complete outfit,
not, however, of the full sumptuousness of Hancock's. As for the rest,
Adams was well prepared in bodily presence to meet for the first
time his warm friend in correspondence, Richard Henry Lee. No truly
lineal citizen of the old Puritan colony will ever be ashamed of this
characteristic representative of its traditions and its people at the
first Congress,—this prophet of independence.

The fact, without any fulness of detail, is assured to us that there
was much of discordance and dissension in this Congress of 1774.
Probably there was scarcely a single proposition or speaker that did
not find an antagonist. Certainly it appeared that Congress was not
ready to break from the mother realm. Results, however, were reached
of a sort to prompt just such further measures from the British
government as to insure some livelier work in its next session. The
most decisively contumacious act of the Congress was the adoption
and approval of the resolves passed by the daring Suffolk County
(Massachusetts) meeting, which most clearly endorsed rebellion, and
took steps in initiating it.[665] It is to be remembered, moreover,
that in this first Congress, Washington, whose frank sincerity stands
unimpeached, denied that the colonies wished for, or could safely,
separately or together, set up for independence. Before Congress again
met in May, the first blood had been shed at Lexington and Concord;
and Massachusetts, as the first colony to set up as a consequence its
own autonomy, sought and received the ratification of its conduct by
Congress, after it had assembled.

The instructions to the delegates still held them to seeking a redress
of grievances and the restoration of harmony, as "desired by all good
men", and in pursuit of this object a second letter or petition to
the king, which John Adams calls "Dickinson's letter", was prepared
and adopted by Congress. It was respectful, earnest, tender in its
professions and appeals. It besought the king himself to interpose
between his much-abused and long-enduring subjects and the oppressive
measures of his ministers, as if he himself was misled and imposed
upon by them. The bearing which this most remarkable letter has upon
the charge of insincerity and hypocrisy in the action of Congress is
apparent. It is enough to say here that Richard Penn, the messenger
who bore the letter, was not permitted to see the king, whose only
recognition of it was a violently toned proclamation for suppressing
rebellion and sedition among his American subjects. Startling was the
effect on the Congress of this royal declaration of an unrelenting
purpose, which arrived on November 1st, coupled with the intelligence
of a large reinforcement of the British army and navy, and with the
purposed employment of seventeen thousand German mercenaries. The same
day brought an account of the burning of Falmouth, now Portland, by
Captain Mowat, reasonably exciting an alarm in all the settlements on
the seaboard. What might be lacking in the final resolution of some of
the leading members of Congress to come to the issue was well supplied
by these last measures of government, which could work only in the
direction of an implacable rupture. Still it is a matter of fact,
now attested by full evidence, that the majority of Congress, either
held by their lingering hope of some scheme of conciliation, or even
doubtful if their constituents would reinforce their own resolution
now, would not entertain a motion for independence.[666] A recess of
the Congress from August 5th to September 5th gave to some of the
members an opportunity to try the pulse of their constituents. The
king in his speech, October 26, 1775, reiterated his stern purposes.
It is noticeable that in the comments made upon it by speakers in the
opposition, the avowals of members in the Congress were confidently
quoted as repelling the charge that they were aiming for independence;
but General Conway said significantly, "They will undoubtedly prefer
independence to slavery."

The delegates of the thirteen colonies—Georgia being now
represented—met in Philadelphia, May 12, 1776, having now the whole
bearings of the struggle fully before them. The members had found their
way to the assurance that their professed loyalty to the constitution
of the realm consisted with, and might even require, a defiance of
its monarch. There were those who still held back. We note that
personal alienations declared themselves between members, starting
from differences of opinion or strength of resolve, as they faced the
final question. Perhaps it is well that oblivion has been allowed to
settle over the attitudes and words of some of the actors of the time,
whether in or out of Congress. Gadsden, Lee, the Adamses, and Patrick
Henry were ready and eager for the boldest venture, supported by Chase
of Maryland, Ward of Rhode Island, Wolcott and Sherman of Connecticut,
and at last by Wyeth of Virginia. Wilson of Pennsylvania held back. So
did the strongly patriotic Dickinson, restrained by Quaker influence.
He was yet to be reassured, and his ballot was to be the decisive one.
Massachusetts should have been a unit; but Samuel Adams and Hancock
were alienated, and Paine and Cushing were not yet full-strung, but the
last-named was soon superseded by Gerry, who was in entire sympathy
with the Adamses. Congress recommended the colonies whose governors had
deserted their posts to set up governments of their own, if only for a
temporary purpose, till constitutional rule should be reëstablished.
Then, after an emphatic but calm restatement of grievances, and the
failure of all efforts to secure a redress, Congress engaged with the
question whether all the colonies might not be forced to set up such
a government of their own. The dastardly conduct of Lord Dunmore,
governor of Virginia, in following his own flight for refuge on board a
frigate with a proclamation to stir an insurrection among the slaves,
might well have left it to R. H. Lee, by direct instruction from his
constituents, early in May, to announce that on an appointed day he
should move for a declaration of independence. He did so on Thursday,
the 7th of June. His motions were for such a declaration, with a
complete dissolution of all political connection between the colonies
and Great Britain; for the forming of foreign alliances, and a plan of
confederation. John Adams seconded the motions. They were discussed on
Saturday in a committee of the whole. On Monday, after a long debate,
Rutledge moved a postponement of the question for three weeks. Up to
this point Jefferson says that New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, and South Carolina were not ready for the decision, and
thought it prudent to wait, though fast stiffening for the issue.

On June 10th Congress resolved that the consideration of Mr. Lee's
first proposed resolution—that declaring independence—be postponed
to the 1st of July; but that no time should be lost in the interval,
it appointed, on June 11th, a committee to prepare such a declaration.
This committee was Jefferson, John Adams, Franklin, Sherman, and
Robert R. Livingston.[667] This postponement was in deference to the
unreadiness of the delegates of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina to take the decisive step. Some
unnamed member had procured the passage of a vote that on whichever
side the majority should turn, the decision should be pronounced
unanimous, for or against the resolutions. The vote of each colony was
to count for one, whatever the number of its delegates, the majority
in each delegation pronouncing for its colony. The debate was sharp
and intensely earnest. The vote of Pennsylvania was divided. Those
of the six colonies just named being in opposition, there was no
decision. Two of the halting Pennsylvania delegates being induced to
absent themselves on the next day, fifty delegates being present, the
resolutions prevailed by a majority of one province.[668] They had been
bitterly opposed by Livingston of New York, Dickinson and Wilson of
Pennsylvania, and Rutledge of South Carolina. Argument, persuasion, and
appeal were diligently pressed to draw the hesitating to acquiescence.
Meanwhile several of the colonies were anticipating the action of
Congress in taking their stand for independence: North Carolina, in
April, 1776, and also Massachusetts, at the same date; Virginia, Rhode
Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and New Jersey followed; and New
York, as we shall see, soon came into line.

The proposed measures of Congress, associated with the leading one of
independence, were most sagaciously devised for dignifying the primary
resolve and elevating the action which should sustain it above the
character of a mere rebellion. Those measures assumed the rights and
responsibilities of nationality. The issuing of letters of marque and
reprisal, the making free of all the ports for commerce with all the
world except Great Britain, and the inviting of foreign alliances, were
exercises of the prerogatives of sovereignty, and were the reasons
assigned by France for regarding the United States as a nation at
war with another nation. On July 12th Congress appointed a committee
of one delegate from each colony charged with reporting a plan of
confederation, and another committee of five to propose a plan for
foreign alliances.

The Declaration marked a crisis alike in the forum and for the people.
It was read to Washington's army, and drew wild plaudits from officers
and from the ranks. As rapidly as panting couriers could disperse it
over the country it was formally received with parade and observance,
and read in town and village. It gave life and inspiration for every
successive measure to turn a purpose into an accomplished fact.[669]

Many of our writers, in tracing the working of the various opinions
which aided in fostering the spirit of independence, have found reason
to ascribe much influence to strong religious animosities, especially
to hostility to the state religion of England. It might perhaps be
difficult to trace sharply and directly through all the colonies any
lines of division of this character attributable to such an agency, as
distinct and positive as those which manifested themselves in secular
affairs, but there can be no question that sectarian influences had an
important part in the animosities of the time. It would have been but
natural that in this matter the line between the loyal and the disloyal
should have been drawn between the English Church and the dissenters,
who were the vast majority of the colonists; but this rule was by no
means without many marked exceptions. All the Episcopal ministers
officiating in the colonies had received ordination in England.
Their oath bound them to loyalty. Most of them, too, in the northern
provinces, were pensioners of an English missionary society. The test
applied to them when the spirit of rebellion was strengthening was
whether they would read or omit in their services the prayers for the
king. It stood little for them to plead in their defence their oath
and their dependence on a foreign fund. Such a plea was a poor one,
as being strictly personal and selfish, born of a love of ease and of
a cringing spirit. Some of them left their pulpits, and maintained a
discreet silence. Those who insisted upon fulfilling all the pledges
and duties of their office were in many cases roughly handled. It is
to be considered, however, that so far as sectarianism in religion
would alienate the colonies from Great Britain, it could not have
been a prime agent in the case, for then it would have alienated them
from each other, to which result it did not avail. The Tory refugee
Judge Jones uses the terms Presbyterians and Episcopalians as almost
synonymous with the terms rebels and loyalists. But this was by no
means true.[670] The leading patriot John Jay, with many others from
his province, was an Episcopalian. The Episcopalians of Virginia,
of Maryland, and of the Carolinas were as stiffly opposed to the
importation here of English prelates as were the Congregationalists of
New England. The Tory Galloway[671] traced our rebellious spirit to
the same source as that of the English civil war, viz., to Puritanism.
He wrote: "The disaffection is confined to two sets of dissenters,
while the people of the Established Church, the Methodists, Lutherans,
German Calvinists, Quakers, Moravians, etc., are warmly attached to
the British government." Galloway exceeded the strict truth in that
statement.

The numbers, position, and experiences of Episcopal ministers in the
provinces at the period of the war have been recently presented in an
elaborate and well-authenticated monograph on the subject.[672] From
this it appears that there were at the time not far from two hundred
and fifty clergymen, all of foreign ordination. The lack of Episcopal
supervision brought with it laxity of discipline. At the southward the
church gathered into it the wealthy, the officials of the government
and of the army and navy, professional men, and merchants. But their
clergy, instead of being, like their few brethren at the North,
stipendiaries of a foreign society, largely derived their support
from those to whom they ministered, and so, though being under the
oath of allegiance, were more free to share the patriotic sentiments
of the laity, and they did so. Clergy and laity in the Southern
provinces seem, many of them, to have been as strongly opposed, for
temporary or other reasons, to the introduction of a foreign prelacy
as were those at the North. Several of the Episcopal clergy in the
Middle and Southern provinces proved themselves most ardent patriots,
not only in discourse but by taking chaplaincies in the Continental
armies, and even serving in the ranks and as officers in command. The
trial test for deciding their position was in the religious services
required of them on the days appointed by Congress for thanksgiving or
fasting. Their choice was not a free one between a full or a mutilated
service of prayer. The severest sufferers of this class were among the
Episcopal ministers of New York and Connecticut, who resolved to stand
for loyalty. Some, however, trimmed to time and necessity; others were
patriots. Provoost, afterwards the first Bishop of New York, espoused
the side of the people.[673]

It was in New England that the "Puritanism" of which Galloway wrote had
the prevailing influence; and a very energetic and effective influence
it was, working with other agencies in making the English civil
government all the more odious because of the lordly prelates, who
ruled not only in church, but in state. The inherited and traditionary
spirit of New England had kept alive the memory of the ecclesiastical
tyranny which had developed Puritanism in Old England, and of the
trials and sacrifices by which deliverance had been secured. Those
very New England colonies in which the rebellious spirit was most
vigorous had been in but recent years, by help alike of sympathizers
and opponents, conservatives of the old ways and reformers with the
new, working their own way of relief from their theocratic basis of
government, and securing freedom for themselves in belief and worship,
with progress in the severance of church and state. They could not
patiently contemplate the establishment of prelacy among them. Two
occasions, operating as warnings, had freshened the old Puritan spirit
of New England just previous to the opening of civil contention.
One was the project, which had been zealously pressed, of sending
English bishops into the colonies, whose functions the popular mind
refused to distinguish between those which they exercised as lords,
both spiritual and temporal, in England and those of ordination
and confirmation, etc., which was all that was required of them as
"superior clergy" here. An animated pamphlet controversy had been
waging on this subject a decade before the outbreak of hostilities, in
which appeared as a champion on one side the bold and able minister
Jonathan Mayhew of Boston, and on the other, Secker, Archbishop of
Canterbury.[674] No English prelate ever had functions or presence
on our territory. The other reason, for a revival of the hostility
here against the Established Church, was found in the coming hither
into the old Congregational parishes, and the maintenance here by an
English missionary society, of a number of Episcopal ministers. It
was charged—not, however, justly—that the benevolent founders of
that society had endowed it solely for the support of missionaries
to neglected and forlorn persons,—fishermen and others in the
colonies,—whereas it was used to promote division and disaffection in
places well provided with a ministry. This charge was overstrained, for
no missionary was sent to any place where there were not those, few
or many, who were actual members of the English Church, or who stood
out against the doctrine and discipline of Congregationalism. None the
less did hostility to the English Church help largely to stimulate the
spirit of rebellion.[675]

The first provincial congress of Massachusetts, assembled in 1774, knew
very well the grounds of their reliance when by resolution they sent
an address to each and all of the ministers in the province, reminding
them of the valued aid and sympathy which their common ancestors in
the years of former trials had found in their religious guides, and
earnestly appealing for their help and strong efforts among their
people in resistance of the tyranny of the mother country. The New
England ministers were not slow in responding to—indeed, they had in
many cases anticipated—this appeal of their civil leaders. They had a
marvellous skill for discerning the vital relations between politics
and religion, while they had a strong repugnance to what was conveyed
by the terms "church and state." With very few exceptions,—such,
however, there were, in rare cases, of pastors in years and of timid
spirits,—the ministers were foremost in inspiriting patriotism and in
meeting all the emergencies of the times.[676]

The only organized and official measures taken by any one of the
religious denominations in sympathy with the American Revolution was
that of the Presbyterians, who had freed themselves from dependence on
a civil establishment. The Scotch-Irish Presbyterians on the frontiers
of Virginia and North Carolina had stoutly vindicated their religious
rights against the Established Church in Virginia, and were among
the foremost in asserting their independence of the mother country.
With the sturdiest resolution they had successfully triumphed over
the Episcopal party in New York and thwarted government influence in
its behalf. John Witherspoon, the only clergyman in the Congress of
1776, gave by delegated authority the vote of the Presbyterians for
independence.[677]

And now the question may well be asked, Where rests the chief
responsibility for bringing to this result the protracted controversy
between the mother realm and her colonies? The Declaration of
Independence was yet to be made good by a severe struggle on the part
of the colonies, and to be accepted by the other party in the issue.
It is rarely, if indeed the case has any historical parallel, when
so large a measure of the responsibility for bringing about a signal
revolution in the great affairs of a nation can, as in this instance,
be directly charged upon an individual, and that was his majesty
George III.[678] The facts of the case with their full evidence stand
now clearly certified. That Declaration, with the event which it
signified, might have come in other ways. Agencies and events were
working to it. But that it came when it did, and as it did, he at
whose heavy cost it came was largely the conspicuous agent and cause
of it. That this is so, let the following tracing of the stages of the
developments attest. And by the charge here alleged is meant that the
king was mainly instrumental in bringing about the result, not merely
by an official or representative responsibility, nor by prerogative,
but by the prompting of personal feeling and private decision. It is
also to be admitted that the king may have been guided by the purest
motives and the loftiest sense of duty to preserve in any way the
jewels of his crown and the integrity of his empire. But none the less
it was his will and resolve that decided the issue.

As we have seen, the effect of every measure of the British government
brought to bear upon the colonies was directly the opposite of what
had been intended. Threats and penalties exasperated, but did not
intimidate. Seeming concessions and retractions did not conciliate.
Contempt and defiance called out corresponding and reciprocal feelings.
There was a strict parallelism between the ministerial inventions for
securing the mastery and the patriot ingenuity and earnestness for
nullifying them. The few incidental accompaniments of popular violence
and mobs were so familiar to the people of England at home as to count
for little. They were to be regretted and condemned, but they were
fully offset by the indiscriminate and vengeful punishments which
government visited upon them.

We are to remember that the king, if not the originator and adviser
of all these measures, gave them his cordial approval. More and
more, as the quarrel ripened, his personal will and resolve asserted
themselves, even autocratically. When the catastrophe finally came,
his prime minister frankly confessed, that by the king's urgency, and
in compliance with his own view of the claims of loyalty, he had been
acting against his own clear judgment of what was wise and right,
if not against his conscience.[679] Who, then, so much as the king,
as sole arbiter, by his own personal decision, substituted arms for
debate? The colonies, no longer the aggressive party, were put on
the defensive. Still, even after this dropping of the royal gage of
battle, the Assembly of Pennsylvania, with its residuum of Quakerism,
required of its members the old oath of allegiance to George III., and
Dickinson reported to it strongly loyal instructions for its delegates.
Is it strange that Franklin refused to take his seat in that body?
Two years later,—March 17, 1778,—the king writes to Lord North: "No
consideration in life shall make me stoop to opposition. Whilst any ten
men in the kingdom will stand by me, I will not give myself up into
bondage. I will rather risk my crown than do what I think personally
disgraceful. It is impossible that the nation should not stand by
me. If they will not, they shall have another king, for I will never
put my hand to what will make me miserable to the last hour of my
life."[680] And again, when the end was at hand, the king, writing to
Lord North, March 7, 1780, says: "I can never suppose this country so
lost to all ideas of self-importance as to be willing to grant American
independence. If that word be ever universally adopted, I shall despair
of this country being preserved from a state of inferiority. I hope
never to see that day, for, however I am treated, I must love this
country."[681]

Recalling the fact that in all previous remonstrances[682] and
petitions, without a single exception, whether coming from a
convention, an assembly, or a congress, the ministry and Parliament
were made to bear the burden of all complaints and reproaches, we note
with emphasis that in the Declaration of Independence, for the first
time, "the present king of Great Britain" is charged as the offender.
Its scathing invectives in its short sentences begin with "He." His
tools and supporters are all lost sight of, passed unmentioned. This
substitution of the monarch himself as chargeable, through his own
persistency, with the whole burden heretofore laid at the door of his
advisers indicates the necessity which Congress felt of seeming to
sever their plain constitutional allegiance to the monarch, and of
ignoring all dependence on his ministers or Parliament, whose supremacy
over the colonies they had always denied. Hence the tone and wording of
all the previous utterances of Congress, deferential and even fulsome
as they now seem, in sparing the king, for the first time, in the
Declaration, are changed to give the necessary legal emphasis of the
capital letter in _He_. Indeed, the law and the man were essentially
as one, for the candid monarch told John Adams, on his subsequent
appearance as the minister of the United States, that he was the last
person in his realm to consent to the independence of the colonies. The
utter hopelessness of the measures of government was obvious to the
wiser statesmen of Britain and to those whose observation was guided by
simple common sense.[683]

A matter of sharp and reproachful criticism—which has not wholly
disappeared from more recent pages of history and comment—was found
in what certainly had the seeming of insincerity and duplicity in the
earnest professions of loyalty made by leading patriots while the
spirit of absolute independence, latent and but thinly veiled, was
instigating measures of defiance, and even of open hostility. The
patriots, it was boldly charged, had practised a mean hypocrisy. The
shock of the disclosure was at the time sudden and severe. Joseph
Galloway, though perhaps the most hostile and vengeful, was by no means
the least able or the most estranged and disappointed of a class of
very prominent men, who avowed that they had been alienated from the
patriot cause by the exposed duplicity of its wiliest leaders. They had
joined heart and hand in council and measures with those who professed
to be seeking only a redress of grievances, with an unqualified
loyalty as British subjects to the king and the constitution, and in a
disavowal of any idea of independence.

On the other side of the water, the Declaration, as "throwing off the
mask of hypocrisy" by the patriots, was a very painful shock to many
who had been most friendly and earnest champions of the cause of the
colonists. The members of the opposition in Parliament and in high
places were taunted by the supporters of government for all their
pleading in behalf of rebels. And when, besides the bold avowal of
independence, the added measures of a suspension of all commerce with
Great Britain, and of an alliance of the patriots with the hereditary
enemy of their mother country, came to the knowledge of those who
had been our friends, the consternation which it caused them was but
natural. Manufacturers and merchants, against whose interests so heavy
a blow had been dealt, and all Englishmen who scorned the French, our
new ally, might with reason rank themselves as now our enemies. Of
course, the ministry and the abetters of the most offensive measures of
government availed themselves of the evidence now offered of what they
had maintained was the ultimate purpose of the disaffected colonists,
hypocritically concealed, and they confidently looked for a well-nigh
unanimous approval and support of the vengeful hostilities at once
entered upon. It was affirmed that the British officers and soldiers
here, who had before been but half-hearted and lukewarm in fulfilling
their errand, now became as earnest and impassioned in war measures
as if they were fighting Indians, Frenchmen, or Spaniards. Such were
really the effects wrought on both sides of the water, not merely by
the bold avowal of independence, but by what was viewed as the exposure
of a subtle and hypocritical concealment of the purpose of it under
beguiling professions of loyalty.

What is there to be said, either by way of explanation or of
justification, of the course ascribed to the patriots? It is well
to admit freely that there was much said, if not done, that had the
seeming of duplicity and insincerity, of secrecy of design and of
sinuous dealing. And after yielding all that can be charged of this,
we may insist that, in reality, it was nothing beyond the seeming.
Neither disguise, nor duplicity, nor hypocrisy, nor artful or cunning
intrigue, in any shape or degree, was availed of by the patriots.
The result to which they were led was from the first natural and
inevitable, and it was reached by bold and honest stages, in thinking
out and making sure of their way. The facts are all clearly revealed
to us in their course of development. The maturing of opinion, till
what had been repelled as a calamity was accepted as a necessity,
is traceable through the changing events of a few heavily burdened
years, if not even of months and days, to say nothing of the symptoms
of it which a keen perception may discover during the career of four
generations of Englishmen on this continent. Its own natural stages
of growth were reached just at the time that it was attempted to
bring it under check by artificial restraint of the home government.
That government compelled the colonists to ask themselves the two
questions: first, if they were anything less than Englishmen; and
further, if their natural rights were any less than those of men. There
has been much discussion as to when and by whom the idea of American
independence was first entertained. It would be very difficult to
assign that conception to a date or to an individual. All that was
natural and spontaneous in the situation of the colonists would be
suggestive of it; all that was artificial, like the tokens of a foreign
oversight in matters of government, would be exceptional or strange
to it. Husbandmen, mechanics, and fishermen would not be likely to
trouble themselves with the ways in which their relations as British
subjects interfered with their free range in life. Larger and deeper
thinkers, like Samuel Adams, would feel their way down to comprehensive
root questions, sure at last to reach the fundamentals of the whole
matter,—as, What has the British ministry and Parliament to do with
us? It required nine years to mature the puzzling of a peasant over the
question of a trifling tax into the conclusion of a republican patriot
statesman. Every stage of this process is traceable in abounding
public and private papers, with its advances and arrests, its pauses
and its quickenings, its misgivings and assurances, in all classes of
persons, and in its dimmest and its fullest phases. We have seen how
it was working its way in the honest secrecy of a few breasts in the
first Congress, even when repelled as a dreaded fatality. Samuel Adams
is generally, and with sufficient evidence, credited as having been
the first of the leading spirits of the revolt to have reached—at
first in private confidence, steadily strengthening into the frankest
and boldest avowal—the conviction that the issue opened between the
colonies and the mother country logically, necessarily, and inevitably
must result in a complete severance of the tie between them. Even at
that stage of his earliest insight into the superficial aspect of
the controversy, when he is quoted as if hypocritically saying one
thing while he intended another, it will be observed that his strong
professions of loyalty are qualified by parenthetical suggestions of
a possible alternative. Thus, in the Address which he wrote for the
Massachusetts Assembly, in 1768, to the Lords of the Treasury, his
explicit professions of loyalty for his constituents close with the
caveat that this loyalty will conform itself to acquiescence so far
as "consists with the fundamental rules of the Constitution."[684]
Of course, as the oppressive measures of government exasperated the
patriots, they were not only led on to discern the full alternative
before them, but were unreserved in their expressions of a willingness
to meet it, at whatever cost. Still, however, what seemed like
hesitation in the boldest was simply a waiting for the slow and timid
to summon resolution for decisive action. Of the single measures in
Congress preceding the Declaration of Independence, the most farcical
and the most likely to be regarded as hypocritical was the second
petition to the king, which his majesty spurned. His ministers had to
compare with its adulatory insincerities some intercepted letters of
John Adams, written nearly at the same time, stinging with defiance
and treason. But John Adams well described this petition to the king
as "Dickinson's Letter." Dickinson himself is the most conspicuous
and true-hearted of the class of men who to the last shrunk from
the severance of the tie to the mother country. Yet he was to be
the one whose casting vote, by a substitute, was to ratify the
great Declaration. There may have been weakness in his urgency that
that petition should proffer a final hope of amity, but it was the
prompting of thorough manliness and honesty. As we have seen, it was
the royal scorn of that petition, backed by a wilful personal espousal
of responsibility, which made the king the real prompter of the
Declaration of Independence.[685]

Leaving out of view all obligations of the colonies to the mother
country, there was still quite another class of very reasonable
apprehensions which had a vast influence over the halting minds. What
would be the relations of the severed and possibly contentious colonies
to each other, with all their separate interests, rivalries, and
jealousies? Might not anarchy and civil war make them rue the day when,
in rejecting the tempered severity of the rule of a lawful monarch,
they had forfeited the privilege of having an arbiter and a common
friend?

Nor was this the only dread. The Indians were still a formidable foe
on the frontiers. So far as they were held in check, it was largely
by English arms and influence. Without anticipating the cruel and
disgraceful complication of the trouble which was to come, and the
aggravations of civil war, by the enlistment of these savages by
England as her allies against her former subjects, it was enough
for timid colonists looking into the future to realize the power of
mischief which lurked with these wild men in the woods. Every further
advance of the colonists beyond the boundaries already secured would
provoke new hostilities, and remind the pioneers of the value to them
of English armaments and reinforcements. And yet once more, those were
by no means bugbear alarms which foreboded for the colonists, left
to themselves, outrages from French and Spanish intrigue, ambition,
and greed of territory. France and Spain had losses and insults to
avenge against England, and might seek for reprisals on the undefended
colonists. It needs only an intimation, without detail, of the
apprehensions which either reason or imagination might conjure from
this foreboding, to show how powerfully it might operate with prudent
men in suspending their decision between rebellion and loyalty. All
these considerations, taken separately and together, whether as
resulting in slow and timid maturing of sentiment and of profession
in Congress, or as influencing the judgment of patriot leaders, or as
guiding the vacillating course of individuals and multitudes, may have
given a seeming show of insincerity and duplicity to words contrasted
with subsequent deeds. But a clear apprehension of all the alternatives
which were then to be balanced will satisfy us that there was little
room for hypocrisy to fill.

Some show of reason for charging upon the patriots duplicity and lack
of downright frankness was found in their professions of a steadfast,
but still a qualified, loyalty. If there was not at first some
confusion or vagueness in their own ideas on this point, they certainly
set themselves open to such a misunderstanding by the ministry as
to leave it in doubt whether they knew their own minds or candidly
declared them. The controversy, from its beginning till its close,
was constantly alleged to start from this discriminating standard of
loyalty: the colonists repudiated the exercise of authority over them
by Parliament and the ministry, and yet avowed themselves faithful and
loyal subjects of the king. The king could govern and act only through
Parliament. How could they repudiate the authority of Parliament and
respect that of the king? What was to be the basis, scope, and mode
of exercise of his authority? They certainly could not have in view
the exercise of an autocracy over them, the restoration of the old
royal prerogative which a previous glorious revolution had shattered.
The king could exercise his authority in the colonial assemblies only
through governors, and those governors had been rendered powerless
here. Even the sage and philosophic Franklin found himself perplexed
on this point. Writing from London to his son in New Jersey, March 13,
1768, he says: "I know not what the Boston people mean; what is the
subordination they acknowledge in their Assembly to Parliament, while
they deny its power to make laws for them?"[686] Galloway pertinently
asked of the first Congress, "if they had any other union of the two
countries more constitutional in view, why did they not petition
for it?" "The Congress, while they professed themselves subjects,
spoke in the language of allies, and were openly acting the part of
enemies."[687] How are we to reconcile two statements made by Pitt
in the same speech, in January, 1776: "This kingdom has no right to
lay a tax on the colonies." "At the same time, on every real point of
legislation, I believe the authority of Parliament to be fixed as the
Polar Star." Without any attempt to conceive or fashion a definition of
their ideal, the good common sense of the patriots at last worked out
the conclusion that their emancipation from the Parliament involved a
dispensing with the king.[688]

There was no disguising the fact, however, that, with independence
declared, there was no such unanimity of purpose among all the members
of Congress, still less among their many-minded and vaguely-defined
constituency. It was inevitable, therefore, that both a degree of
arbitrariness towards halting and censorious objectors, and of harsh
severity towards open resistants, should henceforward characterize
the measures approved by the patriot leaders. There was a sagacious
moderation and prudence in the measures taken by Congress to conciliate
and reassure the half-hearted and the hesitating. For the final stand
had been taken that nothing short of an achieved independence should be
accepted as the issue.

The prime movers in the patriot cause continued to be the main workers
for it, and gradually reinforced themselves by new and effective
aiders. Astute and able men, well read in history and by no means
without knowledge of international law and the methods of diplomacy,
surveyed the field before them, provided for contingencies, and found
full scope for their wits and wisdom. When we consider the distractions
of the times, the overthrow of all previous authority, the presence
and threats of anarchy, the lack of unanimity, and the number and
virulence of discordant interests, and, above all, that Congress had
only advisory, hardly instructive, powers, even with the most willing
portion of its constituents, we can easily pardon excesses and errors,
and heartily yield our admiration to the noble qualities and virtues
of those who proved their claim to leadership. When we read the
original papers and the full biographies of these men, we are impressed
by the balance and force of their judgment, their power of expressing
reasons and convictions, their calm self-mastery, and the fervor of
their purposes.

CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THE source to which naturally we should first apply ourselves for the
fullest information on the development of the purpose of independence
would be the _Journals of Congress_. But our disappointment would
be complete. The same reasons which enjoined on the members secrecy
as to the proceedings seem to have deprived the record even of some
things that were done and of almost every utterance in debate. We
have to look to other sources, the most scattered and fragmentary,
to learn the names even of the principal leaders in the debates, and
from beginning to end we have not the report, scarcely a summary, of a
single speech. Our reasonable inference from such hints is that some
ten, or at most fifteen, members were the master-spirits in securing
the adoption of measures, while they were opposed by some as earnest as
themselves, but not as numerous. But whatever may have been written in
the original _Journals_ was subjected to a cautious selection when they
were printed by a committee. It is only from Jefferson himself, for
instance, that we learn (Randall's _Jefferson_, i. 15) how, somewhat to
his chagrin, "the rhetoric" of his draft of the Declaration was toned
down. Especially do the _Journals_, as printed, suppress all evidences
of strong dissension, of which we have abundant hints in fragments from
John and Sam. Adams, Franklin, Dickinson, Galloway, Jefferson, Jay, and
Livingston. But the _Journals_ do spread before us at length sundry
admirable papers, drawn by able and judicious committees.[689]

The reader must turn to the notes appended to chapter i. of the present
volume for an examination of some of the leading pamphlets occasioned
by the Congresses of 1774 and 1775, and for an examination of their
opposing views, with more or less warning of the inevitable issue of
independence.

One may easily trace in the writings of Franklin, extending through
the years preceding the Revolution, and through all the phases of the
struggle, seeming inconsistencies in the expression of his opinions
and judgment. But these are readily explicable by changes in time and
circumstance. We must pause, however, upon the strong statement made
by Lecky in the following sentence: "It may be safely asserted that if
Franklin had been able to guide American opinion, it would never have
ended in revolution."[690]

Opportune in the date of its publication, as well as of mighty cogency
in its tone and substance, was that vigorous work by Thomas Paine,
a pamphlet bearing the title "Common Sense." If we take merely the
average between the superlatively exalted tributes paid to his work as
the one supremely effective agency for bringing vast numbers of the
people of the colonies to front the issue of independence, and the
most moderate judgments which have estimated its real merit, we should
leave to be assigned to it the credit of being the most inspiriting of
all the utterances and publications of the time for popular effect.
The opportuneness of the appearance of this remarkable essay consisted
in the fact that it came into the hands of multitudes, greedy to read
it, a few months before the burning question of independency was to
be settled. The papers issued by Congress might well answer the needs
of the most intelligent classes of the people, in reconciling them to
the new phase of the struggle. But there were large numbers of persons
who needed the help of some short and easy argument, homely in style
and quotable between plain neighbors. And this eighteen-penny pamphlet
met that necessity. It appeared anonymously. John Adams says it was
ascribed to his pen. Paine had been in confidential intercourse with
Franklin, and the sagacious judgment of that philosopher doubtless
suggested the form and substance of some of its contents, and may have
kept out of it some things less apt or wise. Washington, Franklin,
and John Adams welcomed it as a vigorous agency for persuading masses
of simple and honest men that their rights must now be taken into
their own hands for vindication. The character of the writer alienated
from him the regard of those who could and who would willingly have
advanced his interests, and made him to multitudes an object of horror
and contempt. Though his pamphlet bore the title of "Common Sense",
Gouverneur Morris says that that was a quality which Paine himself
wholly lacked. Posterity, however, may well accord to him as a writer
the high consideration given to him by his contemporaries, of having
happily met by his pen a crisis and a pause in the state of the popular
mind. Franklin wrote that "the pamphlet had prodigious effects."[691]

Adam Smith's _Wealth of Nations_ was published in the same year. Wise
men have often affirmed that if it had appeared a generation earlier,
and if the doctrines and principles which it advocated had passed into
the minds of statesmen and economists, peaceful rather than warlike
measures would have disposed of the controversy. It required the
lapse of twoscore years to convince English statesmen and economists
of the practical wisdom of the leading principles advanced by this
college professor. He maintained the general viciousness and folly of
the English colonial administration; that while even the restricted
commercial monopoly was more generous than the colonial rule of any
other governments, the prohibition of manufactures was mischievous and
oppressive. He agreed with Dean Tucker, that a peaceful separation of
the colonies would benefit rather than harm the mother country. Yet,
under existing circumstances, such a separation was impracticable,
because neither the government nor the people of the realm would
seriously entertain the proposition.[692]

One of the best expositions of the views held by some of the Tory
writers, that the seeds of independency were sown with the early
settlements and nurtured through their history, is given in a tract by
Galloway,[693] which was published in London in 1780, as _Historical
and Political Reflections on the Rise and Progress of the American
Rebellion. In which the Causes of that Rebellion are pointed out, and
the Policy and Necessity of offering to the Americans a System of
Government founded in the Principles of the British Constitution, are
clearly demonstrated. By the Author of Letters to a Nobleman on the
Conduct of the American War_. He pleads that the rebellion has been
encouraged by the assertion "of the injustice and oppression of the
present reign by a plan formed by the administration for enslaving
the colonies", and asserts that the mother country had fostered the
infancy and weakness of the colonies, had espoused their quarrels,
and, at an enormous cost of debt, had defended them. "The colonies are
very rich and prosperous, with more than a quarter of the population
of Great Britain, and should share its burdens. The rebellion did not
spring from a dread of being enslaved." The writer then ably and justly
traces its origin to the principles of the Puritan exiles, from whose
passion for religious freedom has grown that for civil independence.
He attributes much influence helpful to rebellion to the organization
among the Presbyterians at Philadelphia, in 1764, which united by
correspondence with the Congregationalists of New England. The other
sects were generally averse to measures of violent opposition to
authority. The measures of government are vindicated, and all trouble
is traced to a faction in New England, sympathized with and led on by a
similar faction at home. The "Circular Letter", bringing the colonies
into accord, wrought the mischief. Two sharply divided parties at once
were formed, or proved to exist: the one defining and standing for the
right of the colonies with a redress of grievances, on the basis of
a solid constitutional union with the mother country, and opposed to
sedition and all acts of violence; the other resolved by all means,
even though covert and fraudulent, to throw off allegiance, appeal
to arms, run the venture of anarchy, and assert, and if possible
attain, independence. The latter party, acting with some temporary
reserve and caution, opposed all peaceable propositions, and covertly
worked for their own ends. They used most effectively a system of
expresses between Philadelphia and the other towns, Sam. Adams being
the artful and diligent fomenter of all this mischief. By his guile,
Congress was brought to approve the Resolves of the Mass. Suffolk
Conference, which declared "that no obedience is due to acts of
Parliament affecting Boston", and provided for an organization of the
provincial militia against government. He proceeded to argue that "the
American faction", as in the fourth resolve of their Bill of Rights,
explicitly declare their colonial independence. This was followed by
an address to his majesty,—not calling it a petition,—and which
the writer proceeded to analyze with much acuteness, as being vague
and evasive in its professions, and suggestive of conditions which
would prove satisfactory. Finally, "the mask was thrown off", and the
casting vote of the "timid and variable Mr. Dickinson" carried the
Declaration of Independence. "Samuel Adams, the great director of their
councils, and the most cautious, artful, and reserved man among them,
did not hesitate, as soon as the vote of independence had passed, to
declare in all companies that he had labored upwards of twenty years
to accomplish the measure." Mr. Galloway closes with sharp strictures
upon the bewildered and vacillating policy which the government has
heretofore pursued, and pleads for a firm and generous "constitutional
union" between the realm and the colonies. The growth of the spirit of
independence necessarily makes a part of all general histories of the
war, which are characterized in another place.

[Illustration]

EDITORIAL NOTES.

THE claim of Chalmers that the passion for independence had latently
existed from the very foundation of the New England colonies[694] had
been early denied by Dummer in his _Defence of the N. E. Charters_.
John Adams[695] had been outspoken in his advocacy of independence
for more than a year before R. H. Lee introduced his resolution into
Congress. He had avowed it in letters, which the British intercepted in
July, 1775, and printed in a Boston newspaper. If Josiah Quincy, Jr.
(_Memoirs_, 250, 341), can be believed, he found Franklin in London in
1774 holding ideas "extended on the broad scale of total emancipation"
(Sparks's _Franklin_, i. 379). The resolves of Mecklenburg County in
North Carolina, in May, 1775, were strongly indicative. John Jay traced
the beginning of an outspoken desire to the rejection by the king of
the petition of the Congress of 1775 (_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._,
July, 1776). In the autumn of that year it is certain that the passion
for independence animated the army round Boston (Frothingham's _Siege
of Boston_, 263), and in December James Bowdoin was confident that
the dispute must end in independence (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xii.
228). There was very far from any general adhesion to the belief in its
inevitableness at all times during 1775. Washington was not conscious
of the wish (Sparks, i. 131, ii. 401; Smyth, ii. 457). Gov. Franklin
was expressing to Dartmouth the prevalence of a detestation of such
views (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv 342). The English historians have
dwelt on this (Mahon, vi. 92, 94; Lecky, iii. 414, 447, iv. 41).[696]

[Illustration: AUTOGRAPHS OF THE MECKLENBURG COMMITTEE, MAY 31, 1775.

From the plate in W. D. Cooke's _Rev. Hist. of No. Carolina_, p.
64. Cf. Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 619, for another fac-simile and
accounts of the signers; also see C. L. Hunter, _Sketches of Western
North Carolina_ (Raleigh, 1877, p. 39). It has been strenuously claimed
and denied that, at a meeting of the people of Mecklenburg County, in
North Carolina, on May 20, 1775, resolutions were passed declaring
their independence of Great Britain. The facts in the case appear to be
these:—On the 31st of May, 1775, the people of this county did pass
resolutions quite abreast of the public sentiment of that time, but not
venturing on the field of independency further than to say that these
resolutions were to remain in force till Great Britain resigned its
pretensions. These resolutions were well written, attracted notice,
and were copied into the leading newspapers of the colonies, North and
South, and can be found in various later works (Lossing's _Field-Book_,
ii. 619, etc.). A copy of the _S. Carolina Gazette_ containing them
was sent by Governor Wright, of Georgia, to Lord Dartmouth, and was
found by Bancroft in the State Paper Office, while in the _Sparks
MSS._ (no. lvi.) is the record of a copy sent to the home government
by Governor Martin of North Carolina, with a letter dated June 30,
1775. Of these resolutions there is no doubt (Frothingham's _Rise of
the Republic_, p. 422). In 1793, or earlier, some of the actors in the
proceeding, apparently ignorant that the record of these resolutions
had been preserved in the newspapers, endeavored to supply them from
memory, unconsciously intermingling some of the phraseology of the
Declaration of July 4th in Congress, which gave them the tone of a
pronounced independency. Probably through another dimness of memory
they affixed the date of May 20, 1775, to them. These were first
printed in the _Raleigh Register_, April 30, 1819. They are found to
resemble in some respects the now known resolves of May 31st, as well
as the national Declaration in a few phrases. In 1829 Martin printed
them, much altered, in his _North Carolina_ (ii. 272), but it is not
known where this copy came from. In 1831 the State printed the text of
the 1819 copy, and fortified it with recollections and certificates
of persons affirming that they were present when the resolutions were
passed on the 20th: _The Declaration of Independence by the Citizens
of Mecklenburg County, N. C., on the twentieth day of May, 1775, with
documents, and proceedings of the Cumberland Association_ (Raleigh,
1831). This report of the State Committee is printed also in 4 Force,
ii. 855. The resolves are reprinted in _Niles's Reg._ (1876, p. 313);
in Caldwell's _Greene_; in Lossing (ii. 622), and in other places.
Frothingham says he has failed to find any contemporary reference in
manuscript or print to these May 20th resolutions. Jefferson (_Memoir
and Corresp._, iv. 322; Randall's _Jefferson_, 1858, vol. iii. App. 2)
denied their authenticity, and J. S. Jones supported their genuineness
in his _Defence of the Revolutionary History of North Carolina_
(Boston, 1834). In 1847 Rev. Thomas Smith, in his _True Origin and
Source of the Mecklenburgh and National Declaration of Independence_,
agreed to the priority of the May 20th resolutions, but thought that
both those and the national Declaration were drawn in part from the
ordinary covenants of the Scottish Presbyterians,—hence agreeing
naturally in some of their phraseology.

The principal attempts to sustain the authenticity of the resolutions
of May 20th are F. L. Hawks's lecture in W. D. Cooke's _Revolutionary
Hist. of North Carolina_, and W. A. Grahame's _Hist. Address on the
Mecklenburg Centennial at Charlotte, N. C._ (N. Y. 1875). The adverse
view, held generally by students, is best expressed in J. C. Welling's
paper in the _No. Amer. Rev._, April, 1874, and in H. B. Grigsby's
_Discourse on the Virginia Convention of 1776_ (p. 21). John Adams
was surprised on their production in 1819 (_Works_, x. 380-83). Cf.
further in Moore's _North Carolina_, i. 187; _No. Carolina Univ.
Mag._, May, 1853; Bancroft's _United States_, orig. ed., vii. 370,
and final revision, iv. 196, and also in _Hist. Mag._, xii. 378;
Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 474; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 619;
Johnson's _Traditions and Reminiscences of the Amer. Rev. in the South_
(Charleston, 1851, p. 76); _Amer. Hist. Rec._, iii. 200; _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, July, 1882, p. 507; _Southern Lit. Messenger_, v. 417, 748.

The antedating of the Congressional Declaration of July 4, 1776,
by local bodies, stirred beyond a wise prudence, might well have
happened in days when the air was full of such feelings; but they
were of little effect, except the Suffolk Resolves of Sept. 6, 1774,
which were adopted by the Congress of 1774. Perhaps the earliest of
these ebullitions were some votes passed by the town of Mendon, in
Massachusetts, in 1773 (_Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1870). A
fac-simile of the record is given in Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii.
472.]

Early in 1776 the passion for independence gathered head. In March,
Edmund Quincy thought the feeling was universal in the Northern
colonies (_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1859, p. 232). Francis
Dana, just home from England, was saying that he was satisfied no
reconciliation was possible (Sparks, _Corresp. of the Rev._, i. 177).
The probability of independence was recognized in the instructions
which Congress gave to Silas Deane in March, on his sailing for Europe.
In April came the violent measure in Congress of abolishing the British
custom laws. The press was beginning to give the warning note,[697]
but not without an occasional counter statement, as when the _N. Y.
Gazette_ (April 8, 1776) asserted that Congress had never lisped a
desire for republicanism or independence. Sam Adams was urgent (Wells,
ii. 397). John Adams was writing to Winthrop, of Cambridge, to restrain
him from urging Massachusetts to break precipitately the union of the
colonies (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xliv. 298), and he was counselling
Joseph Ward to be patient, for it "required time to bring the colonies
all of one mind; but", he adds, "time will do it" (_Scribner's Mag._,
xi. 572).

May was the decisive month, and events marched rapidly. On the 1st,
Massachusetts set up a committee to conduct the government of the
province in the name of the people.[698] On the 4th the last Colonial
Assembly of Rhode Island renounced its allegiance (_Newport Hist.
Mag._, Jan., 1884, p. 131). A letter of Gen. Lee to Patrick Henry, on
May 7th, has raised a doubt of Henry's steadfastness (Force, 5th ser.,
i. 95), but Henry assisted in that vote of the Virginia Convention,
on the 15th, which instructed its representatives in Congress to
move a vote of independence.[699] R. H. Lee wrote to Charles Lee
that "the proprietary colonies do certainly obstruct and perplex the
American machine."[700] Dickinson, as representing these proprietary
governments, saw something different from independency in John Adams's
motion of May 15th, that "the several colonies do establish governments
of their own;" but when that vote had passed, Adams and everybody else,
as he says, considered it was a practical throwing off of allegiance,
and rendered the formal declaration of July 4th simply necessary.[701]
Hawley and Warren now wrote to Sam Adams, inquiring why this hesitancy
in declaring what even now exists? (Wells, ii. 393); and Winthrop urges
the same question upon John Adams (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xliv. 306).

[Illustration: THOMAS JEFFERSON. (_After picture owned by T. J.
Coolidge, of Boston._)

After a painting in monochrome by Stuart, which was formerly at
Monticello, and is now owned by Jefferson's great-grandson, T.
Jefferson Coolidge, of Boston. It was painted during Jefferson's
presidency. An engraving from a copy owned by Mrs. John W. Burke, of
Alexandria, Va., is given in John C. Fremont's _Memoirs of my Life_,
vol. i. p. 12 (N. Y., 1887). A portrait of Jefferson, three quarters
length, sitting, with papers in his lap, was painted for John Adams by
M. Brown, and is engraved in Bancroft's _United States_, orig. ed.,
vol. viii. A picture by Neagle is engraved in Delaplaine's _Repository_
(1835). The profile by Memin is in Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 484.
There are various likenesses by Stuart: a full-face and a profile,
owned by T. Jefferson Coolidge, of Boston,—the profile is mentioned
above, and the full-face is one of a series of the Five Presidents, and
it has been engraved in Higginson's _Larger History_; a full-length,
belonging to the heirs of Col. T. J. Randolph, of Edgehill, Va.
(engraved in stipple by D. Edwin); and other pictures in the Capitol,
in the White House, at Bowdoin College, and in the possession of
Edw. Coles, of Philadelphia (engraved by J. B. Forrest). The picture
engraved in Sanderson's _Signers_, vii., is a Stuart. A photogravure,
made of the one at Bowdoin College, is given in an account of the art
collections there, issued by the college.

Lossing, in a paper on "Monticello", Jefferson's home, in _Harper's
Mag._, vol. vii., pictures some of the memorials of Jefferson (cf.
also _Scribner's Monthly_, v. 148), and adds views of the houses of
other signers of the Declaration. This is done also by Brotherhead
in his _Book of the Signers_, together with rendering in fac-simile
autograph papers of each of them. Cf. J. E. Cooke on Jefferson in
_Harper's Mag._, liii. p. 211; and also "The Virginia Declaration of
Independence, or a group of Virginia Statesmen", with various cuts,
in the _Mag. of Amer. History_, May, 1884, p. 369, giving portraits
of Archibald Cary, Edmund Pendleton, Patrick Henry, R. H. Lee, Geo.
Mason, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Benj. Harrison, Edmund Randolph, James
Madison, with views also of Gunston Hall (Mason's home), Henry's
house, Harrison's mansion of Berkeley, and of the old Raleigh tavern,
associated with the patriots' meetings.]

As the debates went on, reassuring notes came from New England in
respect to the Virginia resolutions. Connecticut took action on June
14th (Hinman's _Connecticut during the Rev._, 94). Langdon wrote
from New Hampshire, June 26th, that he knew of none who would oppose
it (_Hist. Mag._, vi. 240). The vote of July 2d finished the issue.
Honest belief, intimidation, a run for luck, and more or less of
self-interest[702] had made the colonies free on paper, and compelled
anew the conflict which was to make their pretensions good.

[Illustration: STATE HOUSE, PHILADELPHIA, 1778.

This view of the building in which Congress sat is from the _Columbian
Magazine_, July, 1787. Cf. Scharf and Westcott's _Philadelphia_, i.
322, and Egle's _Pennsylvania_, p. 186; _Harper's Mag._, iii. 151. An
architect's drawing of the front is on a folding sheet in _A new and
complete Hist. of the Brit. Empire in America_ (London, 1757?). Cf.
other views in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 272, 288. A water-color view
by R. Peale is now preserved in the building. Cf. Belisle's _Hist. of
Independence Hall_; Col. F. M. Etting's _Memorials of 1776_, his _Hist.
of the Old State House_ (1876), and his paper in the _Penn Monthly_,
iii. 577; Lossing and others in _Potter's Amer. Monthly_, vi. 379,
455, vii. 1, 67, 477; John Savage's illustrated article in _Harper's
Monthly_, xxxv. p. 217. Between 1873 and 1875 the hall was restored
nearly to its ancient appearance, and now has some of the furniture
in it used at the time of the Declaration. Cf. view in Gay, iii.
481, and Higginson's _Larger Hist._, 278. It has become a museum to
commemorate the Revolutionary characters. The reports of the committee
of restoration were printed. Cf. Scharf and Westcott, i. 318, and
Col. Etting's _History;_ also B. P. Poore's _Descriptive Catal. of
Government Publications_, p. 945.

For the conditions of living in Philadelphia, and the appearance of the
town at this time and during the war, see _Watson's Annals_; Scharf
and Westcott's _Philadelphia_ (ch. xvi., 1765-1776, xvii., 1776-1778,
xviii., 1778-1783); Henry C. Watson's _Old Bell of Independence_
(Philad., 1852,—later known as _Noble Deeds of our Forefathers_);
R. H. Davis in _Lippincott's Mag._ (July, 1876), xviii. 27, and in
_Harper's Monthly_, lii. pp. 705, 868; and F. D. Stone on "Philadelphia
Society a hundred years ago, or the reign of Continental money." in
_Penna. Mag. of Hist._, iii. 361. The diaries of Christopher Marshall
(Albany, 1877) and of James Allen (_Penna. Mag. of Hist._, July, 1885,
pp. 176, 278, 424) are of importance in this study.]

[Illustration: ORIGINAL DRAFT OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

This reproduces only the sentences near the beginning in the
handwriting of Thomas Jefferson, showing his corrections. Later in
the manuscript there are corrections, of no great extent, in the
handwriting of John Adams and Benj. Franklin. The original paper is
in the Patent Office at Washington, and is printed in Jefferson's
_Writings_, i. 26; in Randall's _Jefferson_; in the _Declaration of
Independence_ (Boston, 1876, published by the city), where is also a
reduced fac-simile of the engraved document as signed. Cf. Guizot's
_Washington_, Atlas. Lossing (_Field-Book_, ii. 281) gives a fac-simile
of a paragraph nearly all of which was omitted in the final draft,
as was the paragraph respecting slavery (Jefferson's _Memoir and
Corresp._, i. p. 16). A letter of Jefferson to R. H. Lee, July 8, 1776,
accompanying the original draft, showing the changes made by Congress,
is in Lee's _Life of R. H. Lee_, i. 275. For accounts of various
early drafts, and for John Adams's instrumentality in correcting it,
see C. F. Adams's _John Adams_, i. 233, ii. 515. Cf. also Parton's
_Jefferson_, ch. 21; and his _Franklin_, ii. 126. John Adams contended
that the essence of it was in earlier tracts of Otis and Sam. Adams
(_Works_, ii. 514).

On the literary character of the document, see Greene's _Historical
View_, p. 382; the lives of Jefferson by Tucker, Parton, Randall,
John T. Morse, Jr. The similarity of the preamble of the Constitution
of Virginia and certain parts of the Declaration have been taken to
show that Jefferson plagiarized (_New York Review_, no. 1), but the
testimony of a letter of George Wythe to Jefferson, July 27, 1776,
seems to make it clear that Jefferson was the writer of that part of
the Constitution, though Geo. Mason formed the body of it. Cf. also
Wirt's _Patrick Henry_ and Tucker's _Jefferson_.

The text of the Declaration as Jefferson originally wrote it will be
found in Randall's _Jefferson_, p. 172; Niles's _Weekly Register_, July
3, 1813; Timothy Pickering's _Review of the Cunningham Correspondence_
(1824), the _Madison Papers_. These copies do not always agree, since
different drafts were followed. It is given, with changes indicated as
made by Congress, in Jefferson's _Works_, i.; Russell's _Life and Times
of Fox_; Lee's _R. H. Lee_. John Adams (_Works_, ii. 511) gives the
reasons why Jefferson was put at the head of the committee for drafting
the Declaration (_Potter's American Monthly_, vii. 191).

[Illustration]

Trumbull's well-known picture of the committee presenting the
Declaration in Congress was made known through A. B. Durand's engraving
in 1820. The medals commemorating the event are described in Baker's
_Medallic Portraits of Washington_, p. 32. The house in Philadelphia
in which Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence is shown
in Scharf and Westcott's _Philadelphia_ (i. 320); Watson's _Annals
of Philadelphia_ (iii.); Brotherhead's _Signers_ (1861, p. 110);
_Potter's American Monthly_, vi. 341; Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii.
483; Higginson's _Larger Hist. U. S._, 274. The desk on which he wrote
it was for a long time in the possession of Mr. Joseph Coolidge of
Boston, and at his death passed by his will to the custody of Congress.
Randall's _Jefferson_, i. 177; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iii. 151.]

The resolutions of independency of June 7th, introduced by R. H.
Lee, in accordance with instructions from Virginia,[703] are not
preserved either in the MS. or printed journals, and John Adams tells
us (_Works_, iii. 45) much was purposely kept out of the records;
but they have been found in the secretary's files, and are given in
fac-simile in Force (4th ser., vi. p. 1700). Of the proceedings and
debates which followed we have, beside the printed journals (i. 365,
392), three manuscript journals.[704] For details we must go to the
memoranda made by Jefferson from notes taken near the time.[705]
There seems no doubt that John Adams was the leading advocate of the
Declaration[706] and such traces as are found of other speakers are
noted in Bancroft, orig. ed., viii. 349; Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii.
413, 433; Randall's _Jefferson_, i. 182. Bancroft draws John Adams's
character with some vigor (viii. 309). Dickinson made the main speech
against Adams. Bancroft abridges it from Dickinson's own report (viii.
452); Ramsay (i. 339) sketched it. (Cf. Niles's _Principles_, 1876,
p. 400, and _John Adams's Works_, iii. 54.) Adams thought Dickinson's
printed speech very different from the one delivered. Galloway, in his
_Examination_ before Parliament, gave only the flying rumors of what
passed. The later writers summarize the debates and proceedings.[707]

There is some confusion in later days in the memory of participants,
by which the decision for independence on July 2d is not kept quite
distinct from the formal expression of it on July 4th. (Cf. McKean in
_John Adams_, x. 88.)

It was the New York, and not the New Jersey, delegates who were not
instructed to vote for the Declaration (Wells, i. 226). The position of
New York is explained by W. L. Stone in _Harper's Mag._, July, 1883.
The instructions from Pennsylvania and Delaware came late.[708]

[Illustration: ROGER SHERMAN

After a painting owned by a descendant in New Haven. Cf. portrait by
Earle in Sanderson's _Signers_ in Brotherhead's _Book of Signers_
(1861), p. 75, will be found a view of his house. He was of the
Committee to draft the Declaration of Independence.]

Notwithstanding that the statements of both Jefferson (_Writings_,
Boston, 1830, vol. i. 20, etc.) and Adams, made at a later day
(_Autobiography_), and the printed _Journals of Congress_, seem to the
effect that the Declaration was signed by the members present on July
4, 1776, it is almost certain that such was not the case.

[Illustration]

NOTE.—These four plates show the signatures of the signers (now very
much faded in the original document), arranged not as they signed,
but in the order of States, beginning with Massachusetts and ending
with Georgia. The signatures were really attached in six columns,
containing respectively 3, 7, 12 (John Hancock heading this one), 12,
9, 13,—as is shown in a reduced fac-simile of the entire document as
signed, given in _The Declaration of Independence_ (Boston, 1876).
The signatures are also given in Sanderson's _Signers_, vol. i.;
in _Harper's Mag._, iii. 158, etc. The formation of a set of the
autographs of the "Signers" is, or rather has been, called the test
of successful collecting. The signatures of Thomas Lynch, Jr., Button
Gwinnett, and Lyman Hall are said to be the rarest. The Rev. Dr. Wm. B.
Sprague is said to have formed three sets; but these collections, as
well as those of Raffles, of Liverpool, and Tefft, of Savannah, have
changed hands.

[Illustration]

The finest is thought to belong to Dr. Thomas Addis Emmet, of New York.
The set of Col. T. B. Myers is described in the _Hist. Mag._, 1868.
One was sold in the Lewis J. Cist collection in N. Y., Oct., 1886 (p.
47). It has been said that "of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration
of Independence, nine were born in Massachusetts, eight in Virginia,
five in Maryland, four in Connecticut, four in New Jersey, four in
Pennsylvania, four in South Carolina, three in New York, three in
Delaware, two in Rhode Island, one in Maine, three in Ireland, two in
England, two in Scotland, and one in Wales. Twenty-one were attorneys,
ten Merchants, four physicians, three farmers, one clergyman, one
printer; sixteen were men of fortune. Eight were graduates of Harvard
College, four of Yale, three of New Jersey, two of Philadelphia, two of
William and Mary, three of Cambridge, England, two of Edinburgh, and
one of St. Omers.

[Illustration]

At the time of their deaths, five were over ninety years of age, seven
between eighty and ninety, eleven between seventy and eighty, twelve
between sixty and seventy, eleven between fifty and sixty, seven
between forty and fifty; one died at the age of twenty-seven, and the
age of two is uncertain. At the time of signing the Declaration, the
average of the members was forty-four years. They lived to the average
age of more than sixty-five years and ten months. The youngest member
was Edward Rutledge, of South Carolina, who was in his twenty-seventh
year. He lived to the age of fifty-one. The next youngest member was
Thomas Lynch, of the same State, who was also in his twenty-seventh
year. He was cast away at sea in the fall of 1776. Benjamin Franklin
was the oldest member. He was in his seventy-first year when he signed
the Declaration. He died in 1790, and survived sixteen of his younger
brethren. Stephen Hopkins, of Rhode Island, the next oldest member, was
born in 1707, and died in 1785. Charles Carroll attained the greatest
age, dying in his ninety-sixth year. William Ellery, of Rhode Island,
died in his ninety-first year." The standard collected edition of their
lives is a work usually called Sanderson's _Biography of the signers of
the declaration of independence_ (Philadelphia, 1820-27, in 9 vols.)

_Contents._—1. View of the British colonies from their origin to their
independence; John Hancock, by John Adams. 2. Benjamin Franklin, by J.
Sanderson; George Wythe, by Thomas Jefferson; Francis Hopkinson, by R.
Penn Smith; Robert Treat Paine, by Alden Bradford. 3. Edward Rutledge,
by Arthur Middleton; Lyman Hall, by Hugh McCall; Oliver Wolcott,
by Oliver Wolcott, Jr.; Richard Stockton, by H. Stockton; Button
Gwinnett, by Hugh McCall; Josiah Bartlett, by Robert Waln, Jr.; Philip
Livingston, by De Witt Clinton; Roger Sherman, by Jeremiah Evarts. 4.
Thomas Heyward, by James Hamilton; George Read, by —— Read; William
Williams, by Robert Waln, Jr.; Samuel Huntington, by Robert Waln, Jr.;
William Floyd, by Augustus Floyd; George Walton, by Hugh McCall; George
Clymer, by Robert Waln, Jr.; Benjamin Rush, by John Sanderson. 5.
Thomas Lynch, Jr., by James Hamilton; Matthew Thornton, by Robert Waln,
Jr.; William Whipple, by Robert Waln, Jr.; John Witherspoon, by Ashbel
Green; Robert Morris, by Robert Waln, Jr. 6. Arthur Middleton, by H. M.
Rutledge; Abraham Clark, by Robert Waln, Jr.; Francis Lewis, by Morgan
Lewis; John Penn, by John Taylor; James Wilson, by Robert Waln, Jr.;
Carter Braxton, by Judge Brackenborough; John Morton, by Robert Waln,
Jr.; Stephen Hopkins, by Robert Waln, Jr.; Thomas M'Kean, by Robert
Waln, Jr. 7. Thomas Jefferson, by H. D. Gilpin; William Hooper, by J.
C. Hooper; James Smith, by Edward Ingersoll; Charles Carroll, by H. B.
Latrobe; Thomas Nelson, Jr., by H. D. Gilpin; Joseph Hewes, by Edward
Ingersoll. 8. Elbridge Gerry, by H. D. Gilpin; Cæsar Rodney, by H. D.
Gilpin; Benjamin Harrison, by H. D. Gilpin; William Paca, by Edward
Ingersoll; George Ross, by H. D. Gilpin; John Adams, by E. Ingersoll.
9. Richard Henry Lee, by R. H. Lee; George Taylor, by H. D. Gilpin;
John Hart, by Robert Waln, Jr.; Lewis Morris, by E. Ingersoll; Thomas
Stone, by E. Ingersoll; Francis L. Lee, by Robert Waln, Jr.; Samuel
Chase, by E. Ingersoll; William Ellery, by H. D. Gilpin; Samuel Adams,
by H. D. Gilpin.

Vols. 1, 2 were edited by John Sanderson; the remainder by Robert Waln,
Jr. A list of the authors of the different biographies is given in the
_Massachusetts Historical Society's Proceedings_, xv. 393. There was a
second edition, revised, improved, and enlarged (Philadelphia, 1828,
in 5 vols.). An edition revised by Robert T. Conrad was published in
Philadelphia in 1865.

An enumeration of books which grew out of Sanderson's _Signers_ is
given in Foster's _Stephen Hopkins_, ii. 183. Much smaller books are
Charles A. Goodrich's _Lives of the Signers_ (New York, 1829), and
there are other collections of brief memoirs by L. C. Judson (1829) and
Benson J. Lossing. Cf. also papers by Lossing in _Harper's Mag._, iii.,
vii., and xlviii., and his _Field-Book_, ii. 868.

A fac-simile of the engrossed document as signed is given in _The
Declaration of Independence_ (Boston, 1876), and others are in Force's
_Amer. Archives_, 5th ser., i. 1595; and one was published in N. Y.
in 1865. The earliest fac-simile is one engraved on copper by Peter
Maverick, of which there are copies on vellum, as well as on paper. It
is called _Declaration of Independence, copied from the Original in the
Department of State and published, by Benjamin Owen Tyler, Professor
of Penmanship. The publisher designed and executed the ornamental
writing and has been particular to copy the Facsimilies exact, and has
also observed the same punctuation, and copied every Capital as in the
original_ (Washington, 1818).

[Illustration

NOTE.—The cut on this page is a reduction of a broadside issued in
Boston, of which there is a copy in the library of the Mass. Hist.
Society, where there are copies of similar broadsides issued in
Philadelphia and Salem. The fac-simile given in Gay's _Pop. Hist. U.
S._ (iii. 483) is of the Boston broadside without the imprint at the
bottom of the sheet. The first impression made for Congress was printed
at Philadelphia by John Dunlap, and the copy sent to Washington is
in the library of the State Department. It was also later printed in
broadside at "Baltimore in Maryland, by Mary Katharine Goddard", and
those of the copies which I have seen, as attested by Hancock and
Thomson in their own hands, in addition to the printed signatures, and
sent to the several States by order of Congress, Jan. 18, 1777, are
of this Baltimore imprint. Such a copy is in the _Mass. Archives_,
cxlii. 23, together with the letter of Hancock transmitting it to
that State. There is another copy, similarly attested, in the Boston
Public Library; and a reduced fac-simile of such a copy, with its
attestations, is given in the _Orderly-book of Sir John Johnson_ (p.
220). It was generally, I think, inscribed on the records of the
several States, and I have seen it in the records of the towns in
New England. (Cf. _N. H. State Papers_, viii. 200.) It is copied as
it appeared in the _Penna. Journal_, July 10th, in Moore's _Diary
of the Rev._, i. 262; and in England it was reprinted in _Almon's
Remembrancer_, iii. 258; _Annual Register_, 1776, p. 261; and in the
_Gentleman's Mag._, Aug., 1776.

The earliest authorized reprint in any collection appeared at
Philadelphia in 1781, in _The Constitutions of the several States
of America; The Declaration of Independence; The Articles of
Confederation; The Treaties between his most Christian Majesty and
the United States of America. Published by order of Congress_ (Sabin,
iv. 16,086, who says 200 copies were printed, and who gives various
other early editions). The Rev. William Jackson edited at London, in
1783, _The constitutions of the independent states of America; the
declaration of independence; and the articles of confederation. Added,
the declaration of rights, non-importation agreement, and petition of
Congress to the King. With appendix, containing treaties._ It can be
found in Bancroft, viii. 467; H. W. Preston's _Documents illustrating
American History_; Sherman's _Governmental Hist. U. S._, p. 615;
Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, p. 539; and in very many other
collections and places.]

[Illustration: JOHN DICKINSON.

From Du Simitière's _Thirteen Portraits_ (London, 1783). Cf. _Heads of
illustrious Americans_ (London, 1783). The usual portrait is given in
Higginson's _Larger History_, p. 270.]

McKean, in 1814, said it was not so,[709] and the best investigators of
our day are agreed that the president and secretary alone signed it on
that day, though Lossing, following Jefferson, has held that, though
signed on that day on paper by the members, it was in the nature of a
temporary authentication, and it did not preclude the more formal act
of signing it on parchment, which all are agreed was done on August
2d following. Thornton, of New Hampshire, signed as late as Nov. 4th;
and McKean, who was absent with the army, seems to have temporarily
returned so as to sign later in the year. Thornton's name appears in
the printed _Journal_ as attached to the Declaration on July 4th, and
McKean's is not, though McKean was present and Thornton was not. The
fact is, the printed _Journal_ is not a copy of the record of that day,
and was made up without due regard to the sequence of proceedings,
when prepared by a committee for the press in the early part of 1777.
There is in Force's _American Archives_ (4th ser., vol. vi. p. 1729)
a journal constructed by combining the original record (of which we
have no printed copy) and the minutes and documents of the official
files. From a collation of all these early records it appears that the
vote of January 18, 1777, ordering the Declaration to be printed with
the names attached,—then for the first time done,—made it convenient
to use this printed record in making the published _Journal_ entry
under July 4th. In this way the name of Thornton, who signed it even
subsequent to Aug. 2d, appears in that printed record as having been
put to the Declaration on July 4th. That any paper copy was signed
on July 4th is not believed, from the fact that no such copy exists;
and if it be claimed that it has been lost, there is still ground for
holding rather that it never existed, inasmuch as no vote is found for
any authentication except in the usual way, by Hancock and Thomson,
the president and secretary. McKean's criticism was the first to
confront the usual public belief of its being signed July 4th, as many
respectable writers have maintained since who preferred the authority
of the printed _Journal_ and of Jefferson and Adams. Such was Mahon's
preference, and Peter Force rather curtly criticised him for it, in
the _National Intelligencer_.[710] Force did not explain at length
the grounds of his assertions, and Mahon did not alter his statement
in a later edition; but a full explanation has been made by Mellen
Chamberlain in his _Authentication of the Declaration of Independence_
(Cambridge, 1885), which originally made part of the _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, Nov., 1884, p. 273. He gives full references.

The immediate effects of the Declaration in America are traced in
Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, p. 548. "No one can read", says
Wm. B. Reed in his _Life of Joseph Reed_ (i. p. 195), "the private
correspondence of the times without being struck with the slight
impression made on either the army or the mass of the people by the
Declaration of Independence."

The Declaration was, of course, at once commented on in the
_Gentleman's Magazine_, in Almon's _Remembrancer_, and in the
other periodical publications. Hutchinson's _Strictures_ have been
mentioned. The ministry seem to have been behind the _Answer to the
Declaration of the American Congress_, referred to in a preceding
page, which was ostensibly written by John Lind and privately printed
in London in 1776, but was soon published without his name, appearing
in five different editions during the year, and was the next year
(1777) printed in French both in London and La Haye. In the earlier
edition the outline of a counter declaration was included (Sabin, x.
41,281-82). Lord Geo. Germaine is also said to have had a hand in
_The Rights of Great Britain asserted against the claims of America_,
which passed through three editions at least, the last with additions,
during 1776, beside being reprinted in Philadelphia (Hildeburn, no.
3,352). Sir John Dalrymple and James Macpherson are also thought to
have some share in it.[711] Lord Camden's views are given in Campbell's
_Lives of the Chancellors_ (v. 301). It soon became apparent that
the liberal party in England felt that the Declaration showed the
Americans determined to act without their continued assistance (Smyth's
_Lectures_, ii. 439). Bancroft (ix. ch. 3) traces the general effects
in Europe.[712]

The appearance, Jan. 8, 1776, of the _Common Sense_, written by
Thomas Paine, a stay-maker and sailor whom Franklin had accredited
when he came over in the summer of 1774, had produced a sudden effect
throughout the continent.[713]

[Illustration: JOHN HANCOCK. (_The Scott picture._)

Perkins (_Life and Works of Copley_, p. 70) notes three different
likenesses of Hancock, painted by that artist. The first represents him
sitting at a table, which bears an open book, upon which his left hand
lies, while the right holds a pen. This picture, formerly in Faneuil
Hall, is now in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. The Copley head
has been engraved by I. B. Forrest and J. B. Longacre (_Sanderson's
Signers_), and there is a woodcut in the _Memorial Hist. of Boston_,
iv. p. 5, and another engraving of it in W. H. Bartlett's _United
States_, p. 343. Cf. Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 358. The German
picture from the _Geschichte der Kriege in und ausser Europa_ (Neunter
Theil, Nürnberg, 1777), of which a fac-simile is given herewith, is
evidently based on this picture, omitting the accessories. A similar
picture, with supports of cannon at the lower angles, is in Hilliard
d'Auberteuil's _Essais_, i. p. 152. It seems to have been the likeness
known on the continent of Europe, and is perhaps the one referred to
by John Adams, in writing to Spener, a Berlin bookseller, when he
says, "The portrait of Mr. Hancock has some resemblance in the dress
and figure, but none at all in the countenance" (_Works_, ix. 524).
The immediate prototype of the German picture may have been a London
engraving, described in Smith's _British Mezzotint Portraits_ as being
in an oval, with a short wig and tie at back, and professing to be
painted by Littleford, and published Oct. 25, 1775, by C. Shepherd,
which was one of a series of American portraits published in London
from 1775 to 1778, of which some, says that authority, were reëngraved
in Germany. The two other Copley pictures are described by Perkins as
being owned by Hancock's descendants: one an oval, showing him dressed
in blue coat laced with gold; the other a miniature on copper. There
is in the Bostonian Society a photograph of a picture owned by C. L.
Hancock. It will be remembered that Hancock's widow married Capt.
James Scott; and it is perhaps one of these Copley pictures that is
reproduced from an English print in J. C. Smith's _British Mezzotint
Portraits_, p. 1321, and shown in the present engraving (the Scott
picture), of which the original, an oval, bears this inscription:
"The Hon^{ble} John Hancock, Esq^r, late Governor of Boston in North
America, done from an original picture in the possession of Capt.
James Scott. Published by John Scott, No. 4, Middle Row, Holborn.
Copley pinx^t. W. Smith, sculp." Smith also gives another print, which
represents Hancock as standing, with the left hand in his pocket, the
other holding a letter addressed to "Mons. Monsieur Israel Putnam,
major general à Long Island." The face is much like the other.

The Copley head seems also to have been used in the sitting figure,
which appeared in the _Impartial History of the War in America_
(London, 1780, p. 207), of which a fac-simile is elsewhere given. The
same picture was reëngraved in even poorer manner in the Boston edition
of the book with the same title (1781, p. 346). Other contemporary
engravings are found in the _European Magazine_ (iv. p. 105); in the
_Royal American Magazine_ (March, 1774, reproduced in fac-simile in the
_Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 46); and in Murray's _Impartial History of
the present War_ (1778, vol. i. p. 144). Cf. Drake's _Tea Leaves_, p.
286.

The character of Hancock had pettinesses that have served to lower his
popular reputation, and this last is well reflected in the drawing
of his traits in Wells's _Sam. Adams_ (ii. 381). John Adams, whose
robustness of character was quite at variance with that of his friend,
was not blinded to sterling qualities in the rich man, who gave an
adherence to a cause that few of his position in Massachusetts did
(_John Adams's Works_, x. 259, 284). Adams's grandson speaks of the
biography of Hancock in Sanderson's _Signers_ as a curious specimen of
unfavorable judgment in the guise of eulogy, and a sketch by this same
grandson, C. F. Adams, is in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, p. 73, and a
memoir by G. Mountfort in Hunt's _American Merchants_, vol. ii. The
accounts in Loring's _Hundred Boston Orators_, p. 72, and by Gen. W. H.
Sumner in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, April, 1854 (viii. 187),
are rambling antiquarian tales.]

[Illustration: JOHN HANCOCK. (_From the "Geschichte der Kriege."_)]

John Adams (_Works_, ii. 507; ix. 617) said of _Common Sense_ that it
embodied a "tolerable summary of the arguments for independence which
he had been speaking in Congress for nine months", and which Mahon
(vi. 96) has called "cogent arguments" "in clear, bold language;" but
Adams deemed unwise some of its suggestions for the governments of the
States, and to counteract their influence he published anonymously
his _Thoughts on Government_ (Philadelphia, 1776; Boston, 1776; often
since, and also in _Works_, iv. 193; ix. 387, 398), which he says met
the approval of no one of any consideration except Benjamin Rush. He
added his name to the second edition, and records that it soon had
due influence upon the Assemblies of the several States, when about
this time they adopted their constitutions. Adams's views were first
embodied in a letter to R. H. Lee, Nov. 15, 1775 (_Works_, iv. 185;
Sparks's _Washington_, ii., App.). What seems an anonymous reply
from a native of Virginia—that colony being then engaged in framing
a constitution—was _An address to the Convention of the Colony and
Ancient Dominion of Virginia_, which was an attempt to counteract the
tendency to popular features in government, which Adams had inculcated.
It is in Force, 4th ser., vi. 748, and was written by Carter Braxton
(Hildeburn's _Issues of the press in Pennsylvania_, Philad., 1886, no.
3,340).

[Illustration: CHARLES THOMSON.

From Du Simitière's _Thirteen Portraits_ (London, 1783). Cf. also
_Heads of illustrious Americans_ (London, 1783). There is a portrait
in the gallery of the Penna. Hist. Society. Scharf and Westcott's
_Philadelphia_ (i. 274, 275) gives his likeness and a view of his
house, and another picture of the house is in Brotherhead's _Signers_
(1861, p. 113). Cf. Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 267, and Potter's
_Amer. Monthly_, vi. 172, 264, vii. 161.]

Adams also wrote an amplified statement of some of his views to John
Penn, of North Carolina, which is given in John Taylor's _Inquiry into
the principles and policy of the Government of the United States_
(1814), and in Adams's _Works_, iv. 203.

The vote of Congress of May 15, 1776, had called upon the several
colonies to provide for independent governments, and Jameson
(_Constitutional Conventions_, N. Y., 1867, p. 112, etc.) summarizes
the actions of the several States.[714] New Hampshire was the first
to act, and Belknap in his _New Hampshire_, and the histories of the
other States, tell the story of their procedures. South Carolina was
the next, but Virginia was the earliest to form such a constitution
that it could last for many years. On June 12, 1776, she adopted her
famous Declaration of Rights, drawn by Geo. Mason,[715] and June 29th
perfected her constitution.[716] For New Jersey, see L. Q. C. Elmer's
_Hist. of the Constitution adopted in 1776 and of the government under
it_ (Newark, 1870, and in _N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 2d ser., ii.
132), and the _Journal and votes and Proceedings of the Convention of
New Jersey_ (Burlington, 1776). For the movements in Pennsylvania,
see Reed's _Jos. Reed_, i. ch. 7; the _Proceedings relative to the
calling of the Conventions of 1776 and 1790_ (Harrisburg, 1825); Anna
H. Wharton's "Thomas Wharton, first governor of Pennsylvania", in the
_Penna. Mag. of Hist._, v. 426, vi. 91; and the biographies of the
members of the convention in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, iii. and iv.
The statements of the loyalist Jones in his _New York during the Rev._
(p. 321) are controverted by Johnston in his _Observations_ (p. 41).

[Illustration: CHRISTOPHER MARSHALL'S DIARY.

A page from Christopher Marshall's diary, preserved in the Penna. Hist.
Soc., giving his description of the public reading of the Declaration
of Independence, in Philadelphia, on July 8th. Cf. _Extracts from the
diary of Christopher Marshall kept in Philadelphia and Lancaster during
the American Revolution, 1774-1781, edited by Wm. Duane_ (Albany,
1877). On this reading, see _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, viii. 352, and W.
Sargent's _Loyal Verses of Stansbury and Odell_, p. 116.

The English notion of the way in which the proclamation was made may
be learned from Edward Bernard's contemporary folio _Hist. of England_
(p. 689), where a large print represents an uncovered man on horseback
reading a scroll to a crowd in the street, called "The manner in which
the American Colonies declared themselves independent of the King
of England throughout the different provinces on July 4, 1776." The
reading took place in New York July 9th (Bancroft, ix. 36), and in
Boston July 18th (_Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 183). Moore's _Diary of the
Rev._, i. (1776), records from contemporary journals the way in which
it was received in various places. A letter of Major F. Barber in the
_New Jersey Hist. Soc. Proc._, v., shows how the reception of the news
was observed at Fort Stanwix.]

For the convention in New York, see _Debates of the N. Y. Conventions_
(1821), App., p. 691; Flanders's _Life of Jay_, ch. 8; and Sparks's
_Gouverneur Morris_.[717] For Georgia, see C. C. Jones's _Georgia_,
ii. ch. 13. Jameson (p. 138) outlines the peculiar circumstances
of the early constitutional history of Vermont. Massachusetts was
the last (1780) of the original States to frame a constitution.
(See _John Adams's Works_, iv. 213; ix. 618.) Adams drafted the
constitution presented by the committee, which was printed as _Report
of a Constitution or form of government_,[718] and is printed without
embodying the Errata in _John Adams's Works_ (iv. 219), which copies it
from the Appendix of the _Journal of the Convention_ (Boston, 1832),
where it was also printed in that defective manner.[719]

John Adams, in his _Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the
United States of America_ (1787,—in _Works_, iv. 271), set forth the
views which influenced largely the framers of many of the constitutions
of the States. Connecticut and Rhode Island retained their original
charters through the war.

This action of the States rendered easier a plan of confederation,
which seems to have been proposed by Franklin as early as Aug. 21,
1775. On July 12, 1776, a plan in Dickinson's handwriting, based on
Franklin's, was reported, and was finally adopted by Congress, Nov. 15,
1777 (_Journals_, ii. 330), which was ratified by all the States in
1778 except Delaware (1779) and Maryland (1781), at which last date it
became obligatory on all.[720]

The reader needs to be cautioned against a publication which assumes
to be an _Oration delivered at the State House in Philadelphia Aug. 1,
1776_, by Samuel Adams (Philadelphia, reprinted at London, 1776), and
which was translated into French and German. It is reprinted in Wells,
iii., App. There is no copy of the pretended Philadelphia original
known, and the publication is a London forgery (Wells, ii. 439),
discoverable, if for no other reason, from the fact that its writer was
unaware that the Declaration of Independence had passed.

CHAPTER IV.

THE STRUGGLE FOR THE HUDSON.

BY GEORGE W. CULLUM,

_Major-General United States Army._

WHEN, in March, 1776, the British evacuated Boston, Washington felt
assured that New York, already threatened, would be their objective
point, not only on account of its commercial and strategical
importance, but because it was the great arsenal of America. He
therefore, as soon as practicable, concentrated in and about it his
whole disposable force, and pushed forward the defences of the city
and of its vicinity, already planned and partly executed by General
Lee. Until the arrival of Washington, April 13, 1776, General Putnam
commanded at New York, and General Greene, with a considerable body
of troops, took charge of the incomplete intrenchments of Brooklyn,
extending from the Wallabout (the present Navy Yard) to Gowanus Cove
on New York Bay. These were now strengthened by four redoubts armed
with twenty pieces of artillery, and by a strong interior keep mounting
seven guns. These Brooklyn Heights, from their proximity and command of
New York, were considered the key of the defence of this valuable city.

Fort George, with several redoubts and batteries, guarded the southern
end of Manhattan Island, while the fortified hills overlooking
Kingsbridge protected its northern extremity. On Red and Paulus
Hooks, and at various points along the shores of the East and Hudson
rivers, were erected earthworks, and a strong redoubt was built upon
Governor's Island. Between the latter and the "Battery", hulks were
sunk to obstruct the main channel. Notwithstanding all these defences,
Manhattan Island, as events proved, was assailable at many points.

To defend these works, scattered over more than twenty miles,
Washington had an army of only 17,225 men, of whom 6,711 were sick,
on furlough, or detached, leaving but 10,514 present for duty. Most
of these were militia, badly clothed, imperfectly armed, without
discipline or military experience, and their artillery was old and of
various patterns and calibres.

There had been dispatched from England a powerful fleet under Lord
Howe, convoying a large body of troops to reinforce those already in
America. The army of General William Howe (brother of the Admiral)
on Staten Island in August (including some 8,600 German hirelings)
numbered, as stated by General Clinton, 31,625 rank and file, of whom
24,464 were well-appointed, disciplined soldiers, fit for duty and
equal to any in Europe.

The struggle for the Hudson, by the coöperation of the army of Canada
with Howe, was now about to begin; but Washington was at his wits' end
to foresee the particular point upon which the blow would fall. Hence
he was obliged to retain the greater part of his troops in New York to
defend the city, holding them ready, however, to support any point in
the vicinity whether assailed by the enemy's large fleet or by their
powerful army.

[Illustration: THE MORTIER HOUSE, RICHMOND HILL. (_Washington's
Headquarters._)

From a plate in the _New York Magazine_, June, 1790, when the
house, then owned by Mrs. Jephson, was occupied by John Adams, as
Vice-President of the United States. It was at one time the home of
Aaron Burr. See Parton's _Burr_, i. 81.

Washington's first headquarters in New York were probably at a house,
180 Pearl St., opposite Cedar St., sometimes called the house of Gov.
Geo. Clinton, of which a view is given in Valentine's _Manual_, 1854,
p. 446, and in Lossing's _Mary and Martha Washington_ (N. Y., 1886), p.
153. He is also supposed by some to have occupied for a short interval
the Kennedy mansion, No. 1 Broadway, known to have been used certainly
by Col. Knox as artillery headquarters, of which a view is given in
Irving's _Washington_, illus. ed. ii. 211, and in Gay's _Pop. Hist. U.
S._, iii. 495. (Cf. Drake's _Knox_; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 594;
Johnston's _Campaign of 1776_, p. 86.) In June, if not earlier, he
removed to the Mortier House on Richmond Hill, and remained there till
September, when he transferred his headquarters first to the Apthorp
House (view in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, 1885, p. 227), still standing at
the corner of Ninth Avenue and Ninety-first Street, and next to the
Morris House at Harlem.—ED.]

On the morning of August 22, 1776, General Howe, under cover of the
guns of the British ships, without mishap, delay, or opposition,
debarked, as stated by Admiral Howe, about 15,000 men, with artillery,
baggage, and stores, on Long Island, in the vicinity of the Narrows;
and on the 25th, General de Heister's German division was landed at
Gravesend Cove. This invading force of "upwards of 20,000 rank and
file", well armed and with forty cannon, promptly occupied a line
extending from the Narrows, through Gravesend, to Flatlands, and made
ready for an immediate advance through the passes of the long range of
densely wooded hills running eastwardly from the Narrows to Jamaica,
about two and a half miles in front of Brooklyn. To oppose this large
force of regular troops, the Americans had not quite 8,000 men, most of
whom were raw militia, and of these about one half were outside of the
defences of Brooklyn, ready to participate in the impending battle.

[Illustration: LORD HOWE.

From Andrews's _Hist. of the War_, Lond., 1785, vol. ii.—ED.]

The most direct route from the British landing-place to the Brooklyn
intrenchments was by the road running nearly parallel to the bay,
and passing through a gorge just back of the Red Lion Tavern, where
Martense Lane joins the usual thoroughfare at the edge of Greenwood
Cemetery. A second road led from Flatbush directly through the pass
defended by General Sullivan's intrenchments. The third was by the road
from Flatbush to Bedford. Finally, the fourth, extending to Flushing,
intersected the Bedford and Jamaica road at the pass between the
present Evergreen and Cypress Cemeteries, about three miles east of
Bedford, or about ten miles from the Narrows.

[Illustration: GEN. SIR WM. HOWE.

From the upper part of an engraving of full length in _An Impartial
Hist. of the War in America_, Lond., 1780, p. 204. Smith in his _Brit.
Mez. Portraits_ records a print, standing posture, sash and star, right
elbow on block, left hand on hip, marked "Corbutt delin't et fecit.
Lond. 10 Nov. 1777."—ED.]

When the British landed on the 22d, Colonel Hand's regiment was
deployed to oppose them, but the enemy proving to be in too great
force, Hand fell back to Prospect Hill and thence to Flatbush, burning
property which would be of immediate use to the foe; but he did not
at once apprise the commanding general of the real character of the
British movement. So soon, however, as Washington heard of the landing,
he dispatched six regiments to reinforce the garrison of Brooklyn
Heights, and ordered additional forces to be in readiness to cross the
East River from Manhattan Island, if Howe's movement did not prove
to be a feint to cover a real attack upon New York. General Greene,
unfortunately, was too sick to retain the active command on Long
Island, every point of which, between Hell Gate and the Narrows, he had
carefully studied. He was succeeded, August 20th, by General Sullivan,
a far inferior officer. As Washington said of him, he was "active,
spirited, and zealously attached to the cause", but was tinctured with
"vanity, which now and then led him into embarrassments;" besides which
he lacked "experience to move on a large scale", as he had just shown
in Canada. On the 24th of August, Washington placed Putnam in command
over Sullivan. Putnam was a brave soldier, but wholly ignorant of
the science of war, besides being advanced in years. He was entirely
unacquainted with the arrangements which had been made for the defence
of his position, and he never went beyond the Brooklyn Heights
intrenchments on the day of the battle. The truth is, no one exercised
a general command in that conflict.

De Heister's division, constituting the enemy's centre, occupied
Flatbush August 26th, threatening the pass in front, which Sullivan
held with a large force under cover of intrenchments. During the
evening, Cornwallis withdrew from Flatbush to Flatlands, there becoming
the reserve of the British right, which was composed of choice
regiments under General Clinton, aided by Lord Percy and accompanied by
the commander-in-chief.

The British plan of attack would have been very hazardous in the
presence of an enterprising enemy; but against undisciplined troops,
small in numbers and without skilful leadership, it proved a brilliant
success. The right, under Clinton, by a night march was to seize the
Cypress Hill pass, and then move down the Jamaica road towards Bedford
to get in the rear of Sullivan's left. To divert the attention of the
Americans from this stealthy march, General Grant was to menace their
right, towards Gravesend, before daybreak, and De Heister at the same
time was to cannonade the American centre under Colonel Hand. These
attacks were not, however, to be pressed till General Clinton's guns
were heard in the rear of Sullivan, when the Americans were to be
assailed with the utmost vigor from all quarters. Besides these land
operations a squadron of five ships, under Sir Peter Parker, was to
menace New York and keep up a cannonade against Governor's Island and
the right flank of the American defences.

Sir Henry Clinton, the principal actor in this contest, with his heavy
column and its artillery, guided by a Tory farmer, at nine in the
evening of the 26th, moved silently forward from Flatlands through
New Lots (now East New York), having successfully crossed Shoemaker's
narrow causeway over a long marsh. At three on the morning of the
27th, Clinton arrived within half a mile of the pass he was to force,
being followed and joined before daybreak by the main body under Lord
Percy. Soon after daylight a small American patrol was captured and the
unguarded pass occupied. Thus the whole right wing of the enemy, after
partaking of refreshments, was marching unopposed directly to Brooklyn
Heights. The battle, by this bold and lucky manœuvre, was in this way
virtually gained before any real struggle had begun.

General Grant, on the enemy's left, with two brigades and a regiment,
two companies of Tories and ten pieces of artillery, in the mean
time advanced along the bay road against the flying Americans, and,
at daybreak of the 27th, got through the pass in the hills and was
marching on the Brooklyn lines. General Parsons, in command of the
American outpost on the right, succeeded in rallying some of the
fugitives and posting them advantageously on a hill until the arrival
of Lord Stirling, who, with 1,500 choice Continental troops, had been
sent by Putnam on learning the condition of affairs. For some hours
Grant amused Stirling by slight skirmishes about Battle Hill (now
in Greenwood Cemetery), till Clinton had reached his destined goal,
when Grant, with quadruple forces, pushed forward to grapple in a
death-struggle with his gallant foe. At the same time De Heister, who
had slept upon his arms during the night at Flatbush, as soon as he
heard Clinton's signal guns, sent Count Donop to storm the redoubt
which protected Sullivan and defended the pass through the hills,
while he himself pressed forward with the main body of the Hessians.
Sullivan, hemmed in on all sides, ordered a retreat to the Brooklyn
lines, but it was too late, as he was already ensnared in the prepared
net, and before long all was a scene of confusion, consternation, and
slaughter. Some of the Americans, after fighting desperately, broke
through the enemy's line, but a large number were killed, wounded,
or taken prisoners. Washington, from Brooklyn, witnessed this sad
catastrophe, but was powerless to prevent it.

Stirling in like manner, met by the force under Cornwallis, which had
been detached from Clinton's column, was nearly surrounded, having no
chance for escape except across Gowanus Creek, in which the tide was
fast rising. After a terrible conflict of twenty minutes, the mass
of Stirling's command succeeded in passing the muddy stream, but the
general and some of his bravest companions were compelled to surrender
to superior numbers. Washington wrung his hands in agony at the sight
of such disaster. "Good God", he cried, "what brave fellows I must this
day lose!"

[Illustration: STIRLING.

After a photograph of a portrait in a family brooch, attested by H. S.
Watts, Oct. 8, 1879 (in Harvard College library, given by Professor
C. E. Norton). There is a picture, taken at a later day, engraved in
Duer's _Life of Stirling._—ED.]

By two o'clock in the afternoon, this battle, or rather this series
of skirmishes between forces very unequal in numbers, quality, and
skill, was terminated by the retreat of the remnant of Americans which
had escaped capture. Howe stated his loss at 367 killed, wounded,
and missing; and he estimated that of the Americans at 3,300, though
probably it did not exceed one half of that number, of whom 1,076,
including Generals Stirling, Sullivan, and Woodhull (captured at
Jamaica on the next day), were made prisoners.

Fortunately the victor, instead of pressing his advantage and at once
assaulting the Brooklyn intrenchments, which covered the demoralized
troops, waited till the next day, when he broke ground as for a regular
siege, and began cannonading the American works. "By such ill-timed
caution", says Lord Mahon, "arising probably from an overestimate of
the insurgents' force, the English general flung away the fairest
opportunity of utterly destroying or capturing the flower of the
American army;" yet such was the joy of the British government over
this cheap success that General Howe was knighted for a victory over
inexperienced troops one fifth his own numbers.

Washington, promptly profiting by the over-caution of his antagonist,
strengthened his position, and conceived the masterly measures for
his retreat from Long Island. Without the knowledge of Howe, availing
himself of a dense fog and rain, and favored by a fair wind, he safely
crossed the East River with all his troops, stores, and artillery,
except a few heavy pieces which the mud prevented him from moving. The
army reached New York on the morning of the 30th, Washington leaving in
the last boat after having been forty-eight hours almost continuously
in the saddle without once closing his eyes. "Whoever", says Botta,
"will attend to all the details of this retreat will easily believe
that no military operation was ever conducted by great captains with
more ability and prudence, or under more unfavorable auspices."

Though the British general had gained a decided success, he was as far
as ever from the object of his campaign—the capture of New York. The
victors and the vanquished now confronted each other from opposite
sides of a stream half a mile broad, each making ready for a decisive
effort. Howe possessed a large, veteran, and disciplined European
army, while Washington's troops, for the most part, were a demoralized
assemblage of heterogeneous organizations, not much superior to an
armed mob.

"Our situation", writes Washington to the President of Congress, "is
truly distressing. The check our detachment sustained on the 27th
ultimo has dispirited too great a proportion of our troops, and filled
their minds with apprehension and despair. The militia, instead of
calling forth their utmost efforts to a brave and manly opposition in
order to repair our losses, are discouraged, intractable, and impatient
to return. Great numbers of them have gone off: in some instances
almost by whole regiments, by half ones, and by companies at a time.
This circumstance of itself, independently of others, when fronted by a
well-appointed enemy superior in numbers to our whole collected force,
would be sufficiently disagreeable; but when their example has infected
another part of the army, when their want of discipline and refusal
of almost every kind of restraint and government have produced a like
conduct but too common to the whole, and an entire disregard of that
order and subordination necessary to the well-doing of an army, and
which had been inculcated before, as well as the nature of our military
establishment would admit of, our condition becomes more alarming; and,
with the deepest concern, I am obliged to confess my want of confidence
in the generality of the troops.

"All these circumstances fully confirm the opinion I ever entertained,
and which I more than once in my letters took the liberty of mentioning
to Congress, that no dependence could be put in a militia, or other
troops, than those enlisted and embodied for a longer period than our
regulations heretofore have prescribed. I am persuaded, and as fully
convinced as I am of any one fact that has happened, that our liberties
must of necessity be greatly hazarded, if not entirely lost, if their
defence is left to any but a permanent standing army; I mean, one to
exist during the war. Nor would the expense incident to the support of
such a body of troops as would be competent to almost every emergency
far exceed that which is daily incurred by calling in succor and new
enlistments, which, when effected, are not attended with any good
consequences. Men who have been free and subject to no control cannot
be reduced to order in an instant; and the privileges and exemptions,
which they claim and will have, influence the conduct of others; and
the aid derived from them is nearly counterbalanced by the disorder,
irregularity, and confusion they occasion."

Three weeks later, he again writes: "It becomes evident to me, then,
that, as this contest is not likely to be the work of a day, as the
war must be carried on systematically, and to do it you must have
good officers, there are no other possible means to obtain them but
by establishing your army upon a permanent footing, and giving your
officers good pay. This will induce gentlemen and men of character to
engage; and till the bulk of your officers is composed of such persons
as are actuated by principles of honor and a spirit of enterprise, you
have little to expect from them.... But while the only merit an officer
possesses is his ability to raise men, while these men consider and
treat him as an equal, and in the character of an officer regard him
no more than a broomstick, being mixed together as one common herd, no
order nor discipline can prevail; nor will the officer ever meet with
that respect which is essentially necessary to due subordination. To
place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken
staff.... To bring men to a proper degree of subordination is not the
work of a day, a month, or even a year; and unhappily for us and the
cause we are engaged in, the little discipline I have been laboring
to establish in the army under my immediate command is in a manner
done away with by having such a mixture of troops as have been called
together within these few months....

"The jealousy of a standing army and the evils to be apprehended
from one are remote, and in my judgment, situated and circumstanced
as we are, not at all to be dreaded; but the consequence of wanting
one, according to my ideas formed from the present view of things, is
certain and inevitable ruin. For, if I was called upon to declare upon
oath whether the militia have been most serviceable or hurtful, upon
the whole, I should subscribe to the latter."

The defeat of the American army on Long Island, a heavy blow to
the patriot cause, suggested a desperate remedy to the mind of
Washington,—no less a measure than the deliberate destruction of the
great commercial city of New York. "Till of late", he writes to the
President of Congress, "I had no doubt in my own mind of defending
this place; nor should I have yet if the men would do their duty, but
this I despair of.... If we should be obliged to abandon the town,
ought it to stand as winter-quarters for the enemy? They would derive
great conveniences from it on the one hand, and much property would
be destroyed on the other.... At present I dare say the enemy mean to
preserve it if they can. If Congress, therefore, should resolve upon
the destruction of it, the resolution should be a profound secret, as
the knowledge of it will make a capital change in their plans." General
Greene, John Jay, and many others of note were of the same opinion.
Congress decided otherwise, and Howe forbore to bombard it from
Brooklyn Heights and Governor's Island, both belligerents deeming its
possession of far greater service to either than its destruction.

As New York was not to be destroyed, it became a serious question
how a city swarming with Tories was to be defended with less than
twenty thousand militia against a powerful army. Washington, Greene,
Putnam, and others were opposed to the attempt, but were overruled by
a council of war. The question was finally left by Congress to the
commander-in-chief, who, deeming the city untenable, made preparations,
September 10th, for its speedy evacuation, which was concurred in, two
days later, by a new council of war. This determination was timely, as
the Americans were about to be driven out.

Howe, anticipating Washington's design, determined to prevent the
execution of it by the same manœuvre he had tried so successfully on
Long Island,—that was to threaten the city's front and right flank by
the fleet, while his army, assembled about the present site of Astoria,
should cross the East River, turn Washington's left flank, cut off his
communications with the mainland, oblige him to fight on the enemy's
terms, and force him to surrender at discretion, or by a brilliant
stroke break the American army in pieces, and secure their arms and
stores.

On the evening of September 14th Howe began his crossing of the East
River by taking possession of Montressor (Randall's) Island, and the
next morning he sent three ships up the Hudson as high as Bloomingdale,
which stopped any further evacuation of the city by water. Soon after,
under the fire of ten vessels-of-war, the main British force, under
Sir Henry Clinton, embarked upon flatboats, barges, and galleys, at
the mouth of Newtown Creek, and by the favoring tide was carried to
Kip's Bay (34th Street), where they disembarked and quickly put to
rout the panic-stricken American militia, and pursued the fugitives in
disorderly flight over the fields to Murray Hill.

So soon as Washington heard the enemy's cannonade he rode with all
speed to the front, and used every exertion to rally the runaways; but
his efforts, though seconded by the officers in immediate command,
were utterly futile. Mortified and in despair at such poltroonery, the
commander-in-chief almost lost control of himself, and, says General
Greene, "sought death rather than life" at the hands of the enemy.

Unopposed, the British marched to the Incleberg on Murray Hill and
encamped, while the Americans retreated to Harlem Heights. Putnam,
at the sacrifice of baggage and stores, and of most of his heavy
artillery, by taking the river road, barely escaped with the troops
remaining in the city. Howe was in close pursuit of this rear-guard of
about four thousand men, but unexpectedly stopped for nearly two hours
at the residence of Mrs. Murray[721] to enjoy her old Madeira, so that,
in the language of the times, "Mrs. Murray saved the American army."

[Illustration: WASHINGTON'S HEADQUARTERS AT HARLEM (Sept., 1776)

This was the house of Col. Roger Morris, and at a later day the
residence of Madam Jumel. It follows a drawing in Valentine's _N. Y.
City Manual_, 1854, p. 362. Cf. Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 816; Gay's
_Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 505; and for a view of the hall, _Harper's
Magazine_, lii. 640. Its position was east of Tenth Avenue, near One
Hundred and Sixtieth Street.—ED.]

The British, on September 15, 1776, took possession of New York with a
large detachment under General Robertson; while Howe with the main body
of the army encamped on the outskirts of the city. The northern line of
their camp extended from Horen's Hook on the East River to Bloomingdale
on the Hudson, which line was fortified with field-works and protected
on the flanks by vessels-of-war. Behind this line lay their disciplined
army of twenty-five thousand British and Germans.

Washington took position in their front, and for the protection of
his army of about fourteen thousand fit for duty he fortified Harlem
Heights with a triple line of intrenchments extending across Manhattan
Island. Immediately after securing his position, Washington, to arouse
some military ardor in his discomfited militia, formed the design of
cutting off some of the enemy's light troops, who, encouraged by their
recent successes, had advanced to the extremity of the high ground
opposite to the American camp. To effect this object, Colonel Knowlton,
of Bunker Hill fame, and Major Leitch were detached with parties of
rangers and riflemen to get in their rear, while Washington diverted
their attention by a feigned direct attack. By some mistake, the fire
was begun on the front instead of upon their flank and rear, by which
the enemy, though defeated, secured their escape to their main body.
This successful skirmish, called the battle of Harlem Plains, was
purchased by the loss of the brave Knowlton and Leitch, both of whom
were mortally wounded.

The British rejoicings upon the occupation of their snug
winter-quarters in New York were suddenly interrupted, early on the
morning of September 21st, by the breaking out of flames from a low
groggery near Whitehall Slip, which, for want of proper fire apparatus
to check them, spread rapidly over one fourth of the city, consuming
five hundred buildings, including the Lutheran and Trinity churches.
Whether this was the work of incendiaries is not positively known.
Congress and the city's inhabitants had strenuously opposed such an
act, though it was strongly recommended as a military necessity by
Washington and by others of high rank and position.

While Howe "continued at gaze" awaiting coming events, Washington
continued to strengthen his position on Harlem Heights, and established
alarm posts on the east side of Harlem River as far as Throg's Neck on
the Sound, to insure surveillance of the whole field of operations.

The Harlem lines being too strong for a front attack, Howe, after
leaving a sufficient force under Lord Percy to watch them and guard the
city, embarked, October 12th, his main army on ninety flatboats, to
execute by his favorite manœuvre the turning of these obstacles and of
Washington's left flank. His object was to cut off Washington's retreat
and shut him up on Manhattan Island, the only exit from which was by
Kingsbridge. Adverse winds so delayed the British general that he only
passed Hell Gate on the afternoon of the 14th, and the fleet did not
reach Throg's Neck till nightfall. Here Howe had previously landed his
advance-guard, but Washington had anticipated him by occupying, on the
12th, the passes leading to the mainland.

The enemy's design being now fully developed, it was decided in a
council of war, held in the American camp on the 16th, to leave Harlem
Heights, no longer tenable, and to evacuate the whole of Manhattan
Island except Fort Washington, which General Greene deemed impregnable
and of great value for future operations. Accordingly, the American
army formed a series of intrenched camps on the hills skirting the
right bank of the swollen Bronx, and extending thirteen miles, from
Fordham Heights to White Plains, and protected from the enemy by the
river in front.

After waiting five days for supplies, Howe, on the 18th, left Throg's
Neck, debarked again on Pell's Point, and on the march northward
encountered Glover's brigade well posted behind stone fences. After
a hot skirmish Glover slowly fell back, while the enemy advanced to
the heights of New Rochelle. Here the British encamped till the 22d,
when they were joined by the second division of Hessians under General
Knyphausen. This delay gave Washington ample time to strengthen himself
at White Plains, where he held a strong and important strategic
position commanding the roads leading up the Hudson and to New England.

On the morning of the 28th of October the opposing armies, each
about thirteen thousand strong, confronted each other. Washington's
intrenchments, partly a double line, occupied the hilly ground within
the village of White Plains, the left resting upon a mill-pond and
the right on a bend of the Bronx, which protected its flank and rear.
Across the Bronx rose Chatterton's Hill, presenting a steep rocky front
to the enemy, but it was not fortified.

Howe, believing he was now to fight the decisive battle of the war,
moved up in two heavy columns, Clinton commanding the one on the right
and De Heister that on the left. They seemed at first as if intending
to attack in front; but they soon filed off to the left, extending
their line to the front of Chatterton's Hill. Here the main body
halted, while a column four thousand strong proceeded to cross the
Bronx and storm the hill under cover of the fire of twenty pieces of
artillery. General McDougall with fifteen hundred Continentals and
militia, and Captain Alexander Hamilton with two pieces of artillery,
immediately arrayed themselves on the rocky brow of the hill for its
defence. As the main British body, under General Leslie, clambered up
the steep acclivity it was met by a withering fire from the infantry
and artillery, from which it recoiled and sought shelter. A second
assault up the slope met with an equally determined resistance, and
for some time the enemy was held in check. Rahl, with two regiments
that had forded the Bronx a quarter of a mile below, now appeared on
the American right, and drove the militia from their post. This break
compelled McDougall, exposed to a heavy fire in front and flank, to
retreat across the Bronx to White Plains, though with his six hundred
Continentals he maintained an obstinate conflict for an hour, and
carried off all his wounded and artillery. The American loss in the
engagement was 30 prisoners and 130 killed and wounded, while their
opponents' losses were 231.

Howe contemplated an assault, the next morning, upon the American camp,
but was deterred by the apparent strength of the lines. These had
been built hastily, as General Heath says, of _corn-stalks_, the tops
being turned inwards, and the roots with the adhering earth outwards.
The British army, strongly reinforced by the arrival of Lord Percy
on the 30th, designed attacking the American works on the following
day, but a storm delayed their operations, and gave Washington time
to withdraw his forces to the heights of New Castle, where he erected
strong defences. In the meanwhile Knyphausen had been ordered to move
from New Rochelle to Kingsbridge, where he encamped on November 2d, the
Americans retiring to Fort Washington on his approach. Howe in person
suddenly left White Plains on the night of the 5th for Dobbs's Ferry,
to which his army was already moving. "The design of this manœuvre",
wrote Washington on the 6th to the President of Congress, "is a matter
of much conjecture and speculation, and cannot be accounted for with
any degree of certainty." A council of war which met that day evidently
inferred that it threatened a movement across or up the Hudson, for it
was unanimously agreed immediately to throw a body of troops into New
Jersey, and station three thousand at Peekskill to guard the Highlands.
Howe really contemplated a far different move—the capture of Fort
Washington.

Why Sir William did not again attack Washington, and why he changed
his whole plan, is now well understood to be due to the treason of
William Demont, the adjutant of Colonel Magaw, in command of Fort
Washington. This man, on the 2d of November, undiscovered, passed into
the British camp, and placed in the hands of Lord Percy complete plans
of the defences of Mount Washington and a statement of their armament
and garrisons. This detailed information was immediately sent, with
its author, to Howe, and must have reached him a day or two before
his sudden departure from White Plains. The conclusive evidence of
this treason is furnished by the culprit himself in his letter,[722]
dated London, January 16, 1792, to the Rev. Dr. Peters, of the Church
of England, which was first published by Mr. E. F. DeLancey, in the
_Magazine of American History_ (Feb., 1877).

Fort Washington, built by Colonel Rufus Putnam soon after the
evacuation of Boston, occupied the highest ground at the northern
end of Manhattan Island. It was a pentagonal bastioned earthwork
without a keep, having a feeble profile and scarcely any ditch. In its
vicinity were batteries, redoubts, and intrenched lines. These various
field fortifications, of which Fort Washington may be considered the
citadel, extended north and south over two and a half miles, and had
a circuit of six miles. The three intrenched lines of Harlem Heights,
crossing the island, were to the south; Laurel Hill, with Fort George
at its northern extremity, lay to the east; upon the River Ridge, near
Tubby Hook, was Fort Tryon, and close to Spuyten Duyvel Creek were
some slight works known as "Cork Hill Fort;" and across the creek,
on Tetard's Hill, was Fort Independence. The main communication with
these various works was the old Albany road, crossing Harlem River
at Kingsbridge. This road was obstructed by three lines of abatis,
extending from Laurel Hill to the River Ridge.

Fort Washington mounted not more than eighteen guns _en barbette_, of
various calibres, from nines to thirty-twos. The garrison of all the
various works was less than 3,000 men, mostly Pennsylvanians, who
were commanded by Colonel Magaw, an officer of but little military
experience. The ground about the fort was well suited for defence, and
the works not only protected the upper part of Manhattan Island, but
in conjunction with Fort Lee, on the palisades opposite, commanded
the Hudson. However, from their too elevated positions and distance
from each other, these two works, on the opposite sides of the river,
with their feeble armament, proved insufficient, even with a partially
constructed barrier of sunken hulks, to prevent the passage of the
British vessels-of-war.

As these forts did not close the river, Washington did not deem it
expedient to weaken his force, which was necessary to him for field
operations, by leaving a large garrison on an island essentially in
the hands of the enemy. To the opinion of General Greene, in general
command of these works, and in deference to the expressed wishes of
Congress to hold them at any cost, Washington yielded his better
judgment. His modesty and sense of imperfect knowledge of the science
and practice of war led him, as it did on several occasions, to defer
too much to others, and though he did not think it "prudent to hazard
the men and stores at Mount Washington", he left it discretionary with
Greene to give the necessary orders for its evacuation.

Howe, November 15th, demanded the surrender of Fort Washington, stating
that, if he were compelled to take it by assault, the garrison would be
put to the sword. Magaw replied that to propose such an alternative was
unworthy of a British officer, and that, for himself, he should defend
the fort to the last extremity.

On the 15th Washington started across the river from Fort Lee, to
which he had come, to determine the condition of the garrison at Fort
Washington. He says, "I had partly crossed the North River when I met
General Putnam and General Greene, who were just returning from thence,
and they informed me that the troops were in high spirits and would
make a good defence, and, it being late at night, I returned."

Magaw, awaiting the enemy's attack, made a judicious disposition of
his forces to defend Fort Washington and the various intrenchments
in its vicinity. Colonel Rawlings took command of Fort Tryon and the
northern end of the River Ridge, with an outpost at Cork Hill Fort;
Colonel Baxter held Fort George and the summit of Laurel Hill; Colonel
Cadwallader occupied the Harlem Lines; while Magaw, at his central
position of Fort Washington, directed the whole.

Howe's attack upon Fort Washington was skilfully planned and admirably
executed. A vessel-of-war, the "Pearl", took up a position in the
Hudson to protect the contemplated movement of the Hessian troops
and enfilade the northern outworks of Fort Washington; while thirty
flatboats were in the Harlem River for ferrying troops,—these boats
having eluded the vigilance of the American sentries on the night of
the 14th, when passing up the Hudson and through Spuyten Duyvel Creek.

On the morning of the 16th, under a furious cannonade from the heights
on the east bank of the Harlem, three distinct assaults were ordered
to be made upon the American defences, besides a fourth movement,
which, though designed as a feint, became a real attack at the critical
moment. The _first_ British column, under General Knyphausen, moved
down from Kingsbridge, and with him were Rahl's Germans marching close
to the Hudson; the _second_, under General Matthews, supported by Lord
Cornwallis, crossed the Harlem and moved upon Fort George and the
northern end of Laurel Hill; the _third_, or feint, under Lieut.-Col.
Stirling, floated down the Harlem to threaten the southerly part of
Laurel Hill; while the _fourth_, of British and Hessians, led by Earl
Percy and accompanied by Howe, moved from Harlem Plain upon the triple
lines of Harlem Heights.

[Illustration]

The latter column, advancing from the south, began the attack upon
the outer or southernmost American line, where Cadwallader, unable to
check Lord Percy's superior forces, fell back to his stronger middle
line. Howe then ordered Stirling to land from the Harlem and clamber
up the steep slope of Laurel Hill to threaten the rear of Cadwallader.
The latter sent a detachment, as did also Colonel Magaw, to oppose
Stirling's landing, without avail. Matthews at the same time debarked
his column and attacked the Americans on Laurel Hill, where Baxter
was killed. The united forces of Matthews and Stirling overcame all
opposition and took 170 prisoners. Baxter's force was compelled, as
was also Cadwallader, when pressed by Percy, to seek refuge in Fort
Washington. About noon the Hessian column from the north was in motion.
Rahl soon scattered the small guard in Cork Hill Fort and advanced upon
Fort Tryon, crowding Rawlings by superior force nearly back to Fort
Washington, when, being joined by Knyphausen, who had made his way over
wooded and difficult ground and across abatis, the reunited German
columns bore down all opposition. The Americans at this point also,
after a spirited resistance, were compelled to take refuge in Fort
Washington, which, now overcrowded and exposed to the deadly concentric
fire of the enemy, left Magaw no alternative but surrender. He asked
for a parley of four hours, but he was allowed only half an hour. In
the end he capitulated, upon honorable terms, to General Knyphausen,
to whom the glory of the day belonged. Magaw had received a promise
from Washington to attempt to bring off the troops if he would hold
out till night, which Magaw deemed impossible, with troops huddled
together and exposed to destruction from the enemy's near circle of
fire. This capture cost the enemy nearly 500 men in killed and wounded.
The American loss was 150 killed and wounded, 2,634 taken prisoners
(including many of their best troops), 43 pieces of artillery of from
three to thirty-two pounds calibre, a large number of small arms, and
much ammunition and stores. The whole of Manhattan Island thus passed
into British hands.

Immediately after the capture of Fort Washington, Sir William Howe
crossed with his army into New Jersey, it being too late for any
coöperation with the Northern army under General Carleton, who had
already retreated from Crown Point into Canada.[723]

* * * * *

This New York campaign had been most disastrous to the American cause;
yet it was far from a brilliant success for the Anglo-Hessian arms.
Washington, with troops inferior in numbers, arms, organization,
discipline, and experience, had outgeneralled Howe, with a superior
veteran army, whenever he acted upon his own good judgment and did not
yield his convictions to his subordinates, to whom most of the errors
of the campaign were due.

It is doubtful whether there was any necessity whatever for the British
to fight the battle of Long Island, as their fleet might have occupied
the East River, as it subsequently did, and thus have caged the part
of Washington's army which was on Long Island. It is true that the
American batteries on Brooklyn Heights and Governor's Island might have
done the fleet much damage; but if it was too dangerous to run the
gauntlet of the Buttermilk Channel, four fathoms deep, it would have
been an easy matter to sail around the eastern end of Long Island, and
safely enter the East River from that direction.

Had the East River been occupied by the British fleet, it could, while
cutting off half of our army from the defence of New York, at the same
time have threatened the city front pending the transportation of the
British army by water to points above the city from whence to turn
either or both flanks of Manhattan Island. Washington, thus shut up,
would have been compelled to fight at great disadvantage, and possibly
surrender at discretion.

Even admitting that the battle of Long Island was necessary, Howe, in
dividing his army into three masses, stretching over a line of more
than ten miles, ran great risk of being beaten in detail had all of the
American forces on the island been concentrated at a central position,
ready to be thrown successively upon his isolated columns. It is true
the undisciplined American forces might not have been able to cope in
the open field with British and German regulars; but Howe had no right
to presume their inferiority after his own experience of their good
conduct at Bunker Hill and Clinton's trial at Sullivan's Island.

The American general also committed a great military blunder in leaving
with raw troops the shelter of the Brooklyn intrenchments for the
precarious protection of the Long Island Ridge, several important
passes in which were left entirely unguarded, though Washington had
ordered their careful observation.

After the retreat of the American army to New York, Howe wasted two
precious weeks, during which Washington had time to organize his
defence; and when the British general crossed the East River, he
committed a great mistake in debarking at Kip's Bay,—a halfway measure
which involved a long land march to his objective, White Plains.
Washington, with great vigor, seized his advantage, and, by availing
himself of his shorter interior line, arrived first at the coveted
position and fortified it. Had Howe moved to this point by water
immediately after the battle of Long Island, he undoubtedly would have
succeeded in turning Washington's left flank, and would thus have cut
off his retreat. The British general's delay of _two months_ after the
battle of Long Island in moving less than thirty miles to reach White
Plains was inexcusable. In a shorter period Moltke began and ended the
campaign of 1866, which so humbled the great power of the Austrian
empire.

When Howe decided to attack the American army at White Plains he should
have thrown his entire force upon Washington's centre, and thus have
won a decisive victory with his superior troops; whereas he used less
than one third of his army in driving Washington's right wing from
Chatterton's Hill upon his main body, which then successfully retreated
before the tardy and inert British general.

Howe's good fortune in capturing Fort Washington was due more to the
treason of Magaw's adjutant and to Washington's yielding to bad advice,
than to any skill of the British commander.[724]

* * * * *

With the invasion of New Jersey by the Anglo-Hessian army all military
operations at the mouth of the Hudson were terminated. The struggle
for the control of this great river was to be transferred to its upper
waters, and it was expected that the coming campaign would be so
conducted as soon to force the whole power of the colonies into silence
and submission.

General Gates, who was appointed the successor of Sullivan in the
command of the army of Canada, was, says Horace Walpole, "the son of
a housekeeper of the second Duke of Leeds." He had neither brilliant
qualities nor military genius, but possessed the vanity and ambition to
covet the highest position, for the attainment of which he resorted to
disgraceful intrigue. When assigned to this command, in June, 1776, the
army of Canada was flying to Crown Point; so, like Sancho Panza, Gates
found himself a governor without a government; but, nothing abashed,
he at once claimed the command of the Northern department, then under
Schuyler. Congress sustained the latter, whereupon Gates took post at
Ticonderoga, where the remnant of the American army had retired upon
the abandonment of Crown Point, and promptly adopted vigorous measures
to put the work in good condition for defence and to reinforce its
garrison against any forward movement of General Carleton.

To secure control of Lake Champlain, a squadron of small vessels was
ordered to be constructed at its head (Skenesborough), which, to the
number of nine, mounting in all fifty-five guns, were completed by
the middle of August. Arnold, in command of these and some additional
galleys from Ticonderoga, moved down to the foot of the lake, and
anchored his vessels across it to bar the passage of the enemy.

[Illustration:

From _Political Magazine_ (1780), i. 743, with a memoir of Burgoyne.
There are modern engravings of this likeness in Moore's _Diary of the
Amer. Rev._, i. p. 513; and in Lossing's _Field Book_, i. 37.—ED.]

Carleton, as active as his adversary, had built at St. Johns a flotilla
of "thirty fighting vessels." When Arnold discovered the superiority of
the enemy's fleet in vessels and guns to be more than double his own,
and that they were manned by picked British sailors, he fell back and
formed line of battle between Valcour's Island and the western shore
of the lake. In this disadvantageous position he was attacked, October
11th, by Captain Pringle, of the British navy, with thirty-eight
vessels and boats, mounting 123 guns. Though the crews of Arnold's
flotilla were landsmen, he maintained a desperate fight from eleven in
the forenoon until dark, when, availing himself of the obscurity of a
thick fog, he escaped with part of his vessels, unobserved, through the
enemy's fleet; but, owing to adverse winds and his crippled condition,
he was overtaken on the 13th off Split Rock, where he was again
attacked. Some of his flotilla escaped and some were captured, but he
himself, after fighting four hours, ran his remaining vessels ashore,
set them on fire with their flags flying, and escaped with their crews
through the forests to Ticonderoga. General Carleton now advanced to
Crown Point, of which he took possession October 14th, and pushed a
reconnoissance to within sight of Ticonderoga. When Carleton's boats
appeared, Gates made an effective display of his garrison, whereupon
the British general fell back to Crown Point, which he evacuated, and,
it being too late for further active operations, he retired to Canada.

[Illustration: BURGOYNE.

From Andrews's _Hist. of the War_, London, 1785, vol. iii. Fonblanque
gives a likeness painted by Ramsay at Rome in 1750, and this is
repeated in Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 567. Reynolds painted him in
1766 (Fonblanque, p. 86). J. C. Smith (_Brit. Mez. Portraits_, ii. 710)
records a picture by Pine. Cf. Jones's _Campaign for the Conquest of
Canada_, p. 194, and the illus. ed. of Irving's _Washington_, iii.—ED.]

The enemy had scarcely departed when Schuyler applied himself with
tireless assiduity to prepare against a new invasion during that
winter or in the coming year. He continually pressed upon Congress and
Washington the wants of his department in men and munitions of war.
In every way he tried to conciliate the Indian tribes; and he lost no
opportunity of gaining information of the enemy's designs and movements.

Burgoyne, after the battle of Bunker Hill, had suggested to Lord
Rochefort, Secretary of State for the colonies, that, as there was
"no probable prospect of bringing the war to a speedy conclusion with
any force that Great Britain and Ireland could supply", there should
be employed "a large army of such foreign troops as might be hired,
to begin their operations up the Hudson River; another army, composed
partly of old disciplined troops and partly of Canadians, to act from
Canada; a large levy of Indians and a supply of arms for the blacks,
to awe the Southern provinces, conjointly with detachments of regulars;
and a numerous fleet to sweep the whole coast,—might possibly do the
business in one campaign."

The importance of securing the control of the Hudson, thereby to
separate the New England from the Middle and Southern States, was
eminently correct; but the proposed mode of accomplishing it was, as
the sequel proved, entirely wrong.

Burgoyne, like many other Englishmen, had held American prowess in
contempt, and ridiculed the enrolment of provincials as "a preposterous
parade of military arrangement." His later experience probably changed
his views, for when he had supplanted that noble soldier Sir Guy
Carleton in the command of the British army in Canada, through "family
support" more than from "military merit", he took good care to secure a
strong and veteran force, commanded by officers of noted skill and long
experience.

Burgoyne's army, which took the field in July, 1777, had a total,
rank and file, of 7,902, of which 4,135 were British, 3,116 Germans,
148 Canadian militia, and 503 Indians. The artillery corps and train
were of the most serviceable character, "probably the finest and most
excellently supplied as to officers and private men that had ever been
allotted to second the operations of any army."

The commander-in-chief was a polished gentleman, a popular dramatist,
an effective speaker, a useful member of Parliament, and a gallant
officer who had won laurels in Portugal; Major-General Phillips, the
second in command, was a distinguished artillerist who had earned a
high reputation in Germany; Major-General Riedesel had been selected
because of his long experience, especially in the Seven Years' War;
Brigadier-General Fraser, who commanded the light brigade, was a
knightly soldier, ambitious of glory, who had seen much service in
America; Hamilton and Powel, who commanded brigades, had been twenty
years on active duty; Lord Balcarras and Major Acland, commanding
respectively the light infantry and grenadiers, were soldiers of high
professional attainments; La Corne St. Luc, the commander of the
Indians, had been an active partisan of the French in Canada wars,
and "was notorious for brutal inhumanity;" and the many staff and
regimental officers were already men of mark, or subsequently rose to
high positions.

With such a thoroughly disciplined and well-appointed army, Burgoyne
fondly anticipated making a triumphal march of two hundred miles
to Albany, there to meet St. Leger descending the Mohawk, and Howe
ascending the Hudson, and thus by combined movements to dismember the
thirteen United States. This march of the Northern army seemed not
arduous, as most of Burgoyne's way was by water through the Sorel, Lake
Champlain, and the upper Hudson; but he had taken little account of the
extraordinary physical difficulties he was doomed to encounter, and the
hostility of the inhabitants along much of his route.

[Illustration: LORD GEORGE GERMAIN.

From Murray's _Impartial Hist. of the present War_, i. 190.—ED.]

Another embarrassment greatly marred the British plans. Lord
George Germain, the Secretary of State for the colonies, had given
Burgoyne positive orders for his march to Albany, from which he was
not to deviate; while Howe was left, through a piece of criminal
negligence,[725] without any imperative instructions to coöperate with
the army in Canada; besides which, it was almost impossible to arrange
any concerted action between forces separated by four hundred miles of
hostile country.

Burgoyne, however, like a true soldier, determined to obey orders,
though it might break empires. Consequently, on June 13th, at St.
Johns, the standard of England was hoisted on board the "Radeau", and
saluted by all the rest of the shipping and forts, thus announcing the
beginning of this eventful and important campaign.

On the 20th, Burgoyne issued, with seeming royal prerogative, a
bombastic proclamation, commending the justice and clemency of the
king, who had directed "that Indians be employed;" denouncing the
obstinacy of Americans as "wilful outcasts;" threatening the terrors
of savage warfare of the "thousands of Indians" under his command, "to
overtake the hardened enemies of Great Britain;" and, "in consciousness
of Christianity and the honor of soldiership", warned all of his
opposers that "the messengers of justice and wrath await them on
the field, and devastation, famine, and every concomitant horror
that a reluctant but indispensable prosecution of military duty must
occasion."[726]

Burgoyne, after delivering himself of this pronunciamiento of
loving-kindness towards his American erring brothers, and setting
forth the sweet humanity of his dusky allies, who "had sharpened their
affections upon their hatchets", proceeded up Lake Champlain, pioneered
by these children of the forest in their birch canoes, the fleet and
army following, with music and banners, as if engaged in a splendid
regatta.

While Burgoyne with the main army was moving south, Lieutenant-Colonel
St. Leger, in conformity with instructions from the British cabinet,
with a detachment of about 1,000 men (English regulars, provincials,
and Indians), was rapidly advancing west to Fort Stanwix, by the St.
Lawrence and Lakes Ontario and Oneida. After reducing this post and
subjugating the patriots of the Mohawk valley, he was ordered to join
his chief at or near Albany.

Burgoyne's formidable invading force of 7,863 men, with 42 pieces of
artillery, which reached Crown Point June 27th, advanced thence, July
1st, in battle array: the right wing of British troops under General
Phillips, upon Fort Ticonderoga on the west bank of the lake; the left
wing of Germans under General Riedesel, upon Fort Independence on the
east bank; and the floating batteries in line across the lake. Burgoyne
had announced in orders: "This army must not retreat."

General Schuyler had recently visited Forts Ticonderoga and
Independence, where, instead of a garrison of 5,000 men, he found only
2,546 half-armed and poorly provided Continental troops and 900 raw
militia, "many of them mere boys, and one third of the whole force
unfit for duty." He noted, with serious forebodings, the unfitness of
the works to resist attack, a state to which lack of workmen and the
neglect of Gates had brought them. The reduction of this stronghold
was indispensable to Burgoyne's progress, not only as insuring his
communications with Canada, but because of the danger of leaving such a
force in his rear.

In an endeavor to strengthen these fortifications, of which General
St. Clair had recently taken command, the works had been too much
extended, and the key-points—Mount Hope, commanding Fort Ticonderoga,
and Mount Defiance, a supposed inaccessible eminence at the confluence
of the waters of Lakes George and Champlain—had not been occupied;
consequently, they were seized by the British and artillery was planted
upon them.

St. Clair, no favorite of fortune, finding himself nearly invested
on the 5th, and exposed to a plunging fire from these heights, which
he could not return, wisely determined to evacuate all his works
that night, under pretence of making a sortie. As soon as it was
dark enough, the women and wounded, together with some ammunition
and stores, were placed upon 200 bateaux, which were to be escorted
to Skenesborough by five armed galleys and a guard of 600 men, all
under the command of Colonel Long. In thus abandoning Ticonderoga, St.
Clair justified himself, saying that "we had lost a post, but saved a
province."

St. Clair, leaving his heavy artillery and many supplies behind, with
the garrison of Fort Ticonderoga passed undisturbed, at midnight, over
the floating bridge across the lake. On the southern side the troops
from Fort Independence joined him, and all were safely escaping, when,
without orders, General De Fermois's headquarters were fired, the
blaze of which disclosed the retreat to the enemy. The alarm was at
once given, and the deserted forts were seized by the British. General
Fraser was in pursuit at daylight of the 6th, followed soon after by
General Riedesel with the German grenadiers.

[Illustration: ARTHUR ST. CLAIR.

From a photograph of a miniature furnished by Mr. F. D. Stone. It was
painted near the close of the war. Daniel Goodwin, Jr., _Provincial
Pictures_, p. 72, says there is another miniature on ivory, owned by
Miss Mary R. Sheets, of Indianapolis.

[Illustration]

A likeness by C. W. Peale hangs in Independence Hall in Philadelphia.
It was drawn by J. B. Longacre, and engraved by E. Wellmore. It
represents him at the time he was governor of the Northwest Territory.
Cf. _St. Clair Papers_; Goodwin's _Provincial Pictures_, p.72. There is
also a pencil sketch by John Trumbull given in the _St. Clair Papers_,
and in the illustrated edition of Irving's _Washington_. Cf. 2 _Penna.
Archives_, vol. x.; Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 132. A view of his home
is given in Egle's _Pennsylvania_, p. 1156.—ED.]

Meanwhile, Burgoyne and Phillips, in the fleet, broke through the boom
and bridge across the lake, in chase of Colonel Long and the American
flotilla, which, on the afternoon of the 7th, was overtaken and
attacked at the wharves of Skenesborough. Two of the covering galleys
struck their colors, and the others were blown up by their crews. The
bateaux, mills, and stockade there were promptly burned, and then
the detachment fled to Fort Anne, eleven miles below. Early the next
morning Long sallied out and had a sharp encounter with his pursuers
under Colonel Hill; but when victory was almost within his grasp, the
enemy was reinforced by a number of savages sent forward by Burgoyne,
who had remained at Skenesborough. Colonel Long, after burning Fort
Anne, retreated sixteen miles to Fort Edward, where he met Schuyler on
his way to Ticonderoga with a small reinforcement.

St. Clair, with the main body, was even less fortunate. He retreated
through the wilderness to Castleton, his rear-guard of 1,200 men,
under Colonel Warner, stopping over night at Hubbardton, where on
the morning of the 8th it was attacked by Fraser with an inferior
force. After a spirited engagement Hale's militia regiment abandoned
the field, and the enemy was reinforced by the arrival of Riedesel's
Brunswickers, which latter turned the American right flank and
compelled their retreat to Rutland, the rendezvous appointed by St.
Clair in the event of disaster. From here the remnant of St. Clair's
forces, by a circuitous march of more than a hundred miles, on the
12th reached Fort Edward, where Schuyler, on the 20th, could muster
only 4,467 men fit for duty. This little army was deficient in almost
every requisite for battle, while Burgoyne, flushed with victory, lay
within a day's forced march with his veteran army of nearly double the
American force.

Schuyler was charged by Congress with "neglect of duty" in not ordering
a timely retreat of the garrison from Ticonderoga, if untenable; and,
if to be defended, not to have been present at the attack upon it.
The court-martial, of thirteen distinguished officers, unanimously
acquitted him "with the highest honor."[727]

These reverses, which closed the first act of the drama of varied
events in this checkered campaign, seemed to open the way to Burgoyne's
triumph, and they spread universal alarm among the patriots, who had
considered Ticonderoga the closed gate to northern invasion. These
disasters, however, were blessings in disguise, despite the desertion
of the militia. Washington predicted ultimate success, and Schuyler was
roused to great efforts to oppose the enemy's advance. Wood Creek was
at once obstructed with logs and huge stones; all roads were broken up
and their bridges destroyed; dry land was converted into morass, trees
were felled in every direction, and the whole of this wild and savage
country was stripped of cattle and supplies, for which the enemy had
consequently to depend upon Canada and remoter England.

Having provided this barrier against the enemy, Schuyler, who had
been joined by Arnold, fell back to Fort Miller with his artillery
(brought from Fort George), where he tarried till he had ruined the
road over which he passed, and thence proceeded to Stillwater to await
reinforcements, making that his fortified headquarters, while his
little army occupied a camp, which was intrenched on Van Schaick's
Island, near the mouth of the Mohawk.

Burgoyne was so elated by his successes that he dispatched his
aide-de-camp Captain Gardner to England, "with news so important to
the king's service, and so honorable to the troops under his command."
But while the British colors were flying over Ticonderoga, he little
dreamed of the difficulties and reverses which were awaiting him. To
provide garrisons for these works in his rear, to which he had sent
all his surplus artillery and baggage, he was compelled "to drain the
life-blood of his army", since Carleton had declined to supply the
necessary troops for their defence, on the ground that his jurisdiction
as governor did not extend beyond the bounds of Canada.

Burgoyne availed himself of the water transportation of Lake George for
most of his artillery and stores; but, for the march of his army from
Skenesborough, a trackless wilderness confronted him, through which he
had to remove countless obstacles, cut a new pathway, and build no less
than forty bridges, one of which, over a swamp, was two miles long.
Wood Creek had also to be opened for his bateaux. In these laborious
undertakings his army was exhausted with overwork, and suffered
terribly with midsummer heat and innumerable insects. Consequently,
with his utmost efforts, he did not reach Fort Edward till July 30th,
or twenty-four days after leaving Lake Champlain, a distance of only
twenty-six miles. Burgoyne remained at Fort Edward till August 15th,
awaiting the transportation across the portage from Lake George of
the necessary artillery, ammunition, provisions, and bateaux for his
descent of the Hudson.

During this enforced delay important events were occurring elsewhere,
on the Mohawk and near Bennington. General Lincoln at the same time was
recruiting troops in New England, with which to attempt the recapture
of Ticonderoga and cut off the British retreat to Canada.

Fort Stanwix, or Fort Schuyler as it was subsequently called, on the
head-waters of the Mohawk, near the present Rome, N. Y., was built in
1758, and in April, 1777, was put under command of Colonel Gansevoort,
who, with Colonel Marinus Willet, placed it in a better condition of
defence. The garrison of the work was 750 Continental troops, before
which St. Leger, accompanied by the loyalist Sir John Johnson, and
Joseph Brant the great Mohawk chief, appeared, August 2, and the
next day summoned it to surrender. Gansevoort paying no attention to
this, the British colonel prepared for a regular siege, and sent out
detachments to cut off all succor.

The inhabitants of Tryon County were panic-stricken, but the aged
General Herkimer by great efforts collected 800 militia and marched
to Oriskany, within eight miles of the fort, to which he sent a
messenger with a request that upon the messenger's arrival three guns
should be fired and a sortie made to facilitate the advance of the
succoring party through the besiegers. The signal was delayed, and,
unfortunately, Herkimer's better judgment was overruled by his younger
officers, who were impatient of delay. This led to his moving forward
and to his being ambushed in a valley, the head of which was held by
loyalists, while Indian allies under Brant occupied the sides. Here a
desperate hand-to-hand fight of five hours ensued, early in which the
brave Herkimer was mortally wounded; but seated upon his saddle, and
propped against a tree, he calmly continued to give his orders and
animate his men with his own heroism till the end of the battle.

At length the long-expected signal guns were heard, when Colonel Willet
with 250 men made a sudden dash upon a weak part of the besiegers'
camp. Though he failed to reach Herkimer, he destroyed two sections of
the enemy's intrenchments, and captured the British camp equipage, Sir
John Johnson's papers, five flags, and some prisoners.

The Indians, who had lost many of their braves at Oriskany, hearing
the sound of Willet's musketry in their rear, quickly retreated, and
were soon followed by the loyalists, leaving Herkimer in possession of
the field. St. Leger still continued the siege of the fort, where now
floated for the first time the American flag, just adopted by Congress,
made of alternate stripes of a soldier's white shirt and a camp-woman's
red petticoat, the field being cut out of an old blue overcoat. Beneath
this were hung the five captured British standards.

St. Leger on the 7th again demanded the surrender of the fort,
threatening Indian vengeance, and falsely stating that Burgoyne was in
possession of Albany. Gansevoort returned an indignant refusal to this
disgraceful threat. Soon came rumors of the approach of the intrepid
Arnold to raise the siege. Statements sent forward of his numbers,
purposely exaggerated, caused the flight of the panic-stricken Indians,
and St. Leger, August 22, abandoned his trenches, some artillery and
camp equipage, and fled to Canada. The right wing of the invaders being
thus paralyzed, Arnold returned in triumph to join Schuyler.

Burgoyne's difficulties increased. His Indian allies were
insubordinate, and the patriots swelled the American ranks. Finding
that his scanty supplies had to be replenished from his distant base
in Canada, or rather from England, he decided to make a raid upon
Bennington, to secure horses, cattle, and provisions from the depot
there. He hoped also that this move would strike terror among the
unfriendly inhabitants of the New Hampshire Grants, who hung "like a
gathering storm upon his left", and also would elevate the flagging
spirits of his army, by a victory which he supposed would be easy.
Accordingly, Lieutenant-Colonel Baum was dispatched with a select corps
of 550 British, German, and loyalist troops and 150 Indians. Colonel
Breyman, with 642 heavy dismounted Brunswick chasseurs, was sent on
the 15th as a support. To oppose this expedition, General John Stark
hastily collected 1,400 trained militia.

[Illustration: JOHN STARK.

After a silhouette given in Rev. Albert Tyler's _Bennington, the
battle, 1777; Centennial Celebration, 1877_ (Worcester, 1878). This
book is of some interest for its account of the ground and its
landmarks, and relics of the battle. A view of Stark's monument is
given in Potter's _Manchester_, N. H., p. 584; and an account of his
homestead is in the _Granite Monthly_, v. 84. The usual portrait of
Stark is that given in Caleb Stark's _Memoir of Gen. John Stark_
(Concord, 1860), and in the illustrated ed. of Irving's _Washington_,
ii. 437. Cf. _N. E. Hist. Geneal. Reg._, July, 1853, and the original
ed. of the Stark _Memoirs_, for another likeness.—ED.]

Though constant skirmishing took place on the 15th, a pouring rain
prevented a general engagement till the next day, when the determined
Yankee leader declared he would beat the invader or "before night
Molly Stark would be a widow." To fulfil his pledge he seized the
initiative, attacked the enemy on three sides, stormed their
intrenchments on the Walloomscoick River and captured their guns,
dispersed the Indians and loyalists, and went in hot pursuit of
the Germans and British, when his exhausted forces were checked by
Breyman's supporting detachment. Colonel Warner's excellent regiment,
at once fresh and eager, arrived that afternoon and renewed the action,
which was continued till dark, when Breyman, under the cover of night,
made good his retreat. Baum was mortally wounded, 207 men were killed,
700 were captured, including the wounded; and 1,000 stand of small
arms, all the enemy's artillery and most of their baggage fell into the
hands of the Americans. Had there been another hour of daylight, none
would have escaped. Stark's losses were 40 killed and 42 wounded.

This victory and the success in the Mohawk valley were as inspiriting
to the American as depressing to the Anglo-German army. Burgoyne was
now beset with danger on every side. Formidable obstacles accumulated
in his path, famine stared him in the face; all his English flour and
beef had been consumed, and the whole surrounding country was sending
enthusiastic volunteers to bar his progress.

Nearly a month before, Washington had predicted that Burgoyne's
successes "would precipitate his ruin", and that his "acting in
detachments was the course of all others most favorable to the American
cause", as cutting off any of them "would inspirit the people and do
away with much of their present anxiety." The beginning of the end had
already come.

The first stage in this eventful campaign was for Burgoyne a great
success; the second was an equally great failure; and now the last was
coming, in which the most decisive results and the highest plaudits
were to be won or lost. Schuyler unquestionably would have been the
hero of this final development had he not most inopportunely been
replaced by Gates, a mediocre soldier. Fortunately, the latter's
deficiencies were compensated by officers inferior in rank but superior
in ability,—the dashing Arnold, the daring Morgan, not to name others.

[Illustration: HORATIO GATES.

From _An Impartial Hist. of the War in Amer._, London, 1780, p. 494.
The engraving in the Boston edition, 1781, vol. ii., is by J. Norman.
Smith (_Brit. Mez. Portraits_) records an engraving published in
London, Jan. 2, 1778, which represents him holding a similar scroll,
but "with right hand on hip."—ED.]

Congress, in the exercise of its prerogative, made and displaced
generals at its will, and too often was influenced by sectional
interests and rivalries. The command of the Northern Department was
especially the prize of party favorites. Wooster, Thomas, Sullivan,
Schuyler, and Gates had in rapid succession followed each other, and
now Schuyler, after all he had done to baffle the enemy and organize
victory, was to be the victim of prejudice—of New England against
New York—which dated back to colonial days. Schuyler placed little
reliance upon New England troops, and their representatives in Congress
had as little confidence in Schuyler's generalship.

[Illustration: Horatio Gates

From Murray's _Impartial Hist. of the Present War_, vol. ii. There is a
portrait by Stuart, published in 1798 as engraved by Tiebout, given in
steel (bust only) by H. B. Hall in Jones's _Campaign for the Conquest
of Canada_ (p. 140), and in photogravure (whole picture) in Mason's
Stuart (p. 183). The expression in this last is wholly different
from the steel engraving. There is also a picture in the _Heads of
Illustrious Americans_, London, 1783. There are other likenesses,—cf.
Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 586; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 669.

Gates after the war lived for a while on his estate in the Shenandoah
valley (view of his house in _Appleton's Journal_, July 19, 1873, p.
69, and Mrs. Lamb's _Homes of America_), but finally removed to New
York, and lived near what is now Second Avenue and Twenty-third Street.
A view of the house occupied by him as headquarters at Saratoga is in
Lossing's _Hudson River_, p. 94.—ED.]

Each misjudged the other; but the outcome of this feeling between Dutch
and Puritan blood was unfortunate in superseding the soldierly Schuyler
by the intriguing Gates. And it was a cruel reverse to the former, just
as his skilful plans were culminating in the utter discomfiture of
the enemy, and his successes at Stanwix and Bennington were bringing
reinforcements from every quarter to his standard with which to take
the offensive, that he should be shorn of the laurels which were about
to crown him as the brilliant leader in this most important campaign of
the Revolution. If Schuyler had been left in command, probably all the
after-complications connected with Burgoyne's surrender would have been
avoided.

The resolution of Congress superseding Schuyler reached him on the 10th
of August. The noble patriot responded to this ungenerous censure by
renewed efforts for his army till Gates's arrival on the 19th, and then
he extended to his unworthy successor the courtesy of a true gentleman,
for with him the country's welfare was paramount to all personal wrongs.

Gates, clothed with plenary powers and granted by Congress almost
everything denied to Schuyler, moved, after a delay of three weeks,
with his army, 6,000 strong, from the mouth of the Mohawk to Bemis's
Heights, a commanding position on the west bank of the Hudson, which
was selected by Arnold and fortified by the engineer Kosciusko. The
principal hill was occupied on three sides by extensive intrenchments
and redoubts with an abatis. A line of breastworks on the east extended
from the hill to the Hudson, to guard a floating bridge across the
river and to sweep the plain in front; and on the west was a lower hill
which was only partially fortified. The whole position was covered by a
ravine in front, through which flowed a branch of Mill Creek.

Gates took personal command of the right wing of the army, occupying
the intrenchments between the Hudson and the heights to the west;
Learned held the centre; while Arnold had charge of the left wing,
comprising Morgan's riflemen, some Continental troops, and a body of
militia.

To coöperate in checking the advance of the enemy, General Lincoln with
2,000 militia was sent to threaten Burgoyne's communications. Colonel
Brown with 500 of Lincoln's force, on September 18th, surprised the
outposts and key-points of Ticonderoga, destroyed over two hundred
bateaux and gunboats, captured 293 prisoners and 5 cannon, released 100
Americans, and brought away the Continental standard left flying over
the fort when abandoned by St. Clair.

Burgoyne was greatly perplexed. To retreat was to acknowledge his
weakness, and to advance was possibly to sacrifice his army and
lose his coveted peerage. Under these circumstances he stood still,
hoping his recent defeats would soon be forgotten, and he should be
strengthened for the future.

Having finally received from Lake George his artillery, military
stores, and thirty days' provisions, Burgoyne crossed to the west bank
of the Hudson; September 13th-14th, he moved with his army to Saratoga;
on the 15th-16th he tarried at Dovegot (near Coveville) to reconnoitre,
repair bridges, and open roads over this rugged country; on the 17th
he marched to Sword's Farm; on the 18th he advanced to Wilbur's Basin,
within two miles of the American position, having constantly to
skirmish with Arnold; and on the morning of the 19th he was engaged
in reconnoitring and making preparations to attack Gates, if deemed
expedient.

A table-land, intersected with ravines through which flowed Mill Creek
and its branches, separated the two armies. Except a narrow cultivated
strip, adjoining the Hudson, the ground was covered in great part by a
dense forest. The river formed its eastern boundary, and on the north,
west, and south sides were wooded heights, separated from each other by
valleys.

While the Americans occupied the south heights, the Anglo-German army
made ready to take possession of those on the north, and then to turn
the western hills, thus to get in rear of the American left by a flank
movement of their right, while their centre attacked in front and was
supported by their left.

About eleven o'clock on the morning of the 19th, Burgoyne's army
advanced in three columns. He, in person, in command of the centre
column, moved towards Freeman's Farm, opposite to the American left;
Riedesel and Phillips with a large train of artillery, forming the
left column, followed the river road, and, after the attack had begun,
turned westward to support and prolong the line of battle of the
deployed centre; while, by a circuitous march, Fraser, with Breyman's
German riflemen, having his flanks covered by Canadians, loyalists,
and Indians, moved with the right column, taking post westward of
the centre, thus greatly overlapping the American left, which it was
designed to turn and rout.

Gates, called by Burgoyne "an old midwife", impassively looked on,
giving no orders and evincing no desire to fight, while the impatient
Arnold, foreseeing the enemy's movement to turn his left, sent Morgan's
riflemen and some of Dearborn's light infantry to check it. They rushed
upon the enemy, and dispersed the Canadians and Indians; but following
up their success too eagerly, they soon encountered the British line of
battle, and were overpowered by superior numbers. This being reported
to Gates, the Continental troops were sent to support Morgan, but the
entire force proved insufficient to cope with and counteract Fraser's
movement. Arnold, undismayed, then changed his direction, and fell
suddenly upon the enemy's centre with a view of separating Burgoyne
from Fraser. The battle was waged with great fury by both antagonists,
and as each received reinforcements the conflict deepened, and, with
varying success, became more and more stubborn. Burgoyne finally
escaped defeat by the timely coming up of Riedesel with Pausch's
artillery. After this death-struggle of four hours' duration, darkness
terminated the contest. The Americans fell back in good order to their
intrenchments, while the Anglo-German army, lying on their arms,
retained the barren field of their foiled efforts to advance. Though
both sides claimed the victory, neither had triumphed at "Freeman's
Farm." It was in reality a drawn battle. The forces engaged in the
conflict were nearly equal, the Americans having about 3,000 and the
enemy nearly 3,500 of their best troops. The loss of the former was
65 killed, 218 wounded, and 38 missing; while that of the latter,
according to their own authorities, was about 600 killed and wounded.
British bayonets and abundant artillery were fully matched by American
rifles, without a single piece of ordnance. Had Arnold been properly
reinforced by Gates, he might have broken the enemy's line and have
gained a complete victory.

Gates's army was confident and jubilant as to the issue of the
campaign, Burgoyne's anxious and despondent; while both generals
strengthened their positions, and their camps resounded with "dreadful
note of preparation" for a coming conflict.

[Illustration:

From Andrews's _Hist. of the War_, London, 1785, vol. iii. There is
also a likeness in Murray's _Impartial Hist._ Cf. _Mag. of Amer. Hist._
October, 1883, p. 326.—ED.]

The quarrel which had been brewing between Gates and Arnold, growing
out of former jealousy and the supersedure of Schuyler, ripened into
open hostility. The crisis of the feud came when Gates failed in his
official report to make any mention of Arnold's personal participation
in the battle of Freeman's Farm. Thereupon a violent altercation
ensued, resulting in Arnold being relieved of his command and excluded
from headquarters.

Though unemployed, he continued with the army, the officers of his
division begging him not to leave them, as another battle was impending.

The two armies confronted each other within cannon-shot, and scarcely a
night passed without some contest between pickets or foraging parties.
Burgoyne, anxiously awaiting news of Sir Henry Clinton's coöperation
from New York, tenaciously held his ground, though living upon half
rations. Gates in the mean time supinely rested in his camp, awaiting
the day when the ripened fruit of Schuyler's skill, in retarding the
enemy's march and cutting off his detachments, should fall at his feet,
and Burgoyne be compelled to starve or pass under the Caudine Forks.

* * * * *

Sir Henry Clinton, having been reinforced from England, left New
York, October 3, with a large fleet and 3,000 troops, to effect the
long-expected junction with Burgoyne. On the 5th he reached Verplanck's
Point, on the Hudson River, from which he made a feint upon Peekskill.
Having by this ruse deceived the aged Putnam, in command of the Hudson
Highlands, Clinton crossed with his main body on the 6th to King's
Ferry, and, by following a circuitous route around the Dunderberg
Mountain, the British general in the afternoon carried by assault the
feebly garrisoned but bravely defended Forts Montgomery and Clinton.
The enemy's fleet then destroyed the boom and chain across the river,
forced the Americans to burn two frigates, which could not escape,
and ended their excursion up the Hudson at Esopus (now Kingston) by
laying it in ashes and returning to New York, it being too late to save
Burgoyne.

* * * * *

[Illustration: SIR HENRY CLINTON.

From Murray's _Impartial Hist. of the Present War_, i. p. 526.—ED.]

The American army, after the battle of Freeman's Farm, was daily
growing stronger in men and fortifications, while the Anglo-German
force was constantly becoming weaker and worn out by watching and
incessant alarms. Burgoyne's situation was critical, for he could
neither advance nor retreat with safety, and to stand still was to
starve. Already the loyalists and Canadians were deserting in numbers,
and his Indians, having little opportunity for plundering and scalping,
were abandoning him altogether.

Receiving no tidings from Sir Henry Clinton, Burgoyne determined
to make an armed reconnoissance of the American left on the 7th of
October, and attack the next day, should there be a reasonable prospect
of success; if not, to fall back on the 11th behind the Batten-Kill.

Accordingly, leaving proper guards for his camp, Burgoyne in person,
at ten A. M. of the 7th, with 1,500 choice troops and ten pieces of
artillery, moved out for the contemplated reconnoissance, which was
at the same time to cover a foraging party to gather wheat for the
pressing necessities of his army. His troops were formed in three
columns, and when within three quarters of a mile of the American left
were deployed in line of battle upon open ground behind a screen of
dense forest. Fraser, with 500 picked men, formed the right, ready
to fall upon Gates's left; Riedesel, with his Brunswickers, held the
centre; Phillips was in charge of the British left; while the Indians,
rangers, and provincials were to work their way through the woods to
gain the left and rear of the American camp, in which Lincoln then
commanded the right, and Gates had taken Arnold's place on the left.

So soon as the enemy moved and the foragers were at work, Gates ordered
out Morgan. Divining Burgoyne's intention, Morgan was to seize the
high ground on the enemy's right by making a wide sweep; Learned was
to hold the German centre in check; and Poor, with his brigade of
Continentals and some militia, concealed by the woods, was to assail
the British left. Poor, supported by Learned, opened the battle at
half past two with great fury against Major Acland's grenadiers, and
extended his blows to Riedesel's centre; Morgan and Dearborn almost
simultaneously fell like a thunderbolt upon the enemy's right.

[Illustration: GEORGE CLINTON.

Reproduced from Delaplaine's _Repository of the lives and portraits
of Distinguished Americans_ (Philad.). It was painted by Ames. It is
engraved on steel in Allen C. Beach's _Centennial Celebrations of the
State of New York_ (Albany, 1879), and by J. B. Forrest in Irving's
_Washington_, ii. 209. A profile likeness by St. Memin is engraved in
the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, vol. iv. A portrait in uniform at an earlier
age was etched by H. B. Hall, in 1866, and appears in the _Mag. of
American History_, December, 1881. An engraving of a bust by Ceracchi
(owned by the N. Y. Hist. Soc.) accompanies a memoir of Clinton by W.
L. Stone in _Ibid._, iii. 336.—ED.]

Burgoyne, seeing the danger of Fraser's right being turned, ordered
him to fall back to a new position, in doing which Fraser was mortally
wounded by one of Morgan's sharpshooters. In the mean time, Poor was
playing wild havoc with Acland's grenadiers, captured Phillips's
artillery after killing nearly all of its gunners, and then turned
their own pieces upon the British, putting the entire left of their
army to flight.

The Germans still firmly held their ground in the centre, when Arnold,
maddened by his wrongs, dashed wildly into the thickest of the
fight, without authority assumed command of his old division, with
audacity and judgment led regiment after regiment to the attack at
different points, roused his troops to the highest enthusiasm, and
forced back by his impetuous assaults the already shattered British
line, which Burgoyne then courageously led in person. But all of the
British commander's determination was of little avail, his entire
forces being driven back into their intrenched camp. Here the wreck
of the Anglo-German army made a firm stand; but Arnold still sought
new dangers. With desperation he and his fearless followers mounted
embankments and abatis to assail Balcarras, then dashed upon the strong
works of the German camp, and ceased not his furious onsets till the
whole of the enemy's fortified position lay open, when night closed the
scene.

The American army in this decisive battle lost 50 killed and 150
wounded, including among the latter the dauntless Arnold. The enemy,
besides nine guns, a large supply of ammunition, and much baggage, lost
176 killed, about 250 wounded, and some 200 prisoners. Among those who
lost their lives were the gallant Fraser and the sturdy Breyman, and
included in the wounded were several British officers of high rank.

Burgoyne, signally defeated and exposed to a new attack by double his
fighting force, prudently retreated, on the stormy night of the 8th,
to Saratoga, leaving behind his sick, wounded, and everything he could
possibly spare. General Fraser was buried, as he had requested, in a
large redoubt near the Hudson, the guns fired over his grave being the
American artillery aimed at the group of distinguished mourners before
knowing the occasion of their assembling.

Gates, who had not been personally engaged in either battle of his
army, remained two days with his main body in the abandoned camp of the
enemy at Wilbur's Basin, he judiciously having sent detachments to take
advantageous positions to hem in Burgoyne. On the 11th, Gates ordered
his main body to cross the Fishkill, supposing Burgoyne had further
retreated; but his advanced guard of 1,500 men under Nixon quickly
withdrew, having discovered the enemy intrenched and in battle array on
the other side of the stream.

Burgoyne, now finding himself exposed to the concentric fire of the
Americans, who nearly surrounded him, and having no opening through
which to retreat to Lake George or to Lake Champlain, called a council
of war to deliberate upon his desperate situation. "By their unanimous
concurrence and advice", says he, "I was induced to open a treaty with
Major-General Gates." At ten A. M. of the 14th, a flag of truce was
sent by Burgoyne, asking for a parley, during which Gates demanded an
unconditional surrender of the enemy's troops as prisoners of war. This
proposition Burgoyne peremptorily refused to entertain. Hostilities in
the mean time were suspended, and modified proposals were made. After
two days' delay, Gates, hearing of Sir Henry Clinton's advance up the
Hudson, and fearing that he might reach Albany, agreed upon the terms,
dictated by Burgoyne, as follows:—

The Anglo-German troops to march out of their camp with all the honors
of war, and their artillery to be moved to the bank of the Hudson
River, and there left, together with the soldiers' arms, which were
to be piled at the word of command from their own officers. It was
further agreed that a free passage to Great Britain should be granted
to the troops on condition of their not serving again in the present
contest; that all officers should retain their baggage and side-arms,
and not be separated from their men; and that all, of whatever country
they might be, following the camp, should be included in the terms of
capitulation. Before signing the treaty, Burgoyne demurred to designate
it as a _capitulation_, whereupon Gates readily consented to its being
called a TREATY OF CONVENTION, and as such it was signed October 16,
1777.

[Illustration: BURGOYNE TO GATES.

Somewhat reduced, after the fac-simile in Wilkinson's _Memoirs_, i.
282.—ED.]

Burgoyne in a rich uniform, accompanied by his brilliant staff and
general officers, rode, on October 17, to the headquarters of General
Gates, who was simply attired in a plain blue coat. Reining up their
horses, Burgoyne gracefully raising his cocked hat, said, "The fortune
of war, General Gates, has made me your prisoner;" to which the victor,
gracefully returning the salute, replied, "I shall always be ready
to bear testimony that it has not been through any fault of your
excellency."

[Illustration: WASHINGTON AND GATES.

From _Bickerstaff's Boston Almanac_. This is from the title of the
number for 1778, and shows the kind of effigies popularly current in
such publications.—ED.]

On the site of old Fort Hardy the Anglo-German army, October 17,
grounded their arms at the command of their own officers, none of the
American troops being present to witness this humiliation of the enemy.
In the afternoon the captured troops crossed the Hudson, and, escorted
by a company of light dragoons, were marched between the parallel
lines of American soldiers, preceded by two officers, unfurling "the
stars and stripes" just adopted by Congress. While this ceremony took
place in the presence of Burgoyne and Gates, the former drew his sword
and presented it to the latter, which being received was courteously
returned, when both generals retired into Gates's tent.[728]

While the prisoners, under guard of General Heath, were marching to
Boston, Gates hurried to Albany to oppose any movement of Sir Henry
Clinton; and Major Wilkinson was sent to Congress to communicate
the joyful tidings of Burgoyne's surrender. Rejoicings were heard
throughout the United States, and the successful general was so elated
and his vanity so stimulated that he aspired to supplant Washington, as
he had Schuyler.

* * * * *

A few criticisms upon the plan of the campaign of 1777, and the mode
of conducting it, may be permitted. The British cabinet wisely decided
upon the seizure of the Hudson as the most efficient way of breaking
the power of the revolted colonies; but, in carrying out its design, it
violated a fundamental maxim of war. No principle of strategy is better
established than the superiority of _interior_ as against _exterior_
lines of operation of armies, as was so admirably illustrated in the
"Seven Years' War." Frederic the Great, without any frontier barriers
and open to attack on all sides, from his central position kept at bay
France, Austria, Russia, Saxony, Sweden, and the Germanic body, whose
united population was over twenty times as great as that of Prussia,
including Silesia, a recently conquered province. In like manner, the
Americans, in July, 1777, were within a great circle,—Schuyler on the
upper Hudson, Putnam at the Highlands, and Washington in New Jersey,
within supporting distance of each other; while the British armies were
widely separated upon its vast circumference,—St. Leger moving to
the upper Mohawk, Burgoyne from Canada, Clinton at New York, and Howe
sailing to the Chesapeake.

In the struggle for the Hudson, the two independent British armies—one
in Canada and the other in New York—were expected to coöperate in
order to attain a common object, while Burgoyne with the one was tied
down by fixed orders, and Clinton with the other had no instructions
as to the part he was expected to perform. Besides, their bases were
separated by about four hundred miles of wild, hostile, and thinly
populated country, rendering intercommunication so difficult that, of
ten messengers sent out by different routes to Howe, not one returned
to Burgoyne.

No precaution was taken to provide for the losses of Burgoyne's
army, nor to supply the necessary drafts upon it to garrison the
posts in his rear, guarding his communications with Canada. When he
gained possession of Ticonderoga, he called upon Sir Guy Carleton to
furnish the necessary force to hold the place; but Carleton did not
feel justified, under his precise orders, to send troops beyond his
jurisdiction. Consequently, Burgoyne "drained the life-blood of his
force" in the field to provide for the defence of this and other works
left behind.

Burgoyne's _logistics_, or means of supplying and moving his army, were
very defective. Not till June 7, 1777, a month after his arrival in
Canada, did he make provision for the transportation of either stores
or artillery, and then his arrangements were so entirely inadequate
that they seemed based upon the assumption that his adversary was his
inferior in all military qualities. Hence, he decided "to trust to the
resources of the expedition for the rest", while for his own personal
baggage he used no less than "_thirty carts_." Most of his provisions
had to be brought from England, a distance of 3,600 miles; some from
Canada; and for the rest he relied upon the meagre resources of the
hostile country he was to traverse. Consequently his army was often on
reduced rations, sometimes nearly starving, and finally, to secure its
existence, he undertook his disastrous raid upon Bennington.

After the pursuit of St. Clair, Burgoyne should have returned with his
army to Ticonderoga, and taken the water route by Lake George, instead
of forcing his way through an obstructed wilderness to Fort Edward,
which he did not reach till July 30th, nor leave till August 14th.
Had Schuyler directed Burgoyne's operations he could not have planned
measures more conducive to his own advantage. On the Lake George route
were only two small armed schooners to oppose any resistance, and
from the head of the lake was a direct road to Albany, which had been
followed by Abercrombie and Amherst. As it was, Burgoyne was compelled
to send his supplies and artillery by the lake, and then carry them
over the portage to Fort Edward, which consumed more time than would
have been necessary to move in light marching order direct to Albany.
General De Peyster, a careful student of this campaign, says: "Burgoyne
could have been reassembled at 'Old Ty' by the 10th July; could have
been transported to Fort George by the 12th; and, having left his heavy
guns and all but his light artillery and indispensable materials there
or at Ty, in depot, with a sufficient guard, could have reached Fort
Edward on the evening of the 13th July. From this point to Albany is
about fifty miles. With six or ten days' rations and an extra supply of
ammunition sufficient for a battle of that period, Burgoyne could have
swept Schuyler out of his path with ease, and, allowing one day's delay
for a fight, could have occupied Albany on the 16th July." But the
British commander had proclaimed, "This army must not retreat." Though
he subsequently tried to palliate his mistake, all his correspondence
shows that pride in carrying out his declaration, not military
principles, made him persevere in the false movement which lost him the
campaign, and secured in the end American independence.

Burgoyne, after his brilliant success at the opening of the campaign,
suddenly relapsed into the sluggishness of his German allies. Instead
of rapidly pursuing his demoralized foe, he tarried at Skenesborough
till his pathway was thoroughly obstructed and the fugitives had
recovered from their panic. After he had lost his prestige and the
Americans had gained confidence by success at Stanwix and Bennington,
he attempted with diminished forces to cope with the growing strength
of his opponent. Thus, by delay, he lost in September what he might
have achieved in July. From his arrival at Skenesborough till he had
reached his southernmost point at Freeman's Farm, he moved only _fifty
miles in seventy-four days_.

Slow in all his movements, Burgoyne's tardiness was increased by his
large and superfluous train of artillery which accompanied all his
toilsome marches. Even when he required the greatest celerity, he chose
for his raid upon Bennington, not the nimble-footed light infantry
under the dashing Fraser, but cumbrous dismounted German dragoons
moving only a mile and a third an hour.

Burgoyne was not only slow, but he was irresolute. After his disastrous
defeat at Bemis's Heights he lost five precious days in fatal
indecision while retreat was possible. On October 12th his last chance
had passed, he then being completely invested by the Americans, and
nothing was left to him but surrender. According to Madame Riedesel,
he had given in this crisis of his fate more attention to his mistress
than to his army. Aspasia had triumphed over Mars.

While Burgoyne committed many blunders, his opponents had their
shortcomings also. The fortifications of Ticonderoga, after falling
into the hands of the Americans, were too much extended for their
defence by a moderate garrison; but the most fatal error was the
failure to occupy Mount Defiance, which completely commanded all the
American works, and, when seized by the British, left St. Clair no
alternative but hasty retreat and the abandonment of much artillery and
considerable supplies. The fugitives then counted largely on the delay
of their pursuers, who followed them with celerity, severely punishing
them at Skenesborough and Hubbardton.

Congress committed the most criminal error, outweighing all others, in
substituting, at the most critical moment of the campaign, a military
charlatan for an accomplished soldier,—in supplanting Schuyler, who
was the organizer of the victories, by Gates, who "had no fitness for
command and wanted personal courage." To say nothing of the difference
in merit of the two commanders, the time for making the change was most
inopportune.

Putnam, a brave officer but no general, managed things so badly in the
Highlands that Forts Montgomery and Clinton were lost, and the Hudson
was opened to the enemy whenever he chose to advance.[729]

CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THE titles alone of the numerous works which have been consulted in the
preparation of the foregoing narratives would fill many of these pages.
Therefore, to avoid repetition, as most of them are common to all the
chapters of this History of the American Revolution, reference will
be made only to those authorities which have a bearing upon disputed
points, or to newly discovered facts respecting the "Struggle for the
Hudson."

Of the many authors who have written of the New York campaign of 1776,
nearly all have followed the narrations given in Sparks's _Washington_
and in the official despatches of the various officers engaged. For
topographical details we have relied upon Des Barres' _Atlantic
Neptune_ (1780-81), with its plans of battles, sieges, etc., and maps
of the seat of war, and upon the recent Coast Survey charts. Local
historians have supplied many minor particulars, which need not be
enumerated, except, perhaps, the one relating to the treason of William
Demont, already referred to in the text. Much new light has been thrown
upon the Burgoyne campaign by works published within the last few
years.[730]

One of the most earnestly disputed points of Burgoyne's campaign is
whether Arnold was personally engaged with the enemy at the battle of
Freeman's Farm, on Sept. 19, 1777. Some authorities, notably Bancroft,
while admitting that Arnold's troops were in the thickest of the fray,
deny that the general himself was on the battlefield; while Stedman,
Irving, Stone, and many others, equally competent to weigh the facts,
maintain that Arnold was the conquering hero of the fight, and that,
but for him, Burgoyne would have marched straight on to Albany.

Just after Gates had superseded Schuyler in the command of the
Northern army, Arnold had returned from the Mohawk valley flushed
with success and impatient to win new laurels. He was incessantly
engaged in skirmishing with the enemy and adding to his reputation as a
brilliant, dashing officer. Gates was envious of Arnold's growing fame,
and resentful of his partiality for Schuyler. Hence arose a coolness
towards Arnold, which rapidly ripened into bitter hostility. That
the action of Freeman's Farm, a five hours' battle, full of skilful
movements, was purely a series of chance operations without a guiding
spirit, is utterly preposterous. As Gates was not engaged, whose was
the directing mind but Arnold's, the second in command?

It seems impossible that one devoid of fear, brave even to rashness,
who even courted danger at the risk of death, and one too who was
filled with ambition and love of military glory, could possibly have
allowed his command to go into action without leading its movements
and sharing its perils. His subsequent heroism amid the carnage of
battle at Bemis's Heights would seem a sufficient refutation of the
charge that he who was always in the thickest of the fight was only
a looker-on while the conflict of September 19th was raging around
Freeman's Farm.

Gates, in his official report of the battle of Freeman's Farm, makes no
mention of Arnold being engaged; and his adjutant-general, Wilkinson,
in his _Memoirs_, written long after Arnold's good name had been
blasted by his treason, says: "Not a single general officer was on the
field of battle on the 19th of September, until evening, when General
Learned was ordered out."

Under ordinary circumstances, the testimony of the commander-in-chief
and his adjutant-general would be considered conclusive; but it must
be borne in mind that both of these officers were inimical to Arnold,
that neither was personally engaged in the battle, and that the wooded
character of the ground precluded either from following any one's
movements through the conflict.

On the other side, we have the contemporary testimony of officers
present on the battlefield, newspaper accounts of the time, and
Arnold's own division order of the day after the battle, in which he
speaks of the zeal and spirit of the company officers engaged, in
a manner which none but a close observer could notice. Besides, we
have the direct evidence of two of Arnold's staff officers—Colonels
Livingston and Varick—that their chief was the hero of the battle of
Freeman's Farm; the former warmly lauding "his conduct during the late
action", and declaring that "to him alone is due the honor of our late
victory." Even the enemy's chief, Burgoyne, said in the British House
of Commons: "Mr. Gates had determined to receive the attack in his
lines. Mr. Arnold, who commanded on the left, foreseeing the danger of
being turned, advanced without consultation with his general, and gave
instead of receiving battle."

Another much-disputed point is whether to Schuyler or Gates is chiefly
due the triumph of our arms in the Burgoyne campaign. Bancroft, in his
_History of the United States_ (vol. ix. ch. 21, orig. ed.), states
that Schuyler lacked military talents, failed to harry the advance
of Burgoyne, wanted personal courage, and had no influence with the
people. All these charges have been triumphantly refuted by his
grandson and by his biographer.[731]

General Schuyler's zeal, energy, ability, and sterling virtues have
been so fully set forth in the preceding narrative of the Burgoyne
campaign that any amplification here is needless; but it may be proper
to add the testimony of some of our most distinguished countrymen as
to the merits of this true gentleman, noble soldier, and patriotic
Fabian hero. Chief Justice Marshall says: "In this gloomy state
of things no officer could have exerted more diligence and skill
than Schuyler." Chancellor Kent writes: "In acuteness of intellect,
profound thought, indefatigable activity, exhaustless energy, pure
patriotism, and persevering and intrepid public efforts, Schuyler had
no superior." Daniel Webster said: "I consider Schuyler as second only
to Washington in the services he rendered to the country in the war of
the Revolution. His zeal and devotion to the cause under difficulties
which would have paralyzed the efforts of most men, and his fortitude
and courage when assailed by malicious attacks upon his public and
private character, _every one of which was proved to be false_, have
impressed me with a strong desire to express publicly my sense of his
great qualities."

Washington, Hamilton, Jay, Jefferson, and most of the great men of the
Revolution had unbounded confidence in Schuyler; and modern historians,
such as Irving, Sparks, Lossing, and others, bear like testimony to
his virtues and services. Even Congress, which had so unjustly removed
Schuyler from his command, when convinced of its error, would not
consent to his resignation from the army till he persistently demanded
it. Though Schuyler's military career did not sparkle with "feats of
broil and battle", he exhibited those great qualities which are as
conducive to the success of war as "the magnificently stern array"
of arms in the heady fight. He was ready in expedients to foil the
enemy, skilful and persevering in executing them, and resolute and
untiring till his end was obtained. Never discouraged by disaster,
and stimulated to higher effort as fortune frowned, he continued
sanguine of success in the darkest hour of adversity. Every assault
upon his reputation fell harmless before his invulnerable patriotism;
no injustice could swerve him from the path of honor; and to him, as to
all true men, the meaning of life was concentrated in the single word
DUTY.

[Illustration]

NOTE BY GENERAL CULLUM.

DISPOSAL OF THE CONVENTION TROOPS.[732]—In accordance with Article
IV. of the convention, the captured army was marched, under guard of
General Glover, to the neighborhood of Boston, where it arrived about
Nov. 6th. The British troops were barracked on Prospect Hill and the
German troops on Winter Hill, the officers being quartered in Cambridge
and the neighboring towns. Much complaint was made of the character
and insufficiency of their accommodations, but considering the limited
supply of houses at the disposal of General Heath, commanding the
Eastern department, he did the best in his power, without the aid of
the State of Massachusetts, to whose Council he appealed for the use
of "at least one of the colleges" for their comfort. At the worst,
however, these captives fared far better than our own troops at Valley
Forge during that winter.[733]

Under Article V. supplies were to be furnished to Burgoyne's army
"at the same rates." This was interpreted by Congress, Dec. 19th, to
mean "that the accounts of all provisions and other necessaries which
already have been or which hereafter may be supplied by the public to
prisoners in the power of these States shall be discharged by either
receiving from the British Commissary of Prisoners, or any of his
agents, provisions or other necessaries, equal in quality and kind to
what had been supplied, or the amount thereof in gold or silver."

Exacting provisions _in kind_, though inconvenient to the British
commissary, was not unreasonable, considering their scarcity; but the
condition that expenditures made in depreciated Continental money
should be liquidated, dollar for dollar, in gold and silver, was a hard
one. As a justification for this latter requirement, it was stated by
Congress "that General Howe had required that provisions should be sent
in for the subsistence of the American prisoners in his possession,
and that for the purchase of such necessaries he had forbidden the
circulation of the currency of the States within such parts as are
subject to his power."

By Article II. General Howe was authorized to send transports to Boston
to receive the troops for their conveyance to England. For its failure
to carry out the obligation imposed upon it by its own general, the
American government, through Congress, justified itself by claiming
that Burgoyne had already evaded the provisions of Article I. of the
convention. Bancroft, in his _History of the United States_, contends
that it had been broken by Burgoyne at the time of the surrender,
by the concealment of the military chest and other public property,
of which the United States were thus defrauded.[734] He therefore
sustains Congress in its subsequent demand for the descriptive lists
"of all persons comprehended in the surrender", and the postponing of
the embarkation of Burgoyne's army "until his capitulation should be
expressly confirmed by Great Britain."

On the other side are many high authorities, among whom is Dr. Charles
Deane, who, Oct. 22, 1877, made an exhaustive report upon the subject
of the Convention of Saratoga to the American Antiquarian Society. He
contends that the acts of Congress "were not marked by the highest
exhibition of good policy or of good faith."[735]

Fair inferences, from the facts in evidence, lead to the belief
that neither party was scrupulous in carrying out its obligations.
Burgoyne, after a preliminary agreement to the terms of the convention,
_was in favor of breaking the treaty_, because, before affixing his
signature to it, he had heard of the success of Sir Henry Clinton
in the Hudson Highlands. He was willing, therefore, to barter his
plighted promise to further his own interest, and actually submitted
to a council of his officers "whether it was consistent with public
faith, and if so, expedient, to suspend the execution of the treaty,
and trust to events." To the honor of the officers of the Anglo-German
army, a decided majority of the council overruled the wishes of the
general-in-chief, whereupon Burgoyne, Oct. 17, signed the convention.

Its second article stipulated that "a free passage be granted to the
army, under Lieutenant-General Burgoyne, to Great Britain, on condition
of not serving again in North America during the present contest."
It seems almost incredible that even Gates could have been guilty of
such fatuity in sacrificing by this article all the fruits of the past
campaign, and jeoparding American independence. It would have been
better to have disarmed and disbanded these demoralized troops on the
spot. He could thus have saved the country much anxiety, inconvenience,
and expense, in guarding, housing, and caring for them till rested from
their fatigues and embarked for England, where they could be exchanged
for an army of fresh troops, which might cross the ocean in the spring
to plague the inventors of such a stupid compact, or convention.

Burgoyne was not slow to avail himself of a _literal_ interpretation
of words he had designedly used in drawing up the convention, for we
find him, only three days after the surrender, writing to his friend,
Colonel Phillopson: "I dictated terms of convention which save the army
to the State for the next campaign."

Was it in the same spirit that Burgoyne carried out the first article
of the convention, by which his "arms and artillery" were to be left
piled on the banks of the Hudson? By a _literal_ interpretation this
might mean only muskets and cannon, but certainly such would not be
the accepted military meaning of that article, especially as it had
to be construed in connection with the sixth article, permitting all
officers "to retain their carriages, bat-horses, and other cattle, and
no baggage to be molested or searched; Lieutenant-General Burgoyne
giving his honor that there are no public stores secreted therein."
But, notwithstanding all this, Madame Riedesel, the wife of General
Riedesel, says in her journal: "Now I was forced to consider how I
should safely carry the colors of our German regiments still further,
as we had made the Americans at Saratoga believe that they were burnt
up—a circumstance which they at first took in bad part, though
afterwards they tacitly overlooked it. But it was only the staves that
had been burned, the colors having been thus far concealed. Now my
husband confided to me his secret, and entrusted me with their still
further concealment. I therefore shut myself in with a right honorable
tailor, who helped me make a mattress in which we sewed every one of
them. Captain O'Connell, under pretence of some errand, was dispatched
to New York and passed the mattress off as his bed. He sent it to
Halifax, where we again found it on our passage from New York to
Canada, and where—in order to ward off all suspicion in case our ship
should be taken—I transferred it into my cabin, and slept during the
whole of the remaining voyage to Canada upon those honorable badges."
She truly called them "honorable badges", for to an army they are the
insignia of nationality and emblems of power, under which the soldier
ventures his life and reputation.

How was it with the British flags? Burgoyne stated that they were
all left in Canada. But it happens that one of them was displayed at
Ticonderoga upon the evacuation of that place by St. Clair; and five
of them were captured at Fort Stanwix from St. Leger, whose detachment
accompanied Burgoyne till just before leaving Canada upon his great
campaign. Further, it is written in the _Historical Record of the
Ninth Regiment_ that Lieutenant-Colonel Hill, of that regiment, "being
anxious to preserve the colors, took them off the staves and concealed
them in his baggage, which he was permitted to retain." Subsequently
these colors, hidden among his baggage, in which Burgoyne had given his
honor that no public property was secreted, Colonel Hill presented "to
George III., who rewarded his faithful services with the appointment of
aide-de-camp to his Majesty, and the rank of Colonel in the army."

As Burgoyne was by Article I. allowed to march to the ground of
surrender "with the honors of war", General Horatio Rogers, with the
sentiment of a true soldier, says in one of his admirable annotations
of _Hadden's Journal_: "Had Burgoyne's officers believed that their
colors were not embraced in the terms of the convention, they would
have flung them to the breeze and proudly marched out under them, as an
indication of how much of their honor they had preserved, especially
when they supposed they were about to embark for England; for soldiers
lay down their lives for their flags, the loss, surrender, or
concealment of which, save in rare instances, is synonymous with defeat
and humiliation."[736]

Though it appears that all of the accoutrements and other public
property of the Anglo-German army were not surrendered and a
considerable part was found unserviceable, it is unnecessary to make
a special point of this minor matter, after presenting the graver
delinquencies on Burgoyne's part.

General Halleck, one of the best authorities on the Laws of War, in
his work on _International Law_, says: "The general phrase, 'with all
the honors of war,' is usually construed to include the right to march
with colors displayed, drums beating, etc.... A capitulation includes
all property in the place not expressly excepted, and a commander who
destroys military stores or other property after entering into such
agreement not only forfeits all its benefits, but he subjects himself
to severe punishment for his perfidy. So, after a capitulation for the
surrender of an army in the field, any officer who destroys his side
arms or his insignia of rank deprives himself of all the privileges of
that rank, and may be treated as a private soldier. The reason of the
rule is manifest. The victor is entitled to all the honors and benefits
of his agreement the moment it is entered into, and to destroy colors,
arms, etc. thereafter is to deprive him of his just rights. Such
conduct is both dishonorable and criminal."

Whether the shortcomings of the British general-in-chief were known
to Washington cannot be determined, but the latter's correspondence
clearly indicates what he believed would be the action of George III.
upon the arrival of the convention troops in Great Britain. Hence
he writes, November 13, to General Heath: "Policy and a regard to
our own interest are strongly opposed to our adopting or pursuing
any measures to facilitate their embarkation and passage home, which
are not required of us by the capitulation."[737] Congress, December
17, concurred in these views, and consequently refused Burgoyne's
application for his army to embark from Newport or some port on Long
Island Sound, to avoid the long and dangerous winter passage around
Cape Cod of the British transports which were to receive the troops.

In this, as in all matters involving the success of the Revolution,
Washington was not only patriotic, but morally right. We had committed
a blunder at Saratoga, but there was no reason why we should increase
the mischievous effect of it by expediting the enemy's movements from
Boston, and thus add to the danger of our destruction by enabling him
to replace Burgoyne's troops in America by others they might relieve
elsewhere, in time for the next year's campaign.

Congress had, November 8th, instructed General Heath to require
descriptive lists of all the convention troops, to secure us against
their reappearing in arms against us during the war. This Burgoyne
resented as impeaching the honor of his nation, but he subsequently
complied with a measure so essential to our protection.

In Burgoyne's complaint of November 14th regarding the quarters for his
officers and men, he inadvertently said, "The public faith is broke",
which unguarded expression was at once seized upon by Congress; when a
committee, of which Francis Lightfoot Lee was chairman, submitted its
report, upon which Congress, then composed "of but a few members, and
all of them not the most suitable for the station", adopted, January 8,
1778, the following resolutions:—

"_Resolved_, that as many of the cartouch-boxes and several other
articles of military accoutrements annexed to the persons of the
non-commissioned officers and soldiers included in the Convention of
Saratoga have not been delivered up, the Convention, on the part of the
British army, has not been strictly complied with.

"_Resolved_, that the refusal of Lieutenant-General Burgoyne to give
descriptive lists of the non-commissioned officers and privates
belonging to his army, subsequent to his declaration that the public
faith was broke, is considered by Congress in an alarming point of
view; since a compliance with the resolution of Congress could only
have been prejudicial to that army in case of an infraction of the
convention on their part.

"_Resolved_, that the charge made by Lieutenant-General Burgoyne, in
his letter to Major-General Gates of the 14th of November, of a breach
of the public faith on the part of these States, is not warranted by
the just construction of any article of the Convention of Saratoga;
that it is a strong indication of his intention, and affords just
ground of fear that he will avail himself of such pretended breach of
the convention, in order to disengage himself and the army under him
of the obligation they are under to these United States; and that the
security which these States have had in his personal honor is thereby
destroyed.

"_Resolved, therefore_, that the embarkation of Lieutenant-General
Burgoyne and the troops under his command be suspended till a distinct
and explicit ratification of the Convention of Saratoga shall be
properly notified by the court of Great Britain to Congress."[738]

Delays followed these resolutions, and finally, February 3, 1778,
General Heath was instructed that the embarkation of the troops was
to be indefinitely postponed, the transports upon their arrival to be
ordered away from the port of Boston, and the guard over the prisoners
to be strengthened. General Burgoyne, of course, was indignant, and
offered that, "should any doubt still subsist that the idea of being
released from the engagement of the convention has been adopted by any
part of the troops", he would give a further pledge of the faith of
every officer in his command, "provided the suspension is immediately
broken off." This frank offer was referred to a committee, which
reported that in their opinion it contained nothing "sufficient to
induce Congress to recede from their resolution of the 8th of January;"
and the report was agreed to March 2, 1778.

This disingenuous resolution of Congress, "that the embarkation be
suspended" until the happening of some further contingent event, was
returning the poisoned chalice to Burgoyne's lips, being exactly in
keeping with his proposition submitted, October 15, 1777, to a council
of his officers, "whether it was consistent with public faith, and if
so, expedient, to suspend the execution of the treaty and trust to
events."

Notwithstanding many members had no confidence in the political
integrity of Great Britain,[739] such holding of the convention troops
as prisoners of war, contrary to the principles of international
law, certainly placed Congress in a most unfavorable light. Even so
distinguished a member as Richard Henry Lee, writing to Washington,
says: "It is unfortunately too true that our enemies pay little regard
to good faith, or any obligations of justice and humanity which render
the Convention of Saratoga a matter of great moment; and it is also,
as you justly observe, an affair of infinite delicacy. The undoubted
advantage they will take even of the appearance of infraction on our
part, and the American character, which is concerned in preserving its
faith inviolate, cover this affair with difficulties, and prove the
disadvantage we are under in conducting war against an old, corrupt,
and powerful people, who, having much credit and influence in the
world, will venture on things that would totally ruin the reputation
of young and rising communities like ours." We would further remark
that the moral standard of even the most civilized nations was not then
as high as in this more advanced age, and that upon the construction
of this convention hung the independence of the United States. Napier
said of the Convention of Cintra in 1808: "A convention implies some
weakness, and must be weighed in _the scales of prudence, not those of
justice_."

General Burgoyne and his staff were allowed by Congress to return to
England on parole. Soon after their departure the British troops were
removed to Rutland, Mass., because of fears of their being rescued by
the British forces then at Newport, R. I. Congress finally directed
that the Convention troops, in order to be more easily subsisted,
should be removed to Charlottesville, Virginia,[740] where they arrived
in January, 1779, and they were detained in the United States till the
conclusion of peace with Great Britain. Most of the officers had in the
mean time been exchanged.

Dr. Deane, in concluding his investigation of this subject, says:
"There can be no doubt that the supreme authority in the State would
always have the right, as it has the power, to revise a treaty made
by its agents, as in the case we have been considering. This follows
from the nature of sovereignty itself. An Arnold might be bribed to
to capitulate to the enemy. But where such treaties are entered into
in good faith, and the obvious powers of the commanders have not been
exceeded, the agreements between the victor and the vanquished are
regarded by the highest authorities as to be sacredly kept. Humanity
demands it; otherwise there would be no cessation of hostilities till
the annihilation of both belligerents."[741]

While Great Britain had just cause to complain of the violation of the
Convention of Saratoga by the American Congress, she might ask herself,
did she always observe strict faith with her revolted colonies.

According to the Articles of Capitulation of Charleston, S. C., May 12,
1780, the garrison were allowed some of the honors of war. They were
to march out and deposit their arms between the canal and the works
of the place, but the drums were not to beat a British march, nor the
colors to be uncased; the Continental troops and seamen, keeping their
baggage, were to remain prisoners of war until exchanged; the militia
were to be permitted to return to their respective homes as prisoners
on parole, and while they kept their parole were not to be molested in
their property by the British troops; the citizens of all descriptions
were to be considered as prisoners on parole, and to hold their
property in the town on the same terms as the militia.

After the capitulation, Sir Henry Clinton sent out three expeditions
and issued three proclamations, all having in view the subjugation of
South Carolina. The butchery which Tarleton inflicted is well known;
and even the British historian, Stedman, who was then an officer under
General Clinton, says of it: "The virtue of humanity was totally
forgot." The enemy's detachments, sent to various parts of the State,
paid little regard to the rights and property of its inhabitants. Sir
Henry, assuming that the province was already conquered, issued, before
his departure to New York, a proclamation discharging all the military
prisoners, except those captured in Fort Moultrie and Charleston, from
their parole after June 20, 1780. Thus, without their own consent, by
Clinton's arbitrary fiat, these paroled persons were converted from
their neutrality into British subjects, and compelled to take up arms
against their neighbors, or, failing to comply with this enforced
allegiance, were treated as rebels. The Whig inhabitants were worried,
plundered, and murdered by Tories, in open violation of all British
pledges; leading men were confined in prison-ships; and patriotic
citizens, who had resumed their swords upon finding all guaranties
violated, had their property sequestrated, and themselves were severely
punished, sometimes with death. The British rule was truly a reign of
terror.

Lord Mahon stigmatizes in the severest language American faith as
utterly derelict in carrying out the Convention of Saratoga,[742] while
of the sequel of the capitulation of Charleston he has no holy horror.
His only remark is: "_Perhaps_ these measures exceeded the bounds of
justice; certainly they did the bounds of policy." This same English
historian, in his account of Arnold's treason, speaks of the death of
André as the "greatest blot" upon the career of Washington. He contends
that it was unjust to arrest André, because he had a safeguard from
Arnold; and sneers at the twelve distinguished American generals upon
the Board which condemned the spy, as incompetent plebeians, drawn
from "the plough-handle and from the shop-board." According to Mahon's
fallacious mode of reasoning, Washington should not only have let André
go free, because protected by the traitor's pass, but should have
given up West Point, its garrison and arms, to Sir Henry Clinton, as
fully agreed upon by Arnold, the duly constituted American commander.
According to such reasoning, Judas Iscariot was justified in betraying
the Saviour, because he had been one of the trusted twelve who sat down
to the Last Supper. The just fate of the spy and betrayer was the same,
except that Judas was his own executioner.

Of the various military conventions, that of Kloster-Zeven, of
September 8, 1757, between the Duke of Cumberland and Marshal
Richelieu, most resembles that of Saratoga. In both the victors had
the vanquished at their mercy; in both the terms of surrender, under
the circumstances, were moderate beyond all necessity; in both the
capitulations were unsatisfactory to the governments concerned; and in
both the treaties were broken from motives of expediency, frivolous
pretexts being used to cover the odium of bad faith.

George II., as Elector of Hanover, "to clear himself", says Sir
Edward Cust, "from the dishonor of the convention, disavowed his son's
authority to sign it", recalled him from his command, and declared
that the hero of Culloden had ruined his father and disgraced himself.
We cannot enter into the reasons assigned by the British ministry for
abrogating this compact, but they were at the least as invalid as those
used by our Congress in suspending the execution of the Convention
of Saratoga. When the Hanoverian army, under Prince Ferdinand of
Brunswick, took the field in contravention of agreement, Marshal
Richelieu declared his own fidelity in keeping the treaty, and that,
should the enemy "commit any act of hostility", he, as authorized
by the laws of war, "would push matters to the last extremity." The
declaration of the French marshal "was seconded", says Smollett, the
British historian, "by the Count de Lynar, the Danish ambassador, who
had meditated the Convention of Kloster-Zeven under direction of his
master to save Hanover from the horrors of war."

EDITORIAL NOTES ON THE AUTHORITIES.

=I.= THE CAMPAIGN AROUND NEW YORK CITY IN 1776.—The Americans had been
early warned of the British plans to secure the line of the Hudson
(_Journal of the Provincial Congress of New York_, 172; Lossing's
_Schuyler_, ii. 16), and on the American side plans of obstructing
and defending the river had been made as early as Sept., 1775, and
they ever after constituted a chief anxiety of the continental and
provincial authorities.[743] Several early maps making record of these
efforts have been preserved.[744]

[Illustration: FORT MONTGOMERY, MAY 31, 1776.]

[Illustration: CHAIN AT FORT MONTGOMERY.

Reduced from the cut in Ruttenber's _Obstructions to the Navigation of
Hudson's River_, p. 64.

KEY. A, Fort Montgomery. B, Fort Clinton. C, Poplopen's Kill. D,
Anthony's Nose. _a_, floats to chain. _b b b_, boom in front of chain.
_c c c_, chain. _d_, rock at which the chain was secured and large
iron roller. _e e_, cribs and anchors. _f_, blocks and purchase for
tightening chain. _g h_, ground batteries for defence of chain. [S,
section showing floats and chain; _c c c_, chain; _f f f_, floats.]

The cut follows the original drawing found in the papers of the secret
committee. There is a plate showing the boom and chain at West Point in
Boynton's _West Point_, p. 70.]

The anomalous condition of New York during the later part of 1775 is
shown from the Tory point of view in Jones's _New York during the
Revolution_. Rivington's press was destroyed in Nov., 1775 (_N. Y. City
Manual_, 1868, p. 813). There was an irruption from New Jersey into
Long Island in Jan., 1776 (Jones, i. 68). In Feb. the military control
appears in Col. David Waterbury's orderly-book (_Mag. of American
Hist._, Dec., 1884, p. 555). Moore gives current published reports,
including Gov. Tryon's proclamation in March (_Diary of the Rev._, i.
216). During the same month Lee made a report on the fortifications of
the city (_N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1871, p. 354), and Field, in his
_Battle of Long Island_, traces the measures of Lee to convert New York
into a camp and to root out the Tories on Long Island.

[Illustration: CONSTITUTION ISLAND, 1776.

From the _Sparks Maps_. KEY: "A, Gravel Hill battery, 11 guns. B, Hill
clift battery, 3 in front, not finished. C, Marine battery, 8 guns. D,
Romain's battery, 14 guns. E, Round Tower, 8 guns." These works were
later commanded by those erected at West Point.]

Stirling had also been exercising command in New York (Duer's
_Stirling_, 139), and had seized Gov. Franklin of New Jersey (_N. J.
Archives_, x. 702). In April, 1776, Putnam arrived with instructions
from Washington (Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 337), finding Heath fresh
from a review of the troops (Moore, i. 228).[745]

With the arrival of Washington in the middle of April, 1776, the
campaign may be said to have begun. His batteries soon sent the
few British ships in the harbor down to Sandy Hook, and Benjamin
Tupper, commanding the little American flotilla, tried to destroy the
lighthouse at that point, June 21.[746] Beside the official letters of
this time there are numerous private ones.[747]

Late in June and early in July Lord Howe's fleet arrived in the lower
harbor, and the troops were landed on Staten Island.[748]

The harbor of New York necessarily had more or less hydrographical
treatment in all the early plans. Before the outbreak of hostilities,
this may be seen, not only in the Des Barres series of maps, but in
the chart of 1764,[749] reproduced in Valentine's _Manual_ (1861, p.
597).[750] After the war began, we find several harbor maps worthy of
note.[751]

During June came the plot for assassinating Washington in New
York.[752] Washington was discouraged with the progress of the
recruiting. "Washington and Mercer's camps recruit with amazing
slowness", wrote Jefferson from Philadelphia, July 20th.[753] Mercer
commanded the Flying Camp of militia from Pennsylvania, Delaware, and
Maryland, which were hovering between the British and Philadelphia.[754]

Clinton's expeditionary force returned from Sullivan's Island Aug. 1st,
and the active campaign began when, three weeks later, Howe moved a
large part of his force across from Staten Island[755] to Gravesend,
on Long Island, Aug. 22d, Sir George Collier commanding the fleet
which covered the landing,[756] and the advance then began towards
the lines near Brooklyn which General Greene had had the charge of
constructing.[757]

Respecting the orders antecedent to and during the battle, those
of Washington are in Force; but Johnston adds to them from the
orderly-books.[758] Washington's own account can be found in his
letters to Congress, to Gov. Trumbull, to the Mass. Assembly,[759] and
he probably dictated the letter of Col. Harrison, his secretary, to
Congress.[760]

[Illustration: BATTLE OF LONG ISLAND, 1776.

Sketched from a part of a MS. Hessian map in the library of Congress,
called _Plan générale des opérations de l'armée Britannique contre les
Rebelles_, etc.

KEY: "A, Le camp du Général Howe sur Staten Island à l'arrivée du
général de Heister avec la 1re division des troupes Hessoises le 22
d'Aoust, 1776. B, Le camp qu'on occupa sur Staten Island cette division
après du debarqué. C, L'endroit où les troupes debarquerent sur Long
Island. D, Camp du général Howe près de Gravesend. E, Camp du général
de Heister après la descente sur Long Island le 27 d'Aoust, 1776. F,
Marche de la colonne droite commandée par le général Clinton vers
Bedford dans la nuit du 26 au 27 Aoust. G, Marche de la colonne gauche,
commandée par le général Grant. H, Attaque de l'avant garde du général
Clinton du 27me Aoust. J, Où le général Clinton forma sa colonne pour
continuer l'attaque. K, Attaque du général Grant. L, Attaque du général
de Heister. M, Les lignes des enemis à Brooklin. N, Corps détachés de
l'enemis hors de ses lignes. O, Les redoutes de l'enemis à Readhook. Q,
Les redoutes à Gouverneur island."

The lines (·—·—) represent roads. The blocks, half-black and
half-white, are the Americans; those divided diagonally are the
Hessians; the solid black are the British.

A Hessian officer's map, obtained from Brunswick, and showing Ratzer's
topography, is given in fac-simile in Field's monograph (p. 310), and a
German map of Long Island is given in the _Geographische Belustigungen_
(Leipzig, 1776). There is a somewhat coarse-colored map among the
Rochambeau maps (no. 25), measuring fifteen inches wide by eighteen
high, called _Attaque de l'armée des Provinciaux dans Long Island du 27
Août, 1776_. _Publié, 1776._ A MS. "Plan of the Attack of the Rebels
on Long Island by an officer of the army" is among the Faden maps (no.
56) in the library of Congress. The map used in Stedman is re-engraved,
with additions, in Irving's _Washington_, illus. ed., ii. 309.]

[Illustration: LONG ISLAND, AUGUST, 27, 1776.

Sketched from a large _Plan of the Battle of Long Island and of the
Brooklyn defences, Aug. 27, 1776, compiled by Henry P. Johnston_,
which accompanies his _Campaign of 1776_, and is based, as he says, on
Ratzer's map of Brooklyn (1767-68) and the United States coast survey.
Before daylight on the morning of the 27th, the British advance under
General Grant disturbed the American pickets at the Red Lion, which
is near the westerly angle of the present Greenwood Cemetery area,
marked on the plan with a dotted line. As the day wore on, the conflict
pressed between the British at P and Q and the Americans under Stirling
and Parsons at O and N,—Smallwood's Marylanders holding the extreme
right on the water, and Huntington's Connecticut regiment on the
extreme left. Johnston (p. 165) says Stirling's position was between
18th and 20th streets of the modern Brooklyn, and not as Sparks's map
places him, near the Narrows. Meanwhile, a British column at 9 o'clock
the previous evening had begun to move from Flatlands, and at 3 the
next morning captured an American patrol at B, and at 6 the British
column (marching in this order,—Clinton, Cornwallis, Percy, Howe)
neared the American advance under Miles at C, who retired; and at 9
A. M. the British column was at Bedford and threw out a force to M,
which began to attack the American outposts of D (Miles), E (Wyley),
and F (Chester), forcing them to retire upon Sullivan, who commanded
the forces of Johnston (H), Hitchcock (J), and Little (G), with pickets
at K,—all within or near the present limits of Prospect Park, shown
by the dotted line. Threatened by the British flanking column as well
as by the Hessians in front, approaching from Flatbush under Heister
with the commands of Von Stirn (S), Von Mirbach (T), and Donop (U),
the Americans, after the capture of Sullivan himself, retreated as
best they could across the creek and got within the lines. The column
of the British advancing from Bedford threw out a force under Vaughan
towards L to menace Fort Putnam and that part of the American works,
while Cornwallis advancing towards R had a conflict there round the
Cortelyou house at 11.30 A. M. with Stirling, who was trying to check
this rear attack of the British, while such of his troops as could be
controlled retreated from N and O, and, passing the marsh, crossed
the creek (half a dozen or so being drowned), and reached dry land
near some redoubts within the American line of defence. The point A
represents the position of the present City Hall of Brooklyn. Stirling,
meanwhile, with Smallwood's Marylanders in danger of being crushed
between Cornwallis and Grant, and foiled in the attempt to reach Fort
Box, retreated towards Flatbush, but encountered in that direction Gen.
Heister's Hessians, and gave himself up to that officer.

T. W. Field in his monograph, the _Battle of Long Island_, gives a
large plan showing the relations of the modern streets to the old
landmarks, and marking "the natural defensible line, as nearly as it
could be authenticated by documentary and traditionary evidence."
Field adds that "the routes of the British were generally over country
roads long since abandoned, and now covered with buildings; but their
localities were accurately surveyed by the author before their traces
were lost." Field also says (p. 145) that the American works were at
once levelled by the British, and new ones were erected on interior
lines. (Cf. G. W. Greene's _General Greene_, i. 159.) These latter
lines are shown, as well as the earlier American works, in a _Map of
Brooklyn at the time of the Revolution_, drawn by Gen. Jeremiah Johnson
(Valentine's _Manual_, 1858). A rude map by J. Ewing, made Sept., 1776,
is given in fac-simile in Johnston's _Campaign of 1776_ (Documents, p.
50) and in 2d ser. _Penna. Archives_, x. 194. Dr. Stiles made a rough
plan in his diary, which he based upon a map of the ground and upon the
information given him by one who was at Red Hook at the time. It is
given in fac-simile by Johnston (p. 70).

The plan in Carrington's _Battles_ (p. 214) is extended enough to
illustrate the movements after the British occupation of New York;
that in H. R. Stiles's _Brooklyn_ (vol. i. 250) is an eclectic one,
made with care, and his text attempts to identify the position of the
lines and forts in relation to present landmarks. Gordon acknowledges
receiving from Greene a map improved by that general (_Hist. Mag._,
xiii. 25).

There are other plans in Marshall's _Washington_ (large and small
atlas); Sparks's _Washington_, iv. 68, repeated in Duer's _Stirling_
(p. 162); Guizot's _Washington_; Samuel Ward's lecture on the battle,
1839; J. T. Bailey's _Hist. Sketch of Brooklyn_ (Brooklyn, 1840); W.
L. Stone's _New York City_, p. 246; Henry Onderdonk, Jr.'s _Queens
County_, and _Suffolk and Kings Counties_; Ridpath's _United States_;
Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 806, 809, 810; Lowell's _Hessians_;
_Harper's Monthly_, Aug., 1876. Ratzer's map of Brooklyn is reproduced
in Stiles's _Brooklyn_ (i. 63), with a view of the same date (p. 217).
Cf. map in Valentine's _N. Y. Manual_ (1856). Cf. the bibliography
of Long Island in _Amer. Bibliopolist_, Oct., 1872, and in Furman's
_Antiquities of Long Island_, App.]

Sullivan's letter is in effect a defence of himself,[761] and other
letters from participants and observers are preserved,[762] as well as
journals of actors on the field,[763] and other personal recitals,[764]
and narratives in the public press.[765] On the British side we have
Howe's despatch[766] of Sept. 3, with the comments and inquiry which
it elicited,[767] and the report and journals of Sir George Collier,
in command of the fleet.[768] In addition we have a number of personal
experiences and accounts of eye-witnesses,[769] as well as statements
from the German participants.[770]

The circumstances of the battle and retreat have occasioned some
controversy, in which Bancroft has been criticised by the grandsons of
Gen. Greene[771] and Joseph Reed.[772]

Respecting the armies on both sides and their losses, there is ground
for dispute. It is claimed that the British had about double the
numbers of the Americans, and the losses of killed and wounded were
about equal on both sides, though the Americans also lost heavily in
prisoners.[773] But on this point see the preceding chapter.

Without enumerating at length the treatment of the general
histories,[774] and the biographies of participants,[775] the battle
of Long Island has had much special local[776] and monographic
treatment, particularly at the hands of Field, Johnston, Dawson, and
Carrington.[777] On the English side we have contemporary and later
examples of historical treatment.[778] It was the first substantial
victory for the royal arms, and had little of the disheartening
influence which the forcing of the redoubt at Bunker Hill had brought
with it. The effect was correspondingly inspiriting to the Tories in
America and to the government party in England.[779]

* * * * *

In transferring the scene across the river to New York, it is best
in the first place to trace the topography of the town and island by
the maps of the period, and to follow the cartographical records of
the military movements during the campaign, before classifying the
authorities.

John Hill's large plan of New York, extending as far north as
Thirty-fourth Street, surveyed in 1782, and dedicated to Gov. George
Clinton, was drawn in 1785.[780] He marks all the works of the
Revolution,—coloring yellow those thrown up by the Americans in
1776; orange, those of the Americans which the British repaired; and
green, those later erected by the royal forces. Johnston's map[781]
adopts these yellow lines. Loosing (_Field-Book_, ii. 593, 799), in
describing the New York lines, differs somewhat from Hill's map.
Johnston controverts Jones and De Lancey (Jones's _New York during the
Revolutionary War_), who claim that the American lines were levelled by
the British; he also cites Smythe, who described them in March, 1777,
as was also done by Thomas Eddis in Aug., 1777,[782] and by Anburey
in 1781, and he depends on Hill's draft of them in 1782. Johnston (p.
36) also describes the appearance of the town at the opening of the
war.[783] Johnston (p. 194) claims that his eclectic map is the first
to give the entire island as it was in 1776. He followed the surveys
of Ratzer and Montresor as far north as Fiftieth Street, and from that
point to Kingsbridge he used the map of 1814, made by Randall for the
commissioners to lay out streets. The annexed sketch of Johnston's map
shows the fortifications surrounding the town of New York.

[Illustration: PART OF RATZER'S SMALLER MAP OF NEW YORK CITY.

The following key explains the figures: 1, Fort George; 2, Trinity
Church; 5, Old Dutch Church; 6, New Eng. Dutch Church; 8, Presbyterian
meeting; 10, French Church; 11, Lutheran Church; 13, Calvinist Church;
16, New Scots' meeting; 17, Quakers' meeting; 18, Jews' synagogue;
20, Free English School; 21, Secretary's office; 22, City Hall; 25,
Exchange; 26, Barracks; 27, Fish Market; 28, Old slip; 31, Oswego
Market.

This is the best contemporary map on a large scale of the city of New
York. It is dedicated to Gov. Moore, and made after surveys by Lieut.
B. Ratzer in 1767. The whole map is given in Valentine's _Manual_,
1854; Dawson's _New York City during the Amer. Rev._ (1861); Jones's
_N. Y. during the Rev. War_, i. 388. There is an original in Harvard
College library. Cf. _Map Catal. Brit. Mus._, 1885, col. 2972. It was
reissued in 1776 and 1777. Cf. Lamb's _New York_, i. 757, 760. This
map of the town is a different one from Ratzer's map of the city and
vicinity, which has at the bottom a southwest view of the town.

Thomas Kitchen, the English cartographer, published a map, after
Ratzer's surveys, of New York city and vicinity in the _London Mag._,
1778. It has been reproduced in Shannon's _N. Y. City Manual_, 1869,
and in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, 1885, p. 549.

_A Plan of the City of New York and its Environs_, "surveyed in the
winter of 1766", and dedicated to Gen. Gage by John Montresor, is given
in Jefferys' _General Topog. of North America and the West Indies_
(London, 1768). Another form of it, purporting to be a later work, is
the large folding _Plan of the City of New York and its environs, ...
surveyed in the winter, 1775_, also dedicated to Gen. Gage by John
Montresor, and published in London. It has been reproduced in D. T.
Valentine's _N. Y. City Manual_, 1855, p. 482. It has a corner chart of
the bay from Hoboken to Sandy Hook. Cf. the _American Atlas_, nos. 20
and 25. Montresor's plan was reproduced in Paris by Le Rouge in 1777.

Major Holland, the British surveyor-general, made a plan of the city
of New York, which appeared separately and as a part of his _Map of
New York and New Jersey_ (1776). Cf. Valentine's _Manual_, 1863, p.
533, and the small plan of New York and vicinity, eight miles to an
inch, which is given in _New York City in the Revolution_ (1861). A
plan of part of the city made in 1771 is given in Valentine's _Manual_,
1856, p. 426. There are among the Rochambeau maps several plans of New
York and its environs, rather coarse and faded (nos. 26, 27, 28, 31).
Contemporary printed maps are in Gaine's _Universal Register_ (N. Y.,
1776) and in the _Universal Mag._, 1776.

A survey of the region of Turtle Bay in 1771 is given in Valentine's
_Manual_, 1860, p. 572, and a view at a later day in _Ibid._, 1858,
p. 600. A MS. plan of Fort George (New York) by Sauthier is among the
Faden maps (no. 95) in the library of Congress.]

Howe was much criticised for his dilatoriness and his failure promptly
to use his fleet to get in the rear of Washington's army.[784] There
was a division of counsels among Washington's officers as to the
advisability of attempting to hold the city; but a decision to evacuate
finally prevailed.[785] Washington's army was gradually dwindling,
for Congress and the country had hardly reached a conception of the
necessity of long enlistments.[786] Finally on Sept. 15th the British
passed over from Long Island to Kip's Bay, and the Americans fled in
a panic;[787] and, with loss of many stores, Washington gathered his
forces within the Harlem lines. Johnston's draft of the works on Harlem
Heights follows Sauthier's plan. The site of the fight thereabouts is
west of Eighth Avenue and north of One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Street
of the modern city. Johnston (p. 258) identifies the localities by the
present landmarks, and says (p.264) that "some of the works are well
preserved to-day" (1878). He also says that Randall, when he surveyed
the island in 1812, found the remains of the works agreeing with
Sauthier's drafts.[788]

Sauthier's draft of the conflict at Harlem Plains is reproduced in
the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, May, 1880. Later plans of the locality,
drawn with reference to the landmarks of the battle, or interesting
for comparison, are the map of 1814 in Valentine's _Manual_ (1856) and
the large folding plan of the upper part of New York, with the modern
streets, upon which, in colors, is superposed a draft of this action.
This last is given, with an account of the fight, in Shannon's _N. Y.
City Manual_, 1868, p. 812.[789] We may note some of the principal
contemporary and later authorities on this action of Harlem Plains.[790]

The origin of the fire of Sept. 21st, by which a considerable part of
New York was burned, has been a subject of dispute, the Tories charging
it upon the Americans;[791] but later authorities, English as well as
American, agree in not believing it the work of incendiaries. It is
known that Washington advocated the burning of the city if evacuation
became necessary, and Jones (i. p. 84) says committees of Congress had
agreed upon it, but that body certainly in the end directed Washington
to spare it (_Journals_, Sept. 3, 1776).[792]

[Illustration: JOHNSTON'S NEW YORK ISLAND, 1776.

A marks the position of Trinity Church; B, the City Hall Park; C,
the Mortier house, the American headquarters; D, Badlam's fort; E,
Spencer's fort; F, the redoubt on Jones's hill; G, Bayard Hill fort; H,
Hospital. Fort Stirling, in Brooklyn, is at K. The figures represent
the batteries and redoubts: 1, Grand battery; 2, Whitehall battery;
3, Waterbury's battery; 4, redoubts; 5, Grenadier battery; 6, Jersey
battery; 7, McDougal's battery; 8, Oyster (?) battery. The other marks
indicate the positions of barricades.

When the British, leaving Newtown Creek, on Long Island, landed at
Kip's Bay, the shore batteries thereabouts were abandoned by the
Americans. Scott, at L, retreated by the broken line (— — —), and
crossed along Bowery Lane, the ground now covered by Union and Madison
squares (shown by the dotted oblongs). Wadsworth and Douglas retreated
from M and N respectively, back upon Parsons at P and Fellows at Q,
and all pursued the Bloomingdale road, just skirting the southwesterly
corner of the area now known as Central Park (the large dotted oblong
E E). Meanwhile, the garrison of the town lines, under Putnam and
Silliman, retreated by the road leading from Fort G towards Greenwich;
and near Bloomingdale the several columns joined and pursued their
march to the lines on the heights above Harlem. Parton (_Life of Burr_,
86) describes how Burr at this time led Knox's brigade successfully
away from Bunker Hill. Howe, who had advanced from Kip's Bay, dallied
at the Murray house at O, and so failed to intercept the fugitives.
Chester (R) and Sargeant (S) also deserted the works at Horn's Hook,
and, striking the Kingsbridge or post read, retreated through McGowan's
Pass at T. Thus all, by one road or another, got within the lines on
Harlem Heights. Farther on in the text this map will be again referred
to, for later movements. Cf. map in Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii.
491.]

[Illustration: THE SAUTHIER-FADEN PLAN, 1776.]

The movement of Howe, which now forced Washington off New York Island
and to a position at White Plains, is illustrated by a sketch of the
"Sauthier-Faden plan", herewith given, and which may be explained
by the annexed note[793] in connection with the special original
sources,[794] and later historians.[795]

The reader may now revert to two outline maps already given, namely
_Johnston's New York Island_ and the _Sauthier-Faden plan_, in order to
follow the movements which led to the fall of Fort Washington, using
the annexed descriptive key;[796] but the outline of the original
sources of the fall of Fort Washington, as well as the later accounts,
are much the same as for the earlier events of the campaign.[797]

[Illustration: FORT WASHINGTON AND DEPENDENCIES.]

[Illustration:

A part of the map made by Claude Joseph Sauthier in 1774, by order of
Gov. Tryon, and published by William Faden in London, Jan. 1, 1779, as
a _Chorographical Map of the Province of New York in North America,
Compiled from actual surveys deposited in the Patent Office at New
York_. This section is reproduced from a reduction made in 1849 by
David Vaughan, and published in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, vol. i., where
Tryon's report on the province in 1774 is printed. There is a copy of
the original in Harvard College library (portfolio 3520). It was the
basis of the map _Carte des troubles de l'Amérique, par ordre du Chev.
Tryon, par Sauthier et Ratzer, traduite de l'Anglais, à Paris, chez
Le Rouge_, 1778, which is included in the _Atlas Amériquain_, no. 15.
It was also followed in maps published at Augsburg in 1777, and at
Nuremberg, 1778. There is another _Special Karte von den Brittischen
Colonien in Nord America_, showing the New England and Middle colonies,
published in Christian Leiste's _Beschreibung des Brittischen Amerika
zur Ersparung der Englischen Karten_, Wolfenbüttel, 1778. An English
map with a Swedish title, _Krigs Theatre in America_, is found in the
_Beskrifning öfver de Engelska Colonierne i Nord America, 1776-1777_
(Stockholm, 1777). Sauthier's surveys also appear in _A map of the
province of New York by Sauthier, to which is added New Jersey from
the topographical observations of Sauthier and Ratzer_, 1776. Cf.
also _A map of the provinces of New York and New Jersey ... from the
topographical observations of Sauthier_, Lotter, 1777 (_Brit. Mus.
Maps_, 1885, col. 3,666).

Sauthier's drafts may be compared with _A map of the province of New
York with part of Pensilvania and New England from an actual survey by
Captain Montresor, engineer, 1775_, which was published in London, June
10, 1775, by A. Dury, making four sheets, and was republished "with
great improvements", April 1, 1777 (_Brit. Mus. Map Catal._, 1885, col.
2,969). It was reëngraved in Paris and published in 1777 by Le Rouge,
separately, and as nos. 13 and 14 of the _Atlas Amériquain_ in 1778.
Ithiel Town, in the preface of his _Particular services_, etc.,—now
a scarce book, as only seventy copies escaped a fire,—speaks of his
having obtained from a family near London maps of the American war,
mostly about Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, made by Montresor,
which were submitted to Marshall. There is a portrait and account of
Montresor in Scull's _Evelyns in America_, 251.

Another important map is _The Provinces of New York and New Jersey with
part of Pensilvania and the province of Quebec, drawn by Major Holland,
Surveyor-General of the northern district in America, corrected and
improved from the original materials by Govern^r, Pownall, Member of
Parliament_. It was first published in London, June 15, 1775, and in a
second edition, in 1776, there were added to it marginal maps of Amboy
and the city and bay of New York. The _Brit. Mus. Map_, 1885, col.
2,969, shows the plates with different titles, dated 1775, 1776; also
Frankfort, 1777, and London, 1777. Cf. the map in Mills's _Boundaries
of Ontario_; the Evans map as reproduced by Jefferys, 1775 (see Vol.
V. p. 85); the map in the _American Atlas_, and that of the country
from the Chesapeake to the Connecticut, in the _Gent. Mag._, September,
1776.]

The letters of Washington and Greene are still the main source
of information for the evacuation of Fort Lee, which at once
followed.[798]

It may be well now to note some of the contemporary maps of the whole
campaign, as indicating the extent and character of the geographical
knowledge then current. The earliest of these is one which appeared
in the supplement (p. 607) of the _Gentleman's Magazine_, 1776, and
is called a _Map of the Progress of his Majesty's Armies_. Two of the
American household manuals, _Low's Almanac_ (1776) and _Isaac Warren's
Almanac_ (1777), had the same rude cut, a fac-simile of which, with the
key, is shown below.

[Illustration: LOW'S ALMANAC, 1777.

KEY: A, Gen. Washington's lines on New York Island; B, fort at Powles
Hook; C, Bunker Hill, near New York; D, the Sound; E, Kingsbridge; F,
Hell Gate; G, Fort Constitution [Washington]; H, Mount Washington; I,
Governor's Island.]

A popular map (price one shilling) of _The Country twenty-five miles
round New York, drawn by a gentleman from that City_, was also
published in London, Jan. 1, 1777, by W. Hawkes, with a chronological
table of events from Dec. 16, 1773, to Oct. 18, 1776.

Des Barres issued in London, Jan. 17, 1777, a large map, _Plan of the
operations of the army and fleet of Admiral and Lord Howe near New
York, 1776_,[799] and a more popular presentation of the same field was
made in the _Political Mag._, vol. ii. p. 657. The earliest attempt
at historical rendering, Capt. Hall's _History of the Civil War in
America_ (London, 1780), was accompanied by a map, a portion of which
is here given in fac-simile; and Gordon (ii. 310), a few years later,
gave an eclectic map, made in the main from American data.[800]

[Illustration: NEW YORK AND VICINITY.

(_Political Mag._)]

[Illustration: CAMPAIGN OF 1776. (_Hall._)

A, the landing of the British near Utrecht on Long Island, under cover
of the "Phœnix", "Rose", and "Greyhound", with the "Thunder" and
"Carcass" bombs, Aug. 22, 1776; B, pass at Flatbush and field of action
where the rebels were defeated, Aug. 27th; C, British and Hessian
encampment, Aug. 28th; D, encampments of the British army, Sept. 1st;
E, embarkation of the British troops at Newtown Inlet, and then landing
at New York Island, Sept. 15th; F, skirmish on Vanderwater's Height,
the rebels retiring, Sept. 16th; G, route of British in boats to Frog's
Neck, Oct. 12th; H, several corps of British troops in boats go to
Pell's Point, Oct. 18th; I, skirmish, rebels routed, Oct. 18th. Then
followed fighting at Mararo Neck (shown on the full map), the rebels
retreating, Oct. 21st; on the road to Kingsbridge, Oct. 23d; again
approaching White Plains, Oct. 28th; at Brunx's River, Oct. 28th;
followed Nov. 1st by the rebel evacuation of their intrenchments near
White Plains, and by Cornwallis's landing on the Jersey shore, Nov.
18th. Q, attack on Fort Washington, Nov. 16th; R, Fort Lee surprised,
Nov. 20th.]

In giving detailed references for the several stages of the campaign,
the letters from and to Washington have been a source of the first
importance; and beside those given by Sparks in his printed works,
there are others registered in the _Sparks MSS._ (no. xxix.), the
_Heath Papers_ (_Mass. Hist. Coll._, xliv.), not to name less important
gatherings,[801] all of which form a general running commentary on
events of the summer's and autumn's campaign, which could be further
elucidated by the memoirs of Heath and Graydon, the lives of Reed and
Greene, and by various diaries on both sides.[802]

[Illustration: CAMPAIGN ABOVE NEW YORK, 1776.

A section of a large Hessian map in the library of Congress, _Plan
général des opérations de l'armée Britannique contre les Rebelles_,
etc. The lines (·—·—) represent roads. KEY: "3, Marche du général de
Heister et le camp qu'il occupa le 14^{me} Juin.—-S, Les batteries
faites à Remsen's Mill à Hell Gate. T, Lieu du rendezvous donné aux
troupes destinées à faire une descente sur York islande. U, Les
vaisseaux de guerre postes pour proteger cette descente. V, Descente
de l'armée sur York island. W, Position d'une partie de la première
division après la descente. Y, Redoutes de l'armée devant son camp.
Z, Où le général Howe, après avoir laissé le général Percy sur York
island, debarqua et campa avec le général de Heister le 12^{me} Oct.,
1776.—_a_, Descente du général Clinton à Pell's point le 18 Oct. _b_,
Camp de l'armée depuis New Rochelle jusqu'à Pell's Point. _c_, Camp du
général de Knyphausen après son arrivée avec la 2^{de} division des
Troupes Hessoises le 23^{me} Oct. _d_, Marche de la colonne droite
sous les ordres du général Clinton. _e_, Celle de la colonne gauche
commandée par le général de Heister. _f_, Engagement du général de
Heister avec l'enemis aux environs de White Plains [apparently not on
the original map]. _g_, Position de l'enemis après sa retraite. _h_,
Position de l'armée. _i_, Position des généraux Clinton et Heister
à Dobbs' Ferry. _k_, Position de général Cornwallis à Courtland
House. _m_, Campement de toute l'armée après que pleusieurs regiments
laissés dans differents endroits par le général de Knyphausen l'eurent
rejoints. _n_, La colonne droite du général de Knyphausen sous les
ordres du Colonel Rall. _o_, Où le général Cornwallis se placa pour
soutenir l'attaque du Fort Washington. _p_, Corps commandé par le
général Matheu. _q_, Descente des troupes Angloises. _r_, Attaque du
général Sterling vis-a-vis de Morris House. _s_, Batteries faites pour
soutenir l'attaque. _t_, Batteries construites de l'autre coté du creek
d'Harlem. _u_, Le fort du Washington avec ses lignes de defences. _v_,
Attaque du général Percy."

There is among the Rochambeau maps (no. 24), measuring about 16 inches
wide by 18 high, a map of the campaigns of 1776 and 1777, giving detail
with considerable precision, and accompanied by a good key.]

=II.= THE NORTHERN CAMPAIGN, 1776-1777.—Gates had taken command
in Canada early in the summer of 1776, under instructions from
Washington;[803] but as his army fell back within the department which
had been assigned to Schuyler, questions of authority arose between
them.[804]

The condition of the army during the summer is noted in Colonel
Trumbull's _Autobiography_ (p. 302), and in General Gates's returns of
September 22, 1776, in 5 _Force's American Archives_ (ii. 479).[805]

There is a list of armed vessels on Lake Champlain in 1776 in _Letters
and Papers_, 1761-1776 (MSS. in Mass. Hist. Soc.). Arnold received his
instructions from Gates.[806]

Arnold's reports on the fight near Valcour's Island, Oct., 1776, are
dated Oct. 12 (to Gates) and Oct. 15 (to Schuyler).[807]

Waterbury's account to Congress, Oct. 24, is in Dawson (i. p. 173) and
in _Hadden's Journal_ (App.). Gen. Maxwell gave no very flattering
account of Arnold's manœuvres in a letter from Ticonderoga, Oct. 20, in
Sedgwick's _Livingston_ (p. 209).[808]

On the English side, Carleton's despatch, Oct. 14, and Capt. Pringle's,
are in Dawson (pp. 174, 175). The Hanau artillerist Pausch covers the
fight in his journal.[809]

[Illustration: ARNOLD'S FIGHT. (_Sparks's copy._)

KEY: A, schooner "Carleton." B, the "Royal Savage" on shore, and burnt
on the 11th of October. C, the "Inflexible." D, schooner "Maria." E,
gondola "Royal Convert. F, radeau Thunderer." G, Point au Sable is
forty-eight miles from Crown Point. H, The French vessels sunk here in
1759.

The map of the action accompanying _Hadden's Journal_ (p. 23) is very
similar to the Sparks map; and a marginal note says that the gunboats
are from 30 to 36 feet long, and 10, 16, or 18 feet wide. Gen. Rogers
thinks Hadden's map is based on Brassier, whose amended plate is in
the _American Pocket Atlas_ (1776). Rogers objects to the view that
Arnold's retreat was round the north end of Valcour's Island (instead
of the route marked on the map), as has been maintained by Palmer in
his _Lake Champlain_, and by W. C. Watson in the _Amer. Hist. Record_
(iii. 438, 501) and _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (June, 1881, vol. vi. p.
414).]

The earliest plan of this naval action seems to have been added to the
then recently published plate of Lake Champlain, engraved after surveys
by William Brassier, by order of Amherst, in 1762,[810] which, with
Jackson's survey of Lake George, was published by Sayer and Bennett,
in London, Aug. 5, 1776. Some copies of the map with the same date
show the position of Arnold's fight of Oct. 11. The plate has been
altered at that point, and it is this section of the map which Lossing
copies in his _Field-Book_[811] (i. 163) and in his paper in _Harper's
Monthly_ (vol. xxiii. p. 726). The annexed sketch is based upon a plan
in the Sparks maps (Cornell University), kindly transmitted to the
editor by the librarian.[812]

* * * * *

In the winter of 1776-77, Burgoyne had submitted to the government
some "Thoughts for conducting the war from the side of Canada",—a
paper which, barring some important changes, became the scheme of the
summer's plans.[813]

The stages of the preparation in Canada can be followed in _Force's
American Archives_; and references will be found in the _Index to MSS.
in the British Museum_ (particularly under "Canada" and "Burgoyne", in
those acquired 1854-1875).[814]

The records of the Germans are mentioned in Lowell's _Hessians_ (p.
117), and in the sources indicated by Mr. Lowell in another chapter of
the present volume[815]

In the spring of 1777 St. Clair was designated for the command at
Ticonderoga, the advanced post against the invasion of Burgoyne (_St.
Clair Papers_). The light-headed Sullivan thought it unfair that he
was not selected for the post (_Correspondence of the Rev._, i. 352).
The British onset was appalling. James Lovell, in March, wrote, "It
is plain that we must look forward for another summer's bloody work"
(_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, April, 1860, p. 9). Congress was emphasizing
the stories of British brutality (_Journals of Congress_, ii. 97).

On May 22d Schuyler had been confirmed in his command of the Northern
department, and Gates had gone to Philadelphia to lay his grievances
before Congress (Lossing's _Schuyler_, ii.; Irving's _Washington_,
iii.). Burgoyne (Fonblanque, App. E) was talking to his Indians in
June, and two days later he made his famous proclamation to frighten or
allure the country people. Fonblanque (p. 23) is not unmindful of its
unworthy bombast, and Lecky (vi. 64) says it was "greatly and justly
blamed."[816]

There will be occasion later to enumerate the maps illustrating the
successive stages and conflicts of the campaign; but it may be well
at this point to append in a note the principal maps of the entire
movement of the British army, which cover also the field of its actions
on both flanks.[817]

The most important source respecting the siege and evacuation of
Ticonderoga is the _Proceedings of a General Court Martial, held at
Whiteplains, N. Y., for the trial of Maj.-Gen. St. Clair, Aug. 25,
1778_ (Philad., 1778).[818] It was reprinted in the _Collections_ of
the N. Y. Hist. Soc. in 1880. It includes various letters of Schuyler
and St. Clair in June (pp. 14, 101, 121, etc.), the doings of the
council of war, July 5th, which decided upon a retreat (p. 33), and the
letters of St. Clair at Ticonderoga, and one to Hancock, July 14th,
from Fort Edward (p. 69, etc.). Three days later, July 17th, St. Clair
sent an account from Fort Edward to Washington, which, with the letter
of Schuyler, likewise to Washington, is in Sparks's _Corresp. of the
Rev._, i. 393, 400.[819] Much of this material is also included in the
published _St. Clair Papers_.[820] Sparks had earlier added copies of
some of the St. Clair papers to his Collection of Manuscripts.[821]

On the English side, Burgoyne's letters are in Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_
(p. 248), _Gent. Mag._, Aug., 1777, and Dawson's _Battles_. Anburey's
_Travels_ (letter xxx.) throws some light.

For the effect of the evacuation on the country, see _Journals of
Congress_, iv. 719; Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii. 485, 488; _Diplomatic
Correspondence of the Amer. Rev._, i. 315. The apprehension felt in the
adjacent country is shown in letters of Ira Allen and others in the _N.
H. State Papers_, viii. 632, 633, 643, 644, 648, 651.

We have some contemporary maps of Ticonderoga previous to and during
the siege. In August, 1776, Colonel John Trumbull made a plan which
is engraved in his _Autobiography_ (N. Y., 1841, p. 32),[822] and is
reproduced herewith.[823] The map used at the trial of St. Clair is
engraved in the _Proceedings_; and from a MS. copy made for Sparks, and
now at Cornell University, the annexed sketch (p. 353) is drawn.

On the affair at Hubbardton, July 7th, the official accounts of St.
Clair (July 14th) and Burgoyne (July 11th) are given in Dawson's
_Battles_ (i. 224, 229, 231), and other contemporary accounts in the
_Vermont Hist. Soc. Coll._, i. p. 168, etc.[824]

In Burgoyne's _State of the Expedition_ is a "plan of the action at
Huberton under Brig.-Gen. Fraser, supported by Maj.-Gen. Riedesel, on
the 7th July, 1777, drawn by P. Gerlach, engraved by Wm. Faden", and
published at London, Feb. 1, 1780.[825] Three days later, Burgoyne
(July 10) issued a proclamation to the inhabitants of Vermont, and
Schuyler (July 13) made a counter proclamation.[826]

* * * * *

The chief sources of documentary evidence regarding the movements in
1777 around Fort Stanwix are _5 Force's Archives_ (vols. i., ii.,
and iii.) and the Gansevoort Papers (copies in _Sparks MSS._, lx.),
including a letter of Arnold, August 22, 1777, dated at German Flats,
which Sparks has indorsed "evidently intended to be intercepted." On
the American side, we have further Colonel Willet's letter[827] to
Trumbull, Aug. 11th, in Dawson (i. 248); the account in the _Penna.
Evening Post_, given in Moore's _Diary_ (i. 477); Wilkinson's _Memoirs_
(pp. 204, 212); the _Journals of the New York Provincial Congress_
(vol. i.); and Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._ (ii. 578). Gordon gives
some details from eye-witnesses, mainly through reports made to him
by the Rev. Samuel Kirkland. Dwight picked up anecdotes about the
battlefield in 1799, which he prints in his _Travels_ (vol. iii.).
The best eclectic accounts are those by William L. Stone, father and
son,—the elder giving us his _Life of Brant_ (i. ch. 10 and 11), and
the younger, his _Orderly-book of Sir John Johnson during the Oriskany
campaign, 1776-1777, annotated by William L. Stone. With an historical
introduction illustrating the life of Sir John Johnson, by J. Watts
De Peyster. And some tracings from the footprints of the tories or
loyalists in America contributed by Theodorus Bailey Myers_ (Albany,
1882), being no. 11 of Munsell's historical series.[828] The younger
Stone's labors took a wider range in that portion of his _Campaign of
Lieutenant-Gen. John Burgoyne_ which is given to the expedition of St.
Leger, though he followed in the main his father's _Life of Brant_. In
the _Orderly-book_, just mentioned, however he modified some of his
views.

There is rather too much of patriotic fervor for a discriminating
analysis in a monograph, _The Battle of Oriskany, its place in History,
an address at the Centennial Celebration, Aug. 6, 1877, by Ellis H.
Roberts_ (Utica, 1877), but it is in most respects valuable and a
convenient gathering of information, not otherwise found without much
trouble, and is well fortified with notes.[829]

The principal English source is the account by St. Leger.[830]

To illustrate the movements near Fort Schuyler or Stanwix, we have
the plan made by Fleury in Sept., 1777, which is engraved in Stone's
_Life of Brant_, i. p. 230,—the essential portion of which is given
herewith.[831]

[Illustration: TICONDEROGA AND ITS DEPENDENCIES. AUGUST, 1776. J. T.
(_Trumbull's Plan._)]

[Illustration: TICONDEROGA, 1777. (_Sketched from the St. Clair trial
map._)

KEY: A, old fort in very bad condition, wanting repair; could not
be defended with less than 500 men. B, stone redoubt; about 200 men
would defend it; overlooketh the line Y, opposite the Lake, in Fort
Independence. C, block-house for 100 men. D, French redoubt upon the
low ground for about 200 men, commanded by the opposite side. E, new
breastwork for 200 men. F, new fleche for 100 men. G, new redoubt for
150 men. H, new redoubt for 100 men. I, redoubt upon the low ground
for 250 men, commanded by the opposite side. K, Jersey redoubt upon
the low ground for 300 men, commanded by the opposite side. L, redoubt
upon the low ground for 100 men. M, redoubt upon the low ground for
100 men. N, French lines upon the high ground; overlooks all the works
on Ticonderoga side; for 2,000 men and not less, considering the
great length and importance of the place. O, P, Q, R, new works in
addition to the French lines. S, high ground occupied by the enemy,
and overlooks the French lines. T, Mount Hope; overlooks ground, S,
occupied by the enemy. U, block-house burnt by the enemy. VV, high
hill; overlooks Ticonderoga and Mount Independence. X, the bridge [and
boom]. Y, line upon the low ground, commanded by the opposite side (B),
for 800 men. Z, barbet battery.

1, sloops. 2, line only marked upon the ground. 3, picket-fort for
600 men. 4, block-house for 100 men. 5, 6, line with three new-made
batteries for 1,500 men and not less. 7, block-house for 100 men. 8,
battery made by the enemy. 9, road made by the enemy to cut off the
communication from Mount Independence to Skenesborough.

The drawn plan in _Hadden's Journal_ (p. 83) speaks of the lines
protecting Fort Independence on the land side as being made "of logs
thrown up but not completed", from which a "path for cattle" led to
Hubbardton. Mount Defiance is called "Sugar Loaf Hill." The English
are represented as landing at the point marked "Camp", and the Germans
on the opposite shore. Gen. Phillips took the position on Mount Hope.
Lossing (_Field-Book_, i. 131) gives a view from the top of Mount
Defiance. A description of the fortifications about Ticonderoga, from
Riedesel's _Memoirs_, is in Stone's _Campaign of Burgoyne_ (p. 434).]

The position of the ground as shown by Fleury can be compared with
that of a _Topographical map of the country between the Mohawk River
and Wood Creek, from an actual survey taken in Nov., 1758_, which is
engraved from the original MS. (in the N. Y. State library) in the
_Doc. Hist. N. Y._ (quarto ed. iv. p. 324), where will also be found
(p. 327) a detailed plan of Fort Stanwix, as erected in 1758 (see Vol.
V., p. 528).[832]

* * * * *

Respecting the action (Aug. 16th) at Bennington, General Lincoln sent
the first accounts to Schuyler, who transmitted them to Washington
(Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._, i. 425). Stark's letter to Gates, of
Aug. 22d, is in Wilkinson's _Memoirs_ (p. 209); _Vermont Hist. Coll._
(i. 206); Dawson's _Battles_ (i. 260). His letter of the same day to
the Council of New Hampshire is in the _N. H. State Papers_, viii. 670.
The papers of Stark were used by Sparks in copies in the _Sparks MSS._
(no. xxxix.).[833]

There is in the Gates Papers (copies in _Sparks MSS._, xx.) an "account
of the enemy's loss in the late action of the 16th Aug., 1777, near
Bennington",—amounting to 991 killed, wounded, and prisoners;
Hessians, Canadians, and Tories. American loss, killed, between twenty
and thirty; wounded, not known.[834]

Burgoyne's original instructions to Baum are in the cabinet of the
Mass. Hist. Soc.,[835] and are printed in their _Collections_ (vol.
ii.).[836]

Letters of Baum and Burgoyne, Riedesel's report to the Duke of
Brunswick, Breymann's report[837] to Burgoyne, and Burgoyne's reports
to Germain, are in the _Documents in relation to the part taken by
Vermont in resisting the invasion of Burgoyne_ (_Vt. Hist. Soc. Coll._,
vol. i. pp. 198, 223, 225); Dawson's _Battles_ (i. 261-264); Eelking's
_Riedesel_ (iii. 184, 210, 261). A long account by Glick, a German
officer, is also in the _Vt. Hist. Coll._ (i. 211). On the jealousy of
the British and Hessians, see a letter by Hagan in the _N. E. Hist.
and Geneal. Reg._ (1864, p. 33).[838] An account "by a gentleman who
was present" is copied from the _Penna. Evening Post_, Sept. 4th, in
Moore's _Diary of the Rev._ (p. 479). A narrative by the Rev. Mr.
Allen in the _Connecticut Courant_, Aug. 25th, is copied in Smith's
_Pittsfield, Mass._[839]

[Illustration: FORT STANWIX OR SCHUYLER.

KEY: A, Fort Schuyler. B, Flagstaff, 3 guns. C, Northwest, 4 guns.
D, Northeast, 3 guns. E, Southeast, 4 guns. F, Powder magazine. G,
Laboratory. H, Barracks. I, Hornwork begun. J, Drawbridge. K, Covered
way. L, Glacis. M, Sally-port. N, Commandant's quarters. O, Willett's
attack. The following are British batteries, etc. 1, three guns. 2,
four mortars. 3, three guns. 4, redoubts to cover the batteries. 5,
lines of approaches. 6, British encampment. 7, Loyalists. 8, Indians.
9, ruins of Fort Newport. There is a copy of the map made for Mr.
Sparks among the Sparks Maps at Cornell University.]

The local aspects of the fight are touched upon in Hall's and other
histories of Vermont,[840] and the general authorities necessarily
enlarge more or less upon it, as an episode.[841] At the first
anniversary of the Bennington fight, in 1778, a speech was made by Noah
Smith, which was printed at Hartford in 1779, and is reprinted in the
_Vermont Hist. Coll._ (i. p. 251). On Oct. 20, 1848, James D. Butler
gave an address before the Legislature of Vermont, which "contained
original testimonies of witnesses now long dead, and notes from papers
since burned in the Vermont State House." When printed at Burlington,
in 1849, it was accompanied by an address by George Frederick Houghton
on the life and services of Col. Seth Warner.[842] The centennial
observances of 1877 produced several memorials.[843]

Gen. Carrington (_Battles_, p. 334) gives one of the best plans of
the Bennington fight. There is among the _Sparks MSS._ (no. xxviii.)
a sketch map, with this indorsement by Mr. Sparks: "Drawn by Mr.
Hiland Hall, Bennington, Oct. 13, 1826. Very accurate. Ground examined
by myself at the time." It shows the Walloomsack River (a branch of
the Hoosick River) with the skirting road to Bennington, three times
crossing the river. On this road, going up stream, are marked (in
order) the beginning of the second action, the hill where the stand was
attempted, the places where Breyman was met by Warner, where the cannon
were posted in the first battle, and the line of Stark's advance.

In Burgoyne's _State of the Expedition_ is a plan called "Position of
the Detachment under Lieut.-Col. Baum, at Walmscook, near Bennington,
shewing the attacks of the enemy on the 16th of August, 1777, drawn by
Lieut. Durnford, engineer; engraved by Wm. Faden", and published at
London, Feb. 1, 1780.[844]

* * * * *

Meanwhile Schuyler was gathering an army as best he could. In July
he wrote to Heath that its spirits were recovering (_Heath Papers_,
i. 300). The militia were called out early in August to assist him
(_Journals of Congress_, ii. 214). W. L. Stone tells the story of Moses
Harris, his faithful spy, in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (ii. 414). The
discontent with Schuyler on the part of the politicians was beginning
to be shaped to party measures, and led to his being superseded in
August by Gates, while a battle was imminent, as Schuyler thought.[845]

Bancroft (vol. ix.) does not hold Schuyler free from the responsibility
of the ill success of the campaign up to this time; but he is
controverted by G. W. Schuyler in his _Correspondence and Remarks
upon Bancroft's History of the Northern Campaign_; by Lossing in his
_Schuyler_; and by J. W. De Peyster in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._
(February, 1877, vol. i. 134).[846]

Burgoyne meanwhile (August 26) was writing to Germain that the campaign
was looking badly, and the loyalists not as helpful as he hoped. The
conflict which Schuyler thought impending took place September 19, and
is variously known as the battle of Freeman's Farm, or Stillwater, or
the first battle of Bemis's Heights. Gates had already appealed to
the Green Mountain boys for assistance, as the records of the Vermont
Council of Safety show (Stevens, _Bibl. Geog._, 1870, no. 693). Gen.
Glover's letters to James Warren during Aug. and Sept. are in the
_Sparks MSS._ (no. xlvii.) and in Upham's _Glover_, and his account
of the battle of the 19th is in _Essex Institute Hist. Coll._ (v. no.
3). Col. Varick's letter to Schuyler is in the _Sparks MSS._, lxvi.
Wilkinson gives the best account of any participant (i. ch. 6), and his
letter of Sept. 20 is in Dawson (i. 301). Gates's letter to Congress,
Sept. 22, is also in Dawson (i. 301). Gordon gives the American
loss.[847]

The question of Arnold's participancy in the battle of the 19th, while
the left wing—his own command—was engaged, has been the subject of
controversy.[848]

The attempt of an American force to cut Burgoyne's line of
communications by the lakes is described in the "Fight at Diamond
Island", Sept. 24, by De Costa, who gives the official report of Col.
Brown (_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1872, p. 147). These evidences
come mainly from the Gates Papers, and are recapitulated in Stone's
_Campaign of Burgoyne_ (App. 10).

Respecting the action of Oct. 7, the earliest official accounts are
in Glover's letter of Oct. 9, and in Gates's to Congress, of Oct.
18,—both of which are reprinted by Dawson (i. 302, 303). James
Wilkinson's letter of Oct. 9 is in the New York Archives, with various
other letters of the campaign (_Sparks MSS._, no. xxix.). A letter of
Oliver Wolcott from Bemis's Heights is in the _Trumbull MSS._ (vol.
vii.). The lives of Arnold (by I. N. Arnold, ch. 10, etc.) indicate his
important influence on the field, where he was wounded.[849]

On the action of Col. Brooks in the field see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._
(vii. 478). There is an account by Samuel Woodruff, an eye-witness, in
the appendix of _An account of Burgoyne's Campaign and the memorable
battles of Bemis's Heights, Sept. 19th, and October 7th, 1777, from
the most authentic resources of information, including many incidents
connected with the same_, by Charles Neilson (Albany, 1844).[850]

The story of Major Acland and Lady Acland has long been one of the
romantic episodes of the campaign. The family account is given by W. L.
Stone in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ 1877 (iv. 50), and Jan., 1880, and
in _Lippincott's Mag._, Oct., 1879.[851]

The various stages of the negotiations which resulted in what is
known as the "Convention" can be followed in the documents given in
Fonblanque (p. 306); Wilkinson's _Memoirs_ (pp. 304, 306, 317); Dawson
(i. 303); Stedman's _Amer. War_; Stone's _Campaign of Burgoyne_ (p.
102); and O'Callaghan's _Orderly-Book of Burgoyne_. The original
definitive articles are in the N. Y. Hist. Soc., and fac-similes of the
signatures are in Lossing's _Field-Book_ (i. 79).[852]

Wilkinson carried the news of the surrender to Congress (Wilkinson's
_Memoirs_; Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii. 494). Gates describes his own
success to his wife (Moore's _Diary_, 511). Chaplain Smith gives some
details of the meeting of Gates and Burgoyne (_Chaplain Smith and the
Baptists_, p. 222). There are reminiscences in Surgeon Meyrick's letter
in Trumbull's _Autobiography_ (p. 301), and papers in _Pennsylvania
Archives_ (vol. v.). Recollections of Gen. Ebenezer Mattoon, an actor
in the scene as written out in 1835, are in the Appendix (no. 13) of
Stone's _Campaign of Burgoyne_. The comment of Wm. Whipple is in _N. H.
State Papers_, viii. 707. Burgoyne's letter from Albany, Oct. 20, to
Germain is in his _State of the Expedition_.[853]

De Lancey (App. p. 674, to Jones's _New York during the Rev._) collates
the authorities on the strength of the respective armies. Gates's
returns of his army (11,098) are in the Gates MSS. Burgoyne, in his
_State of the Expedition_, gives Gates's returns as 18,624,—the
difference may be the number of sick and furloughed men. Burgoyne
praised Gates's men after he had seen them (Fonblanque, 316). The
numbers of Burgoyne's army are given in Appendix D in Fonblanque.
The question is also examined in the App. of Stone's _Campaign of
Burgoyne_. Gordon (_Amer. Rev._, ii. 578) gives the number surrendered
at 5,791; but there is a great difference in the estimates. Alexander
Scammell makes it 10,611 in _Letters and Papers, 1777-80_ (Mass. Hist.
Soc. Cabinet). In the Stark MSS. is a table of Burgoyne's losses
(14,000), covering the whole campaign, and put into verse (_Sparks
MSS._, xxxix.).[854]

Respecting the campaign as a whole, the best contemporary accounts on
the American side are found in the official correspondence as embraced
in Sparks's _Washington_ (iv. 486, etc.) and _Correspondence of the
Revolution_ (vol. ii., App.), and in the letters of the commanding
generals.[855]

Various important letters are put in evidence in the _Proceedings of
the general court martial for the trial of Maj.-Gen. Schuyler, Oct. 1,
1778_ (Philad., 1778).[856]

An account of Alexander Bryan, Gates's chief scout, is in the App. of
Stone's _Campaign of Burgoyne_.

There are among the copies of the Lincoln Papers in the _Sparks MSS._
(xii.) various letters, etc., respecting the campaign against Burgoyne.
The earliest is one from Gen. Schuyler to Lincoln, dated at Saratoga,
July 31, 1777, and the last is one from Lincoln to Gov. Clinton,
Oct. 5, 1777, expressing anxiety lest Putnam should not be able to
resist Gen. Clinton, to whom Burgoyne in his straits was looking for
relief.[857] At a later day Lincoln wrote a long letter from Boston,
Feb. 5, 1781, to John Laurens, recounting his part in this campaign
from the time of Gates's taking command to the date of Lincoln's being
wounded, Oct. 8th (Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._, ii. 533).

Various letters of Henry Brockholst Livingston during the Northern
campaign of 1777 (June-Aug.), only parts of which are printed in
Sedgwick's _Livingston_, are among the papers of Gov. William
Livingston, which, when Sparks made his copies in 1832 (_Sparks MSS._,
lii., vol. iii.) were in the possession of Theodore Sedgwick, Jr. Other
letters will be found in the _Trumbull MSS._ (Mass. Hist. Soc.)[858]

The campaign of Burgoyne has necessarily made part of the labors of the
general historians. Gordon and Ramsay were among the earliest, on the
American, and Stedman (i. ch. 16) on the English side. Of the later
writers, Bancroft gives it three chapters (21, 22, 24) in his original
edition, and four in his final revision[859] (10, 11, 12, 13). Lowell
finds it an important section of his history of the German auxiliaries
(_Hessians_, p. 221, etc.). The lives of principal participants, like
Arnold, Lincoln, Gates, and Schuyler on the American side, cover it.

A recent life of Morgan, _The Hero of Cowpens_, by Rebecca McConkey
(N. Y., 1881), would claim for the Virginian the praise which is
usually given to Arnold. The general surveys of Marshall (iii. ch. 5)
and Irving (iii. ch. 9-22) brought it within the scope of their lives
of Washington; and J. C. Hamilton's _Republic of the United States_
includes it. Local aspects are treated in Dunlap's _New York_; Holden's
_Queensbury_ (p. 433); Hollister's _Connecticut_; Hinman's _Connecticut
during the Revolution_ (p. 112); and Mrs. Bonney's _Historical
Gleanings_ (i. 58). Robin's _New Travels_ (letter 12) gives the current
accounts prevailing a little later.

The earliest considerable monographic narrative was Charles Neilson's
_Original, Compiled and Corrected Account of Burgoyne's Campaign, and
the Memorable Battle of Bemis's Heights, September 19, and October 7,
1777, from the most Authentic Sources of Information_, etc. (Albany,
1844).

The most devoted chronicler of the campaign, however, is the younger
William L. Stone (b. 1835), who published _Reminiscences of Saratoga
and Ballston_ in 1875, an article on "Burgoyne in a new light" in _The
Galaxy_ (v. 78), and one on the campaign in _Harper's Monthly_ in 1877
(vol. lv. p. 673), and in the same year the most important work on the
subject yet produced, _The Campaign of Lieutenant-General John Burgoyne
and the Expedition of Lieutenant-Colonel Barry St. Leger_, which draws
from every important help to the study of the military movements which
had been so far brought to light. In the next year (1878), Mr. Stone
prepared the _Memoir of the Centennial Celebration of Burgoyne's
Surrender, Schuylerville, Oct. 17, 1875_. It included an historical
address by Mr. Stone himself, others by Horatio Seymour and George
William Curtis.[860]

The English later writers have been in the main fair in their
statements. Mahon (vi. 191), while praising the army of Gates, denies
him the merit of its successful conduct, giving it essentially to
Stark and Arnold. The American student finds little to question in
the unusually impartial narrative embodied in Edward Barrington De
Fonblanque's _Political and Military episodes in the latter half of the
Eighteenth Century, derived from the life and Correspondence of John
Burgoyne_ (London, 1776).[861]

On the German side the main sources are Max von Eelking's _Die
Deutschen Hülfstruppen im nord-amerikanischen Befreiungskriege,
1776-1783_ (Hannover, 1863,—2 vols.), who gives chapters 7 and
8 to this campaign; the same writer's _Leben und Wirken des
Herzoglich-Braunschweig'schen_ _General-lieutenants Friedrich Adolph
von Riedesel_ (Leipzig, 1856,—3 vols.) and _Generalin von Riedesel's
Berufs-Reise nach Amerika_ (Berlin, 1801), both of which Riedesel
memoirs have been translated by W. L. Stone.[862]

The succession of battles and movements preceding the final surrender
of Burgoyne have been well mapped.[863]

* * * * *

[Illustration]

[Illustration

NOTE.—The main British map of the attack of Clinton and Montgomery
(Oct. 6, 1777) is one made by John Hills, and published in London by
Faden, Jan., 1784, a portion of which, showing the detail, is annexed.
The same map is used by Stedman (i. 362), and there is a reduction in
the _Catal. of Hist. MSS. rel. to the War of the Rev._ (Albany, 1868,
ii. 298), and in the illus. ed. of Irving's _Washington_, iii. 244.
Cf. also the maps in Sparks's _Washington_ (v. 92); _Harper's Mag._,
lii. 648; and in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 166. Original MS. drafts,
showing the attack on the forts, made by Holland, by the Hessian
Wangenheim, and by others, are among the Faden maps (nos. 70-73) in
the library of Congress. Holland's surveys were followed in the plans
of Montgomery and Clinton (1777) by Lieut. John Knight, of the Royal
Navy.]

Respecting the diversion of Clinton in Burgoyne's favor, the letters of
Putnam, whose business it was to hold the passes of the Hudson against
the British, are in Sparks's _Washington_ (v. App. p. 471), and in his
_Correspondence of the Revolution_ (i. 438; ii. App. 536, etc.), and in
the _Western Reserve Hist. Soc. Tracts_, no. 46.[864] Dawson, beside
the despatch of Putnam to Washington on the capture, gives also George
Clinton's to Washington (i. 341, 342).[865] Contemporary American
accounts of the capture and of the burning of Kingston are in Moore's
_Diary_ (p. 506, 510); and a narrative, by G. W. Pratt, of the Kingston
episode is in the _Ulster Hist. Soc. Coll._ (i. 107).

[Illustration]

On the British side, Sir Henry Clinton's despatches are in _Almon's
Remembrancer_ (vol. v.), and that to Howe of Oct. 9th is in Dawson (i.
344), with one from Commodore Hotham to Howe (p. 346).[866]

The maps of the Hudson already enumerated are of use in the study of
this movement.[867] Plans of intended works (1776) and obstructions in
the river near Fort Montgomery are given in the _Calendar of Historical
MSS. relating to the War of the Rev._ (Albany, 1868, vol. i. 474,
616),[868] and a MS. plan of William A. Patterson, first lieutenant,
15th reg., April 22, 1776, is in the _Heath MSS._, i. 246 (Mass. Hist.
Soc.).

The correspondence of the committee of Congress with the commissioners
in France, regarding the effect of the surrender of Burgoyne, is in
_Diplomatic Correspondence_ (i. 338, 355). Cf. Stuart's _Jonathan
Trumbull_. Jonathan Loring Austin, dispatched by the Massachusetts
authorities, carried the first intelligence to France.[869] Schulenberg
wrote to the commissioners from Berlin (_Diplom. Corresp._, ii. 120),
and Izard replied (_Ibid._, ii. 370).[870]

Burgoyne sailed from Rhode Island for England in April, 1778.[871] On
arriving, he had an early interview with Lord George Germain, but the
king refused to see him. He appeared in Parliament,[872] where he had
earlier been a firm but not bellicose upholder of the government,[873]
on May 21st, and on the 26th and 28th made speeches in his own defence,
which were published in London, June 16, 1778, as _The substance of
General Burgoyne's speeches, ... with an appendix containing Gen.
Washington's letter to Gen. Burgoyne_.[874]

The king, piqued at finding Burgoyne on the side of the opposition in
Parliament, ordered him to return to his imprisoned troops, and, rather
than go, the general resigned his civil and military offices, and
printed an explanation in _A letter from Lieutenant-General Burgoyne to
his constituents, with the correspondence between the secretaries of
war and him, relative to his return to America_ (London, 1779).[875]

[Illustration: ATTACK ON CLINTON AND MONTGOMERY.

After the plan in Leake's _Life of Lamb_, p. 176. The legend in
northwest corner of the map reads by error "Halt of the _right_
[should be _left_] column." Other eclectic maps are given in Sparks's
_Washington_, v. 92; in Boynton's _West Point_; and in Carrington's
_Battles_, p. 362.]

Lord George Germain, or, as some have thought, Sir John Dalrymple,
published a _Reply to Lieutenant-General Burgoyne's letter to his
constituents_[876] (London, 1779), pronouncing it a libel upon the
king's government, and this was seconded by an anonymous _Letter to
Lieutenant-General Burgoyne on his letter to his constituents_ (London,
1779).[877]

The further controversy over Burgoyne's failure includes the following
publications:—

_A brief examination of the plan and conduct of the Northern expedition
in America in 1777, and of the surrender of the army under the command
of Lieutenant-General Burgoyne_ (London, 1779),—a severe attack.[878]

_An Enquiry into and remarks upon the Conduct of Lieutenant-General
Burgoyne; the plan of operations for the campaign of 1777; the
instructions from the Secretary of State, and the circumstances that
led to the loss of the northern army_ (London, 1780).[879]

_Essay on modern martyrs, with a letter to General Burgoyne_ (London,
1780),[880]—charging him with being the personal cause of his own
misfortunes.

In addition, there were some publications reviewing the conduct of
Howe's as well as Burgoyne's campaigns in 1777, which will be noticed
in another place.

Burgoyne's main defence against all these charges appeared in his
_A State of the Expedition from Canada as laid before the House of
Commons, with a collection of Authentic Documents, and an addition
of many circumstances which were prevented from appearing before
the House by the Prorogation of Parliament, written and collated by
himself, with plans_ (London, 1780).[881] In his introduction Burgoyne
says, that, being denied a professional examination of his conduct,
and disappointed in a parliamentary one, he was induced to make this
publication.[882]

This publication was followed by _A Supplement to the State of the
Expedition from Canada, containing Gen. Burgoyne's Orders respecting
the Principal Movements and Operations of the Army to the Raising of
the Siege of Ticonderoga_ (London, 1780).[883]

Burgoyne was attacked in return in the following: _Remarks on General
Burgoyne's State of the Expedition from Canada_ (London, 1780),[884]
being a defence of the ministry, and holding that Burgoyne had
forfeited all claims to pity. _A letter to Lieutenant-General Burgoyne
occasioned by a second edition of his State of the Expedition, etc._
(London, 1780).[885] Fonblanque (ch. viii.) portrays the effect in
England of the parliamentary inquiry. Cf. Macknight's _Burke_ (ch. 30).
The Rev. Samuel Peters' reply to Burgoyne in the Appendix of Jones's
_New York during the Revolutionary War_ (vol. i. p. 683).

The _Centennial Celebrations of the State of New York_ (Albany, 1879)
gives the addresses of that period, by M. I. Townshend and John A.
Stevens.[886]

CHAPTER V.

THE STRUGGLE FOR THE DELAWARE.—PHILADELPHIA UNDER HOWE AND UNDER
ARNOLD.

BY FREDERICK D. STONE,

_Librarian of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania._

"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the
sunshine patriot will in this crisis shrink from the service of his
country, but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man
and woman."

So wrote Thomas Paine, December 19, 1776. The preceding month had been
fraught with adversity. The loss of Fort Washington on the 16th of
November had rendered Fort Lee useless, as with it alone the passage
of the river could not be obstructed. Its evacuation was immediately
ordered, and the ammunition and some of the guns were removed. Before
all could be taken away, however, the fort became the object of
the enemy's attention. On the night of the 19th, two columns under
Cornwallis, composed of British and Germans, with a detachment from
the fleet, in all about six thousand men, crossed the river and landed
at Closter dock, seven miles above Fort Lee, then commanded by General
Greene. The night was stormy, and the movement escaped the notice of
Greene's sentries. By morning the sailors had dragged the artillery
to the top of the Palisades, and everything was ready for an advance
upon the fort. Greene was informed of the landing of Cornwallis, and
immediately took steps to secure a retreat for his command, then
numbering about three thousand men. Word was sent to Washington, who
was at the village of Hackensack with the troops which he had brought
with him from White Plains. In three quarters of an hour the commanding
general was at Greene's side. Seeing that the fort was not tenable,
he ordered a retreat. No time was to be lost; and leaving the tents
standing, the kettles over the fires, and such stores as could not be
removed, the troops were hurried towards the advancing enemy with such
speed that they gained the road leading to the only bridge over the
Hackensack before Cornwallis could intercept them.

The situation of the Americans was now more precarious than it had
been at Fort Lee. They were in danger of being shut in between the
Hackensack and Passaic rivers; they were in a perfectly flat country,
without intrenching tools or camp equipage; their right flank could be
turned and their line of retreat threatened if the British should land
a force at the head of Newark Bay or at Amboy. Washington's forces were
greatly reduced by reverses and by desertions. Nearly all that were
left were militia of the flying camp, called out for an emergency, and
impatient to return home, as their time of service had nearly expired.
Small as his numbers were, Washington was obliged to post some at Amboy
and others at Brunswick, to protect his flanks. As those remaining
were insufficient to hinder the advance of the enemy in his front, he
ordered Lee, whom he had left in command on the east of the Hudson, to
cross that river and join him, and, with hardly three thousand men,
Washington began his retreat through the Jerseys.

On the 21st he was at Aquacknoc Bridge on the Passaic, and by the
23d at Newark. On the 28th he left Newark, the advance-guard of the
British entering the town as his rear-guard quitted it, and the next
day he arrived at Brunswick. Here an attempt would have been made to
prevent the enemy crossing the Raritan, but the stream was fordable in
a number of places. As the British approached, the Jersey and Maryland
brigades, whose terms of service expired that day, refused to stay an
hour longer, and as the British crossed the river the line of march
was again taken up for Trenton. This point was reached on the 2d of
December, two brigades having been left at Princeton, under Stirling,
to watch the enemy.

Having seen his stores and baggage safely over the Delaware, and being
reinforced by about twelve hundred militia from the neighborhood of
Philadelphia, Washington faced about on the 6th, with such men as were
fit for service, and set out to join Stirling at Princeton.

It had not been the intention of Howe, when he ordered Cornwallis over
the Hudson, to do more than take possession of and hold East Jersey,
and Cornwallis's orders did not permit him to go beyond Brunswick. But
the slight opposition which Washington was able to offer to the British
advance excited in Howe the hopes of capturing Philadelphia, and he
joined Cornwallis in person at Brunswick. After a short halt, he pushed
on towards Stirling at Princeton, and before Washington could reach
that general Stirling was in full retreat, to avoid being intercepted.
A retrograde movement was ordered, and by the 8th the American army was
on the west bank of the Delaware. The advance of Cornwallis's column
reached the river before the rear-guard of the Americans had landed
on the Pennsylvania side; but as Washington had secured all the boats
for a considerable distance above and below Trenton, his position
was comparatively a safe one. Here for a time he rested his men, and
urged upon Congress the necessity of raising additional troops, and
the importance of preparing for the defence of Philadelphia, as the
military stores were in that city.

In his retreat through the Jerseys, Washington was greatly embarrassed
by the conduct of General Charles Lee. The instructions he had given
Lee on the 17th of November to join him may have been discretionary,
but the language and frequency of his orders left no doubt of the
expectations of the commander-in-chief. But Lee chose to read the
orders in the light of his wishes. On the east of the Hudson he
had an independent command, which he purposed to retain as long as
he could. Schemes and suggestions that should have had no weight
were allowed to delay his passage over the river until December
2d, and then his advance was slow and hesitating. The prospect of
receiving reinforcements from the Northern army, which would make his
command equal to that of Washington, strengthened his wish to act
independently. He proposed, as soon as the troops from the north should
join him, to attack the rear of the enemy. While this plan may not
have been devoid of military judgment, it is doubtful if it would have
had more than a temporary effect on Howe's movements, while it would
have deprived Washington of the reinforcements he so greatly needed.
Notwithstanding Washington's explicit directions to avoid the enemy
in joining him, Lee hung so close to the enemy's flank as to leave a
doubt of his real intentions, and on the morning of the 13th, just
after having put on record that he believed Washington to be "damnably
deficient", he was surprised and taken prisoner by Lieutenant-Colonel
Harcourt, at White's tavern, near Baskingridge, three miles from his
camp.

[Illustration: CHARLES LEE

From Murray's _Impartial Hist. of the Present War_, i. p. 478.]

The estimation in which Lee was held gave an undue importance to
his capture. The British thought that in it they had deprived their
opponents of nearly all the military science they possessed, and they
styled him the American Palladium. With the Americans he had many
friends, who were flattered that a soldier of European distinction
should have espoused their cause, and, dazzled with his success at
Charleston, they rated him higher than Washington, and, unintentionally
perhaps, weakened the confidence that should have been reposed in the
commander-in-chief by his subordinates.

Having failed to overtake Washington in New Jersey, Howe turned
northward to Coryell's Ferry, fifteen miles above Trenton, in hopes of
finding boats to enable him to cross the Delaware; but in this he was
disappointed. He then took post at Pennington with a portion of his
force, while with the remainder he returned to Trenton, repaired the
bridges below the town which the Americans had destroyed, and extended
his line as far as Burlington.

So great was the terror spread through New Jersey as the British
advanced, that many of her citizens took advantage of the amnesty which
was offered by the Howes to all who would put themselves under their
protection within sixty days from the 30th of November. Chief among
these was Samuel Tucker, president of the Committee of Safety, who had
held many positions of honor and trust. Nor was this defection confined
to the east side of the Delaware. It was now that Joseph Galloway, and
citizens of Philadelphia, like the Allens, who had supported the cause
of the colonies until independence became the avowed object of the war,
sought safety within the British lines. But the influence which their
conduct might have exercised upon the people was neutralized by what
was soon endured at the hands of the British and Hessian troops. Never
before had any of the colonies been exposed to the unbridled impulses
of a mercenary and licentious soldiery. Houses were plundered and their
contents destroyed in mere wantonness, women were forced to submit to
indignities, and all the horrors which usually attended the invasion
of a European country by a foreign army in the eighteenth century were
transferred to the soil of New Jersey.[887]

[Illustration]

In Philadelphia the excitement was intense. On the 28th of November a
meeting was held in the State House yard to consider the condition of
affairs. It was addressed by Mifflin, who had been sent to the city to
warn Congress of the danger which threatened the army. He spoke with
animation, and endeavored to rouse the people to action. His efforts
met with some success, and in a few days the troops that reinforced
Washington prior to his retreat into Pennsylvania were in motion. On
the 30th the Council of Safety advised the citizens to prepare, upon
short notice, to remove their wives and children to places of safety.
On December 2d, when it was known in the city that Howe's army was at
Brunswick, crowds gathered at the Coffee House to learn the news. The
stores and schools were closed, and all business was suspended. No one
was allowed to cross the Delaware without a pass, while recruiting
parties with drums beating paraded in the streets. The roads leading
from the city were crowded with vehicles of every description, bearing
the families of citizens and their effects to places of refuge.

[Illustration: AN APPEAL.

Reduced from an original in the library of the Historical Society of
Pennsylvania.]

When these means of transportation failed, the water craft on the
Delaware was pressed into service. Women with children in their arms
were crowded in smoky cabins so low that they could not sit upright,
while the younger girls were quartered on the decks, from whence
they were driven by the snow and rain. But sadder sights presented
themselves in the streets of the city. The sick of the army arrived
daily. Many of the men had gone to the field clad only for a summer
campaign. They had succumbed to exposure, and had reached Philadelphia
in an almost naked condition. Measures were at once set on foot for
their relief. Vacant houses were taken for their accommodation. The
most seriously afflicted were sent to the hospitals, while committees
of citizens went from door to door begging clothing for their use.

[Illustration: BROADSIDE.

Reduced from an original in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.]

Handbills were issued giving information of the advance of the enemy,
and to awaken the indignation of the people printed sheets were
circulated describing the insults to which the women of New Jersey had
been subjected. Some of the citizens refused to take the Continental
money, as it was rumored that Congress would soon disperse. On the 11th
of December Congress requested Washington to contradict this rumor in
general orders, and to assure the army that the delegates would remain
in Philadelphia until it was certain the enemy would capture the city.
It was well that Washington exercised his discretion in this matter,
for the next day the crushing news was known throughout the city that
he had been obliged to cross the Delaware. Congress at once adjourned
to Baltimore, having first conferred on Washington "full power to order
and direct all things relative to the department and to the operations
of the war."

The state of political affairs in Pennsylvania was the chief cause of
the inefficiency which exposed Philadelphia to the danger of capture
and of the panic with which her citizens were seized. The old colonial
charter had been abrogated, but the new constitution had not been put
into effect, and the condition of society bordered upon anarchy.

For two weeks after Washington had retreated across the Delaware there
seemed little chance of impeding the British advance. "Day by day the
little handful was decreasing, from sickness and other causes." The
services of all the regular troops in it, with the exception of those
from Virginia and Maryland, expired on the first of the year, and the
militia could not be depended upon. "They come", wrote Washington,
"you cannot tell how, go you cannot tell when, and act you cannot tell
where, consume your provisions, exhaust your stores, and leave you at
last at a critical moment." "These", he said again to Congress, on the
20th of December, "are the men I am to depend upon ten days hence." On
Congress he urged the importance of raising at once an army upon a more
substantial basis, and impressed upon those around him the necessity of
the utmost vigilance. But in the anguish of the moment he wrote to his
brother: "If every nerve is not strained to recruit the new army with
all possible expedition, I think the game is pretty nearly up.... I
cannot entertain the idea that [our cause] will finally sink, though it
may remain for some time under a cloud."

Each day brought new difficulties to be overcome. When it was learned
that the fleet that had sailed from New York had appeared off New
London, the march of a portion of Heath's troops, which had been
ordered from Peekskill, was countermanded, and three regiments from
Ticonderoga were directed to halt at Morristown, where about eight
hundred militia had been collected, and General Maxwell was sent
to command them. On the 20th, the troops under Gates and Sullivan
joined Washington. The former had been sent by Schuyler. Sullivan's
division was that which had been commanded by Lee up to the time of his
capture. Washington had been led to believe that a portion of these
troops had reënlisted, and he had been waiting until they should join
him to strike a blow at Howe's forces. Only a small number of the men
had done so, however, and he found that on the first of the year he
would have but fifteen hundred men independent of the militia. It was
evident, therefore, that the blow must be struck at once.

On the 14th of December the British troops went into winter-quarters.
They were stationed at Brunswick, Princeton, Trenton, and Bordentown.
Howe returned to his easy quarters in New York. Cornwallis obtained
permission to visit England, and left Grant at Brunswick in command of
New Jersey. The troops at Trenton were under the Hessian, Lieut.-Col.
Rahl; those at Bordentown were commanded by his superior, Count Donop,
who had some outposts as far south as Burlington and Mount Holly. Howe
knew his line was too far extended, but he wished to cover the county
of Monmouth, where there were indications of an outbreak on the part
of some loyalists. The American army reached from Coryell's Ferry to
Bristol. The crossings above Trenton were guarded by Stirling, Mercer,
Stephen, and Fermoy. Ewing lay opposite Trenton. Dickinson with a few
New Jersey troops was opposite Bordentown, and Cadwalader with the
Pennsylvania militia was at Bristol.

Washington decided to attack the troops at Trenton. His men fit for
duty did not exceed five thousand, and of these nearly two thousand
were militia. The troops under Rahl consisted of three battalions of
Hessians, having with them six field-pieces, fifty chasseurs, and
twenty dragoons,—twelve hundred in all. Circumstances favored the plan
which Washington now adopted. Colonel Griffin, with two companies of
Virginians and some militia, had driven a party of Hessians, who had
penetrated as far south as Moorestown and Haddonfield, back to Mount
Holly, where they had been reinforced by Donop, who was thus too far
removed from Trenton to support Rahl in case of an emergency. The
success of Griffin made the militia at Bristol anxious for service, and
it was decided by Cadwalader and Reed, who was with him, to gratify
them by supporting Griffin. To this Washington assented, and at the
same time confided to Reed and Cadwalader his contemplated movement
against Trenton. On the morning of the 23d he wrote to them asking if
the plan had been carried out, and informed them that one hour before
day on the morning of the 26th was the time he had fixed upon for
attacking Rahl. "For heaven's sake", he wrote, "keep this to yourselves
as the discovery of it may prove fatal to us. Our numbers, sorry I
am to say, being less than I had any conception of; but necessity,
dire necessity, will, nay must justify an attack. Prepare and concert
with Griffin; attack as many of their posts as you possibly can with
a prospect of success; the more we can attack at the same instant the
more confusion we shall spread, and the greater good will result from
it."

Washington was informed that it was impracticable to act with Griffin;
and Reed repaired to Philadelphia to urge Putnam to create a diversion
by crossing the river at Cooper's Ferry. He found, however, that little
could be expected from Putnam, and returned to Bristol on the 25th,
where Cadwalader was preparing to carry out the part which Washington
had assigned to him. It was the intention of Washington to cross the
Delaware above Trenton with about one half of his command, and attack
the enemy, while Ewing and Cadwalader should cross opposite Trenton and
Bristol, and not only cut Rahl's line of retreat but prevent Donop from
reinforcing him.

Notwithstanding the fact that no aid could be expected from Putnam,
Washington determined to proceed, and urged Cadwalader to do all in his
power to support him. The boats had been gathered at McKonkey's Ferry,
nine miles above Trenton, and as the men marched to them the footprints
they left in the snow were here and there tinged with blood from the
feet of those who wore broken shoes. The boats were promptly manned
by Glover's regiment from Marblehead, and at dark the crossing began.
It was three o'clock before the artillery was landed, and four before
the troops took up the line of march. The attack was to have been made
about five, and against a more vigilant enemy this delay would have
proved fatal. But Rahl was not vigilant. He despised his opponents, and
refused to protect his position with redoubts as instructed by Donop.
He had been informed of Washington's intended movement, but paid no
attention to the report. It so happened that on the morning of the
attack his outposts had been fired upon by a body of strolling militia,
and this he supposed was the attack he was to look for. Washington
had with him two thousand four hundred men. These he divided into two
columns. One was commanded by Sullivan, and marched by the river road
which entered the town on the northwest. The other, under Greene,
took the Pennington road which approached the town from the north.
The Americans advanced in a violent storm of snow and hail. Greene's
command arrived at the outskirts of the town three minutes before
Sullivan's. The attacks of both parties were almost simultaneously.
Many of the guns were rendered useless by the storm, and the men were
ordered to charge. Those who had bayonets fixed them and rushed upon
the pickets, who retired. The Hessians were taken entirely by surprise.
For a while Rahl was allowed to remain undisturbed in bed, but when
matters grew serious he was aroused and hurriedly assumed command.
Some of his half-formed regiments were advanced towards the Americans,
but were driven back, throwing those in their rear into inextricable
confusion. Two lines of retreat were open to Rahl. One lay over the
bridge which crossed the Assanpink, south of the town; the other was
the road to Brunswick. But Sullivan's attack was so spirited that the
Hessians were driven past the road which led to the bridge, and as they
attempted to escape towards Brunswick, Washington intercepted them
with Hand's riflemen and held them in check. A battery under Captain
Thomas Forrest created great havoc in their ranks, and two of their
guns were turned against it. These were immediately charged by the
Americans, who were led by Captain William Washington and Lieutenant
James Monroe. Both were wounded, but the guns were captured. Rahl was
mortally wounded in trying to rally his men, and shortly after he fell
his command surrendered. All was over in three quarters of an hour.
With the exception of the horse and a small number of the infantry
which escaped over the Assanpink or to Brunswick, Rahl's entire force
was either killed or captured. The prisoners numbered nine hundred and
eighteen. The killed, Washington thought, did not exceed twenty or
thirty. The Americans had two privates killed, one frozen to death,
and two officers and four men wounded. As the enemy were supposed to
be in force at Princeton and Bordentown, and the Americans were in no
condition to withstand an attack, it was thought best not to risk the
advantage which had been gained, and as soon as the men were rested the
army, with its prisoners, returned to Pennsylvania.

Ewing and Cadwalader had been unable to carry out the parts assigned
them, on account of the ice. The latter sent a portion of his infantry
over the river, but recalled it when he found he could not land his
artillery. With no definite news of Washington's success, Cadwalader
recrossed on the morning of the 27th, supposing Washington to be at
Trenton. He soon learned his mistake, but discovered that Donop had
retreated towards Brunswick when he heard of the action at Trenton.
Cadwalader then moved on to Burlington, and on the 29th marched to
Crosswicks. The desperate condition of affairs previous to the battle
had stimulated the people to extraordinary efforts, and the news of the
victory raised their spirits in proportion to the depression they had
so lately suffered. Ignorant of the victory Washington had achieved,
Congress on the 27th vested him with powers that virtually constituted
him a military dictator for the period of six months. To convince the
people of the reality of the victory, the Hessians were marched through
the streets of Philadelphia, and one of their standards was hung up in
the chamber of Congress at Baltimore. Public rejoicings broke forth on
every side. "The Lord of Hosts has heard the cry of the distressed, and
sent an angel to their assistance", exclaimed Muhlenberg, the patriarch
of the Lutherans. On the 27th and 28th of December, fifteen hundred
militia under Mifflin followed Cadwalader into New Jersey, while the
Jerseymen gathered at Morristown and other points. In the face of this
feeling it was necessary that the offensive should be resumed, and on
the 30th Washington occupied Trenton. The service of the New England
troops expired on the first of the year; but through the efforts of
Robert Morris money was raised to offer bounties, which, with appeals
to their patriotism, induced them to remain six weeks longer with the
army.

As soon as Cornwallis heard of the surprise at Trenton, he gave up his
visit to England and hastily joined Grant at Brunswick. On the 30th,
with 8,000 men, he marched towards Trenton, with the determination of
driving Washington over the Delaware or capturing his entire force.
Washington immediately ordered Cadwalader and Mifflin to Trenton, and
sent forward a detachment under General Fermoy to retard the advance
of Cornwallis. On the night of January the 1st this detachment was at
Five Mile Run, between Trenton and Princeton. Early on the morning of
the 2d Cornwallis set out from Princeton, where he had halted the night
previous. The Americans retired before him, disputing every foot of
ground. Hand's riflemen, Scott's Virginians, and Forrest's battery bore
the brunt of the fighting. It was nearly noon by the time Shabbakong
Creek was reached, and two hours passed before the British succeeded in
crossing it. The main portion of the American army was strongly posted
on the south side of the Assanpink, the banks being sufficiently high
to enable the men in the rear to fire over the heads of those in front
of them. As the British approached Trenton, troops were sent forward by
Washington to support the Americans. A battery placed on a hill beyond
Trenton held the British in check for a short time, but the Americans
were soon driven into the town and across the bridge. The cannonading
on both sides was heavy, but the British were unable to force their
way across the stream, and as night approached Cornwallis, against the
advice of his officers, withdrew his troops, determined to renew the
conflict in the morning. "If ever there was a crisis in the affairs of
the Revolution", wrote Wilkinson, "this was the moment. Thirty minutes
would have sufficed to have brought the two armies into contact, and
thirty minutes more would have decided the combat." Washington's
position was indeed critical. It was hardly possible that with his
raw levies he could continue to hold in check the well-disciplined
troops of Cornwallis, which in the morning would be reinforced with
troops he had left at Maidenhead and Princeton. The Delaware behind
Washington was full of floating ice, and to cross it in that condition
was impossible. If Cornwallis should force the Americans' position,
the victory of the British would be decisive. Immediately after dark a
council of war was held. It was then decided to turn the left flank of
the enemy, strike a blow at Princeton, where the garrison was small,
and march on Brunswick, the depository of the British stores. The
sentries of both armies were posted along the banks of the Assanpink,
and at some points were within one hundred and fifty yards of each
other. Working parties were sent within hearing distance of the enemy
to throw up intrenchments, the guards were doubled, and everything was
done to indicate that Washington intended to defend his position to
the last. But at midnight the fires were replenished and the troops
silently withdrawn. Marching by the Quaker road, Washington turned the
left flank of Cornwallis, and by daybreak reached a point directly
south of Princeton. With the main body he moved directly on the town,
and ordered a detachment under Mercer to march to the left and demolish
the bridge over Stony Brook, thus destroying direct communication with
Cornwallis. The garrison at Princeton consisted of the 17th, 40th,
and 55th regiments and three companies of light horse. The 17th and
55th, with a few dragoons, started at sunrise on the morning of the
3d to join Cornwallis. The 17th, under Colonel Mawhood, had crossed
the bridge over Stony Brook, that Mercer was to destroy, and was some
distance beyond it, when Mawhood discovered Mercer on his flank and
rear, moving north on the east side of the stream. He at once recrossed
the bridge, and both parties endeavored to gain the high ground east of
the stream. As the Americans had the shortest distance to march, they
were successful, and with their rifles they poured a deadly fire into
the 17th and 55th, as they advanced to drive them from their position.
They had no bayonets, however, and were unable to stand the charge of
the British. They fled through an orchard in their rear, leaving their
commander mortally wounded on the ground. It was not until Mawhood
emerged from the orchard that he was aware that the whole American army
was within supporting distance of the troops he had just engaged. On
hearing the firing on his left, Washington halted his column, and with
the Pennsylvania militia moved to the support of Mercer. Encouraged
by the irresolution of the militia, Mawhood charged them, but other
regiments coming up and the militia gaining confidence, the British
halted, and then fled, as the Americans in turn advanced against them.
The 55th retreated to Princeton and joined the 40th. They made a mere
show of defending the town, took refuge in the college building,
deserted it, and were soon seen in full retreat across the Millstone
towards Brunswick. Washington's troops had been under arms for over
eighteen hours, and were too much fatigued to follow them. Having
dispersed the 17th regiment, he destroyed the bridge over Stony Brook
and Millstone as the head of Cornwallis's rear-guard came in sight. It
was commanded by Leslie, who had marched from Maidenhead as soon as he
heard the firing in his rear. Washington turned north at Kingston, and
proceeded to Somerset Court-House, where he rested his men. Cornwallis
was not aware that the Americans had been withdrawn from his front
until he heard the sound of the guns at Princeton. Realizing at once
that he had been outgeneralled, and that his stores were in danger, he
ordered a retreat. Failing to reach Princeton in time to be of service,
he continued his march to Brunswick, and made no attempt to follow
Washington. The losses of the British in these engagements were severe;
those on the 2d of January were never known. At Princeton, Washington
estimated that one hundred men were left dead upon the field, and that
the killed, wounded, and prisoners amounted to five hundred. Ensign
Inman, of the 17th, wrote that of the two hundred and twenty-four rank
and file of his regiment, which set out on the morning of the 3d, one
hundred and one were either killed or wounded, and that he was the only
officer of the right wing not injured. The Americans lost only twenty
or thirty privates, but many officers. Bravely had they urged their
men on in the thickest of the fight. That Washington escaped seemed
a miracle to those who saw him lead the troops which drove Mawhood
back. Hazlet, Morris, Neal, and Shippin fell upon the field. Mercer,
mortally wounded, died upon the 12th, lamented by the whole country.
From Somerset Court-House Washington marched to Morristown, where he
went into winter-quarters. The British troops were soon all withdrawn
to Amboy and Brunswick. In less than three weeks Washington had turned
back the tide of adversity, and had compelled his opponents to evacuate
West Jersey.

Washington remained at Morristown from the 7th of January until the
28th of May, during which time no military movement of importance took
place. His men left for their homes as soon as their terms of service
expired, and as few militia entered the camp to take their places, at
times it seemed as if the army would be so reduced as to be unworthy
of the name. It was not until late in the spring that the new levies
reached headquarters. On the 28th of May the Americans marched to
Middlebrook, and took position behind the Raritan. On the 13th of
June Howe marched from Brunswick and extended his line to Somerset
Court-House, and Arnold was sent to Trenton to take measures to prevent
his crossing the Delaware. The militia turned out in a spirited manner,
and Howe did not care to advance in the face of the opposition they
could offer, with Washington on his flank. He endeavored to bring on a
general engagement with the latter, but Washington refused to leave the
strong position he occupied, and Howe retired to Amboy.

Early in April Howe had settled upon a campaign having for its object
the capture of Philadelphia. He determined to embark his troops
and transport them to the banks of the Delaware or Chesapeake, and
march directly on the city. With the object of reaching the fleet he
started to cross to Staten Island; but learning that Washington was at
Quibbletown, he recalled his men and proceeded to Westfield, hoping to
outflank him. But, as Washington retired, Howe was unsuccessful, and
finally passed over to Staten Island, totally evacuating New Jersey.

For over six weeks Washington was ignorant of Howe's intentions.
Supposing that he would endeavor to coöperate with Burgoyne, and
would sail up the Hudson, Washington moved his army to Ramapo, in New
York. On the 23d of July, after Howe's troops had been three weeks
on the vessels, the fleet sailed, shaping its course southwesterly.
Its departure was promptly reported to Congress. Signal fires were
lighted along the Jersey coast as it was seen from time to time by
those who were watching for it, and messengers carried inland the news
of its progress. At last, on the 30th, it was spoken off the capes of
Delaware, but Lord Howe deemed it too hazardous to sail up that river,
and after consulting with his brother, the general, continued on his
course southward. On the 15th of August he entered Chesapeake Bay, and
on the 25th the troops were landed at Elk Ferry.

On the 24th of July Washington heard that the fleet had sailed
southward, and in consequence marched his army from Ramapo to Coryell's
Ferry. He continued his march to Philadelphia, when he learned that
the fleet was off the capes of Delaware; but as it was soon lost sight
of, he retraced his steps, and halted in Bucks County, Pennsylvania,
twenty miles from Philadelphia. While there, Lafayette, De Kalb, and
Pulaski joined the army.

[Illustration: LORD HOWE.

From Murray's _Impartial Hist. of the present War_, ii. p. 96. Cf. cut
in _European Mag._, ii. 432. There is a colossal statue of Howe, by
Flaxman, in St. Paul's, London.]

For a while everything was in suspense. Concluding at last that Howe
had sailed for Charleston, Washington consulted with his officers, and
decided to return to the Hudson, so that Burgoyne could be opposed or
New York attacked, as circumstances should direct. He was just about
to do this when word was brought that the fleet had entered Chesapeake
Bay, and was at least two hundred miles from the capes. This news
created great consternation in Philadelphia, but the excitement was not
as great as it had been the previous winter, when Howe was at Trenton.
Repeated alarms had made the people callous, and internal political
differences continued to divide them. Besides this, the pacific
influence which the presence of a large Quaker population exercised
seemed to bear down all military efforts. Stirring appeals were made
by the authorities, new bodies of militia were ordered to be raised,
handbills calculated to arouse the people were issued, but all with
unsatisfactory results. To impress the lukewarm with the strength of
his forces, and to inspire hopes in the breasts of the patriotic, on
the 24th of August Washington marched his army through the streets of
Philadelphia. The men were poorly armed and clothed, and to give them
some uniformity they wore sprigs of green in their hats.

The Americans halted south of Wilmington, and a picked corps under
Maxwell was thrown to the front. The country below was patrolled by
parties of Delaware militia under Rodney, and Washington reconnoitred
it in person. The disembarkation of Howe's army on the 25th was
watched by a few militia, who fled when a landing was effected. Howe's
men were in good health, but hundreds of his horses had died on the
voyage, and those that survived were little better than carrion. His
advance, therefore, was slow. He moved in two columns, one on each
side of Elk River. Several days were spent in collecting horses, and
on the 3d of September the columns joined at Aitken's tavern. Here a
severe skirmish took place with Maxwell's corps, which was driven back.
Washington's force then lay behind Red Clay Creek, his left resting
on Christiana Creek, and extending in the direction of Newport. On the
8th the British advanced as if to attack the American left, but by
night Washington learned that the greater part of Howe's army was at
Milltown, on his right. Fearing that Howe would push past him in that
direction, cross the Brandywine, and gain the road to Philadelphia,
Washington, on the evening of the 8th, quietly withdrew his troops from
Red Clay Creek, and threw them in front of Howe, at Chad's Ford, on the
Brandywine. A redoubt, commanded by Proctor, was thrown up on the east
bank to protect the crossing. Wayne's division, formerly Lincoln's, was
within supporting distance, and Greene's, still further to the rear,
was to act as a reserve. The Pennsylvania militia, under Armstrong,
formed the left wing. They were posted at the fords below Chad's, which
were easily protected. The right wing was commanded by Sullivan. It was
composed of his own division and those of Stirling and Stephen. Both
Washington and Sullivan were unacquainted with the country to their
right, and supposed that, when they guarded the fords three miles above
where Sullivan was stationed, the enemy could not approach from that
direction without their receiving timely notice.

The British marched from Milltown to Kennett Square. On the morning
of the 11th, Knyphausen with 7,000 men took the direct road to Chad's
Ford. He skirmished with Maxwell, who had crossed the stream to meet
him, and drove him back over the Brandywine. At daybreak on the same
day, another column, 7,000 strong, set out from Kennett Square. It was
commanded by Cornwallis, and Howe accompanied it in person. It took
a road leading north to a point above the forks of the Brandywine,
turned to the east, crossed the west branch at Trimble's Ford and the
east at Jeffrey's, and then moved south. The plan was that Knyphausen
should engage the attention of the Americans in front until Cornwallis
had gained a position to attack their right. In this Knyphausen was
successful, his attempts to cross the Brandywine at Chad's Ford being
only feints.

About noon Washington heard of Cornwallis's march. He promptly
determined to cross the stream and engage Knyphausen, while Cornwallis
was too far distant to reinforce him or threaten the American right.
Wayne, Greene, and Sullivan's divisions were ordered to advance. Greene
had gained the west bank when word was received from Sullivan that a
Major Spear had assured him that there must be some mistake. He had
that morning passed over the road Cornwallis was said to be on, and
had seen nothing of him. Fearing that Cornwallis's march was only a
feint, and that he had returned and rejoined Knyphausen, Washington
ordered Greene back and sent scouts out for additional information.
By two o'clock it was obtained. Cornwallis was discovered on the
road to Dilworth, and would soon be in the rear of the Americans.
Stirling and Stephen were deployed on the hill southwest of Birmingham
Meeting-House, and Sullivan's division was ordered to join them.
Before it could reach its position Cornwallis began the attack. As he
attempted to turn the American right, Sullivan endeavored to move his
three divisions to the east. His own division had been formed in line
half a mile from those of Stirling and Stephen, and in closing the gap
it fell into confusion and was routed. With the divisions of Stirling
and Stephen, Sullivan made every effort to hold the position; but he
was outnumbered, his left flank was uncovered, and his entire command
was finally driven in confusion from the field. Sullivan, Stirling,
and Conway had encouraged their men with exhibitions of personal
bravery, and Lafayette, who acted as a volunteer, was wounded while
endeavoring to rally some fugitives. When Washington heard the firing
in the direction of Birmingham he rode thither with the utmost speed.
Meeting the fugitives, he ordered Greene to support the right wing. The
order was executed with wonderful promptness. Greene, throwing Weedon's
brigade on the flank of the enemy and Muhlenberg's in their front,
checked the pursuit. But the Americans were obliged to fall back until
they came to a narrow defile, flanked on both sides by woods, from
which the British could not drive them, and night ended the conflict.
When Knyphausen learned that Cornwallis was engaged he pushed across
the stream at Chad's Ford, but Wayne, Maxwell, and Proctor held him
in check until they found that the right wing had been defeated, when
they retired in good order, fighting as they fell back towards Chester.
There at night the defeated army gathered, and Washington reported to
Congress that, notwithstanding the misfortunes of the day, his troops
were in good spirits.

The American loss was about one thousand, killed, wounded, and
prisoners; that of the British, five hundred and seventy-nine. That
the conduct of the Americans inspired their opponents with respect is
shown by the language of Sir William Howe in summarizing the opposition
he had met with up to this time. "They fought the king's army", he
wrote, "on Long Island; they sustained the attack at Fort Washington;
they stood the battle at Brandywine: and our loss upon those occasions,
though by no means equal to theirs, was not inconsiderable."

The day after the battle Washington marched from Chester to
Philadelphia. He rested his army two days at Germantown, and then
recrossed the Schuylkill; public opinion demanding that another battle
should be risked before the city should be given up. On the 16th the
two armies met on the high ground south of Chester Valley and prepared
for action. The skirmishing had actually begun, when a violent storm
stopped the engagement by ruining the ammunition of both armies.
Washington withdrew to the hills north of the valley, and finding it
impossible to repair the damage done by the storm, retreated again
over the Schuylkill, leaving Wayne behind him to watch the enemy and
attack their rear should they attempt to follow. Wayne was to have
been reinforced by detachments under Smallwood and Gist, which did not
reach him. When the British moved nearer to the Lancaster road, Wayne
took position in their rear. He supposed that they were ignorant of his
presence, and wrote to Washington to that effect. But on the night of
the 20th he was attacked by a strong detachment under Major-General
Grey, and although he had taken measures to guard against a surprise,
the onslaught was so sudden that his men, who were sleeping on their
arms, were unable to make an effective resistance, and about one
hundred and fifty were either killed or wounded by the bayonet.

[Illustration: GENERAL GREY.

From Doyle's _Official Baronage_, ii. 76. There is a print in the
_European Mag._, Oct., 1797, and in Murray's _Impartial Hist._, vol.
ii. p. 433.]

Howe on the 21st resumed his march towards Philadelphia. Finding that
the Americans had thrown up intrenchments at Swedes Ford, he turned
up the river as if to cross above. Washington feared that it was his
intention to strike at Reading, where his stores were deposited, and to
protect them marched in the same direction on the opposite side of the
river. When he reached Potts Grove, now Pottstown, he discovered that
Howe, by a retrograde movement on the night of the 22d, had crossed at
Fatland and Gordon's fords, and was in full march for Philadelphia.

On the day of the battle of Brandywine the citizens of Philadelphia
heard the sound of cannon in the west, and gathered in the streets
to discuss and wonder what the future would bring forth. At night
a messenger arrived with news of the disaster. Everything was in
confusion, and when, on the morning of the 19th, about one o'clock, a
letter was received from Colonel Hamilton stating that the British were
marching on the city, the members of Congress were aroused from their
beds, and departed in haste for Lancaster, where they had agreed to
meet should their removal from Philadelphia become necessary.

[Illustration: GENERAL HOWE.

From Murray's _Impartial Hist. of the present War_, i. 280.]

"It was a beautiful still moonlight night, and the streets as full of
men, women, and children as on a market day." The alarm was premature,
but on the 25th Howe's army encamped at Germantown. Through Thomas
Willing, a leading citizen of Philadelphia, the inhabitants were
promised by Sir William Howe that if they should remain peaceably
in their dwellings they would not be molested. The next morning,
Cornwallis, with three thousand men, took possession of the city.
The troops marched down Second Street to the music of "God save the
King", and were greeted by some of the inhabitants with "acclamations
of joy", but the people generally "appeared sad and serious." Howe
immediately began to throw up a line of intrenchments north of the
city, extending from the Delaware to the Schuylkill, and informed his
brother, the admiral, who was in Delaware Bay, that the army was in
possession of the city. The defences of the river prevented the fleet
from approaching, and the day after the occupation an attempt was made
by the American flotilla to cannonade the city. The smaller vessels
were driven off before they had done serious damage, but the frigate
"Delaware" ran aground and was captured.

[Illustration: ALEXANDER HAMILTON.

After a crayon in the Hist. Soc. of Pennsylvania. There is a picture in
Independence Hall. Ceracchi's bust is given in stipple in Delaplaine's
_Repository_ (1815).

For view of "The Grange", Hamilton's home, see Valentine's _N. Y.
Manual_, 1858, p. 468; Mrs. Lamb's _Homes of America_; Lossing's
_Hudson_, 275.—ED.]

The main portion of Howe's army remained at Germantown, a village of
a single street, two miles in length, and five from the city. In the
centre stood the market-house, and along the road which there crosses
the main street Howe's army was encamped. The left under Knyphausen
reached to the Schuylkill, the right under Grant and Mathews to the
York road. At the upper end of the town stood the large stone mansion
of Benjamin Chew, late chief justice of the province, and in a field
opposite the 40th Regiment under Colonel Musgrave was encamped. The
advance was a mile beyond at Mount Pleasant, where the second battalion
of light infantry was stationed, with their pickets thrown out at Mount
Airy still further on. After Howe crossed the Schuylkill, Washington
marched to Pennybacker's Mills, and thence to Metutchen Hills, fifteen
miles from Philadelphia. He had been reinforced by McDougall's brigade
and other troops; and learning that Howe had detached a portion of his
command to reduce the forts on the Delaware, he determined to attack
him at Germantown. His plan was to engage the troops at Mount Pleasant
with a portion of his army, while a large force under Greene should
move down the Lime Kiln road, which enters the town from the east at
the market-house, and attack Grant and Mathews. At the same time the
Pennsylvania and Jersey militia were to make demonstrations on the
enemy's left and right flanks respectively.

[Illustration: ANTHONY WAYNE.

From the _New York Magazine_, March, 1797, following a picture by
Trumbull, now at New Haven. Other engravings are in the _National
Portrait Gallery_ (N. Y., 1834); Irving's _Washington_, quarto ed.,
vol. iii.; in Jones's _Georgia_, vol. ii., engraved by H. B. Hall;
Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 177. It has been engraved by I. B. Forrest,
J. F. E. Prud'homme, and others. A portrait by Henry Elonis is engraved
by Geo. Grahame. A likeness, front face, without hat, is in the _Mag.
of Amer. History_, Feb., 1886, and _History of Chester County_ by Futhy
and Cope. Cf. _Penna. Archives_, vol. x., and the sketch by J. W. De
Peyster, and a new portrait in _United Service_, March, 1886, p. 304.

A view of Wayne's house is given in Egle's _Pennsylvania_, p. 540;
Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 373; _Harper's Mag._, April, 1880.—ED.]

Washington moved from his quarters on the evening of October 3d.
Sullivan commanded the troops that were to attack the enemy in front,
and was followed by the reserve under Stirling, which Washington
accompanied. Sullivan arrived at Chestnut Hill on the morning of the
4th at sunrise, and halted two hours to allow Greene to gain his
ground, that the attacks might be made at the same time. Captain Allen
McLane's company and a portion of Conway's brigade were then ordered
to advance. They drove the guard at Mount Airy back on the light
infantry, and held them in check while Sullivan formed his line.
Wayne's division was on the east of the road, Sullivan's on the west.
The whole under Sullivan then moved forward, driving the light infantry
before them. A thick fog enveloped everything, and the men could not
see forty yards in front of them. But Wayne's men dashed on, calling
to each other to remember Paoli and crying for vengeance. The light
infantry were reinforced by the 40th Regiment under Musgrave. Just
then Howe rode up, calling out: "For shame, light infantry! I never
saw you retreat before." But he found the attack was general, and rode
back to the main line. Down the main street and past Chew's house
Sullivan and Wayne pursued the flying troops. But here the rout of
the British was checked by Agnew, who hastened forward with a portion
of the left wing. As the reserve passed Chew's house they were fired
upon by six companies of the 40th that had taken refuge there with
their commander Musgrave. Stirling endeavored to dislodge them, but
the effort was futile. Lieutenant-Colonel John Laurens and Major Louis
Fleury daringly attempted to fire the house, but were unsuccessful.
While this was going on, Greene made his attack on the right wing. His
march had taken half an hour longer than anticipated, while he still
met the enemy sooner than planned, as their first battalion of light
infantry had been moved forward the night before on the Lime Kiln
road. Greene attempted to advance in line of battle, but his line was
thrown into confusion. He drove a portion of the troops back to the
market-house, but when he encountered Grant he was obliged to retire,
and a part of his command was captured. Woodford's brigade wandered so
far from Greene's right as to reach the rear of Chew's house. It was
then directly behind Wayne's division, and when the brigade fired on
the house Wayne's men retired, as they supposed the enemy were in their
rear. This uncovered Sullivan's flank, and he too was obliged to fall
back. The British pursued until Whitemarsh was reached, where Wayne
checked them with a battery posted on the hill, near the church. The
Americans lost nearly eleven hundred killed, wounded, and prisoners;
the British, five hundred and twenty-one. The American General Nash, of
North Carolina, and the British General Agnew were mortally wounded.
While the Americans were defeated in their object, the moral results of
the battle were in their favor. It inspired them with confidence, and
showed the world that though driven from the field of Brandywine they
were still aggressive.

It was now evident to Howe that he must open communication with New
York by water, or his army would be in a state of siege. His attention
was therefore turned to the defences of the Delaware which were held by
the Americans. The most formidable of these was Fort Mifflin, situated
on an island in the river a short distance below the mouth of the
Schuylkill. Opposite this, at Red Bank, on the Jersey shore, was Fort
Mercer, while four or five miles below, at Billingsport, was another
fortification. Opposite these points _chevaux-de-frise_ were sunk in
the channel, which were protected by the batteries and by a fleet of
small vessels, known as the Pennsylvania navy, commanded by Commodore
John Hazelwood. Besides these, there were several larger vessels which
had been built by order of Congress.

On the 19th of October Howe withdrew his troops from Germantown and
encamped them behind his lines of intrenchments on the north side of
the city. Before this he had erected batteries to attack Fort Mifflin.
He now sent a body of men, under Colonel Stirling, over the river from
Chester to capture the fort at Billingsport. The garrison there was not
sufficient for the defence of the fort, and as the British approached
they evacuated the post. By the 21st Admiral Howe succeeded in passing
the lower _chevaux-de-frise_, and his vessels sailed up the river to a
point nearly opposite Fort Mifflin. On the same day three battalions
of Hessians, with artillery, crossed into Jersey from Philadelphia
to attack Fort Mercer. They arrived before the fort on the afternoon
of the 22d. It was commanded by Colonel Christopher Greene, of Rhode
Island, who had with him but six hundred men. The fortifications were
unfinished, but a strong redoubt, with an abatis, had been constructed.
Donop summoned the garrison to surrender, and upon receiving a refusal
formed his regiments for the attack. They rushed upon the embankments
and passed the abandoned lines with little opposition. But when they
charged the redoubt, they were met with a fire that nearly filled the
ditches with killed and wounded. Most of the men retired in confusion,
and those who attempted to scale the works were beaten back in a
hand-to-hand conflict. It was intended that the fleet should coöperate
with Donop; that the "Vigilant", with sixteen 24-pounders, should
pass to the west of Fort Mifflin, while other vessels should engage
Hazelwood and prevent his offering assistance to Greene. The plan
failed, however, at all points. The "Vigilant" could not sail up the
west channel, and Hazelwood was more than a match for the vessels sent
against him. He drove them back, while some of his boats sailed close
to the shore and poured an effective fire into the flank of Donop's
column. It was in vain that Donop and his officers re-formed the men
and led them back to the attack. They were shot down in scores as
they attempted to remove the abatis, and in three quarters of an hour
from the time the engagement opened the men withdrew for the last
time, leaving Donop behind them, mortally wounded. He died three days
afterwards, "finishing", to use his own words, "a noble career early."
His command had numbered about twenty-five hundred men, one sixth of
whom were either killed or wounded. The Americans had but fourteen
killed and twenty-three wounded. Two of the vessels which had been
sent against Hazelwood, the "Augusta" and the "Merlin", ran aground,
and were discovered in that position by the Americans on the 22d. They
were at once attacked, and the magazine of the "Augusta" exploded
with terrific force. She had been set on fire either by accident or
by a shot from the American batteries, and blew up before all of her
crew could be removed. It was found impossible to save the "Merlin",
and she was fired by her officers and destroyed.

[Illustration: THE DESTRUCTION OF THE AUGUSTA.

After a painting in gallery of the Hist. Soc. of Pennsylvania, said
to have been painted by a French officer. Cf. Wallace's _Col. Wm.
Bradford_.]

Taught caution by these reverses, Howe made no further effort to
capture the forts until he had succeeded in erecting a number of
batteries on the Pennsylvania shore within range of Fort Mifflin. On
the 10th of November these were opened with serious result to the
Americans. The reply from the fort was spirited, and the damage done to
it in daytime was repaired during the night. On the first day, Colonel
Samuel Smith, of Maryland, who commanded the garrison, was wounded,
and was taken to Red Bank. The second in command, Lieutenant-Colonel
Russell, was relieved, on account of ill-health, by Major Simeon
Thayer, of Rhode Island, and the defence of the fort was continued.
On the 15th the "Vigilant", carrying sixteen 24-pounders, and a hulk
with three guns of the same capacity, succeeded in passing up the
west channel and taking the fort in the rear, while other vessels
engaged the fleet. The fort by this time was little more than a mass
of ruins. The ammunition was nearly exhausted. Major Fleury, the
engineer of the fort, and Major Talbot were wounded; nearly all the
guns were dismounted, and whenever the men appeared on the platforms
they were picked off by sharpshooters in the shrouds of the vessels.
During the night of the 15th the garrison was removed to Red Bank, as
preparations were being made to storm the place the next day, and on
the morning of the 16th the British took possession of the place. The
gallant defence of this fort by about three hundred men called forth
commendations from all sides. Swords were voted to Hazelwood and Smith
by Congress, while Fleury and Thayer were promoted. Fort Mercer was
now the only water-defence held by the Americans. With the object of
capturing it, on the 18th Cornwallis marched to Chester and crossed to
Billingsport. Greene was sent to oppose him, and crossed the Delaware
at Bristol; but before he could render any assistance to Varnum, who
commanded the troops on the Jersey side of the river, that officer was
obliged to retire before Cornwallis and abandon Fort Mercer, which the
British now destroyed. Lafayette, who was with Greene, made a spirited
attack on a body of Hessians encamped near Gloucester, for which he
gained considerable credit. The majority of the small vessels of the
Pennsylvania navy succeeded in passing up the river by the batteries
that Howe had erected at Philadelphia, but the larger ones, together
with nearly all those built by Congress, were destroyed.

A few days after the fall of Fort Mifflin the British transports made
their way up to Philadelphia, and to some extent relieved the distress
that the scarcity of provisions occasioned. About the end of October
Washington removed his headquarters to Whitemarsh, and on November 24th
reconnoitred the enemy's lines with a view to attack them. A majority
of his officers, however, opposed the plan. It was soon evident that
Sir William Howe was about to resume the offensive, and Greene was
recalled from Jersey. On the evening of December 4th, Howe, with nearly
all his army, marched out of Philadelphia with the avowed intention of
driving Washington over the mountains. His advance-guard arrived at
Chestnut Hill about daylight the next morning. General James Irvine
with the Pennsylvania militia met them at the foot of the hill, and,
after a sharp skirmish, the militia fled, leaving Irvine wounded in the
hands of the British. When Howe arrived in front of Washington's lines
he found them so strong that he did not dare to attack them, and after
spending four days in endeavoring to gain a position that would compel
Washington to attack him, he suddenly gave up the design and returned
to the city.

[Illustration]

As the season was advancing, and the Americans were in no condition to
keep the field, it was decided to go into winter-quarters at Valley
Forge, on the west side of the Schuylkill, where the Valley Creek
empties into the river. The surrounding hills were covered with woods
and presented an inhospitable appearance. The choice was severely
criticised, and De Kalb described it as a wilderness. But the position
was central and easily defended. The army arrived there about the
middle of December, and the erection of huts began. They were built
of logs, and were fourteen by fifteen feet each. The windows were
covered with oiled paper, and the openings between the logs were
closed with clay. The huts were arranged in streets, giving the place
the appearance of a city. It was the first of the year, however,
before they were occupied, and previous to that the suffering of the
army had become great. Although the weather was intensely cold the
men were obliged to work at the buildings, with nothing to support
life but flour mixed with water, which they baked into cakes at the
open fires. "My brigade's out of provisions, nor can the commissary
obtain any meat", wrote Huntington on the 22d of December. "Three
days successively we have been destitute of bread", said Varnum the
same day, "and two days we have been entirely without meat." Soap,
vinegar, and other articles necessary for the health of the men were
never furnished, and so imperfectly did the clothier-general perform
his duties that many of the men were without shirts, and hundreds were
confined to the hospitals and farm-houses for want of shoes. Blankets
and proper coverings were so scarce that numbers, after toiling
during the day, were obliged to sit by the fires all night to keep
from freezing. By the 23d of December two thousand eight hundred and
ninety-eight men were unfit for duty, because they were barefoot and
otherwise naked. The horses died of starvation by hundreds, and the
men were obliged to haul their own provisions and firewood. As straw
could not be found to protect the men from the cold ground, sickness
spread through their quarters with fearful rapidity. "The unfortunate
soldiers", wrote Lafayette, in after-years, "were in want of
everything; they had neither coats, hats, shirts, nor shoes; their feet
and their legs froze till they became black, and it was often necessary
to amputate them.... The army frequently remained whole days without
provisions, and the patient endurance of both soldiers and officers
was a miracle which each moment served to renew." At times, however,
it seemed as if the forbearance of the men was exhausted, and that the
war would end in mutiny. But the officers succeeded in allaying the
feelings of discontent, and under the management of Greene, who assumed
the duties of quarter-master-general on the 23d of March, a change for
the better took place.

While the country around Valley Forge was so impoverished by the
military operations of the previous summer as to make it impossible
for it to support the army, the sufferings of the latter were chiefly
owing to the inefficiency of Congress. That body met at Lancaster
after leaving Philadelphia, and at once adjourned to York, where its
sessions were continued. But it in no way equalled the congresses which
had preceded it. "The Continental Congress and the currency", wrote
Gouverneur Morris in 1778, "have greatly depreciated." Many of the
members entertained the widespread fear of a standing army, and refused
to follow the advice given by Washington for the relief of the men
who defended them. Some of the delegates, indeed, did not hesitate to
criticise the judgment of Washington, and question his abilities. The
capture of Burgoyne gave them an opportunity of comparing the results
of the Northern and Southern campaigns. In writing of Washington's
army a member of Congress said to Gates: "We have had a noble army
melted down by ill-judged marches, which disgrace their authors and
directors, and which have occasioned the severest and most just sarcasm
and contempt of our enemies. How much you are to be envied, my dear
general! How different your conduct and your fortune! In short, this
army will be totally lost unless you come down and collect the virtuous
band, who wish to fight under your banner, and with their aid save
the southern hemisphere. Congress must send for you." "I am weary",
exclaimed John Adams, "with so much insipidity." "I am sick of Fabian
systems in all quarters." It was a matter for thanksgiving, he thought,
that the credit of defending the Delaware was "not immediately due to
the commander-in-chief nor to Southern troops. If it had been, idolatry
and adulation would have been unbounded." The prevalence of these
sentiments made it easy for disappointed soldiers like Mifflin and
Conway to spread dissensions which, if they had been allowed to grow,
would have brought about the removal of Washington. Mifflin's eloquence
and abilities as a politician far exceeded his merits in the field; and
he was jealous of the preference shown by Washington for Greene and
Knox. Conway aspired to a major-generalship, and was chagrined that
Washington opposed him. If Washington had been removed and Lee or Gates
appointed in his place, Mifflin and Conway would have been benefited
by the change. The schemes of the last two were warmly supported by
James Lovell and Dr. Benjamin Rush, and the most insidious measures
were entered upon to undermine the reputation of Washington. Anonymous
letters were circulated for this purpose, and the country was made to
ring with the cry that, under a Gates, a Lee, or a Conway, the Southern
army would be victorious. Through the influence of this faction, Gates
was made president of the Board of War, of which Mifflin was a member,
and authority which belonged to the commander-in-chief was vested in
it. To separate Lafayette from Washington, and gain for themselves the
influence of his name, the "Cabal", as it has been called, proposed
an impracticable winter campaign against Canada, which Lafayette was
to command, with Conway to assist him. But here the faction spent
its strength. The friends of Washington had been put on their guard
by the disclosure of a correspondence which showed the malignity of
his enemies. Wilkinson, who was on Gates's staff, repeated, while his
tongue was loosened with wine, an opinion expressed in a letter that
Conway had written to Gates. Gates read it to his military family.
"Heaven has been determined to save your country", it said, "or a weak
general and bad counsellors would have ruined it." The words reached
Washington, who enclosed them to Conway, simply informing him that he
understood they formed a portion of a letter of his to Gates. It was
in vain that the members of the Cabal attempted at first to carry the
matter through with a high hand, then to deny that such a letter had
ever been written, and finally to excuse themselves. Their ends were
discovered and their power was gone. Lafayette would have nothing to
do with the Canadian expedition unless De Kalb was made his second
in command. He repaired to Albany only to find that no measures had
been taken to carry out the promises made him, and as the friends of
Washington were soon in the ascendency in Congress, Lafayette was
recalled to Valley Forge.

Through the advice of a committee which Congress had sent to camp to
inquire into the condition of the army, many defects and abuses were
corrected, and its organization was improved. The new troops that had
been called for came in slowly, but their effectiveness was increased
through the exertion of Baron Steuben, who joined the army about the
close of February. A pupil of Frederick the Great, and a distinguished
officer in the Prussian service, he won the esteem of Congress by
offering to serve as a volunteer. His experience and industry soon
instilled a discipline into the army which it had never known, and
in May he was made inspector-general, with the rank and pay of a
major-general.

* * * * *

While the American army was suffering at Valley Forge the British were
comfortably quartered in Philadelphia. When they first entered the
city it presented a sorry appearance: 590 dwellings and 240 stores
were unoccupied; the leaden spouts of many houses had been taken
down to mould into bullets, and the bells of the churches and public
buildings had been removed to places of safety. The male population
between the ages of eighteen and sixty numbered but 5,335, and of
these one fifth were Quakers. The feelings of the Quaker citizens had
been greatly outraged by the arrest and banishment to the western
part of Virginia of a number of their people. Sullivan had discovered
on his march through New Jersey what he believed to be a treasonable
correspondence on their part with the enemy, and he had forwarded the
papers to Congress. The matter had been referred to the authorities
of Pennsylvania, who found in the correspondence, and in an address
issued by the Quaker meeting in December, the grounds for sending
the Quaker leaders into exile. It was but natural that the families
of these men should have looked upon the British as their deliverers
from an outrageous tyranny. But they soon found to their sorrow that
their opposition to war afforded them as little protection from one
side as from the other. The property destroyed by the British was
enormous, and a revulsion of feeling was the consequence. At one time
seventeen handsome houses beyond the lines were set on fire to prevent
their being occupied by the American pickets. Persons living in the
neighborhood of the city were robbed by both parties, and their crops
carried off or destroyed. The temptation to sell their produce for
hard money induced some of the neighboring farmers to supply the enemy
with luxuries, though they found access to the city hazardous. The
Americans under Smallwood guarded the roads leading to Wilmington,
while Generals Potter and Lacy scoured the country west and north of
the city. Captains Allen McLane, Clark, and Lee watched the movements
of the enemy and reported them to Washington, but they could not oppose
the large forces that Howe frequently sent out to protect those who
were willing to risk furnishing him with provisions.

[Illustration:

NOTE.—The play-bill on the opposite page is after a fac-simile given
in Smith's _Amer. Hist. and Lit. Curios._, 2d series. A list of such
bills printed in Philadelphia at this time is given in Hildeburn's
_Issues of the Press in Penna._, ii. pp. 315, 316.]

The desolation which surrounded the town was soon in striking contrast
with the scenes within. The empty stores were occupied by itinerant
traders from New York, who offered for sale articles of luxury that
the war had driven from the American market. The officers of the army
were quartered on the citizens, and after the campaign closed they gave
themselves up to social enjoyments. Clubs met at the public-houses, and
weekly balls were given at the City Tavern. As many of the officers
were men of education and refinement, they were warmly welcomed in
the families of leading citizens; but there was another class who did
much to change the moral aspect of the city, when, by following the
loose example of their commander, Sir William Howe, they shocked the
staid citizens with their immorality. Cock-fighting and gambling were
favorite amusements, and a faro-table kept by a foreigner proved the
ruin of many young officers. The theatre on South Street was fitted up
under directions of Captains André and De Lancey. Some of the scenes
were painted by André. The profits of the performances were divided
among the widows and orphans of the soldiers. As spring approached,
horse-racing was added to the list of amusements. While citizens of
wealth could take part in the gaieties which surrounded them, those
in moderate circumstances suffered privations. Firewood was extremely
scarce and provisions high. "Nothing but hard money will pass", wrote a
resident to a relative outside of the lines. "There is plenty of goods,
but little money among the tradespeople. The market is poor. I received
the butter by J——; we are no longer accustomed to eat butter on our
bread. I keep it to make water soup, which we have nearly every day."
The army of occupation, on the other hand, was plentifully supplied
with military stores after the defences on the Delaware were captured.

Martial law ruled supreme. The appointment of Joseph Galloway to be
superintendent of police and the designation of magistrates under him
were the only steps taken towards the revival of civil authority, and
Galloway received his orders from headquarters.

The supineness of Howe robbed the British of all the benefits that
might have resulted from the capture of Philadelphia. Attempts were
made to raise regiments of loyalists, but so little support did the
scheme receive that it was only partially successful. The "Pennsylvania
Loyalists", of which William Allen, Jr., was colonel, and the "Queen's
Rangers", commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Simcoe, were the most
efficient of these corps. No attempt was made to drive Washington's
half-starved forces from their camp, although their condition was
perfectly well known to Howe through the deserters that flocked to
the city. The military movements of Howe while in Philadelphia were
confined to foraging expeditions and attacks on isolated posts that
could be surprised and broken up with little danger of loss. While
these were successful, they gave to the war a predatory character that
reflected little credit on British arms, and intensified the bitterness
entertained for all representatives of royal authority.

The British government, dissatisfied with the results of Howe's
campaigns, decided early in 1778 upon his recall. Sir Henry Clinton,
his successor, arrived in Philadelphia the 8th of May, and on the 18th
an entertainment was given by the officers of the army in honor of the
retiring commander. The fête was styled the "Mischianza", and consisted
of a regatta, a mock tournament, and a ball. But "Knights of the
Burning Mountain" and of the "Blended Rose", with squires and ladies
decked with spangles and ribbons, could not disguise the fact that the
royal army had failed in accomplishing the task assigned to it, and
the chagrin of its veterans was deepened by the frivolous scenes which
marked the retirement of Sir William Howe.

The alliance with France made it necessary for the British to contract
their operations, and Sir Henry Clinton brought with him orders to
evacuate Philadelphia. His intention of doing so became known to
Washington, and that his information might be more certain he ordered
Lafayette, with a body of two thousand four hundred men, the flower of
the army, to cross the Schuylkill and take a position near the city.
This movement was made on the very day of the Mischianza, and on the
morning of the 19th Howe learned that Lafayette was at Barren Hill,
twelve miles distant. Clinton had not yet assumed command, and in the
hope of closing his career in America by a brilliant stroke, Howe
determined to make an effort to capture the young Frenchman and his
detachment. So confident was he of doing this, that, before leaving the
city, he invited his friends to meet Lafayette, whom he promised to
bring with him on his return, while his brother, the admiral, prepared
a vessel in which to take the distinguished captive to England. On
the night of the 19th Grant, with five thousand men, marched by way
of Frankford and Oxford, and by morning he had gained a point on
the Swedes Ford road two miles in the rear of Lafayette. Another
detachment, under Grey, was sent by way of Chestnut Hill to attack
Lafayette's flank; while the main portion of the army, under Howe,
took the Ridge road, to attack him in front. Lafayette's position was
on high ground, and was naturally strong. Neither Grey nor Howe could
approach him without his being aware of their advance. In his rear were
two roads. One led along the riverside to Matson's Ford, three miles
distant; the other along a ridge, a short distance from the river, to
Swedes Ford, still higher up. The ground between the roads was heavily
wooded. Had Grant, who held the Swedes Ford road, sent a portion of
his force to Matson's Ford (which he could have done by a cross-road),
Lafayette's only line of retreat would have been destroyed. But in
place of doing this he marched down the Swedes Ford road to attack the
American rear. Through the carelessness of his scouts, Lafayette was
ignorant of Grant's position. He was preparing his force to receive
Howe, when he heard of the column advancing from Chestnut Hill. He had
just faced a portion of his troops in that direction when he learned
that Grant was in his rear. Lafayette's danger was now apparent, but
he was equal to the occasion. Without losing a moment, he sent troops
through the woods, with orders to allow themselves to be seen at times
by Grant, and lead him to suppose that they were the advance-guards of
larger numbers. He also left a small body to engage the attention of
Howe and Grey, and then silently marched his detachment along the river
road, below Grant, to Matson's Ford. Grant was entirely deceived. He
halted his men, reconnoitred the troops seen in the woods, and then
pushed on to Barren Hill, where he met the other columns and discovered
that Lafayette had escaped. The British pursued him to the ford, but by
the time they reached it Lafayette had drawn up his force on the other
side, and his rear-guard could be seen following him, dotting the river
like the corks of a seine. Fearing that Lafayette had been reinforced
by the entire American army, Howe made no attempt to follow him, but
returned to the city, and on the 24th sailed for England.

The evacuation of Philadelphia was now only a question of time, and the
news that it had been decided upon was appalling to the Tory citizens
who had openly committed themselves to the royal side. In their despair
they offered to raise three thousand men, if two thousand of the royal
army could be left in addition, to protect the city. Howe had advised
some of them to make terms with Congress, but those who had been most
active in serving him decided to leave with the army. One hundred and
eighty transports arrived in the Delaware, and such diligence was
used in loading them that for days light carts drawn by soldiers, and
every kind of carriage, from wagons to wheelbarrows, were constantly
rolling between the houses and the river. As fast as the transports
received their cargoes they dropped down the river. The defences were
dismantled. On the 30th of May bodies of troops were thrown across
the Delaware to protect the passage of the army. Everything was now
ready for the departure of the British, but the final movement was
delayed for a few days on account of the arrival of the commissioners
appointed under the conciliatory bills of Parliament. At last, on the
morning of June 18th, the men were withdrawn from the lines and marched
below the city, where they were embarked upon boats and taken over to
Gloucester. This was done so quietly that many of the citizens were not
aware of the departure of the army until they noticed the absence of
the redcoats in the streets. "They did not go away", wrote a resident,
"they vanished."

By narrowly watching the movements of the enemy Washington was
convinced that it was Clinton's intention to march the greater part of
his army across Jersey. In this opinion he was opposed by the erratic
Charles Lee, who had been exchanged, and had reached the camp. Lee
could not believe that the British would give up Pennsylvania, and
argued that it was more probable that they would strike at Lancaster,
or possibly cross the lower Susquehanna and take up a position on its
west bank. Before this, however, Washington had sent all of the Jersey
troops into that State. He had put them under the command of Maxwell,
with directions to coöperate with Dickinson, who commanded the militia,
in opposing any attempt Clinton should make to cross the State. On
the 18th of June George Roberts rode at full speed into camp at Valley
Forge. He had been at the ferry over the Schuylkill at Market Street,
and citizens on the Philadelphia side had shouted over the water that
the British had gone. They had destroyed the bridge, so that he was
unable to cross, but the intelligence could be relied upon. Shortly
afterwards a letter was received from Captain Allen McLane confirming
the news. He had ridden into the city from the north, and had picked up
some stragglers.

Washington had everything in readiness to move the army at a moment's
notice. Six brigades were immediately put in motion, and the remainder
of the army followed the next day. Crossing the Schuylkill at Valley
Forge, Washington marched directly for Coryell's Ferry on the Delaware,
which he crossed on the 22d. He now sent a picked corps under Morgan
to assist Maxwell. At Hopewell a council of war was held. Lee opposed
any attack, and argued that, on military grounds, rather than delay
the British, he would build a bridge of gold to facilitate their
march. He so successfully urged his views that it was decided to
move on a line parallel with the enemy, and send only a detachment
of fifteen hundred men under Scott to aid Maxwell in annoying their
flanks. Greene, Lafayette, and Wayne protested against the decision
of the Council, and as their views agreed with Washington's, and
were supported by Steuben and Du Portail, Washington determined to
attack Clinton if an opportunity offered. For this purpose he moved
his army to Kingston, whence he could strike at Clinton's line if he
attempted to cross the Raritan. He also sent Wayne with a thousand men
and Poor's detachment to join Scott and Maxwell. The command of this
body belonged to Lee, but as he did not approve of the change in the
plans, he declined it in favor of Lafayette. Subsequently, however, Lee
claimed it, and to relieve Washington from an embarrassing position,
and save Lee's feelings, Lafayette magnanimously yielded. The Jersey
militia had turned out in a spirited manner, and under Dickinson and
Forman were doing all in their power to retard Clinton's advance. They
destroyed the bridges as they retired from Haddonfield to Mount Holly,
and filled up the wells so that the enemy could not obtain water. The
heat was intense and the British suffered severely. Clinton arrived at
Crosswicks on the 23d, just in time to save a bridge over the creek at
that place. There he learned that Washington was in Jersey, and would
soon be on his flank if he continued to march in his present direction.
Encumbered as he was with a baggage train twelve miles long, Clinton
knew it would be impossible to protect it in crossing the Raritan. He
determined, therefore, to march by the way of Freehold to the Neversink
Hills, from which place he could embark his army for New York. Morgan
and Maxwell hung on his rear from the time he left Crosswicks, and to
protect his baggage Clinton sent it to the head of the column. As he
approached Freehold, he knew from the frequency with which troops were
seen on his left that he was in close proximity to the American army.
He arrived at Freehold, where the court-house of Monmouth County is
situated, on the morning of the 26th, and there encamped. The head of
his column extended a mile and a half beyond the court-house on the
road to Middletown. His left was on the road just marched over from
Crosswicks to Freehold. The village was entered on the west by a road
leading to Cranberry. It passed over low ground that was intersected
by several swamps and ravines, which, with woods, completely covered
the left of Clinton's line. The American army reached Cranberry,
eight miles from Freehold, on the morning of the 26th. On account of
a violent storm it was obliged to halt there, but the advance under
Lee was within five miles of the enemy. When Washington heard of
Clinton's position he ordered Lee to prepare a plan to attack him as
soon as he resumed his march, unless it should prove that there were
strong reasons for his not doing so. On the evening of the 27th Lee
called his officers together only to tell them that no plan could be
decided upon until the field was reached. At sunrise on the morning
of the 28th, Knyphausen, with the baggage, began his march towards
Middletown. At eight o'clock he was followed by the rest of the army.
Scarcely had the rear-guard moved from its ground when it was fired
upon by the militia under Dickinson. The militia were forced to retire,
and as they did so were met by Lee's detachment as it advanced from
Englishtown. On account of conflicting information the Americans halted
for a short time, and then engaged the enemy and drove them towards
their retreating columns. As matters were growing serious, Clinton
reinforced his rear-guard, and the fighting promised to become general.
But Lee had no faith in the ability of the Americans to cope with the
British, and as the latter occupied strong ground he withdrew his men.
From the time Clinton began his march across Jersey, Lee had contended
that all the Americans could hope to do was to fall upon some isolated
party of the enemy and either rout or capture it. To effect this he
endeavored to draw the rear-guard of the British across the ravines
intersecting the low ground west of Freehold, and while they were thus
separated from the main body to defeat them. But his men could not
understand his strategy. As they were withdrawn from one position after
another they lost heart. It seemed to them that they were flying from
a shadow, and so frequently were they ordered back that the retreat
became rapid and confused. When Washington heard that Dickinson had
engaged the enemy he again sent word to Lee to attack them also, unless
there were powerful reasons for the contrary, and he would support him
with the entire army. The day was excessively hot, and the men threw
off their knapsacks that they might march more quickly. As they came to
the church which stands between Englishtown and Freehold, stragglers
were met who told them that Lee was retreating. Unwilling to believe
the story, Washington spurred to the front to learn the truth. After
passing the ravine which borders the low ground we have spoken of,
on the west, he met Lee and his men in full retreat. A stormy scene
ensued. Overwhelmed by the indignation which Washington manifested,
Lee vainly endeavored to excuse his conduct. Little time, however, was
lost in wasting words. Calling upon Colonels Stewart and Ramsey, who
were near him with their regiments, to check the enemy, then but two
hundred yards distant, Washington crossed the ravine in his rear, and
formed his men as they came up on its western bank. Greene was placed
on the right and Stirling on the left, while Wayne remained east of
the ravine in front of Greene. In this position a severe engagement
took place. Encouraged by the retreat of Lee, Clinton sent additional
reinforcements to his rear, and vainly strove to drive Washington from
his chosen ground. A battery under the Chevalier de Mauduit Duplessis,
planted on an elevation on Greene's right, kept up an effective fire
on the enemy's left, while Wayne repelled a desperate charge led by
Lieutenant-Colonel Monckton, in which that officer fell at the head of
his men. Night ended the conflict, and both parties slept on the ground
which they had occupied. At midnight Clinton withdrew his troops, and,
leaving his dead unburied, resumed his march to Middletown. He retired
so silently that Poor, who lay close to his right, was not aware of the
movement, and on the morning of the 29th the Americans found themselves
alone on the field. By daybreak Clinton was on too strong ground to be
attacked, and after resting his men a few days Washington marched to
the North River, and Clinton embarked for New York.

The battle of Monmouth, as the conflict at Freehold was called, was the
last general engagement fought on Northern soil. The Americans had 229
killed and wounded, the British over 400. Besides this, the latter lost
many by desertion on their march, and numbers fell from the effects of
the heat, which registered ninety-six degrees on the day of the battle.

Lee's conduct would probably have passed unnoticed had he not, in a
letter to Washington, endeavored to defend himself, while he demanded
the grounds which called forth the remarks addressed to him on the
battlefield. The letter was written in a highly improper spirit, and
the result was a court-martial, that found Lee guilty of disobedience
of orders, misbehavior before the enemy, and disrespect of the
commander-in-chief. For these reasons he was suspended from command
for twelve months, and before he was again ordered to service he was
dismissed from the army for having written an impertinent letter to
Congress.

Before leaving Valley Forge, Washington directed General Arnold, who
had not fully recovered from the wounds received at Saratoga, to
proceed to Philadelphia and take military command of the city. The
duties assigned him were of a delicate nature. Congress had ordered
that when the Americans took possession of the city no goods should
be sold or removed until their ownership had been decided upon by a
properly constituted commission. The object of this was to secure for
the army such goods as the British and Tories might have abandoned or
parted with at nominal prices to their friends. In his instructions to
Arnold, Washington had referred him to the resolutions of Congress for
his guidance, and had urged him to take every step in his power to
preserve tranquillity and give security to individuals of every class
until the restoration of civil power. Arnold arrived on the morning of
the 19th of June, and with the approbation of several of the principal
citizens issued a proclamation that closed the stores and suspended
business. It also commanded the citizens to make returns to the town
major of goods in their possession, beyond those needed for family
use, that the purchasing agents of the army might contract for those
they required. The temptation to benefit himself by the power he now
exercised was greater than Arnold could withstand, and three days after
he issued his first proclamation he entered into an agreement with the
clothier-general of the army and another individual, that all goods
purchased for the public and found to be superfluous should be charged
to them and sold for their joint account. It soon became noised about
that Arnold was personally interested in the purchases ostensibly
made for the government, and although the secret of the agreement was
preserved until after his treason, the knowledge of his speculations
in Montreal gave such a color of truth to the rumor that the community
were greatly dissatisfied: besides, he took up his abode in a spacious
mansion on Market Street, formerly the residence of Governor Penn,
which Howe had just vacated, and entered upon a style of living far
beyond his means.

When the exiled Whigs returned to their homes they found the city in
a filthy condition, and its surroundings a scene of desolation. The
houses in the built-up portions of the city were not much injured,
but many of them had been stripped of their furniture, and the papers
were filled with advertisements of missing articles which the owners
hoped to recover. The Supreme Executive Council resumed its sessions
in Philadelphia on the 26th of June. Its patriotic president, Thomas
Wharton, Jr., had died at Lancaster the month previous, and it was
presided over by the vice-president, George Bryan. The Congress
assembled more slowly. On the 2d of July a few delegates gathered in
the State House, and two days afterwards celebrated the anniversary
of Independence at the City Tavern; but it was not until the 7th that
a sufficient number were present to conduct business. On the 12th,
Gérard, the French ambassador, arrived. Until a suitable residence
could be found for him he was the guest of Arnold. Congress received
and entertained him on the 6th of August. No opportunity was lost of
honoring the new ally. On the birthday of Louis XVI. the president
and members of Congress called upon his ambassador and offered their
congratulations, and on the 25th were in turn entertained by Gérard.

In the midst of their rejoicings the Whigs did not forget the Tories,
whom they looked upon as promoters of their sufferings. Many of them
had been attainted of treason while the government was at Lancaster,
but the most obnoxious had gone off with the British. Such as remained
were summoned before the authorities, and so great was the clamor
against them that several were executed for aiding the enemy. The
new Constitution had been put into effect, but it was opposed by a
number of conscientious Whigs, and its administration was largely
in the hands of new men, who did not command universal respect.
The depreciation of the currency had also a demoralizing effect.
Speculation ran wild, and the greatest extravagance prevailed. The
prices of all kinds of commodities rose to enormous figures, and the
attempts of Congress to regulate them by law and fix the value of the
currency only served to increase the evil. The community was soon
divided into two classes. The Anti-Constitutionalists and the Tories
formed one party; the supporters of the new government the other.
The latter zealously advocated all the measures of Congress, and,
classing their opponents under the one head of "Tories", accused them
of being the authors of all the difficulties that embarrassed the
government; it was through their efforts that traitors were allowed to
go unpunished, and the necessaries of life locked up so that higher
prices could be wrung from the people. "Party disputes and personal
quarrels", wrote Washington from Philadelphia, in December, "are the
great business of the day; whilst the momentous concerns of an empire,
a great and accumulating debt, ruined finances, depreciated money, and
want of credit ... are but secondary considerations." "Our money", he
continued, "is now sinking fifty per cent. a day in this city; and yet
an assembly, a concert, a dinner, or a supper, that will cost three or
four hundred pounds, will not only take men off from acting in this
business, but even from thinking of it."

It was in a community thus rent by faction and passion that Arnold
commanded. The early restoration of civil power limited his authority,
but his arrogance soon brought him in conflict with the new government.
Unable to brook the restraint it put upon him, he joined its opponents,
and was soon the centre of a gay and fashionable circle that gladly
added so distinguished a soldier to their number. Arnold at that time
was a widower, in his thirty-eighth year. He was of a susceptible
nature, and before long fell in love with Miss Peggy Shippen, the
daughter of Edward Shippen, a leading lawyer of character and
position, whose political opinions caused him to be numbered among
the disaffected. In this company the temptations to spend money were
not easily resisted, and Arnold soon yielded to them. He gave elegant
entertainments, and lived ostentatiously, if not extravagantly. He was
soon involved in debt, and in the hopes of extracting himself entered
into questionable speculations. His quarrel with the state authorities
became more bitter, and in February, 1779, the Council published a
series of charges which were referred to Congress. The committee who
considered them failed to find Arnold guilty of any intentional wrong,
and on the 19th of March he resigned the command of Philadelphia, and
on the 8th of April was married to Miss Shippen. The Pennsylvania
authorities were dissatisfied with the action of the committee of
Congress, and succeeded in having the case reconsidered. After
considerable delay, it was determined that the whole matter should be
referred to a court-martial, to be appointed by the commander-in-chief.
The court met in December, and the following month found Arnold guilty
of two of the charges that had been preferred against him. The most
serious one, that of speculating in goods bought for the public while
the stores were closed, was not sustained for want of evidence, which
was not discovered until after his treason. The acts he was found
guilty of were indiscretions rather than crimes; and for these he was
sentenced to be reprimanded by the commander-in-chief.

EDITORIAL NOTES ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

DURING the movements of Washington to check the British in their
attempts to secure New York, what Congress called a flying camp was
formed of some militia in Jersey, under Mercer, to impede the enemy's
advance in case he turned towards Philadelphia.[888]

In Nov., 1776, Washington, crossing into New Jersey,[889] left Lee in
command on the New York side, but Washington, at first requesting,
afterwards instructed Lee to follow him (Sparks's _Washington_, iv.
168, 186-7, 193; 5 Force, iii. 779; _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1872, p.
267). Lee's secret purpose was to find some excuse for delaying, and so
to prolong his independent command, with a chance of making a brilliant
stroke. He endeavored at first to quiet Washington's importunities by
detaching a part of Heath's force at Peekskill, but Heath would take
orders only from Washington (_Memoirs_).[890] Finally Lee was moved to
follow (Dec. 2d and 3d), and while crossing Jersey "to reconquer it" he
was surprised at his transient quarters, Dec. 13, 1776, and captured.
Captain Bradford, Lee's aid, gave Stiles the account which is entered
in his diary (Johnston's _Campaign of 1776, Docs._, p. 146, and _N. E.
Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1860, p. 33).[891]

[Illustration: (From the _Gentleman's Magazine_.)]

We have abundant evidence of the consternation which ensued in
Philadelphia upon the advance of the British to Trenton.[892] The
political condition of the government of the colony was very unstable.
The colonial charter, under the instigation of Congress (May 10, 1776),
had been overthrown by a convention called in the interests of the
patriot party, which in July had met to frame a new constitution.[893]
This, however, upon its adoption, failed of being effective, by its
opponents' obstructive movements to prevent the organization of an
executive council, so that in the interim the supreme power, such as it
was, resided in a Council of Safety, which was hampered in its control
of the militia. Such was the conjunction when fear of an invasion
came, and the Quaker element was passive under the alarm, and, indeed,
antagonistic to measures of resistance.[894]

[Illustration: JOS. REED.

From Du Simitière's _Thirteen Portraits_ (Lond., 1783). Cf. also _Heads
of illustrious Americans_ (London, 1783). A likeness by C. W. Peale,
engraved by Sartain, is in W. B. Reed's _Life of Jos. Reed_, vol. i. A
copy of the original painting is in the Hist. Society of Penna. There
is also the profile likeness in _2 Penna. Archives_, xi.; Scharf and
Westcott's _Philadelphia_, i. 279. There is a painting in Independence
Hall by C. W. Peale, which differs from that engraved by Sartain.]

The Jersey campaign in general can be followed in original authorities
in Sparks's _Washington_, vol. iv.; Force's _5 Amer. Archives_, iii.;
in Joseph Reed's "Narrative of the movements of the American army in
the neighborhood of Trenton in the winter of 1776-1777", which, having
been used in Reed's _Reed_, i. ch. 14, is printed in the _Penna. Mag.
of Hist._, Dec., 1884, p. 391; the account by Congress,—not very
correct,—dated Baltimore, Jan. 9, 1777, and sent to France (Lee's _R.
H. Lee_, and E. E. Hale's _Franklin in France_, 97); and the current
reports sent from Boston, Feb. 27, by Bowdoin to Franklin (Hale, p.
110.)[895]

The principal British contemporary accounts are in Stedman, _Annual
Register_, Howe's _Narrative_, the evidence of Cornwallis in the
_Detail and Conduct of the War_, and _Letter to a Nobleman_, 1779.

[Illustration: CHARLES LEE.

From _An Impartial Hist. of the War in America_, Lond., 1780, p. 319,
where the print represents his full length. Compare with this a print
by Thomlinson, published in London, Oct. 31, 1755, with cannon and
a flag bearing the motto "Appeal to Heaven", which is reproduced in
Smith's _British Mezzotint Portraits_, and the engraving by G. R. Hall
in Moore's _Treason of Charles Lee_, and in the quarto edition of
Irving's _Washington_. There is a German print in the _Geschichte der
Kriege in und ausser Europa_ (Nürnberg, 1778).

Dr. Moore considers the only picture of Lee which "bears any
evidence of authenticity, or answers to the descriptions given by
his contemporary friends and biographers", to be one drawn by Barham
Rushbrooke at the time of Lee's return from Poland, and showing him
dressed in the uniform of an aid of King Stanislaus. It was first
engraved in 1813 in Dr. Thomas Gridlestone's treatise to prove that
Lee was Junius, and that writer said of it that, "though designed as a
caricature, it was allowed, by all who knew General Lee, to be the only
successful delineation of his countenance or person." It is familiar in
prints, representing his extremely attenuated figure in profile, with
a small dog in front of him. It is given in Moore's _Treason of Lee_;
Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 460; in Scull's _Evelyns in America_ (p.
295,—also see p. 196); and in K. M. Rowland's "Virginia Cavaliers" in
the _Southern Bivouac_, April, 1886.

There are views of Lee's house in Virginia in J. E. Cooke's "Historic
houses in the Shenandoah", in _Appleton's Journal_, p. 69, July 19,
1873, and in Mrs. Lamb's _Homes of America_.

The principal sources of Lee's history are: Edward Langworthy's
_Memoirs of the Life of the late Charles Lee, to which are added his
Political and Military Essays_ (London, 1792; Dublin, 1792; New York,
1792, 1793). It was reproduced as _Life and Memoirs of Maj.-Gen.
Charles Lee_ (N. Y., 1795, 1813), as _Political and Military Essays,
with Memoirs_, etc., 2d ed., with App. (London, 1797), and with new
title as _Anecdotes of the late Charles Lee, Esq._ (London, 1797). Cf.
Sparks's _Life of Charles Lee_ (1846); Moore's _Treason of Lee_; the
_Papers of Charles Lee_, published by the N. Y. Hist. Soc. in their
collections; Irving's _Washington_, i. 377; Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_,
160; Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, ii. ch. 23; John Bernard's
_Retrospections of America_ (1887), p. 96.]

The story is also told in local monographs,[896] and by the general
historians.[897]

On the temporary clothing of Washington with dictatorial powers, see
the Circular of Congress (Dec. 28th), explaining why it was done
(_Journals_, i. 585). Cf. also Sparks's _Washington_, iv. 550; Greene's
_Greene_, i. 292; Thacher's _Military Journal_, 74; Wells's _Sam.
Adams_, ii. 458, and the adverse views of Abraham Clark in _N. Jersey
Rev. Corresp._, p. 68.

The purpose of some sudden stroke on Washington's part is well
indicated.[898] The advance of Griffin with militia was opportune in
drawing Donop forward to Mount Holly, so that he was too distant to
support Rahl at Trenton.

On the attack on Trenton there is special record from the Washington
papers in Sparks (iv. 242, 246, 541), Dawson, i. 20 (to Congress),
_Mass. Soc. Hist. Col._, xliv. 32 (to Heath, and Heath's letter in
_N. H. State Papers_, viii. 445). Others are in 5 Force, iii., a full
record of the battle. Congress wrote to the agents in France (_Diplom.
Corresp._, i. 246.)[899]

What is known as the Reed-Cadwalader controversy, hinging upon the
alleged weakness or defection of Joseph Reed at this time, is more
particularly examined in another place.

On the English side we have Howe's despatch in Dawson (i. 202) Tryon to
Germain in _N. Y. Col. Doc._ (viii. 694). The effect of the battle in
England to discourage the expatriated loyalists is told in Hutchinson's
_Diary_, ii. 139. Stedman accuses Howe of bad judgment in placing
so unfit a man in command as Rahl. Adolphus (ii. 385), On "private
information" supposed to have been Arnold's, says that Arnold suggested
to Washington the movement, and Mahon (vi. 130) has followed Adolphus.

[Illustration: TRENTON, PRINCETON, MONMOUTH.

From the map in Marshall's _Atlas_ to his _Washington_ (1804). Cf. also
Sparks's _Washington_, iv. 258; Guizot's _Atlas_ to his _Washington_.
The plans of Trenton and Princeton in Carrington (pp. 270, 302) vary
somewhat from the contemporary ones as to roads. The chief contemporary
English map of New Jersey is one based on the surveys of Bernard Ratzer
in 1769, which was published in London, Dec. 1, 1777, by William
Faden, and called _The Province of New Jersey, divided into East and
West, commonly called the Jerseys_ (32 × 23 inches). It was improved
from surveys by Gerard Banker. It was reissued in fac-simile by the
Geological Survey of New Jersey in 1877, and this fac-simile is in W.
S. Sharp's reprint of Smith's _New Jersey_, 1877. Another fac-simile
was published in 1884. A second edition of the original was published
in 1778, corrected by the British and Hessian engineers.

An American map of the campaign, by Erskine, is given in the
illustrated ed. of Irving's _Washington_, ii. 430. There are English
maps in the _Gent. Mag._, Sept., 1776, and in Stedman's _American War_.
Gordon gives a map (vol. ii. 525). Cf. Lossing's _Field-Book_, vol. ii.

We have Hessian maps of some of the movements preceding Howe's
evacuation of New Jersey in 1777, which are among the Faden MS.
maps in the library of Congress, and bear the name of Wangenheim, a
"lieutenant dans les chasseurs Hessois, 1777", namely: No. 75, "Plan
de l'affaire de Westfield et du camp de Raway, 1777, Jan. 26, 27." No.
76, "Plan de notre camp à New Brunswick, le 12^e Juin; notre marche le
14 à Middlebush; la situation du camp le 15^e Juin, et celle de Gen.
Washington à Boundbrook." No. 77, "Position de notre camp le 24 Juin,
1777, à Perth Amboy."]

[Illustration: TRENTON AND PRINCETON.

A section of a large map in the library of Congress, apparently of
Hessian origin, _Plan général des opérations de l'armée Britannique
contre les Rebelles_, etc. The broken lines represent roads. The
Americans are represented by blocks, half white and half black. The
British are solid black. KEY: "76, Marche du Général Cornwallis.
77, Marche du Général Knyphausen le 23 Juin, et son camp près de
Richardstown."]

[Illustration: FADEN'S MAP OF TRENTON AND PRINCETON.

Sketched from a _Plan of the Operations of General Washington against
the king's troops in New Jersey, from the 26th of December, 1776, to
the 3d January, 1777, by William Faden_. London, 15th April, 1777.
This map also makes part of the _American Atlas_, and the original
MS. draft is among the Faden maps in the library of Congress. The map
(the roads being represented by broken lines) bears legends to the
following purport: Washington from his headquarters at Newtown moved
his men on the evening of December 25th to 1, and by 4 o'clock on the
morning of the 26th he had crossed to 2, where he divided his army into
two divisions. The left, composed of 1,200 men with ten field-pieces
under Greene, but accompanied by Washington himself, proceeded through
3 towards Trenton; the right, under Sullivan, consisting of 1,500
men with ten field-pieces, went through 4. Meanwhile "Erwin's" and
Cadwallader's forces came to 5, hoping to cross the ferry, but the ice
in the river prevented. At 8 o'clock on the morning of the 26th, Rahl
at Trenton was surprised, and the entire force of Hessians with him
were captured except 200 men, who, with some chasseurs and dragoons,
escaped to "Burdenton", where they net Count Donop, who now, joined
by these fugitives, proceeded with his command to Crosswicks, thence
to Allenstown and Princeton. Washington, after his victory, encamped
at 6, where he was reinforced by troops from Virginia, Maryland, and
Pennsylvania. On January 2d the position was this: Washington had been
confronted at 7 by the advance of Cornwallis at 8. The second brigade
of the British under Leslie was at Maidenhead, and Lieutenant-Colonel
Mawhood, with the 17th, 40th, and 55th British regiments, was on the
road at 10,—all these troops having moved forward from Princeton
after Washington's attack at Trenton. During the night of January 2d,
Washington having withdrawn his detachments over the bridge, left fires
along the southern bank of the Assumpink Creek to deceive the British,
and marched from his camp at 6 to Allenstown, then turned towards
Princeton, but his force in part left the road, and by the dotted line
proceeded to 9, and on the morning of Jan. 3d attacked Mawhood at 10.
Of the three British regiments here, the 17th was driven upon Leslie
at Maidenhead, while the 40th and 55th retreated through Princeton and
Kingstown towards Brunswick, beyond 12. Washington followed them to
Kingstown and encamped there on Jan. 3, after having broken down the
bridge over the Millstone to interfere with Cornwallis's overtaking
him. On Jan. 4 Washington took the road through 11 to the passes in the
hills, while Cornwallis, reaching Kingstown the same day, proceeded
through 12 towards Brunswick.]

[Illustration: TRENTON.

Wiederhold's plan from the archives at Marburg, sketched from a
fac-simile furnished by Mr. E. J. Lowell. (Cf. his _Hessians_, 92.)
_A_ marks the centre of the village. The Hessian outposts were at
_B_, one officer and 24 men; _C_, Captain Altenbocum's company of the
Lossberg regiment, quartered in the neighborhood, which formed in
front of the captain's quarters, while the picket at _B_ occupied the
enemy; _D_, one captain, one officer, and 75 men; _E_, one officer and
50 Jägers, who retreated over the bridge on Sullivan's approach; _F_,
one officer and 30 men, who joined Donop over the Bordentown road. The
two columns of Washington and Sullivan emerged from the woods at _G
G_. The broken lines (— — — —) indicate their line of march and
successive positions, till they surrounded the Hessians. The beginning
of the dotted lines (. . . . .) in the village shows where the Hessians
attempted to form; but Rahl and Lossberg were driven back to _H_,
and Knyphausen to _J_, and surrounded they surrendered. Knyphausen
endeavored to reach the bridge, having with him the Lossberg cannon,
which got stuck in the marsh at _K_, and the delay in extricating
them was sufficient for Sullivan to occupy the bridge and cut off
Knyphausen's retreat. His own cannon were at _M_, and were not used.
Rahl's cannon were at _N_, and early dismounted. The Americans used
cannon at _s s s_, etc. There is also among the Rochambeau maps (no.
18) a map done in faint colors, with an elaborate key, which is marked
_Engagement de Trenton_, by Wiederhold, measuring about eight inches
wide by ten high. A French plan is given in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
1880, p. 369. Cf. map in Raum's _Trenton_; Lossing's _Field-Book_,
ii. 228 (with Rahl's headquarters, p. 228, and a view, p. 222).
Carrington's special map of Trenton (p. 278) gives more detail than the
contemporary plans.]

Bancroft (ix. 217; cf. Irving, ii. 466) notes the Hessian journals
which he had used.[900]

The affair at Princeton has special treatment in the Washington papers
(Sparks, iv. 259; Dawson, i. 204), and is necessarily covered by the
general historians.[901] On the English side Howe's letter (Jan. 5,
1777) to Germain is the principal source, and it will be found in
_Gent. Mag._, Feb., 1777; C. C. Haven's _Thirty days_, 60; Dawson, i.
210. Cf. Mahon, vi. 132.[902]

[Illustration: FROM WILKINSON'S ATLAS.

Sullivan delayed at F to give Washington a chance to make his longer
detour by A before he (Sullivan) advanced by D. Washington attacked
at B, and threw out riflemen at G and H. Rahl, deserted by a part of
his force, who fled to Donop at Bordentown, surrendered at I, when he
became aware of Sullivan's approach behind him.

Wilkinson also gives a map showing the movements between Dec. 25, 1776,
and Jan. 3, 1777, and this is the basis of the map in C. C. Haven's
_New Historic Manual concerning the battles of Trenton and Princeton_
(Trenton, 1871).]

[Illustration: FROM WILKINSON'S ATLAS.

The advance, with which Wilkinson was, came by G to the vicinity of
the wood A and Quaker meeting-house B. The main column turned off and
followed the line _b_. Gen. Mercer proceeded to _f_. A detachment of
the British at _d_, with officers reconnoitring at _a a_, discovered
the American line on the route _h_; but coming to _g_, they also
discovered Mercer at _f_, who wheeled by the line _c_, and gaining
the orchard of Wm. Clark's house (5) confronted at 1—2 the British
detachment now formed at 3—4. The Americans retreated when the British
advanced to the slope (_o o o_), where they saw Moulder's battery,
X, near Thomas Clark's house (7), which Washington had sent from his
main line at _h_, together with other troops by the line _r r_, which
induced the British to retreat on the line _e e_, while Mawhood,
their commander, fled with a few infantry by the line, _s s_. At this
juncture another British regiment, which had advanced from Princeton to
C, fell back, and joining other troops took post at K and C, where they
confronted Washington's main body, which now deployed at _i i_; and as
the Americans attacked, the British fled to the college building (P),
and then beyond by the route _t t_. Cf. plan in Lossing's _Field-Book_,
ii. 235. Carrington's plan of Princeton (p. 278) gives further details
from later study.]

[Illustration: CAMPAIGN OF 1777.

A map in Captain Hall's _Hist. of the Civil War in America_ (London,
1780), vol. i.]

Howe's campaign of 1777 was the ruin of his military reputation.[903]
Jones, in his severe criticism upon Howe, unjustly charges Galloway
with making the suggestion of the expedition to the Head of Elk.[904]
It is certain that Galloway threw himself upon Howe's protection not
far from the time when Howe committed himself to a plan of capturing
Philadelphia. About the same time it has been charged that General Lee,
by a treasonable project, aided Howe's purposes in the same direction.

[Illustration: CAMPAIGN OF 1777.

From Galloway's _Letters to a Nobleman_, London, 1779. KEY: _A_, the
British army before the battle of Brandywine. _B_, Gen. Knyphausen's
advance to the attack. _C_, Lord Cornwallis having turned the right
wing of the rebel army. _D_, Sullivan advanced to oppose him. _E_,
position of the rebel army. _F_, General Howe's quarters, in which
he remained five days after the rebel defeat. _a a a_, Washington's
retreat to Chester and Philadelphia. _G_, his camp at Chester, where
he remained fourteen hours after the battle. The roads with the zigzag
mark show those by which the rebels might have been intercepted after
the battle. _H_, Washington's flight after the skirmish at Goshen.
_I_, Washington's retreat when Sir Wm. Howe crossed the Schuylkill.
_K_, Washington's camp, whence he marched to surprise the British
army at Germantown, and to which he retreated after the battle. _L_,
Washington's camp at Whitemarsh. (For his headquarters see Lossing's
_Field-Book_, ii. 321, and his _Mary and Martha Washington_, p. 162.)
_M_, the first position of the British. _N_, the second. _O, O, O_,
where Washington's camp might have been attacked with advantage. _P_,
British camp at Germantown. The line ——— denotes marches of the
British army; the line of dots . . . . . . . . the marches of the rebel
army. _Q_, Washington's lines at Valley Forge in the winter 1777.
_R, R, R, R, R_, positions which might have been taken to besiege
or assault the rebel quarters. _S_, the bridge. This map is also
reproduced in _The Evelyns in America_, p. 252.

The principal contemporary engraved maps of this part of the country
were the 1770 edition of Scull's _Map of Pennsylvania_ (see Vol. V. p.
240), which was at this time included in the _American Atlas_ (London,
1776), and the _Atlas Amériquain_ (Paris, 1777), and Pownall's edition,
1776, of Evans's _Map of the Middle Colonies_ (see Vol. V. p. 85), as
well as Jefferys' edition, 1775, of the same, not so accurate. To these
might be added Montresor's _Province of New York and Pennsylvania,
1777_; Mellish and Tanner's _Seat of War in America_; Faden's map of
July 1, 1778, given in fac-simile in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, i.
285; the maps in the _Gentleman's Mag._, 1776 and 1777; Almon's _Seat
of War in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, 1777_. A modern
map, covering the same field to illustrate the campaign, is given in
Theodore W. Bean's _Washington at Valley Forge one hundred years ago_,
and is repeated, with a few changes, in _Proceedings at the Dedication
of the Paoli Monument_ (Westchester, 1877). The contemporary French
maps are Du Chesnoy's _Théâtre de la Guerre_, 1775-1778, Beaurain's
_Carte pour servir à l'intelligence de la guerre_ (Paris, 1777), Brion
de la Tour's _Théâtre de la Guerre_ (Paris, 1777), with another by
Phelippeaux "pour servir de suite", and Bourgoin's _Théâtre de la
Guerre_ (Paris). There is a German map in the _Geschichte der Kriege in
und ausser Europa_. There is in the Maryland Hist. Soc. library a map
of stage routes between Baltimore and New York, showing the operations
of the British from Elk River (1777) to Neversink (1778). (Lewis
Mayer's _Catal. of MSS. etc., in Maryland Hist. Soc._, 1854.)

Cf. also the maps in Sparks's _Washington_, v. 66; Moore's _Diary of
the Revolution_, orig. ed., 495; _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser. vol. iii.;
Moorsom's _Fifty-second Regiment_; Hamilton's _Coldstream Guards_;
Carrington's _Battles_, p. 398.]

George H. Moore laid before the N. Y. Hist. Soc., in June, 1859, the
document in Lee's handwriting, dated March 29, 1777, while he was a
prisoner in New York, in which he sketches a plan for Howe's guidance
in the coming campaign. The "plan" in fac-simile, together with an
elucidation of it, was printed in Moore's _Treason of Charles Lee_,
New York, 1860. The "plan" is also in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._,
1872, p. 361. Lee was at that time trying to induce Congress to send
commissioners to New York to confer with him (Bancroft, ix. ch. 19),
but Congress was not ensnared. Moore contends (p. 84) that the "plan"
is responsible for Howe turning towards Philadelphia, instead of going
north to help Burgoyne. Bancroft (ix. 333; also see p. 211) asserts
that it could have had no influence on Howe's movements.[905]

Lecky quotes Galloway's testimony, that of the 66,000 men voted by
Congress for this campaign, hardly 16,000 were in the field. Bancroft
admits that no one better than Marshall (iii. ch. 3) has described the
part of Washington in this campaign.[906]

At the opening of the campaign Washington was kept long in suspense
as to the purpose of Howe. The eastern people feared his object
was Boston.[907] Alexander Hamilton early in the season had become
Washington's aide, and his letters at once begin to contain
speculations on Howe's purpose (_Works_, Lodge's ed., vii. 481,
496, 500). On May 28th, Washington moved his headquarters from
Morristown[908] to Middlebrook, and it was thought Howe would attempt
to march direct for Philadelphia. On June 12th, Sullivan writes to
Weare that Howe was to be confronted the next day (_N. H. State
Papers_, viii. 584); and when it was known that Howe was retiring
towards New York, Washington, June 23d, little credited a report, then
prevalent, that the British army was panic-struck (_Mass. Hist. Soc.
Coll._, vii. 138).[909] Cf., for all these movements, Montresor's
_Journal_.

[Illustration: GENERAL HOWE.

From _The Impartial Hist. of the War in America_.]

In July, when news came of the fall of Ticonderoga, there were no
signs that Howe was preparing to coöperate with Burgoyne, and Hamilton
wondered (_Works_, vii. 507, 515). When Howe sailed from New York,
Washington was in suspense.[910] On July 31st, it was learned that
Howe's fleet was at the capes of Delaware, and the next day the
vessels had disappeared.[911] It was now supposed that Howe had gone
to Charleston, S. C., and that Washington might safely reinforce the
Northern army (_Hamilton's Works_, vii. 517). Lafayette first took
his seat at a council of war called to consider the propriety of this
(Sparks's _Washington_, v. 445).

In August, 1777, Gen. Sullivan conducted a raid into Staten Island to
seize Tories. He captured some papers which implicated the Philadelphia
Quakers in inimical movements. (Cf. _Journals of Congress_, ii.
246, 253.) In other respects the incursion was unfortunate, and
his movements were examined by a court of inquiry, which acquitted
him.[912]

Howe had been six weeks at sea, with three weeks' provisions, when he
landed at the Head of Elk.[913]

Upon Washington's march to confront Howe, see, for the preliminary
movements, William J. Buck's paper on "Washington's Head Quarters on
the Neshaminy", in the _Penna. Mag. Hist._, i. 275.[914]

[Illustration: GENERAL SIR WILLIAM HOWE.

From Andrews's _Hist. of the War_, London, 1785, vol. i. It is
reëngraved in Gay's _Pop. Hist. U.S._, iii. 412. Cf. engraving in
Irving's _Washington_, illus. ed., New York, 1857, ii. Sargent gives a
clever presentation of the character of Howe in his _André_, p. 136.]

Upon the battle on the Brandywine the main American source is the
letters of Washington. With Washington's aid, R. H. Harrison wrote
to Congress from Chad's Ford, Sept. 11th, at 5 P. M., a letter which
was at once circulated in broadside (Sabin, iii. p. 463; Hildeburn,
no. 3,533). Pickering drafted for the commander-in-chief the report
(_Life of T. Pickering_, i. 157) written at Chester, at midnight,
September 11th (Sparks, i. 251; v. 58; Dawson, i. 278). Hamilton was
on Washington's staff (J. C. Hamilton's _Life of Hamilton_). C. C.
Pinckney, also on the staff, wrote a letter in 1820 (_Hist. Mag._,
July, 1866, x. 202). Marshall, as a participant, drew somewhat upon
personal experience in his account in the _Life of Washington_.
Lafayette's narrative, as given to Sparks, is in the _Sparks MSS._ (no.
xxxii. Cf. also Lafayette's _Mémoires_). There is a journal of Capt.
William Beatty, of the Maryland line, in the _Hist. Mag._, 2d. ser., i.
79. Sparks examines some of the disputed points of the battle.[915]

There are contemporary records and opinions in the _Penna. Archives_,
2d ser., x. 316; the letter of the N. H. delegates in Congress in _N.
H. State Papers_, viii. 678; current reports in Moore's _Diary_, 495;
gossip in Adams's _Familiar Letters_, 296, etc.; Knox's account (Sept.
13th) in Drake's _Knox_, 48.[916]

On the British side, we find Howe's report, Oct. 10th, to Germain in
Almon, v. 409; Dawson, i. 281. Cf. the evidence before Parliament in
the _Conduct of the War_ and the narrative in Stedman.[917]

The Hessian participancy is examined in Lowell's _Hessians_, 197.
Bancroft quotes Ewald's _Beyspiele grosser Helden_ as the testimony of
an eye-witness of Washington's well-conducted retreat.[918]

A portion of the British troops used breech-loaders.[919]

The movements of the opposing armies toward Philadelphia can be
followed in the main in the authorities cited for the battle. Some
local details are in Pennypacker's _Phœnixville_, and an account of the
damage done by the British on the march is in Smith's _Delaware County_
(p. 544).

For the Paoli attack, we have Wayne's defence at the court-martial in
Dawson, i. 315, and in the _One hundredth anniversary of the Paoli
massacre_, p. 52, which last contains also, beside sundry contemporary
records, the addresses of J. S. Futhey (also in _Penna. Mag. Hist._, i.
285) and Wayne McVeagh. The report of Howe to Germain is in Dawson, i.
317.[920]

On Sept. 26th, Washington described the state of the army, then at
Potsgrove (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, Nov., 1884, p. 461). He was foiled by
a rain in an effort to hold the British once more at bay, and Howe
entered Philadelphia.[921]

[Illustration:

NOTE TO THE OPPOSITE MAP.—Washington's map of the Brandywine campaign,
on the opposite page, is reduced from a tracing of the original in the
possession of the Pennsylvania Historical Society. The legends upon it
in Washington's handwriting are noted in the following key by letters,
while those of the surveyor are given by figures. At one end of the
map is the following inscription: "Laid down at 200 p^s in an Inch,
the 27^{th} day of August, An. Dom^i 1777. P^r Jais. Broom, Surv^r. N.
Castle Co^y." At the other end is the following table:—

"_m._ _q._ _p^s._
From Chester County to Brandywine 7 0 21
From Brandywine to New Castle 6 1 19
From New Castle to Red Lyon 7 1 0
From Red Lyon to St. George 3 2 46
From St. George to Cantwell's Bridge 7 0 60
From Cantwell's to Blackbird 5 2 70
—— — ——
37 0 56

From Chester County to Brandywine 7 0 21
From Brandywine to Newport 4 0 79
From Newport to Bridgetown 5 0 12
From Bridgetown to Red Lyon 4 0 19
From Red Lyon to Harris Inn 5 2 51
From Harris Inn to Witherspoon's 6 1 44
From Witherspoon's to Blackbird 6 1 42
—— — ——
38 3 28

From New Castle to Christiana Bridge 4 3 45"

KEY: A, Chandler Ford, very good, but very broken ground and narrow
defiles on the Et. side. B, Fording place by Thomas Gibson's. C, To
Gibson's Ford. D, Road leading to Kennet's Square. E, Road leading
towards Red Clay Creek. F, Hendrickson's Tavern. G, Richland fording
place. H, Tavern. I, Smith's Store. J, James Walker. K, Mill Town. L,
Rising Sun Tavern.

1, The Bottom Road, passing Brandywine at Chad's Ford (18). 2,
Newlin's. 3, The line dividing the counties of Chester and Newcastle.
[This is the curved northern boundary of Delaware.] 4, Gibson's Mill.
5, Gibson's Ford. The Center Road [runs to F]. 6, Kennet Meeting-house.
7, Clark's Inn. 8 [to 7 and beyond], The Road leading from Wilmington
to Kennet's. 9, Naaman's Creek. 10, Grubb's Inn. Grubb's Road [leads
from 10 to 5]. 11, The Road leading from Wilmington to Chester. 12,
Shelpot Creek. 13, Foulk's Road. 14, The Concord Road. 15, Brandywine
Creek. This creek, except the fording place, impassable. 16, Bridge.
17, M'Kim's [?] Mill. 18, Chad's Ford. 19, 20, Delaware River. 21,
Wm. Miller's Mill. 22, Red Clay Creek. 23, Christiana River. 24, The
Borough of Wilmington. 25, The Road leading from Wilmington towards
Lancaster. 26, Mill Creek. 27, Bridge. 28, The Road leading from
Wilmington to Newcastle. 29, Ferry. 30, Newport. 31, The Road leading
from Newport towards Lancaster with bridge at 32. 33, The Lancaster
Road. 34, Mill creek. 35, Bridge. 36 [to 46], White Clay Creek. 37, New
Castle. 38, The Road leading from N. Castle to Christiana Bridge. 39,
Bridge [Christiana]. 40, Hamburgh. 41, [The Road] to the Red Lyon. 42,
The Road leading from New Castle to the Elk River. 43, The Road leading
from Christiana Bridge to Elk River. 44, Ogle Town. 45, The Road
leading from Ogletown to the Head of Elk. 46, Mill of Capt. Black's.
47, 48, [Shaded space showing where the original is worn through].
49, Newark. 50, The Road to Johnson Ferry on Susquehanna. 51, [Road
to Nottingham]. 52, Iron Hill. 53, The Road leading from Red Lyon to
Black Bird Creek. 54, St. George's Creek. 55, Mill Pond. 56, Trap [?]
57, Drawyer's Creek. 58, Appoquinimink Creek. 59, Cantwell's Bridge.
60, Witherspoon's. 61, Part of Bohemia. 62, The upper Road leading from
Red Lyon to Blackbird Creek. 63, Clemon Mill. 64, Elk. 65, Part of
Elk River. 66, Joseph Gilpin's. 67, Harris Inn. 68, The Road leading
towards Bohemia.]

Sullivan, with the charge of inefficiency for Brandywine still hanging
over him, was the first to encounter the outposts of the British at
Chestnut Hill, when he opened the day of Germantown. His letter (Oct.
25th) addressed to the president of New Hampshire was first printed by
Sparks.[922]

Washington's letters to Congress and others are of the first
importance.[923]

In Timothy Pickering's _Life_ (i. 166) there is an account of the
battle from his journal, which sustains the positions taken by
Pickering in 1826,—though he does not refer to it at that time,—in
the controversy which was waged by him and Sparks with Johnson, the
author of the _Life of Greene_.[924]

[Illustration: BRANDYWINE.

Sketched from a large MS. Hessian map in the library of Congress, _Plan
générale des opérations de l'armée Britannique contre les Rebelles_,
etc. KEY: "19, Marche de l'armée pour New Gardens. 22, Marche du
général Knyphausen pour Kennet Square, 9 Sept. 24, Camp que l'armée
occupa aux environs de Kennet Square. 26, Marche du général Cornwallis
vers le Brandywine. 30, Première position du Gen. Cornwallis. 31,
2me position de ce général. 32, Attaque de ce général. 33, Position
des enemis. 34, Retraite des enemis. 38, Marche du corps detaché à
Wilmington. 57, Marche du corps detaché à Wilmington pour Philadelphia
le 16 Oct." The lines (·–·–) represent roads.

The published plans of Brandywine are the following: In the
_Examination of Joseph Galloway and letters on the Conduct of the war_.
In Sparks's _Washington_, v. 58. Cf. also Duer's _Stirling_, ii.;
Irving's _Washington_, iii. 190. In Marshall's _Washington_, vol. v.
Sketch by J. S. Bowen and J. S. Futhey in _Penna. Hist. Soc. Bull._,
i. no. 7 (1846). In _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., x. 316; Carrington's
_Battles_, p. 382; Hamilton's _Grenadier Guards_, ii.; Lowell's
_Hessians_, 198; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 377 (with views of the
ground, 378, 379).

There are among the Faden maps (nos. 78, 79) in the library of Congress
a careful topographical drawing of the battle of Brandywine, and a
corrected proof of the map as published by Faden in 1778. There are
among the Faden maps (nos. 80, 80½) plans, by the Hessian Wangenheim,
of the camp at Wilmington to cover the British hospitals after the
fight at Brandywine, and a map of the positions of the army in the
action of Sept. 19th, as well as Cornwallis's march in November to
Philadelphia.]

Of the writers near the event, Gordon drew from original sources;
Marshall was an actor in the scenes; and there are accounts in
Wilkinson, i. 353, 359, 361. G. W. P. Custis's _Recollections_, ch. 4,
and the later writers need to be consulted.[925]

On the English side, Howe's despatch to Germain is in Dawson (i. 330).
The letter of a British officer, dated Philadelphia, Oct. 19, 1777
(London Chronicle, Jan. 3-6, 1778), is reprinted in _Penna. Mag. of
Hist._, April, 1887, p. 112.[926]

[Illustration: TRUDRUFFRIN, OR PAOLI.

Sketched from a portion of a MS. Hessian map in the library of
Congress, called _Plan générale des opérations de l'armée Britannique
contre les Rebelles_, etc. The lines ·–·– represent roads.

KEY: "41, marche du général Knyphausen et son camp le 18^{me}; 42,
marche du général Cornwallis le même jour; 43, camp du corps près de
Valley Forge; 44, corps des Rebelles surpris par le général Grey le
21^{me}; 45, camp et marche du général Knyphausen le 21^{me}; 46,
marche de l'armée par le Schuylkill près de Valley Forge, et le camp
qu'elle occupa le 23^{me} près de Norris Town House." The British are
shown in solid black blocks, the Americans in black and white.]

[Illustration:

NOTE.—This map is a fac-simile from one of Faden's maps. There is
among the copies of the Lafayette maps in the Sparks collection at
Cornell University one of the _British Camp at Trudruffrin, from the
13th to the 21st of September, with the attack made by Major-General
Grey against the Rebels near White Horse tavern on the 20th of
September_. This is merely a transcript of the Faden map, of which
there is a fac-simile in _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, i. 285. Cf. _Penna.
Archives_, 2d ser., x. 316. The MS. of Faden's maps is among the Faden
maps in the library of Congress (no. 81). There is a view of the Paoli
monument in Scharf and Westcott's _Philad._, i. 349, and in Lossing's
_Field-Book_, ii. 372.]

[Illustration: From _Pennsylvania Archives_ (2d ser., vol. xi. p. 191).

Cf. the maps in Scharf and Westcott's _Philadelphia_, i. 353, and in
_Penna. Mag. of Hist._, i. 375.]

The seaward defence of Philadelphia depended on the forts Mercer
and Mifflin, on the _chevaux-de-frise_ in the river, and on the
Pennsylvania navy. Howe's first attempt, in October, to get his
shipping up to support his army failed.[927]

[Illustration: MONTRESOR'S PLAN OF GERMANTOWN.

NOTE.—This map is sketched after an original in Harvard College
library. There is a duplicate, evidently made by the same hand, among
the Peter Force maps, in the library of Congress. The map was engraved
and published in London. There is a map published by Faden in London,
March 12, 1784, which is not trustworthy, however, as to roads, which
was called _Sketch of the Surprise of Germantown by the American forces
commanded by General Washington, Oct. 4, 1777, by J_[ohn] _Hills, Lt.
23d Reg._

Other published maps are the following: in Johnson's _Greene_, i. 80
(showing three stages); Sparks's _Washington_, v. 86 (also in Duer's
_Stirling_, ii. 177; Irving's illustrated _Washington_, iii. 286;
Guizot's _Atlas_); Carrington's _Battles_, 392; Lossing's _Field-Book_,
ii. 314; Scharf and Westcott's _Philad._, i. 354; _Penna. Archives_, 2d
ser., xi. 188; _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, i. 368.

For views of the Chew House, see Day's _Hist. Coll. of Penna._,
492; Scharf and Westcott's _Philad._, i. 356; Egle's _Penna._, 178;
Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 514; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (March, 1880),
iv. 192.

The following are the main portions of Howe's despatch to Lord George
Germain, dated at Germantown, Oct. 10, 1777: "The enemy marched at
six o'clock in the evening of the third from their camp near Skippach
Creek, about sixteen miles from Germantown. This village forms one
continued street for two miles, which the line of the encampment, in
the position the army then occupied, crossed at right angles, near a
mile from the head of it, where the second battalion of light infantry
and the fortieth regiment were posted. At three o'clock in the morning
of the fourth, the patrols discovered the enemy's approach, and the
army was immediately ordered under arms. Soon after the break of day
the enemy began their attack upon the second light infantry, which
they sustained for a considerable time, supported by the fortieth
regiment; but at length being overpowered by increasing numbers, the
light infantry and a part of the fortieth retired into the village,
when Lieutenant-Colonel Mulgrave with six companies of the latter corps
threw themselves into a large stone house [Chew's], which, though
surrounded by a brigade, and attacked by four pieces of cannon, he most
gallantly defended, until Major-General Grey, at the head of three
battalions of the third brigade, turning his front to the village, and
Brigadier-General Agnew, who covered Major-General Grey's left with
the fourth brigade, by a vigorous attack repulsed the enemy with great
slaughter. The fifth and fifty-fifth regiments from the right, engaging
them at the same on the other side of the village, completed the defeat
of the enemy in this quarter. The regiments of Du Corps and Donop being
formed to support the left of the fourth brigade and one battalion of
the Hessian grenadiers in the rear of the Chasseurs, were not engaged.
The precipitate flight of the enemy preventing the two first corps from
entering into action, and the success of the Chasseurs in repelling all
efforts against them on that side, did not call for the support of the
latter. The first light infantry and the pickets of the line in front
of the right wing were engaged soon after the attack began upon the
head of the village. The pickets were obliged to fall back, but the
light infantry, being well supported by the fourth regiment, sustained
the enemy's attack with such determined bravery that they could not
make the least impression on them.

"Two columns of the enemy were opposite to the guards, twenty-seventh
and twenty-eighth regiments, who formed the right of the line.
Major-General Grant, who was upon the right, moved up the forty-ninth
regiment about the time that Major-General Grey had forced the enemy in
the village, and then advancing with the right wing, the enemy's left
gave way, and was pursued through a strong country between four and
five miles.

"Lord Cornwallis, being early apprised, at Philadelphia, of the enemy's
approach, put in motion the two battalions of the British and one of
the Hessian grenadiers, with a squadron of dragoons, and his lordship
getting to Germantown just as the enemy had been forced out of the
village, he joined Major-General Grey, when, placing himself at the
head of the troops, he followed the enemy eight miles on the Skippach
road; but such was the expedition with which they fled, he was not able
to overtake them. The grenadiers from Philadelphia, who, full of ardor,
had run most of the way to Germantown, could not arrive in time to join
in the action."]

[Illustration: GERMANTOWN AND VICINITY.

Sketched from a part of a large map in the library of Congress,
evidently of Hessian origin,—_Plan générale des opérations de l'armée
Britannique contre les Rebelles_, etc. (August, 1776 to 1779). From
the Renvoy the interpretation of the following numbers is taken: "40,
marche du général Cornwallis le 16^{me}; 47, marche du général de
Knyphausen vers Germantown et le camp qu'il occupa le 23^{me} près
de ce village; 48, marche du général Cornwallis vers Germantown et
son camp près de village; 50, campment de l'armée aux environs de
Germantown; 51, emplacement des enemies et leur attaque; 52, la maison
deffendue par le Colonel Musgrave avec un partie du 40^{me} regiment;
54, retraite de l'enemie." The lines (·–·–) mark the roads.]

The _chevaux-de-frise_ at Billingsport was laid by Robert Whyte, who
went subsequently over the enemy, and he is charged with placing it
purposely in a defective manner. Wallace (p. 228, with plans, p.
134), who examines the evidence, seems to think the charge is proved.
Respecting the share of the navy in the defence of the river, the
principal sources are the minutes of the naval board, etc., in _2
Penna. Archives_, vol. i., and other papers in iv. 748. An examination
of this defence is made in Wallace, p. 130, etc.[928]

[Illustration: STENTON (JAMES LOGAN'S HOUSE).

This view of the house occupied by Howe and Washington as headquarters
is taken from a painting in the Penna. Hist. Society. It is a rear view
of the building. There is in the same collection a pen-and-ink sketch
by Joseph Pennell. The position of the house can be seen in the map on
another page, called "Approaches to Germantown." Howe occupied it at
the time of the battle of Germantown. Cf. Scharf and Westcott, p. 871.]

[Illustration: FADEN'S MAP OF THE OPERATIONS ON THE DELAWARE.

Sketched from an adaptation of Faden's _Course of the Delaware river
from Philadelphia to Chester, exhibiting the several works erected by
the rebels to defend its passage, with the attacks made upon them by
his majesty's land and sea forces, engraved by Wm. Faden, 1778_, which
is given in Wallace's _Col. Wm. Bradford_, p. 228.

KEY: 1, Lord Howe in the "Eagle", with the "Apollo" and transports; 2,
the "Camille" and "Zebra;" 3, the "Vigilant" and "Fury", which moved
up by the dotted line to a position in the channel between Mud Island
and Carpenter's Island, to attack Fort Mifflin, on Mud Island; 4, the
"Experiment" and transports, below the "lower stackadoes" (shown by the
zigzag line) through which there was a passage of seventeen feet near
the fort at "Billingport", which was abandoned to Lt.-Col. Stirling,
Oct. 1st; 5, camp on Nov. 18th; 6, wreck of "Merlin;" 7, the "Augusta"
blown up; at these points (6 and 7) were the other British vessels,
"Somerset", "Isis", "Roebuck", "Pearl", "Liverpool", "Cornwallis's
galley",—some attacking Fort Mifflin, others engaging the American
fleet at 8, others the battery of two 18-pounders and two 9-pounders
at 10; the house of Tench Frances is between this battery and Manto
Creek; 8, between the American fleet at this point and Mud Island is
the "upper stackadoes" (shown by the zigzags); 9, the nearer of the
two islands off Fort Mercer is Woodberry Island, and the other is Red
Bank Island. These two islands have since disappeared. The rest of
the American fleet was at this point. Beside the shore batteries on
Carpenter's Island, there was a redoubt further inland, and another
redoubt protected Webb's Ferry and the road to Philadelphia.]

Upon the attack of Donop on Fort Mercer, at Red Bank (Oct. 22), the
letter received by Washington from Major Ward, written at the desire of
the commander of the fort, Col. Christopher Greene (cf. Greene's _Nath.
Greene_, i. 489), is in Sparks's _Washington_, v. 112, and Dawson, i.
355, as is also Commodore Hazlewood's description of the naval part of
the attack.[929]

[Illustration: LAFAYETTE'S VICTORY NEAR GLOUCESTER, N.J.

This sketch follows a colored map among the Lafayette maps in the
Sparks collection at Cornell University, entitled _Carte de l'action de
Gloucester entre un parti Américain, sous le G^l. Lafayette et un parti
des Troupes de Lord Cornwallis, commandé par ce G^l. après son fourage
dans le Jersey, le 25 9^{bre}, 1777_. While Lafayette's forces were at
Haddonfield, the enemy at Gloucester were reconnoitred from Sand Point
(1), and when the troops moved along the Haddonfield road the American
riflemen (6), supported by the militia, attacked the Hessian outposts
(9), when detachments were stationed on the cross-roads (7, 7) to
protect the American right flank, while some chasseurs (8) threatened
the Hessians' right flank. The enemy were driven back (10) till
Cornwallis supported them with some English. They were still further
pushed back till within a mile of Gloucester (11), when night closed
the conflict. The legend on the map puts the English and Hessians (2,
3, 9) at 5,000 men, the boats (4) representing the withdrawal of part
of them with their baggage across the river.

Lafayette's narrative, as given by him to Sparks, is in the _Sparks
MSS._, no. xxxii.]

Lafayette talked with Sparks of Donop (_Sparks MSS._, xxxii.).
Knyphausen's report is in the archives at Marburg, and is used by
Lowell (_Hessians_, 206). The despatches of the Howes are in Almon (v.
499), and Dawson (i. 356, 357).

[Illustration: (From a large map in the library of Congress.)]

Of the attack (Nov. 10-16) on Fort Mifflin (Mud Island) and its
evacuation, with the opening of the river to the British fleet, the
best garner of contemporary accounts with comment, is in Wallace's
_Bradford_ (p. 194, etc.), but some of this material is found also
elsewhere.[930]

There has been some dispute over the respective claims of Col. Samuel
Smith[931] and Commodore Hazlewood for the defence of the fort
(Wallace, App. 10).

[Illustration: FLEURY'S PLAN OF FORT MIFFLIN.

NOTE.—The annexed plan is a fac-simile, somewhat reduced, of a
pen-and-ink sketch among the Sparks maps in the library of Cornell
University. It is endorsed "Maj. Fleury's Plan of Fort Mifflin", and it
bears also on the back in the author's hand these words:

"The engineer author of this imperfect draugh begg endulgence for it;
considering that he has not paper, pen, rule, neither circel, and being
disturbed by good many shells or cannon balls flying in the fort. LEWIS
FLEUR."

The reverse also bears an "Explanation" in French in Fleury's hand, and
beneath an English translation in another hand, seemingly made at the
time. This last is as follows:—

"Explanation—All marked A are new works. A 1, 2, 3. Traverses to
defend the battery from ricochet shot. A 4, 5. Ditches to close the
left of the battery, which was open. A 6. A double iron chain which
encloses the right of the battery. A 7. Pits with sharp upright stakes
to defend the approaches to our enclosure. A 8. Banquet raised round
the wall. A 9. Ditches and parapet of reunion between our barracks,
which will make a second inclosure and be furnished with loop-holes. A
10. Last retreat in the middle of the Fort, made when we had only 120
men in garrison. A 11. Demilunes to flank the front, substituted to
[_sic_] the block house, which was blown up. A 12, 13, 14. Fraisework.

"15. Enemy's battery of 2 mortars. 16. [Ditto] 5 pieces large cannon, 1
mortar. 17. [Ditto] 2 pieces cannon, 1 mortar. 18. Unfinished Redoubt
at a mile and a third from the fort, near the road. 19. A pretty
extensive work at about the same distance. 20. Epaulements for the
guards."]

[Illustration: ATTACK ON FORT MIFFLIN.

NOTE.—This map is reduced in fac-simile from one of Fleury's
pen-and-ink sketches among the Sparks maps at Cornell University.
It is endorsed "Mudd Island", but not by Washington, as the _Sparks
Catalogue_ (p. 207) says. There are noted in the same catalogue (p.
207) two other pen-and-ink drafts of the fort and its vicinity, both
apparently the work of Fleury, also. One is smaller, covering much the
same ground as the present fac-simile except that it does not show
the ships and Hog Island. It is entitled: "Figuré aproximatif de fort
island et des ouvrages des assiégeans. 16 octobre, 1777." It has an
"Explanation" in French on the reverse, accompanied by a statement
that it had been scrawled on a gun-carriage, without compasses, rule,
or scale, and under difficulties arising from the bursting of one bomb
which carried away his inkstand, and of another which ploughed the
ground where he sat.

The other plan is larger, and has been folded like a letter, and
is addressed on the outside, "His Excellency General Washington,
Headquarters." It shows only the west edge of Mud Island, but marks
particularly the distance, range, and armament of the attacking
batteries, and is called, "Figuré aproximatif des ouvrages des
assiégeans 14 9^{bre,} 1777." It marks the distance from the redoubt
on the highland to Fort Mifflin as "1 mile 1-4 5 p." The wharf on the
island is described as "où l'enemie déscendra, quoi que nous l'ayons
detruite."

Other published maps of Mud Island (Fort Mifflin) are in Scharf and
Westcott's _Philadelphia_, i. 363; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 296;
Wallace's _William Bradford_, p. 229.

Scharf and Westcott (p. 361) also give a plan made before the attack,
by Col. Downman, of the British army.

Red Bank is particularly delineated in Smith's _Delaware Co._, 321;
_Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vol. v.; and Lossing, ii. 290, with views,
etc.]

On the British side we have the despatches of the Howes (Dawson, i.
364, 366), the journal of Montresor (_Penna. Mag. of Hist._, 1882, v.
393; vi. 34); the letters in Scull's _Evelyns in America_, 246, 253;
and the account in Rivington's _Gazette_, cited by Wallace.

In addition to the references already made for the two attacks, the
entire movements on the river are illustrated more generally in the
letters of Washington, copied from the Penna. Archives, as well as in
the diary of the Council of War in the _Sparks MSS._, no. 2. There are
other contemporary accounts.[932]

Lafayette's attack on Gloucester soon followed. See plan on page 430.

The contrasts between the hilarities of the British in Philadelphia
and the trials of the Americans at Valley Forge during the winter are
abundantly illustrated.

The publication of the _Penna. Evening Post_ was resumed in
Philadelphia, Oct. 11, 1777, and continued during the British
occupation of Philadelphia.[933]

Various diaries kept in and near Philadelphia have been preserved,[934]
and the details of the life in the town have been worked up by modern
writers.[935]

The complimentary festival given to General Howe on his departure,
known as the Mischianza, took place May 18th, at the Wharton house.[936]

On the condition of Washington's camp at Valley Forge we have first the
testimony of his own letters and those of his corespondents,[937] as
well as that of sundry diaries and journals.[938]

The question of supplies as affecting the camp is considered in
Stuart's _Trumbull_ and Greene's _Greene_ (ii. 48), this general being
made quartermaster-general in March.

[Illustration: ATTACK ON MUD ISLAND.

From Galloway's _Letters to a Nobleman_, London, 1779. The leading
published map of Delaware Bay and River at this time was one surveyed
by Joshua Fisher, and published in London by Sayer and Bennett, 1775
and 1776. It was reproduced in _Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., vol. iii.;
and maps based on them are in the _Gent. Mag._, July, 1779. There was
a French edition issued in Paris by Le Rouge in 1777, which also made
part of the _Atlas Amériquain_. Other charts are in the _No. Amer.
Pilot_, 1776, and in the _Neptune Américo-Septentrional_, 1778.

There are plans for obstructing the river, in _Penna. Archives_,
2d ser., i. 749. Other maps of the river defences will be found in
Sparks's _Washington_, v. 156; Irving's _Washington_ (quarto), iii.
278; Smith's _Delaware County_, p. 321; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii.
298; Carrington's _Battles_, p. 396.]

There are preserved various orderly-books of the camp.[939]

There were efforts to reorganize the army during the winter. Congress
had created a board of war in November, 1777 (Pickering, i. 187;
Lossing, ii. 867). On Jan. 10, 1778, a committee of Congress was
appointed to visit the camp and concert plans for the reorganization
(_Journals_, ii. 401). A plan was drawn up by conference, and later
adopted by Congress (Sparks, v. 525). Francis Dana wrote from the
camp, Feb. 12th, to Congress, and the draft, found among the papers of
Laurens, was printed in the _Polit. Mag._ (vol. i.,—1780), by which it
was thought to appear that Howe could have destroyed the American army
if he had had enterprise.[940]

A few days after the taking of Philadelphia, the Rev. Jacob Duché,
of that city, who had been an approved supporter of the Americans,
transmitted a letter to Washington, tempting him to desert the cause.
Washington sent the letter to Congress; but Sparks could not find
it in the Archives at Washington, and prints it from _Rivington's
Gazette_ (_Corresp. of the Rev._, i. 448). The letters which grew out
of this act, including one of expostulation from Francis Hopkinson, the
brother-in-law of Duché, and that of repentance sent to Washington by
Duché in 1783, can be found in Sparks, v. 94, 476.[941]

[Illustration: MUD ISLAND, 1777-1778.

Sketched from a corner map of the large MS. map, called on another
page, "The Defences of Philadelphia, 1777-1778."]

The military movements during the autumn of 1777 were mainly to try the
temper of the opposing forces and to secure forage, and the incessant
watching of each other's motions made Pickering write to Elbridge
Gerry (Nov. 2d,—_Mag. Amer. Hist._, Nov., 1884, p. 461) that "since
Brandywine we have been in a constant state of hurry."[942]

[Illustration: ENCAMPMENT AT VALLEY FORGE, 1777-1778.

A sketch made by combining two in the Sparks collection at Cornell
University. One is a French plan, from the Lafayette maps, which
gives the main features of the topography to the present sketch. The
other is one transmitted by General Armstrong to Mr. Sparks in 1833,
embodying the recollections of a Mr. William Davis, "a remarkably
active and intelligent man, who resided within the limits of the camp
during its continuance there." General Armstrong cites the testimony
of a son of General Wayne, that the recollections of Davis "of the
most minute occurrences of the period were entirety unaffected by
age." Upon this dependence has been put for the positions of the
troops and the quarters of the general officers. The plan given by
Sparks (_Washington_, v. 196) seems to have been made by a similar
combination, though he omits the locations of the general's quarters.
The plan of Sparks is essentially followed in Guizot's _Washington_,
in Lossing's _Field-Book_ (vol. ii. 334,—also see _Harper's Monthly_,
xii. 307), and in Carrington's _Battles_, p. 402 (and in _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, Feb., 1882).

There is a view of Washington's headquarters in Scharf and Westcott's
_Philadelphia_, i. 369; Egle's _Pennsylvania_, p. 182; Lossing's
_Field-Book_, ii. 332, and in his _Mary and Martha Washington_, p. 168;
and _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Feb., 1882.

The French alliance was celebrated in camp May 6, 1778 (Sparks, v. 355;
Moore's _Diary_, ii.).

For landmarks, etc., of Valley Forge, see Lossing's _Field-Book_;
Read's _Geo. Read_ (p. 326), from the _Ohio State Journal_; _Harper's
Mag._, lx., 660, April, 1880.

At the centennial celebration, June, 1878, there were addresses by
Henry Armitt Brown (in his _Memoir and Orations_, edited by J. M.
Hoppin), and one by Theodore W. Bean, printed in the _Daily Local
News_, Westchester, Pa., June 20, 1878.]

During this time, Oct.-Dec., Washington was kept informed of the
British movements through the letters of Maj. Clark (_Penna. Hist. Soc.
Bull._, vol. i.). There was in November a project discussed of taking
Philadelphia by storm (Drake's _Knox_, 136). Congress was urging the
States to renewed efforts (_N. H. State Papers_, viii. 728). Early in
December Howe had tried to allure Washington to a battle near Chestnut
Hill or Whitemarsh (Sparks, v. 180; Dawson, i. ch. 31). By the middle
of December the American army had gone into winter-quarters at Valley
Forge (Reed's _Reed_, i. 345), but not without having thought at the
same time of an attack on New York (_Ibid._, 344).

[Illustration

NOTE.—This plan of the British works between the Delaware and the
Schuylkill is sketched from the main portion of a drawing preserved in
the Penna. Hist. Society, which bears the following indorsement: "The
redoubts in the English lines are ten, beside two advanced ones. No.
1, which I took a plan of in the month of July, was then compleat, but
the excessive heat of the weather and many avocations prevented our
prosecuting the survey till October, by which time the wooden work of
the other redoubts, as well as the abaties, were carried away, which
rendered it uncertain how many platforms there were in each, but from
what traces remained [I] believe I am right in nos. 2 & ten: the other
seven [eight] varied so little from no. 2, that the plan of that may
serve for the rest: I am equally uncertain whether the abatis ran
in direct lines from redoubt to redoubt or formed angles, but know
that each part terminated at about 20 feet from the counter-scarps of
contiguous redoubts, these intervals being occasionally stopped up by
chevaux-de-frize. All the 10 redoubts were well faced both within and
without with strong planks, but the advanced redoubts and other small
pieces were only faced with fascines. On the right of the line where
small streams run through swampy ground an inundation was formed by
sloping the arches of the bridges, and making dams were necessary, each
furnished with a tumbling dam, well planked on the top and slopes of
the main dam, to carry off superfluous water.

LEWIS NICOLA."

Enlarged plans and cross-sections of redoubts nos. 1, 2, and 10 are
given in the margin, as well as of the western advanced redoubt, and
other small works, including the "Barriers across Kensington and
Germantown roads with a cremaillered work between them cut out of the
bank between the roads." The stars near the lines denote the places of
"houses destroyed by the English." Cf. description in _Penna. Mag. of
Hist._, iv. 181.]

[Illustration: DEFENCES OF PHILADELPHIA, 1777-1778.

Sketched from a large MS. map by John Montresor in the library of
Congress, dedicated to Sir William Howe, and called _Plan of the City
of Philadelphia and its environs, shewing the defences during the years
1777-1778, together with the Siege of Mud Island_. A similar map by
Montresor is among the King's maps in the British Museum (_Catal._, ii.
176).]

[Illustration: VICINITY OF PHILADELPHIA.

Sketched from a part of a MS. Hessian map in the library of Congress,
called _Plan générale des opérations de l'Armée Britannique contre
les Rebelles, etc._ The lines (·—·—) are roads. KEY: "59, Attaque
de mudden island le 15 Novembre. 60, Position du général Howe le 4
Dec. pour forcer le général Washington à quitter sa position sur les
hauteurs de White Marsh. 61, Marche du général Howe pour fourages
entre Derby et Chester. 62, Camp de l'armée près de Philadelphia. 63,
Camp de l'armée après avoir evacué Philadelphia le 26^{me} Juin, 1778.
64, Corps detaché à Gloucester. 65, Marche du général Knyphausen le
18^{me} Juin et son camp à Haddenfield. 66, Marche et camp du général
Cornwallis le 18^{me} Juin. 67, Marche du général Knyphausen le 20^{me}
Juin et son camp à Moorfield."

The published maps of Philadelphia and its vicinity at this time are
the following: N. Scull and G. Heap's, originally in 1750 (cf. Vol. V.
240), and reproduced by Faden in 1777, and reduced in the _Gent. Mag._,
Dec., 1777. Kitchin's _Philadelphia and Environs_, in _London Mag._,
Dec., 1777, and reproduced in the _Penna. Archives_, 2d series, vol.
iii. A map surveyed by Eastburn in 1776, Philad., 1777; one surveyed
by Hill, Philadelphia, 1777. Plan of Philadelphia in the _Atlantic
Neptune_ (1777), vol. i. Plan in the _American Atlas_ (1777). _Gegend
und Stadt von Philadelphia_, in _Geschichte der Kriege in und ausser
Europa_, Nürnberg, 1778, Zehnter Theil. There was published by John
Reed, in 1774, _An Explanation of the Map of the City and Liberties
of Philadelphia_. A folding plan showing the British works is in
Scharf and Westcott's _Philadelphia_, i. 360. Various MS. plans of
Philadelphia and its neighborhood, with the river defences, are among
the Faden maps (nos. 82-86) in the library of Congress. Among the Penn
papers in the Hist. Soc. of Penna. is a MS. map showing the positions
of the British at Germantown before the battle.]

In January an attempt by the Americans to destroy the shipping at
Philadelphia, by floating combustibles down the river from above,
failed; but it gave rise to Hopkinson's humorous verses on the "Battle
of the Kegs."[943]

In March Congress was urging young men of spirit and property to raise
light cavalry troops (_Journals_, ii. 463), for Simcoe's British
horsemen were raiding about the country for forage, meeting, however,
now and then with resistance, as at Quintin's Bridge (March 18th) and
Hancock's Bridge (March 21st).[944] At the beginning of May there was
another conflict at Crooked Billet.[945] Three weeks later (May 20th)
Lafayette skilfully extricated himself from an advanced position at
Barren Hill, whither Washington had sent him towards the enemy, and
Where the British commander sought to cut him off.[946]

[Illustration: BARREN HILL.

This map is sketched and reduced from a MS. map preserved in the
Historical Society of Pennsylvania, signed "Major Capitaine, A. D. C.
du Gen^l. Lafayette", and called _Plan de la retraite de Barrenhill
en Pensilvanie, où un detachement de 2,200 hommes sous le Général
la Fayette, etoit entourré par l'armée Anglaise sous les G^x. Howe,
Clinton, et Grant, le 28 May, 1778_. It bears the following KEY:
(_translation_) _a._ Position of the American detachment on Barren
Hill, eleven miles from Philadelphia and twelve miles from Valley
Forge, on the right bank of the Schuylkill. _b._ Pickets of the
Americans, which retired on the approach of the enemy. _c._ A French
company under Captain M'Clean, with fifty Indians. _e._ Place where
the militia were ordered to gather, but they failed to do so. _f._
March of Maj.-Gen. Grant at the head of grenadiers and chasseurs, and
two brigades, making in all 8,000 men, with 15 pieces of cannon. _g._
Where the enemy were first discovered. _h._ Americans occupying the
meeting-house and burial-ground, deploying to defend their left flank.
_i._ March of the detachment on the second warning to reach Matson's
Ford. _k._ Chasseurs detached to confront Gen. Grant. _l._ Body of
English cavalry, followed by a body of grenadiers and chasseurs. _m._
March of Gen. Grant, always following the Americans. _n._ Matson's
Ford, which the Americans gained and passed, when they occupied the
highlands, _o_, while a small force was sent to Swede's Ford. _p._ Rich
road by which Howe and Clinton advanced with the rest of the British
army. _q._ Point where Howe and Grant formed, whence, seeing that their
attempt had failed, they returned to Philadelphia. _r._ Road from
Swede's Ford, by which the American detachment returned the next day to
occupy Barren Hill.

There is among the Sparks maps at Cornell University a duplicate copy
of this map, made from Lafayette's original. Cf. maps in Sparks, v.
378; Carrington's _Battles_, p. 408; Lossing, ii. 329; and the view of
the church (p. 322).]

Clinton, on relieving Howe from the command in Philadelphia, was
instructed to evacuate the city (Sparks, v. 548). This materially
changed the plans for the campaign, which had been determined upon
prior to the announcement of the French alliance (_Sparks MSS._, xlv.
and lviii.). Washington meanwhile was considering an alternative of
plans, and getting the opinions of his general officers;[947] but
the movements of the British to evacuate Philadelphia soon changed
all.[948]

[Illustration: PLAN OF MONMOUTH BATTLE.

From a plan in Hilliard d'Auberteuil's _Essais_, i. p. 270. KEY: The
English had passed the night at _a_. Lee's advance showed itself at 3,
when the British debouched from their position at 1, while their guns
at 2 fired on the Americans. The Americans at 3 retired into the wood,
and joined Lee's main body, which debouched from the wood at 4, their
guns taking position at 6 and 7, while the British guns were at 5. The
Americans (4, 8, and 10) retired and took position at 11; and while
still further retreating, the British attacked at 12, and the Americans
made a stand at 13, and before all could retire still farther the
British again attacked at 14. The Americans again formed at 15, when
Washington, coming up by way of the new Baptist meeting-house with the
main body, formed at 16, Stirling and Greene in front, and Lafayette in
the rear, while Lee's men at 15 passed to Washington's rear, a British
reconnoitring force appearing meanwhile at 17, and Plessis-Mauduit's
battery, supported by 500 men, taking position at 18. The British at 14
and 17, being repulsed, united at 19, whence they were further repulsed
and took position at 20. They formed again at 21 after Washington's
attack. They passed the night at 22.

This map was apparently engraved from an original, followed in two
plans, differently drawn, but in effect the same, which are among the
maps in the Sparks collection at Cornell University, and which were
copied from Lafayette's own plan at Lagrange. It is called _Carte de
l'affaire de Montmouth, où le général Washington commandait l'armée
Américaine et le général Clinton commandait l'armée Anglaise, le 28
Juin, 1778_. The "legende" shows references from 1 to 22, with extra
ones _a_ and _b_, the latter (_b_) being at the junction of the two
dotted lines in the rear of 16, and is explained as the "movement of
the second line, commanded by General Lafayette, which, as soon as the
column at 17 was perceived, was detached to occupy the wood west of
the meeting-house, which the column 17 was approaching; but when this
column 17 was repulsed the line was restored."

There is also among the Sparks maps (Lafayette copies) a pen-and-ink
sketch-plan,—differing somewhat, giving more detail,—made on the
American side, and this more nearly resembles the plan given by Sparks
in his _Washington_ (v. p. 430,—repeated in Duer's _Stirling_, ii.
196; and in Guizot's _Washington_. Cf. Irving's _Washington_, quarto
ed.). The plan in Lossing's _Field-Book_ (ii. 356) is based on the one
here engraved, and he also gives a view of the Freehold meeting-house
(p. 359) and of the field (p. 362). Carrington (ch. 56) gives an
eclectic plan with more detail than any other.

A view of the monument commemorating the battle is in the _U. S. Art
Directory_ (1884).]

[Illustration: MONMOUTH AND VICINITY.

Sketched from a part of a MS. Hessian map in the library of Congress,
called _Plan générale des opérations de l'armée Britannique contre les
Rebelles_, etc. The lines (·—·—) represent roads. KEY: "79, Marche du
général de Knyphausen de son camp devant Englishtown le 24 Juin. 80,
Marche du général Cornwallis. 83, Retraite des enemis."

There is a copy of the map of the region of the march by Clinton's
engineer in the library of the N. Y. Hist. Soc. (_Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
Sept., 1878, p. 759).]

The battle of Monmouth, though in the end a victory for Washington,
secured for the British what they fought for, a further unimpeded march
toward New York. Washington's letters are of the first importance.[949]
We have also accounts by Hamilton;[950] by Lafayette,[951] as given to
Sparks; and statements by several other witnesses.[952]

The trial of Lee, and the papers produced by it, furnish abundant
contemporary evidence. The trial was published at Philadelphia, 1778,
as _Proceedings of Court-Martial held at Brunswick in New Jersey, July
4, 1778_.[953]

On the British side, Clinton's despatch is in _Lee Papers_, (1872), p.
461; Dawson, i. 415. A British journal kept during the march is in the
_N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc._, i. 15; an orderly-book picked up on the field
is in a transcript in the Penna. Hist. Society.[954]

The British retreat is commended in Baron von Ochs's _Betrachtungen
über die neuere Kriegskunst_ (Cassel, 1817). Cf. Lowell's _Hessians_,
p. 209.

Respecting the Conway Cabal, the best gathering of the documentary
evidence is in an appendix to Sparks's _Washington_.[955] Sparks's
conclusion is that the plot never developed into "a clear and fixed
purpose", and that no one section of the country more than another
specially promoted it. Mahon (vi. 243) thinks that Sparks glides over
too gently the participation of the New Englanders, who have been
defended from the charge of participation by Austin in his _Life of
Elbridge Gerry_ (ch. 16). Gordon implicates Samuel Adams, and J. C.
Hamilton is severe on the Adamses (_Repub. U. S._, i. ch. 13, 14).
Mrs. Warren found no cause to connect Sam. Adams with the plot, and
Wells (_Sam. Adams_, ii. ch. 46) naturally dismisses the charge. It
is not to be denied that among the New England members of Congress
there were strong partisans of Gates, and the action of Congress for
good in military matters was impaired by an unsettled estimate of the
wisdom of keeping Washington at the head of the army, though it did
not always manifest itself in assertion (Greene's _Greene_, i. 287,
403, 411). Nothing could be worse than John Adams's proposition to have
Congress annually elect the generals (_Works_, i. 263); and he was not
chary of his disgust with what was called Washington's Fabian policy.
Sullivan, in one of his oily, fussy letters to Washington (_Corresp.
of the Rev._, ii. 366) finds expression of a purpose to revive the
plot in William Tudor's massacre oration in Boston in March, 1779. The
expressions of Charles Lee, that "a certain great man is most damnably
deficient" (Moore's _Treason of Lee_, p. 68), like utterances of
others, are rather indicative of ordinary revulsions of feeling under
misfortunes than of a purpose of combination among the disaffected.
Gates's refusal to reinforce Washington, and Hamilton's vain efforts to
persuade him, naturally fall among the indicative signs;[956] and this
apathy of Gates very likely conduced immediately to the loss of Fort
Mifflin at the time it was abandoned (Wallace's _Bradford_, App. 12).
The attempt to gain over Lafayette by the attractions of a command in
invading Canada, can be followed in Sparks's _Washington_.[957]

THE TREASON OF ARNOLD.

A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE AUTHORITIES BY THE EDITOR.

JUST when and by what act Arnold was put in treasonable correspondence
with the British is not clearly established. Bancroft[958] says it was
towards the end of February, 1779,[959] but he gives no authority.

[Illustration: ARNOLD.

After the medallion, engraved by Adam, of a picture by Du Simitière,
painted in Philadelphia from life. The original is in Marbois'
_Complot d'Arnold et de Sir Henry Clinton_ (Paris, 1816), where it is
inscribed "Le Général Arnold, déserté de l'armée des Etats Unis, le 25
Sept^{bre}, 1780." The copy of Marbois in the Brinley sale (no. 3,961)
had also the sepia drawing from which the engraver worked. The Du
Simitière head had already appeared in the _European Magazine_ (1783),
vol. iii. 83, and in his _Thirteen Heads_, etc.

A familiar profile likeness, looking to the right, was engraved by H.
B. Hall for the illustrated edition of Irving's _Washington_, and is
also to be found in H. W. Smith's _Andreana_. Another profile, similar,
but facing to the left, is in Arnold's _Arnold_, and was etched by H.
B. Hall in 1879. Cf. Harris and Allyn's _Battle of Groton Heights_.

Lossing has given us views of Arnold's birthplace in Norwich (_Harper's
Mag._, xxiii. 722; _Field-Book_, ii. 36), and of his house in New
Haven (_Harper_, xvii. 13; _Field-Book_, i. 421), and of his Willow
(_Harper_, xxiv. 735).]

[Illustration: BENEDICT ARNOLD.

From the _Geschichte der Kriege in und ausser Europa, Eilfter Theil_,
Nürnberg, 1778.]

Clinton, in Oct., 1780,[960] says it was eighteen months before, which
would place it about April, 1779, and this is the period adopted
by Sparks[961] and Sargent.[962] The latter writer thinks Arnold
made the advances; the former believes them to have come from the
British.[963] It has also been believed that the mutual recognition
was effected in some way through a Lieutenant Hele, a British spy, who
was in Philadelphia after Arnold took command. There might arise a
suspicion that the understanding was induced through the Tory family
of Miss Peggy Shippen, whom Arnold had married in April, 1779. There
are stories of her maintaining correspondence with her British friends
in New York, but we do not know of any letters remaining as proof of
it, except one from André to that lady after her marriage to Arnold,
and after the British correspondence with him under feigned names had
begun, in which letter the gambolling Major André commiserated his fair
friend of the previous winter on the difficulty she might experience in
buying gewgaws in Philadelphia, and offering to find them for her in
New York. Whether this language, like the commercial phrases in which
Arnold was at this time conducting his correspondence under the name
of "Gustavus" with one "John Anderson", a British merchant in that
city, was likewise a blind is not probably to be discovered, and it
might or might not involve a doubt as to the privity of Peggy Arnold
in the rather lagging negotiations;[964] but the probability is that
André wrote the letter in his own name in order that Arnold might, by
the similarity of the handwriting, identify his _pseudo_ Anderson; for
by this time the nature of information which inured to the advantage
of the British, and which Gustavus communicated to Anderson from time
to time, had pretty well convinced Clinton that the person with whom
he was dealing was high in rank, and probably near headquarters in
Philadelphia.

[Illustration: ARNOLD.

From Murray's _Impartial Hist. of the present War_, ii. p. 48.]

Arnold had warm admirers; and those who trusted him for certain
brilliant merits in the field included, among others, Washington
himself; but Congress did not confide in him with so unquestioning a
spirit. That body had raised over him in rank several of his juniors,
much to Arnold's chagrin[965] and Washington's annoyance; and it was
only after a renewed exhibition of his intrepidity at Danbury that it
had tardily raised him to a major-generalship. Though his commission
of May, 1777, gave him equal rank, it made him still, by its later
date, the junior of those who had been his inferiors.[966] The Burgoyne
campaign had been fought by him under a consequent vexation of mind,
and his spirits chafed, not unreasonably, at the slight. The wound he
then received incapacitating him for the field, had induced Washington,
as has been shown, to put him in command of Philadelphia after the
British evacuated it. It was now observed that he more willingly
consorted with the Tory friends of his wife than with the tried
adherents of the cause. His arrogance and impetuosity of manner always
made him enemies. The Council of Pennsylvania by a resolution (_Hist.
Mag._, Dec., 1870), as we have seen, brought Congress to the point of
ordering a court-martial to decide upon the charges preferred against
the general, and to Arnold's revulsion of feelings at this time has
been traced, by some, the beginning of his defection.[967] Certain it
is that he was kept in suspense too long to render him better proof
against insidious thought, for it was not till December, 1779, that
the trial came on. Meanwhile his debts pressed, his scrutinizers were
vigilant, and there seems some reason to believe that he sought to get
relief by selling himself to the French minister,—a project which, if
we may believe the account, was repelled by that ambassador. To add
to his irritation, Congress did not find the accounts which he had
rendered of his expenditures in the Canada expedition well vouched, and
Arnold resented their inquiries as an imputation upon his honesty.[968]

[Illustration: ARNOLD'S COMMISSION AS MAJOR-GENERAL.

Reduced from the fac-simile given in Smith and Watson's _Hist. and Lit.
Curios._, 1st series, plate xlii.]

[Illustration: WEST POINT.

Sketched from a colored drawing in the _Moses Greenleaf Papers_ (Mass.
Hist. Soc.).]

The trial at last resulted in his acquittal on two of the more serious
charges; but being judged censurable on two others, he was sentenced to
a public reprimand from the commander-in-chief.[969]

[Illustration

A profile cut by himself for Miss Rebecca Redman, in 1778, and given in
Smith and Watson's _Hist. and Lit. Curiosities_, 1st series, pl. xxv.]

The burden of a public reproof, no matter how delicately imposed, was
not calculated to arrest the defection of man already too far committed
to retreat. If we may believe Marbois, not the best of guides, there
was found among Arnold's papers, after his flight, a letter, undated
and unsigned, in which he was urged to emulate the example of Gen.
Monk, and save his country by an opportune desertion of what was no
longer a prospering cause.[970] It soon became evident to Arnold that
of himself, destitute of representative value, he was not a commodity
that Clinton was eager to buy. Accordingly the recusant soldier
sought to offer a better bargain to the purchaser by the makeweight
of something that Clinton particularly longed for, and this was the
possession of the Hudson Valley through its chief military posts.[971]
To get a hold upon this, the time was opportune, for there was a
change to be made in its commander. Arnold, however, did not get the
coveted prize without some intrigue, for Washington, when he found
that the wounded soldier professed eagerness for hotter work, proposed
his taking the command of one of the wings of the main army. Arnold
met the compliment by referring to his wounds as precluding work in
the saddle, and induced Schuyler and R. R. Livingston to importune
Washington to assign him to West Point.[972] The device succeeded,
and Arnold reached West Point, as its commander, in the first week of
August, and established his headquarters in the confiscated house which
had belonged to Beverley Robinson, and which was situated on the east
bank of the river, a little below West Point.[973] Clinton could have
no longer any doubt of the identity of his correspondent, now that
"Gustavus" wrote from the Robinson house.

The conspirators' first effort was to establish communications through
Robinson, on business ostensibly having relations to this confiscated
property; but Washington, to whom, for appearances, Arnold showed
Robinson's application for an interview, told him that the civil, and
not the military, powers should meet such proposals. Arnold could find
at this time little difficulty in transmitting his clandestine letters,
for there was constant occasion for the passage of flags from his
own headquarters. To cover his proceedings from the officers of the
American outposts, he only had to pretend that the expected messages or
messengers were from his own spies in New York.[974]

[Illustration

From the _Political Magazine_, March, 1781, ii. 171. There is a modern
reproduction of this engraving in the _Minutes of a Court of Inquiry_,
etc., Albany, 1865. and in H. W. Smith's _Andreana_, Phila., 1865, who
gives a full-length, of the origin of which we are left uninformed.]

Clinton was apparently not willing to commit himself to any bargain,
unless Arnold would give a personal interview as an evidence of his
sincerity; while Arnold, in according, on his part insisted that
his interviewer should be the convenient Anderson. André, since he
had become the adjutant-general of the British army, was now fully
understood to represent that fictitious New York merchant. Arnold
named Robinson's house for the meeting, and would make arrangements by
which any flag should pass the outposts. This was objected to, and the
neutral ground near Dobbs Ferry was settled upon. Here Arnold went in
his barge; but the officers of the British guard-boats were not in
the secret, and the meeting failed by reason of their chasing Arnold's
barge up the river. Another attempt was planned, but this failed
in the beginning, apparently by André's going up to the "Vulture",
sloop-of-war, which was lying in the river, instead of landing lower
down, as was expected. André was provided with full instructions, which
if obeyed would have saved him the ignominy of a felon's death. He was
not to put off his uniform, was not to go within the American lines,
and was not to receive any papers. His bargain with Arnold was to have
no written expression, and it involved on Sir Henry's part the dispatch
of an ample force in a flotilla from Sir George Rodney's fleet, then
in New York, where the men were already embarked, ostensibly for the
Chesapeake, and the attack was to be made on the 25th of September,
when it was supposed that Washington would have left the Hudson to go
to Connecticut for an interview with Rochambeau. There was further to
be made by André a promise that Arnold should have a commission in the
British army and a sum of money. The American general, on his part, was
so to dispose the forces in the works about West Point that the attack
would, beyond doubt, end in a surprise and a mastery that would give
color to the necessity of a surrender, which he was promptly to make.

[Illustration: ANDRE.

This picture of André, by himself, was originally engraved in 1784
by J. K. Sherwin, and was reëngraved by Hopwood for J. H. Smith's
_Authentic Narrative_, London, 1808, and from this second engraving
the present cut is taken. It has of late years been engraved by H. B.
Hall in Sparks's _Washington_, quarto ed., vol. iv.; H. W. Smith's
_Andreana_; Sargent's _André_; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, 1879, p. 745
(etched by H. B. Hall). What seems to be the same, but extended to
include the thighs, is given in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 197; _Two
Spies_, 36. A picture by Reynolds (given in Harper's, lii. 822, and
_Cyclop. U. S. Hist._, i. 46) is said to be preserved at Tunbridge
Wells. A pen-and-ink sketch by himself, made during his confinement,
is now preserved in the Trumbull gallery at New Haven. Sparks first
engraved it, and it has since been reproduced by Lossing, in _Harper's
Mag._, xxi. 4, in Smith's _Andreana_, and elsewhere.]

It now became necessary that some device should be practised to let
Arnold know that André had reached the "Vulture." There had just
happened some firing upon a boat of the "Vulture", in going to meet
what the British captain supposed or pretended to suppose a white flag
displayed on the shore. This gave the opportunity of dispatching a flag
to the commander in the Highlands, to remonstrate against such perfidy.
The British captain accordingly sent such a message, and André wrote
the letter in a hand which he knew Arnold would recognize, and moreover
countersigned it with "John Anderson, Secretary."

Arnold at once bent to the occasion. He engaged one Joshua Hett Smith,
who lived in the neighborhood, to go by night to the "Vulture" in a
boat, and bring to the adjacent shore a gentleman whom he would find
on board, from whom Arnold expected to get information. How far Smith
was a dupe or a knave has never been satisfactorily determined. The
business would seem to have had a plain significance to a quick-witted
man; but a court was not able later to convict Smith of knowing
precisely what it all meant. Smith had also with him two oarsmen, and
it was not apparently believed that they were in a position to know
enough to render their patriotism doubtful. It was then by night, in
a boat steered by Smith, that André, dressed in his uniform, but with
an overcoat wrapped about him, was rowed ashore. According to Smith,
the darkness and the outer garment so concealed Andre's dress that
his steersman never suspected him to be an officer. Arnold was found
waiting in the bushes, a little remote from the landing. Here Smith
left the two conspirators alone and returned to his boat; but when the
signs of dawn began to appear he returned to warn them. Arnold, who had
brought along with him an extra horse, mounted André on it, and the two
started to go to Smith's house,[975] which was two or three miles away
on the hill, and within the American lines.

[Illustration: HUDSON RIVER.

Reduced from a rough pen-and-ink sketch, three feet and eight inches
long, preserved among the Sparks MS. maps in Cornell University
library, and inscribed "To his Excellency George Clinton, Esq^r,
Governor of the State of New York, this map of Hudson's River through
the Highlands is humbly dedicated by his Excellency's most humble
servant THOMAS MACHIN, iv. January, MDCCLXXVIII."]

If André is to be believed, he was not told that he was to go within
the American outposts, and indeed there is no conclusive evidence
to show why they went to Smith's house at all. Perhaps Smith or the
boatmen refused, in the growing light, to take the risk of the return
to the vessel. The general opinion has been that the conspirators had
not concluded their negotiations, and needed more time. That Arnold had
had a predetermined purpose to go to the house, if necessary, seems
to be made clear from the fact that he had induced Smith to move his
family away from their home temporarily, and on some pretext which
Smith did not object to. André says that he first discovered Arnold's
plan to get him within the American lines when, as they rode on their
way, Arnold gave the countersign at the outposts. This was the first
departure from Clinton's instructions. After they had reached the house
the day broadened, and, the sound of cannon being heard, André went to
a window, whence he could see the "Vulture" in the distance,[976] and
saw that the Americans had dragged some cannon to a neighboring point,
whence their fire became so annoying that the vessel raised her anchor
and fell down the river. André became anxious lest this incident should
preclude his return by water. The day had not far advanced when the
bargain was completed, and Arnold prepared to leave for West Point to
perfect the dispositions expected of him. He left behind sundry papers,
mostly in his own handwriting, which André was to take to Clinton. Why
another injunction of his superior was evaded by André in accepting the
papers is not clear. They conveyed no information about the condition
of the post which Clinton did not already possess or André could repeat
to him. Possibly it was thought that, being in Arnold's autograph, the
documents might serve as a pledge for what André was verbally to report
to him.

Arnold seems to have made no certain provision for his
fellow-conspirator's return to the "Vulture", but he left passes, which
could be used either on the water or land passage, as circumstance
might determine. André spent an anxious day after Arnold left. He was
finally cheered by observing that the "Vulture", as if mindful of him,
had returned to her previous moorings; but his hopes were futile. As
night came on Smith showed no signs of arranging for a water passage to
the ship, and made excuses.

[Illustration: HUDSON RIVER.

After the original draft by Major Villefranche (1780) as reproduced in
Boynton's _West Point_, p. 45. Sargent, in his _André_, gives a map
"engraved from a number of original drawings by Villefranche and other
engineers, and preserved by Major Sargent, of the American army, who
was stationed at West Point as aide to General [Robert] Howe until that
officer was relieved by Arnold."]

The fact probably was, that, after the cannonading of the morning,
Smith had no desire to risk himself on the river in a boat. It was
accordingly agreed that André should undertake to return to New York by
land, and that Smith should accompany him beyond the American outposts,
under the protection of Arnold's pass and of his own acquaintance with
the officers of the lower posts. It now became necessary for André to
disregard another of Clinton's directions, and exchange his uniform
for common clothes.[977] This done, he put the papers which Arnold
had given him under his soles and within his stockings. Thus arrayed,
about dusk the two started, accompanied by Smith's negro servant. They
crossed King's Ferry, and proceeding on their way were stopped once,
but suffered to advance on showing Arnold's pass. After spending the
night at a house, they had gone on some distance the next morning when
Smith parted with André, and, going to Robinson's house, reported to
Arnold that André had been conducted beyond the lines. André went on in
better spirits than before, feeling sure now that he could encounter
nothing more serious than some wandering cowboys, as the British
marauders who infested the Neutral Ground between the two armies were
called, and with whom he could easily parley to their satisfaction.
The natural foes of the "Cowboys" were the "Skinners", who harried the
unfortunate adherents of the British along the same roads, and wrestled
with the Cowboys as opportunity offered.[978] As it happened, a party
of the American prowlers were out to intercept some British marauders,
and three of the number were ensconced close by a stream not far from
Tarrytown, on the upper side. They were by name John Paulding, David
Williams, and Isaac Van Wart. Paulding was by force of character the
leader, and was dressed in a refugee's suit, which not many days before
had been put upon him in exchange for his own better garments, when
he had come out from confinement within the British lines. This suit,
as well as Paulding's profession that he was "of the lower party",
given to André's inquiry when, as he came along, he was stopped by the
men, led to André's revealing himself as a British officer. When the
traveller found he had made a mistake, he showed Arnold's pass, and
tried to enforce it by threats of the American commander's displeasure
if the captors dared to disregard it. This failing, he tried bribes,
and it was André's opinion that if he could have made the payment sure
he might have got off, as money seemed to be their object. The men,
on the other hand, said that they could have resisted any offer of
money when, on searching their prisoner, they found the papers in his
boots.[979] Paulding, who alone could read, saw the purport of the
documents, and pronounced André a spy.

[Illustration: COLONEL BENJAMIN TALLMADGE.

After a sketch taken by Colonel Trumbull, at the close of the war, and
engraved in the _Memoir of Col. Benjamin Tallmadge, prepared by himself
at the request of his children_, New York, 1858. A portrait in his
later years, painted by E. Ames and engraved by G. Parker, is in the
_National Portrait Gallery_, Philadelphia, 1836, vol. iii.]

André was remounted and led under their combined guidance to the
quarters[980] of Colonel Jameson, who commanded some dragoons at
Northcastle. That officer recognized Arnold's handwriting in the
papers found on the prisoner, but he seems to have been bewildered
by the discovery, though it was afterwards urged that he thought
the transaction was a plot of "John Anderson", whoever he might be,
to implicate Arnold in some mischief. How far the prisoner himself
may have prompted Jameson is not known, for it was clear enough to
André that Arnold only could now extricate him from the gathering
toils. Accordingly, events took a promising turn for him when Jameson
dispatched the prisoner, under escort, to Arnold's headquarters, with
a letter which informed his superior of what was apparent enough, that
some dangerous papers had been found on Anderson, and that he had sent
them to Washington. Major Benjamin Tallmadge, one of his officers, who
was absent on a scout, returned before André had long been gone, and
learning the particulars from Jameson saw at once the blunder, and
persuaded Jameson to send a messenger to recall André and his escort.
Jameson did so, but insisted that the letter to Arnold should go on, as
it did.

The messenger with the papers sought to intercept Washington on the
lower road from Hartford, which the commander-in-chief was supposed
at that time to be traversing on his return from the interview with
Rochambeau.

The next morning André was sent, for better security, in the charge of
Tallmadge to Colonel Sheldon's quarters at New Salem. Here, getting
permission to walk in the door-yard in the custody of an officer named
King, André revealed his name and station, and being allowed pen and
paper, he made the same avowal in a letter to Washington, which, when
written, he handed to Tallmadge. Its contents confirmed that officer's
suspicion that the prisoner was a military man, for he had shown a
soldier's habit of turning on his heel as he paced his room.

Washington, returning by the upper road, had missed Jameson's
messenger, who, retracing his steps, passed through New Salem, where
he was entrusted also with the letter which André had just written,
and then went on towards the Robinson house, where Washington was then
supposed to be.

It was now the 25th, the very day when Rodney was to come up the river
with his flotilla, and Arnold sat at breakfast at this same Robinson
house,[981] not knowing what the day would develop. There were with him
Mrs. Arnold, who had not long before (Sept. 15) come from Philadelphia,
and two of Washington's aides, who had arrived a little in advance of
their chief.

It was two days earlier than Washington had been expected back, and
this was a serious perplexity in the mind of the conspirator. The
suspense was soon ended, for Jameson's messenger to him shortly
arrived, and the letter was put in Arnold's hands before the company.
He read it, showed, as was remembered afterwards, a little agitation,
but only a little, and in a few minutes left the table, saying that it
was necessary for him to go to West Point. It seemed natural enough
to his guests; but Mrs. Arnold observed his agitation more keenly,
and followed him to their chamber, where all was revealed to her. She
swooned; he kissed the infant lying there; descended the stairs;[982]
stopped an instant to say to the breakfast party that Mrs. Arnold
was not feeling well and would not come down again; mounted a horse
which he had already ordered; hurried down the steep road to the
river; entered his barge and seated himself in its prow; directed
his men to row to mid-stream; and then priming his pistols, which he
had taken from his holster, he ordered them to hurry down the river,
as he had to go with a flag to the "Vulture", and must hasten back
to meet Washington, who was shortly to reach his quarters. He tied a
white handkerchief to a cane, and waved it as he passed Livingston's
batteries at Verplanck's Point, and that officer recognizing the
barge allowed it to pass on. In a few minutes more he was under the
"Vulture's" guns, and then under her flag. His boatmen resisted his
offers of recompense for desertion, and were not allowed to return to
shore to spread the intelligence, which they now comprehended.[983]

[Illustration: WEST POINT.

Reproduced from the plan in Marbois' _Complot d'Arnold et de Sir Henry
Clinton_, Paris, 1816. A plate in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist_., 1879,
p. 756, showing the route of André, is a portion of a map among the
Simeon de Witt's maps (i. no. 66) in the library of the New York Hist.
Society, and was made by Robert Erskine, the topographical engineer
of the army, 1778-1780, and was for the whole length of it, from
Staten Island to Newburgh, engraved for the first time in Irving's
_Washington_, quarto ed., ii. 276.

There are other maps of the scene of the conspiracy and its attendant
events in Sparks's _Washington_, vii. 216; Guizot's Atlas to his
_Washington_; Irving's _Washington_, quarto ed., vol. iv.; Carrington's
_Battles_, 512; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 148; and Boynton's _West
Point_, 104.]

Not long after Arnold left the Robinson house, Washington arrived,
and, learning that Arnold had gone to West Point, he passed over
unsuspicious to that post, where he was surprised not to find
Arnold.[984] While Washington was gone, Jameson's messenger with the
captured papers and André's letter arrived, and Hamilton, left behind
by Washington, opened them as his confidential aide.[985] As soon as
Washington's boat approached on his return from West Point, Hamilton
went towards the dock to meet his chief, whispered a word, and both
later entered the house and were closeted. The plot was revealed.
Hamilton was dispatched to Livingston to head off Arnold in his escape
if possible, but on reaching that officer's post it was found that
Arnold's boat had already passed. Before Hamilton was ready to set out
on his return, a flag from the "Vulture" brought ashore a letter from
Arnold, addressed to Washington, framed in lofty expressions of his own
rectitude, and avowing the innocence of Smith, of his own wife, and his
aides.[986] Before Hamilton's return, Washington had dined with his
officers without revealing the secret, but he shortly took Knox and
Lafayette into his confidence. There was naturally great uncertainty
as respects the extent of the conspiracy, and of what preparations
the enemy had made for an immediate onset. The anxiety of the moment
was soon evinced by the great activity of aides and orderlies. Word
was sent in every direction for arrangements to be made for any
emergency.[987]

André was brought to West Point, and Smith was arrested and held for
examination. Special precautions were taken to keep them apart and to
prevent escape. André was then conveyed down the river, still under
Tallmadge's care, to headquarters at Tappan, where he was closely
guarded in an old stone house, still standing.[988]

A board of general officers was at once summoned to consider the case
and recommend what action should be taken. The papers taken from André
were laid before them.[989] André himself was brought into their
presence, when he made a written statement, and answered questions.
He acknowledged everything, but said nothing to implicate others. He
affirmed that he did not consider himself under the protection of a
flag when he landed from the "Vulture." The report of the board was
that André was a spy, and merited the death of a spy. Washington
ordered the execution, and sent a record of the proceedings to Congress
and recommended its publication. Congress printed the record.[990]

Clinton was meanwhile informed of what had happened by the return of
the "Vulture" to New York, and wrote to Washington that Arnold's
flag and pass should save André from the character of a spy. Beverley
Robinson wrote to a similar purport, and so did Arnold; but the latter
added a threat of retaliation in case André was executed, which was not
calculated to further the purpose of André's friends, and it is rather
surprising they allowed the letter to proceed. Washington replied
in effect that a flag must be used in good faith to preserve its
character, and that the concealment of dress and papers was the action
of a spy.

Gen. Robertson was sent by Clinton to make further representations, and
Washington put off the execution till Greene could confer with that
general at an outpost. A repetition of the arguments on the British
side made no change in the aspects of the case; and when Robertson
quoted Arnold as saying André was under a flag, Greene told him they
believed André rather than Arnold. Robertson wrote again to Washington,
who had now definitely fixed mid-day of Oct. 2d for the execution.
Washington thought it also best to leave unanswered a note of André
requesting to be shot rather than hanged. Further letters, amplifying
the British arguments, were prepared,[991] but before they could be
sent to Washington word came that the execution had taken place.

During his confinement in Tappan, and after he became aware of his
fate, André conducted himself with a cheerful dignity that much
endeared him to the gentlemen who came in contact with him. His
servant had brought from New York fresh linen and his uniform, which
André put on with evident satisfaction. He practised his ready skill
in pen-and-ink drawing, and made several sketches, which he gave
to his attendants as souvenirs.[992] As his hour approached, he
said graciously to his escort, "I am ready", and went to the place
appointed, surrounded by guards and through a large concourse of
people. Of the general officers of the army at the post only the
commander-in-chief and staff were absent; and as the sad procession
passed headquarters the blinds were drawn, and no one was seen.
When the gibbet came in sight, André shrank a moment, but instantly
recovered, for he had nourished hopes that his request as to the manner
of his death would not be denied. He bandaged his eyes himself; lifted
the cloth a moment to say that he wished all to bear witness to the
firmness with which he met his death; and when the cart was withdrawn
died instantly.[993] When his uniform was removed and placed in his
servant's hands, the coffin which contained the body was buried near
the spot.

His remains were disinterred in 1821 and taken to England,[994] where
they were deposited in Westminster Abbey, beside the monument which
had been erected there to his memory shortly after his death.[995]
Many years after the removal, a rude boulder,[996] on which a simple
record was chiselled, was placed on the spot of his burial; but this
had disappeared when a few years since a plain monument, with an
inscription by Dean Stanley of the Abbey, was made to perpetuate the
record of his grave.[997]

[Illustration:

NOTE.—A reduced sketch is placed opposite from a plan by Villefranche,
made in 1780, and given in fac-simile in Boynton's _West Point_, p.
86. He also (p. 79) gives Villefranche's plan (1780) of Fort Arnold,
built 1778 on the eastern limits of West Point. On Villefranche see
_Ibid._, p. 160. Boynton also gives a long folding panoramic view of
West Point in 1780 from the eastern bank of the river, which shows the
batteries and camps on both banks. Cf. illustrated paper, by Lossing,
in _Scribner's Mag._, v. 4.]

Arnold received the price of his desertion,[998] was made a general
in the British service, and turned his sword, both in Connecticut
and Virginia, against his countrymen. Afterwards he went to England,
was treated with an enforced respect in some places, and scorned in
others.[999] He lived for a while in New Brunswick, but he never
escaped the torments which the presence of honorable men inflicted upon
him. His descendants live to-day in England and in Canada, and some of
them have attained high rank in the British army; and no one of them,
as far as known, has disgraced the good name of the old Rhode Island
family, whence Benedict Arnold descended.[1000]

The report of the court respecting André, with its appendix (already
referred to), and the trial of Smith were the first public sifting of
the evidence about the conspiracy. Smith was acquitted by the military
tribunal,[1001] and was then turned over to the civil authorities for
a further trial; but, succeeding in escaping in women's clothes, he
reached New York, and England, where several years later he published a
narrative, which it is not easy to reconcile with all his evidence in
his trial,—the supposition[1002] being that he was addressing injured
Americans in the one case and disappointed Britons in the other.[1003]
Marbois, the secretary of the French legation at Philadelphia at the
time, wrote a _Complot d'Arnold et Clinton_, which was not published
till 1816 at Paris. Sparks says, that what came under Marbois' personal
observation is valuable; but otherwise the book, as most students
think, should be used with caution.[1004]

The earliest comprehensive treatment of the subject—and it has hardly
been surpassed since—was in Sparks's _Life and Treason of Arnold_
(Boston), and he gives the principal documentary evidence in his
_Washington_, vol. vii. App.[1005]

The next special examination of the conspiracy was made in Winthrop
Sargent's[1006] _Life and Career of Major John André_ (Boston,
1861),—an excellent book.[1007]

In 1864 the story necessarily made a part of Edward C. Boynton's
_History of West Point_, who pointed out the military advantage of the
Highlands of the Hudson.[1008] Not long after this, Henry B. Dawson,
then editing the _Yonkers Gazette_, printed in its columns sixty-eight
contemporary documents or narratives, and these, subsequently printed
from the same type in book-form, constitute no. 1 of Dawson's
_Gazette Series_, under the title of _Papers concerning the capture
and detention of Major John André_ (1866). It is the most complete
gathering of authentic material which has been made.

The volume (x.) of Bancroft which contains his account of the
conspiracy appeared in 1875, and was constructed "by following
only contemporary documents, which are abundant and of the surest
character, and which, taken collectively, solve every question....
The reminiscences of men who wrote in later days are so mixed up with
errors of memory and fable that they offer no sure foothold."[1009]

The _Life of Arnold_, by Isaac N. Arnold, of Chicago, and the _Two
Spies_ of Benson J. Lossing, are the last considerable examinations of
the subject.[1010]

[Illustration]

The story of the culmination and collapse of the conspiracy is easily
told with the abundant testimony of those who were observers and
actors,—much of the record being made at the time, though some of it,
put upon paper at varying intervals later, may need to be scrutinized
closely, particularly as regards André's demeanor from the moment of
his arrest to his execution.[1011]

For the English side we must mainly depend on the letters and
statements of Clinton, which are elaborate, and may well be
supplemented by contemporary and later English historians.[1012]

As respects the justice of André's execution, the military authorities
were disagreed on the two sides at the time, and for a while the
alleged offence of Washington was considered in England a conspicuous
blot upon his character; but Lord Mahon has been the only prominent
instance of continued belief in this view among English writers, who
have generally conceded the right of the Americans to count André a
spy, however they might wish that Washington had been more clement.
The attractive manners and brilliant mental habit of André have
blinded even American writers to the atrocious nature of his mission,
and to the sinister purpose which a man of sensibility and elevated
character should never have grasped, even amid the license which a
state of war gives. The power to face death with a calm and graceful
courage may indeed be mated with the moral lightness that belongs to an
intellectual popinjay and a debased intriguer.[1013]

CHAPTER VI.

THE WAR IN THE SOUTHERN DEPARTMENT.

BY EDWARD CHANNING,

_Instructor in History in Harvard College_.

IN the autumn of 1778 the British commander-in-chief, Sir Henry
Clinton, determined to attempt for the second time the subjugation of
the Southern colonies, and Savannah was selected as the first point of
attack. On November 27, 1778, Lieutenant-Colonel Archibald Campbell,
with thirty-five hundred men of all arms, sailed from Sandy Hook, and
anchored off Tybee Entrance December 23d. Meantime a deserter from an
advance transport had given the Americans warning. Their commander was
General Robert Howe, a good but unsuccessful officer, who had not been
fortunate in securing the confidence of the authorities of Georgia.
Ascertaining these facts, Campbell pressed on without awaiting the
arrival of Brigadier-General Augustine Prevost with a reinforcement
from Florida. On the 28th, late in the afternoon, the British fleet
assembled in the Savannah River, off Giradeau's house on Brewton Hill,
which is about two miles from Savannah in a straight line, though
double that distance by road. A causeway, nearly half a mile in length,
ran from the river to the bluff through a rice-field which in ordinary
times could have been flooded, but over which the bluff was now
accessible from all points.

On the morning of the 29th the Highlanders carried the position with
trifling loss, when Campbell, advancing toward Savannah, found the
Americans most advantageously posted across the highroad. Through no
fault of Howe, his rear was attained, while he awaited an attack in
front. The Americans suffered a severe loss, and only a small part of
them succeeded in joining Lincoln beyond the Savannah River. Campbell
pushed up the Savannah, and in ten days the frontier of Georgia was
secured, and this was the condition when Prevost arrived and took
command.

Although Lincoln had arrived at Charleston on December 6th, he was not
able to reach Purisburgh before the 5th of January, 1779. His army,
composed almost entirely of militia, refused under him, as it had under
Howe, to be governed by the Continental rules of war.[1014]

At first it seemed to the enemy that the occupation of Georgia could be
easily maintained, but the neighboring militia rallied under Pickens,
and drove the British back. The American success, however, was brief,
for Colonel Prevost, a brother of the general, turned upon General
Ashe, who with a detachment from Lincoln's army was following the
British retreat. The Americans were surprised and suffered a defeat,
which cost Lincoln one third of his army and restored to Prevost his
superiority in Georgia.[1015]

The scale again turned. Lincoln, reinforced, once more severed the
British communications with the up-country Tories, when Prevost, to
disconcert his adversary, at first sought to get between him and
Charleston, and then suddenly advanced on the city itself. Here
Moultrie, who had been watching the British advance, threw up some
defences. Negotiations for a surrender followed, and Governor Rutledge,
who was in the town, even proposed a scheme of neutrality for the State
during the war, to which Prevost would not listen. The British now
intercepted a messenger from Lincoln, and finding that general closing
in upon him, Prevost suddenly decamped and marched toward Savannah.

The summer was uneventful; but in the early autumn D'Estaing, who
after leaving Newport had been cruising with some success in the West
Indies, now turned northerly, and on September 3 (1779) his advance
ships arrived off the mouth of the Savannah River. A landing, however,
was not effected until the 12th, when the troops landed at Beaulieu, on
Ossabaw Sound, fourteen to sixteen miles from Savannah. They did not
reach that town until the 16th, so that Prevost had time to call in
his scattered detachments, and all but those from Beaufort had arrived
when, on the evening of that day, D'Estaing, in the name of the king of
France, summoned him to surrender. A correspondence followed, which was
prolonged till the defences were strengthened and Maitland got up from
Beaufort with eight hundred men, when Prevost refused to surrender.

D'Estaing had been all the more willing to grant the truce as Lincoln,
who was looked for from Charleston, had not arrived on the 16th. By
the 23d a considerable part of the Americans had joined the French,
and siege operations were begun. Guns were brought up from the French
ships and trenches pushed to within three hundred yards of the besieged
lines. On September 24th a sortie was made by the garrison for the
purpose of developing the strength of the besiegers. The sortie was
repulsed with ease, but the French, following the assailants back to
their lines, were exposed to a murderous fire, and incurred a heavy
loss in killed and wounded. The bombardment was then begun with vigor,
but with little effect. At last, on October 8th, D'Estaing declared
that he could not keep his vessels longer exposed to the Atlantic
gales. An assault was determined on. In the night the sergeant-major of
one of the Charleston militia regiments deserted to the enemy and gave
full information of the intended movement, and further declared that
the attack on the British left would be only a feint, the real attack
being directed against the Spring Hill redoubt, on the right.[1016]

The assault took place, and failed as much by a lack of coöperation
between the columns as by the treachery. This disaster so dispirited
the allies that Lincoln crossed the river on the 19th, and when he was
safe on the other side the French withdrew to their ships and sailed
away,—their last frigate leaving the river on the 2d of November.

[Illustration: VIEW OF CHARLESTOWN, S. C.

Sketched from a marginal view on a chart of _The Harbour of
Charlestown, from the surveys of Sir Jas. Wallace, Captain in his
Majesty's navy and others_, published in London by Des Barres, Nov. 1,
1777, and making part of the _Atlantic Neptune_. Cf. _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._ (1883), p. 830. _The Catal. of the king's maps_ (Brit. Mus.)
shows an engraved view of 1739, and other early views are noted in
Vol. V., p. 331. There is a view by Leitch, in 1776. In a paper, "Up
the Ashley and Cooper", by C. F. Woolson, in _Harper's Magazine_, lii.
p. 1, there is a view of Drayton house, occupied by Cornwallis as
headquarters.—ED.]

[Illustration: GENERAL MOULTRIE'S ORDER, MARCH 25, 1780.

From the Commodore Tucker Papers in Harvard College library.—ED.]

The sailing of the French left the coast again exposed, and Clinton,
coming from New York, now prepared to attack Charleston. On the 11th
of February, 1780, a landing was made on Simmons' Island, just to the
north of the North Edisto River. Thence by John's Island, Stono Ferry,
Wappoo Cut and River, the Ashley was reached, and a lodgment was
effected on the neck of land at the seaward end of which Charleston
stands. Clinton advanced with caution. On the 1st of April the first
parallel was opened about eight hundred yards from the American works.

[Illustration: From the Tucker Papers in Harvard College library.]

On the 21st of March the British fleet, commanded by Admiral Mariot
Arbuthnot in person, had crossed the bar unopposed. Some time was spent
in taking on board their provisions and guns. Then on the afternoon of
the 7th, 8th, or 9th of April—for there is a hopeless confusion as
to the exact date—in the midst of a furious thunder-shower the fleet
ran by Fort Moultrie without material damage, except to the store-ship
"Eolus", which was abandoned. The greater portion of the garrison of
Moultrie, commanded by Colonel C. C. Pinckney, was then withdrawn,—the
feeble remnant surrendering on the 6th of May, with scarcely a show of
resistance.

On the 8th of April guns were mounted in battery in the first British
parallel. On the 11th, Lincoln having refused to surrender, fire was
opened. The second parallel was completed on the 19th, bringing the
British to within four hundred and fifty yards of the opposing line.

[Illustration:

After a picture by Col. Sargent, owned by the Mass. Hist. Society
(_Proc._, Jan., 1807, vol. i. p. 192; _Catal. Cabinet_, no. 13). A copy
by Herring was engraved by T. Illman. Cf. Jones's _Georgia_, vol. ii.
(bust only); Irving's _Washington_, quarto ed., vol. iii.; _Harper's
Mag._, lxiii. 341. A rude contemporary copperplate print, by Norman,
appeared in the Boston ed. of _An Impartial Hist. of the War_ (1784),
vol. iii. 64.—ED.]

On the morning of the 13th Tarleton and Ferguson, by a sudden push,
dispersed the force at Monk's Corner, which had guarded Lincoln's
supplies. On the 18th a reinforcement of three thousand men arrived
from New York, and enabled Clinton to complete the investment of
the town, the command on the eastern side of the Cooper being
given to Cornwallis. There was during the next few days a sortie,
some desultory fighting, and an unsuccessful correspondence for a
surrender. On May 8th the third parallel was completed, bringing the
besiegers to within forty yards of the works, while the canal in
front of the lines was partly drained and the batteries were ready
to open fire. Clinton again summoned the garrison, but again Lincoln
declined to surrender,—this time because Clinton refused to regard the
citizens as anything but prisoners on parole. On the 11th the British
reached the ditch and advanced to within twenty-five yards of the
works. Resistance was no longer to be thought of, especially as the
citizens themselves now petitioned to have the terms offered by Clinton
accepted. The articles were accordingly drawn up and signed on the
12th, and the English took possession.

[Illustration: CORNWALLIS.

From Andrews' _Hist. of the War_, London, 1785, vol. ii. There is an
engraving after an original drawing by T. Prattent in the _European
Mag._, Aug., 1786. There are engravings of him later in life in Lee's
_Memoir of the War in the Southern Department_ (Philadelphia, 1872),
vol. ii., and in the _Cornwallis Correspondence_. Cf. _Harper's Mag._,
lxiii. p. 325; Irving's _Washington_, ii. 282; Boyle's _Official
Baronage_, i. 459. Reynolds painted him in 1780, having already painted
him in 1761. The former picture was engraved by Chas. Knight in 1780.
Cf. Hamilton's _Engraved Works of Reynolds_, pp. 19, 169. There is a
mezzotint by D. Gardiner. Cf. John C. Smith's _Brit. Mez. Port._, ii.
745; and in _Ibid._, iv. 1,444, an engraving by Ward after a picture by
Buckley is noted. There is a contemporary account of Cornwallis in the
_Polit. Mag._, ii. 450.—ED.]

On that day the Continentals to the number of perhaps fifteen
hundred—there were about five hundred in the hospital at the
time—marched out, with colors cased and drums beating the "Turk's
March", and laid down their arms. By regarding every adult capable of
bearing arms as a militiaman, Clinton reckoned his prisoners at five
thousand. Lincoln has been severely censured for this defence, but
if the Carolinians had rallied as expected, he might have held out
until the heats of the summer and the arrival of De Ternay would have
compelled Clinton's retirement.

Clinton now sent out three expeditions to the up-country, the most
important of which was destined to secure the region north of the
Santee and Wateree.[1017] Cornwallis, commanding this expedition,
detached Tarleton against Buford, who had with him the remnants of the
American cavalry and some Continentals from Virginia. Tarleton overtook
him at Waxhaw Creek on the 29th of May. Of the five hundred Americans
who entered the fight, one hundred and thirteen were killed, while
one hundred and fifty were wounded. The slaughter was vindictive, and
"Tarleton's Quarters" will never be forgotten in the upper regions of
South Carolina.

Clinton and Arbuthnot, judging their conquest of the province
permanent, now proclaimed as rebels all who refused the oath of
allegiance, and then sailed for New York, leaving Cornwallis in
command.

[Illustration: CORNWALLIS.

From the _London Mag._, June, 1781 (p. 251).—ED.]

The new commander's proclamations, following upon those of Clinton and
Arbuthnot, were enough at variance with them to create discontent among
those inclined toward the British side. The spirits of the patriots
began to revive, especially in the back regions, where Colonels Locke
and Williams and Generals Rutherford and Sumter gathered strong bands
around their standards. The fights at Ramsour Mills, Rocky Mount,
Hanging Rock, and Musgrove Mills, which these partisans conducted,
were in the main successful, but all were lost to sight in the great
disaster which soon overtook the American arms near Camden.

Early in the spring of 1780, it had been decided to send a
reinforcement under De Kalb to Lincoln, at Charleston. With about
fourteen hundred men of the Maryland and Delaware lines, that general
left Morristown on the 16th of April, 1780, and on the 1st of June, in
Petersburg, he learned of the fall of Charleston. He decided to push on
with the utmost speed, in the hope that his coming might still save the
interior of the State. But delay after delay occurred, and De Kalb did
not reach the Deep River before the 6th of July, when he found nothing
prepared for his reception; and what was still more inexcusable, the
North Carolina militia, under Caswell, were holding aloof. On the 25th
a new commander of the Southern armies arrived in Horatio Gates, the
popular hero of Saratoga. His appointment had been made by Congress
against the wishes of Washington, but in obedience to a general popular
consent. De Kalb received Gates with genuine pleasure, and took his
place at the head of the regulars, then forming the whole army.

Against the advice of his ablest officer, Otho H. Williams, Gates
determined to join the North Carolinians in their camp near Lynch's
Creek, since they would not join him, and with them he hoped to seize
Camden. Two days after his arrival, on July 27th, the march began, and
after the most acute suffering from hunger the regulars joined the
militia. So lax was the discipline among Caswell's men, that Williams
and a party of officers rode through their lines and camp without being
once challenged. Approaching the general's tent, they were informed
that it was an unseasonable hour for gentlemen to call. Yet Caswell
was within striking distance of a disciplined army, commanded by an
enterprising general, Lord Rawdon. Marching a little farther, the
British were found in a strong position on the southern bank of Little
Lynch's Creek.

[Illustration: HORATIO GATES.

From Du Simitière's _Thirteen Portraits_ (London, 1783).—ED.]

By a march up the creek, Gates might have placed his superior force on
Rawdon's flank and rear. This was what Rawdon feared, and what De Kalb
is said to have advised. Instead he passed two days in idleness, and
then, inclining to the right, marched to Clermont or Rugeley's Mill,
on the road from Charlotte to Camden, and not more than thirteen miles
from the latter. There, seven hundred militia from Virginia joined
him. From that place, too, he sent four hundred men, including some
regulars, to assist Sumter in a contemplated attack on the enemy's
communications. It was now determined to seek a more defensible
position on the banks of a creek seven miles nearer Camden. This
position could be turned only by marching a considerable distance
either up or down the creek. Exactly what Gates had in view by this
movement can not now be ascertained.[1018]

Cornwallis arrived at the front on the morning of August 14th, and
decided to surprise Gates; but the two armies started on respective
marches at precisely the same hour, ten o'clock of the evening of
August 15, 1780. Their advanced guards met at about half past two the
next morning. Armand, a French adventurer, with his "legion" forming
the American van, retired panic-stricken, and the two armies deployed
across the road. The position in which the opposing generals now found
themselves was singularly favorable to the smaller numbers of the
British, as the front was necessarily very short, owing to a marsh
which protected while limiting either flank. This advantage Cornwallis
was not slow to perceive. A hurried council was held on the American
side, and it was decided that there was no alternative but to fight. At
dawn the enemy was observed getting into position on the extreme left.
Stevens, with the Virginia militia, already in line, was ordered to
charge before the enemy's formation was complete. It so happened that
Cornwallis, thinking the Virginians were making some change in their
dispositions, ordered his right forward. Led by the gallant Webster,
the British came on with such a rush that the men of Virginia threw
down their loaded guns with bayonets set, broke and dispersed to the
rear. Nor did the North Carolinians do better. Seeing the Virginians
break, they did not await the onset, but threw away their arms and
fled. One regiment indeed, inspired by the example of the regulars,
fired several rounds before it broke. Deserted by those whom they had
marched so many weary miles to succor, the men of Maryland and Delaware
fought till to fight longer was criminal. Then the under-officers,
on their own responsibility, brought off all they could, for their
commander, De Kalb, overwhelmed by eleven wounds, had fallen into
the hands of the enemy,—"a fate", says Williams, "which probably
was avoided by other generals only by an opportune retreat." That
night Gates found himself at Charlotte, sixty miles from the scene of
conflict. Caswell was with him, and they were soon joined by Smallwood
and Gist. In fact, excepting the one order issued to the Virginians at
the outset, the leaders seem to have left the conduct of the fight to
De Kalb and the subordinate officers. From Charlotte Gates retired to
Hillsborough, where the legislature was then sitting.

Cornwallis seems to have been satisfied with the havoc wrought on
the field of battle, for he pursued without vigor, and soon returned
to Camden and gave his attention to Sumter. That enterprising but
negligent chieftain had captured the redoubt at the ferry over the
Wateree, and had ensnared a convoy destined for Cornwallis. On the
night of the 17th, hearing of Gates's overthrow, Sumter left his camp,
and moved with such celerity that a corps which Cornwallis sent
against him failed to strike him. Shortly after, Tarleton found him
less vigilant, and came upon him so unexpectedly that resistance was
hardly attempted, and Sumter escaped with scarcely half his force.

Gates has been severely blamed for this defeat; too severely, it seems
to me. The march of the regulars from Buffalo Ford to Lynch's Creek was
undoubtedly full of hardship, but it was well planned and executed. Nor
do the troops who made it seem to have been demoralized by it. On the
contrary, seldom have men fought more gallantly than De Kalb's division
fought on the morning of August 16, 1780. The Virginians, whose flight
made defeat probable, followed the Continentals in the march across the
"desert", and did not suffer nearly as much as the leading division.
The North Carolina militia, whose panic turned a probable defeat into
a rout, had no part whatever in that painful march. The disaster was
due to the over-confidence which Gates felt in his men. Had the militia
stood firm, the event of the campaign might have been different.
There was no defect in Gates as a strategist or tactician. He had a
larger number of men in line than his opponent. His dispositions were
as perfect as the time and place permitted. The defeat Was "brought
on", to use the emphatic words of Stevens, the gallant leader of the
Virginians, "by the damned cowardly behavior of the militia."

From Camden Cornwallis advanced to Charlotte, overcoming all obstacles
which the militia under Davie interposed. Other militia, meanwhile,
under Clarke, advanced on Augusta, but British reinforcements from
Ninety-Six, under Cruger, forced Clarke to abandon the attack, and,
burdened with the families of some leading Whigs, he retired towards
the mountains. Cornwallis, hearing of this, ordered Ferguson, who
had been beating up recruits in the upper country, to endeavor to
cut Clarke off. Now it happened that at this very time the sturdy
frontiersmen, under the leadership of Colonel William Campbell, Colonel
Isaac Shelby, Lieutenant-Colonel John Sevier, and Colonel Charles
McDowell, had assembled at Watauga, bent on the destruction of Ferguson
and his little army.[1019] To the number of one thousand and forty
they left their place of meeting on September 26th and marched for
Gilberton, where Ferguson was supposed to be. On the 30th they were
joined by Colonel Cleveland, with three hundred and fifty men from
North Carolina. The senior officer was McDowell, but from his slowness
he was not deemed the best man to conduct such an arduous enterprise,
and while he was sent to Gates to name a leader they chose Campbell
for their chief. Pressing on, they reached the Cowpens, where they
were joined by Williams and Lacy, with about four hundred men from the
Carolinas.

Meantime Ferguson, not ignorant of the approach of this formidable
force, which appeared to have sprung from the earth, had begun his
retreat towards Charlotte. Anxious to intercept Clarke, he had delayed
his march longer than was prudent, and had taken post on the top of
a spur of King's Mountain, where he probably hoped to be reinforced
before the enemy should come up with him. While at the Cowpens, on
October 6th, the Americans received certain information of Ferguson's
position. They resolved to select the best mounted of their little
army, and, leaving the poorly mounted and the footmen to follow, to go
in pursuit of Ferguson and fight him wherever found. In the evening,
therefore, they broke up from the Cowpens, and, marching all night,
reached, without being discovered, the foot of King's Mountain on
the afternoon of the next day. The spot on which the British were
found was singularly well suited to the mode of fighting in which the
backwoodsmen were adepts. King's Mountain proper is sixteen miles long,
and in some places is high and steep. The southern end, however, where
Ferguson was encamped, rises only about sixty feet. It was wooded,
except on the summit, which partook of the nature of a plateau. The
Americans, under their respective leaders, so timed their movements
that Ferguson was surrounded almost before he knew it. The band led
by Campbell seems to have made the first attack from the south. It
was speedily driven back at the point of the bayonet, but re-formed
at the foot of the hill and returned to the charge. Meantime Shelby
was pressing on from the north. He, too, was driven back, when,
re-forming his men, he also returned to the fight. These charges and
countercharges were three times repeated. Cleveland, Sevier, and the
rest did their work splendidly in their respective positions. The
British, inspired by the example of their heroic leader, fought bravely
and well; but their position was so perilous that their loss was double
that of the assailants. Ferguson, while leading a charge, or perhaps
while endeavoring to cut his way out, was killed. De Peyster, the
second in command, showed the white flag, as was his duty, resistance
being useless, but the firing did not cease for some time, even though
the beaten Tories were suing for quarter. At that moment an attack
was made from the rear by another band of British, who were probably
returning from a foraging expedition. This new and sudden attack led to
a renewal of the slaughter of the unresisting foe on the hill.

The neighborhood was bare of provisions, and the next morning the
now half famished victors, with their no less hungry prisoners, made
a hurried retreat towards the mountains. On the 13th the Americans
arrived at a place then called Bickerstaff's Old Fields, about nine
miles from the present hamlet of Rutherfordton. There they improvised a
court, and sentenced thirty to forty of their prisoners to death. But
after nine had been hanged, the remainder were reprieved or pardoned.

Such was the famous battle of King's Mountain in South Carolina. It
changed to a great extent the whole course of the war in the Southern
department, as it deprived Cornwallis of the only corps that he could
afford to hazard for a long time out of supporting distance. As for
Cornwallis, as soon as he heard of the disaster, instead of sending
Tarleton in pursuit, he broke up from Charlotte, and retired as fast
as he could to Wynnesborough, in South Carolina, midway between Camden
and Ninety-Six, where he would be within supporting distance of either
in case they were attacked. He was followed by Gates, who encamped at
Charlotte, his light parties advancing even to Rugeley's.

Not long after his arrival at Wynnesborough, Cornwallis detached
Tarleton, with a portion of the Legion, to disperse the band with
which Marion awed the country between the Santee and Pedee rivers.
Tarleton had now to deal with a soldier both bold and discreet. All his
artifices were unavailing to entrap Marion, and he was recalled to go
in pursuit of Sumter, who had encamped at Fishdam Ford, not far from
the British headquarters. Meanwhile, Major Wemyss had attacked Sumter
just before daybreak on the morning of November 11th. He approached
the camp unchallenged at first, but he soon encountered a picket,
which fired five shots before retiring. Two shots disabled Wemyss. His
second in command, continuing the attack without a proper knowledge of
the ground, was repulsed. Sumter, hearing of the approach of Tarleton,
prudently withdrew from such a dangerous neighborhood, and had reached
the ford of the Tyger, near Blackstocks, when Tarleton appeared. Unable
to cross, he drew up his men on the side of a hill. Tarleton, rashly
attacking with his advance, was beaten off with great loss. The British
leader withdrew to his main body, and prepared to storm the hill the
following morning; but in the night Sumter crossed the river, and once
over his men dispersed in every direction. The American loss at these
two actions was small, though a wound received at the Blackstocks kept
Sumter from the field for several months.

From this time on the war in the Southern department assumed a new and
brighter aspect, for on December 2, 1780, less than a month after the
affair at the Blackstocks, Nathanael Greene arrived at Charlotte, and
took command of the remnants of the gallant Continentals who had fought
so splendidly at Camden. He was respectfully received by Gates, who
retired to his Virginia farm.[1020]

The task that Greene had before him might well have appalled the
boldest. Without food, without money or credit, almost without an army,
he was expected to face the most enterprising commanders—Cornwallis,
Rawdon, and Tarleton—that the British had on this continent, while
they were at the head of a large and well-appointed army. But Greene
was not the man to be easily disheartened. With the possible exception
of Washington, the best soldier of high rank in the American army, he
resembled his chief in being a careful observer of men. His judgment,
too, with regard to all matters connected with war was excellent, and
has seldom been surpassed. As a strategist he had no equal in the
opposing army, while he possessed the rare power of being able to
adapt his tactics to the army and to the country, although it has been
claimed that credit has been given him for what really was the product
of another mind.

Gates handed over to his successor an army which numbered on paper
twenty-three hundred and seven men, including nine hundred and
forty-nine Continentals. But so many were insufficiently clad and
equipped that, to use the new commander's own words, "not more than
eight hundred were present and fit for duty." Food was scarce, and the
_morale_ of the army was low. Greene sought a new camp on the eastern
bank of the Pedee, opposite Cheraw Hill, where food was more abundant.
There he subjected his men to a discipline to which they had long
been strangers, while Morgan, with a strong detachment, threatened
Cornwallis's other flank.

Morgan took with him four hundred of the Maryland line, under
Lieutenant-Colonel J. E. Howard, two companies of Virginia militia, and
about one hundred dragoons led by William Washington. To these were
afterwards added more than five hundred militia from the Carolinas.
Morgan advanced to Grindall's Ford on the Pacolet, near its confluence
with Broad River. In this position he seriously menaced Ninety-Six and
even Augusta itself. Cornwallis needed to dislodge him before he could
advance far in his projected invasion of North Carolina. He therefore
detached Tarleton, with his Legion and a strong infantry support,
against Morgan, while he himself advanced with the main body along the
upper road to North Carolina, thus placing himself on Morgan's line
of retreat whenever that commander should be driven back. Learning of
these movements, Morgan retired from Grindall's Ford, and moving with
commendable speed on the night of January 16, 1781, encamped at the
Cowpens. Tarleton was now close upon him, and, marching the greater
part of the night, he discovered the Americans drawn up in line of
battle on the morning of the 17th. The position which Morgan had chosen
was in many respects a weak one. The country was well fitted for the
use of cavalry, in which the British excelled, while the Broad River,
flowing parallel to his rear, made retreat difficult if not impossible.
Nor were the flanks protected in any manner.[1021] Hardly waiting
for his line to be formed, and with his reserve too far in the rear,
Tarleton dashed forward.[1022] A militia skirmish line was easily
brushed aside, and the main body of militia, after firing a few rounds
with terrible precision, also retreated. The Continentals, however,
under their gallant leader, stood firm. But Howard's flank soon became
enveloped. He ordered his flank company to change its front. Mistaking
the order, the company fell back, and the whole line was ordered to
retire upon the cavalry. The British, who had been joined by the
reserve, thinking that the Americans were retreating, came on like a
mob. Seeing this, Howard ordered the 1st Maryland to face about. They
obeyed, and poured such an unexpected and murderous fire into the
advancing foe that the British line paused, became panic-stricken,
turned, and fled. In vain did Tarleton call upon his dragoons for
a charge. His order was either not delivered or was misunderstood.
Colonel Washington, on the other hand, advanced with a rush, and the
day was won. Almost to a man the British infantry was either killed
or captured. But they had fought well, and their loss, especially in
officers, bears testimony to their splendid conduct on the field.[1023]

King's Mountain lost to Cornwallis his best corps of scouts. This
disaster deprived him of his light infantry, whose presence during the
forced marches now to come would have been of incalculable service. For
this reason the affair at the Cowpens, while in reality only a fight
between two small bodies of troops, in importance of results deserves
to be ranked among the most important conflicts of the war. It was
indeed, as has so often been said, "the Bennington of the South."

Cornwallis, when he had detached Tarleton to the defence of Ninety-Six,
and later, when he had ordered him to push Morgan to the utmost, had
expected to be able to get on Morgan's line of retreat, and thus drive
him into the mountains, or at least prevent his rejoining Greene. But
with Greene on his flank at the Cheraws, he had been afraid to move
far from Camden before Leslie with the reinforcements could get out
of Greene's reach. He was, therefore, no further advanced than Turkey
Creek, twenty-five miles away, when the news of the disaster at the
Cowpens reached him. On the 18th, Leslie, with two battalions of the
Guards under O'Hara and the Hessian regiment of Bose, arrived. On the
19th the pursuit was begun, and on the 24th Cornwallis reached the
crossing of the Little Catawba at Ramsour's Mill, only to learn that
Morgan had crossed at the same place two days before. In fact, that
enterprising leader, instead of being dazzled by the victory at the
Cowpens, passed the Broad River on the evening of the day of action,
and, pursuing his route toward the mountains, passed Ramsour's Mill on
the 21st. With the bulk of his detachment he then sought a junction
with the main body under Greene. Turning to the east, he crossed the
Catawba at Sherrald's Ford on the 23d, and took post on the eastern
bank. At this place he finally rid himself of his prisoners, sending
them to Virginia under an escort of militia.

There can be little doubt of the chagrin Cornwallis experienced at
the escape of Morgan. It prompted him to destroy what he thought
was useless baggage, and to make another attempt to overtake the
Americans. This burning of his train occupied two days, and, necessary
as it may have seemed, the consequent lack of supplies led to the
fearful suffering of his army after Guilford, and made his retreat to
Wilmington a necessity. It was his first grave error in his struggle
with Greene. On the 27th he put his troops in motion for the Catawba,
but before he reached the fords a sudden rise of the river made the
crossing an impossibility, and gave Morgan two days' respite. The delay
was still more important in giving Greene time to reach the post of
danger and take command of the detachment. The news of the victory
at Cowpens had not reached the camp at the Cheraws until the 25th.
Instantly divining the course that Cornwallis would pursue, Greene sent
an express to Lee, who, as soon as he had joined, had been dispatched
to coöperate with Marion in an attack on Georgetown, next to Charleston
then the most important seaport in South Carolina. The attack failed
for some reason that is not quite apparent; but Lee brought off
his troops in safety, and rejoined Greene in time to render most
important service. On the 29th, the main army, under command of General
Huger, left the camp for Salisbury, where Greene hoped to be able to
concentrate his entire force. On the 31st the Catawba began to subside.
Putting their troops in motion, Greene and Morgan directed their steps
toward Salisbury, where they arrived on February 2d. The Yadkin was
crossed in safety the next day, though rising rapidly all the time;
then sending orders to Huger to join him at Guilford Court-House, and
not at Salisbury as formerly ordered, Greene once more breathed freely.

On the afternoon of the 1st, Cornwallis had also put his troops in
motion. His design was to make a feint of crossing at Beattie's Ford
while with the Guards he should pass the river at the less known
Cowan's Ford. By some means, Davidson, who commanded the militia in
that region, became cognizant of the design, and stationed himself
at Cowan's with about four hundred men, where he expected to hold
Cornwallis in check long enough to be of real service to the retiring
Americans.

Shortly before daybreak Cornwallis reached the river, and saw the
watch-fires on the opposite bank. Without a moment's hesitation the
Guards rushed into the rapid stream. When about halfway across they
were discovered, and a fire was opened upon them by the militia. But
now occurred one of those accidents that so often in war defeat the
best-laid plans. The ford, turning in mid-stream at an angle with
the direct line, ran under a bank where the militia were waiting for
the British; but when they arrived at the turning-point, instead of
inclining to the right, the Guards—their guide having deserted through
fear—kept straight on, and gained the bank with a loss of only sixty
in killed, wounded, and missing. The militia retired, and although
Tarleton was sent after them, they made good their retreat with a loss
which would have been trifling but for a mortal wound under which the
gallant Davidson fell. There were many hair-breadth escapes during this
splendid charge. Cornwallis's horse was shot under him, but reached the
bank before he fell. Leslie was carried down stream, and O'Hara's horse
rolled over with his rider while in the water.

Pushing on with all speed possible in the wretched condition of the
roads, Cornwallis's van, under O'Hara, reached the Yadkin at the
Trading Ford a few hours after the Americans had crossed; but O'Hara,
though he missed the soldiers, captured a train of wagons belonging to
the country people who were flying with the army. Here again the forces
of nature came to the assistance of the Americans, for the Yadkin
rose so rapidly that it could not be forded, and Greene had carefully
secured all the boats on the eastern bank.

Cornwallis now gave up all idea of preventing the union of the two
wings of the opposing army, which, indeed, was effected soon after at
Martinsville, near Guilford. The British commander decided to place
himself between his opponents and the fords of the Dan, hoping thereby
to prevent the Americans taking refuge in Virginia. Accordingly, on the
7th he crossed the Yadkin at the Shallow Ford. It was now a serious
question with Greene to escape the new danger. The militia failing to
come to his aid, he was obliged to protect his Continentals by a flight
into Virginia. He determined to cross the Dan at Irwin's Ferry, and
sent orders to have boats ready at that point. On the 10th the march
was renewed. The light troops, united in one division, were placed
under the command of O. H. Williams, with orders to delay the enemy as
much as possible. By rapid marching the main army reached Irwin's Ferry
and crossed on the 13th and 14th, before Williams and the rear-guard
came in sight. The experience of this light division has been well
told by Lee, whose Legion first measured sabres with Tarleton's men on
the 12th. From that time the rear of the Americans and the advance of
O'Hara were almost constantly in sight of each other. At every crossing
or other suitable place Williams would draw his men out and thus compel
the British to deploy; then, his object being accomplished, and the
British delayed for a few minutes, the march would be resumed, and the
two armies would soon be marching as one again. Cornwallis, conscious
finally that his prey had escaped, turned back to Hillsborough, and,
erecting the Royal Standard, called upon all loyal North Carolinians to
rally to the aid of their royal master.

On the 18th, only four days after his escape, recruits had come in so
rapidly that Greene detached Lee across the Dan to seek information,
and to show the Tories that the Americans were by no means beaten. Lee
had, in addition to his legion, two companies of the Maryland line.
He was joined on the southern side of the river by Pickens with a
considerable body of Carolina militia.

On the 23d Greene himself crossed the Dan with the main army, and
sought the difficult country on the head-waters of the Haw, as the
Cape Fear River is called in its upper course. Here again, as during
the retreat, the light troops were put into the hands of Williams. The
two divisions manœuvred with such precision that Cornwallis was held
at arm's length, while militia and Continentals came into the American
camp from all directions. The American commander saw that the time had
now come to give way no more. He stationed himself on a hillside near
Guilford, and awaited the approach of the British. The position which
had attracted his attention during the retreat possessed a combination
of rising ground, cleared spaces, and woods which could hardly be
surpassed for the irregular formation that Greene, following the
example set by Morgan at the Cowpens, deemed best suited to his troops.

To Cornwallis, the presence of Greene had been most disastrous.
Strategy had failed to annihilate his opponent, and the offered battle,
even on ground of the American general's own selection, was welcome to
the British commander; and on the morning of the 15th of March, 1781,
the trial came.

In his front line Greene put the North Carolina militia, their flanks
resting in the woods, the centre being protected in some measure by
a rail fence. Three hundred yards behind were posted the Virginia
militia under Stevens and Lawson. Though militia in name, some of those
under Stevens were veterans in reality. But, taught by his bitter
experience at Camden, Stevens posted riflemen behind his line, with
orders to shoot any who should run. The Virginians were entirely in
the woods. Three to four hundred yards behind them, on the brow of a
declivity, with open fields in their front, were the regulars. On the
right was the Virginia brigade under Huger. Then, after an interval for
the artillery under Singleton, came the Maryland brigade, commanded
by Williams. The first regiment was led by Gunby, with Howard as
lieutenant-colonel. This was the regiment which had aroused universal
admiration by its splendid conduct at Camden and its wonderful
subordination at the Cowpens, when a gallant charge converted a bloody
check into a crushing disaster. The second Maryland regiment, commanded
by Ford, was new to the service. It held the extreme left of the line.
The regulars presented a convex front. Lee with the "Legion" and
Campbell's riflemen from the backwoods acted as a corps of observation
on the left, while Washington, with the regular cavalry and the
remnant of the Delaware regiment under the heroic Kirkwood and Lynch's
riflemen, protected the right flank.

As soon as Cornwallis found himself in the presence of his enemy, he
deployed without reserves, except the British dragoons under Tarleton.
The "Hessian" regiment of Bose and the 71st under Leslie, with the
1st battalion of the Guards in support, held the right; next came the
23d and 33d regiments under Webster, with the Grenadiers and the 2d
battalion of the Guards under O'Hara in support; while the extreme
left was occupied by the light infantry of the Guards and the Jägers.
The artillery was on the road with Tarleton. As the line moved forward
it first encountered the North Carolinians, who fired a volley, and
perhaps more, before they broke. On the extreme right, however, Lee
with his light troops held the regiment of Bose and the 1st battalion
of the Guards in check. But the defection of the North Carolinians
separated him from the rest of the army. The first line being broken,
Webster rushed upon the Virginians. But the woods were so thick, and
the defence of the Virginians so stout, that his loss at this point was
very considerable. At length, Stevens having been wounded in the thigh,
the Virginians retired and Webster advanced upon the Continentals. On
his right was Leslie with the 71st. When the advancing line reached the
front of the 1st Maryland, it was received with such a murderous fire
that it stopped. The Marylanders then advanced with the bayonet, and
the British gave way and retreated. It has been said by writers on both
sides, that had Greene thrown forward another regiment at this moment
the day would have been won. But this is by no means certain, as the
events of the next few minutes were to show. For Leslie with the 71st
and O'Hara with the Guards now came up and assailed the 2d Maryland
with such fierceness that it broke and fled. But the 1st Maryland was
not far off. Wheeling into line, it opposed the Guards until Washington
charged and broke the British line. J. E. Howard—now in command, Gunby
having been dismounted—then followed with the bayonet, and pressed
the enemy so hard that re-formation was for the moment impossible.
Cornwallis, seeing that the flight must be stopped at all hazards,
ordered his artillery—posted on an eminence in the centre of the
field—to open on the Marylanders through the ranks of his own men.
In this way the pursuit was checked, though at terrible loss to the
British.

Greene's hopes were soon dashed. The shattered lines of the enemy
re-formed and returned to the conflict. Pressing heavily on the
Virginia regulars, and reinforced by the 1st battalion of the Guards,
which had disengaged itself from Lee, the whole American line was
endangered. Greene, who wished to run no chances, and who probably
did not know that Lee had once more connected himself with the main
line, ordered a retreat. The artillery, the horses having been killed,
was left on the ground, but otherwise the withdrawal was easily and
skilfully effected.

Such was the battle of Guilford. Numerically, Greene was superior;
but of good troops he had only a handful. When the two leaders summed
up their losses, it became evident that a decisive blow had been
struck at Cornwallis. The Americans lost seventy-nine killed and
one hundred and eighty-four wounded, together with one thousand and
forty-six missing. Of these last some may have been wounded, but by
far the greater part were militiamen, who had returned to their homes.
Cornwallis reported his own loss at ninety-three killed, and four
hundred and thirteen wounded, and twenty-six missing—a most serious
diminution of his force.

Cornwallis in his proclamation and letters maintained, however, that
he had achieved a great triumph. It was his despatch to Germain which
occasioned the well-known assertion of Charles James Fox that "another
such victory would destroy the British army." Even before the fight it
had been almost a necessity to open communications with the sea, as
the army was suffering for want of the stores that had been destroyed
at Ramsour's Mill. Believing the Cape Fear River navigable as far as
Cross Creek, Cornwallis had sent Major Craig to seize Wilmington and to
open navigation as far as possible, which he succeeded in doing to a
point at a short distance above Wilmington. Leaving his wounded at the
New Garden Quaker Meeting-house, near the battlefield, Cornwallis set
out on the morning of the 18th for Wilmington, arriving there on April
7, 1781. Greene had pursued as soon as possible. But his ammunition,
never very abundant, was now almost exhausted. Besides, food was very
scarce in the district to be traversed, and Greene arrived at Ramsey's
Mill only to find that Cornwallis had built a bridge over Deep River
at that point and escaped, although Lee had pressed so hard on his
rear that the bridge could not be destroyed. Here the pursuit ended;
for the Virginia militia, now that their time was up, refused to serve
longer. Though Cornwallis escaped, and though Greene had lost one of
the best contested battles of the war, he had won the campaign. He was
free once more to turn his attention toward relieving South Carolina of
her military rulers. On April 6th, one day before Cornwallis arrived at
Wilmington, the southward march began, Lee being detached to operate on
the line of Rawdon's communications with Charleston.

Lee soon joined Marion, who was skulking in swamps between the Pedee
and Santee, and, uniting forces, the two captured a fortified depot of
Watson, the British officer scouring this region, and then endeavored
to prevent his rejoining Rawdon.

On the 7th of April Greene had broken up from Ramsey's, and, taking the
direct road, had encamped on Hobkirk's Hill, to the north of Camden,
and about a mile and a half from the British works at that place. As
Rawdon did not come out from his intrenchments, Greene on the 23d moved
nearer. Anxious for Marion and Lee, and desirous of supporting some
artillery which he detached to them, Greene moved to a position south
of Camden. It appears, however, that on the 23d or 24th he decided to
fall back. Accordingly, on the afternoon of the 24th he reëncamped
on Hobkirk's Hill. During that night a renegade drummer-boy informed
Rawdon of the position and number of the American force. He also said
that Greene had neither artillery nor trains near at hand, although
both were on the march to join him. It was a most propitious time to
strike, and Rawdon determined to attempt a surprise the next morning.

Making a considerable detour to the right, he struck the American left
almost unperceived. Greene had thrown out a strong picket in that
direction, but the superiority of the British was so great that they
drove in the guards and were upon the Americans before the formation
was complete. That the attack was not a disaster was due to the
prudence of Greene, who had encamped in order of battle. Perceiving
that Rawdon's line was very short, Greene ordered Ford with the 2d
Maryland to flank it on the right, and Campbell was told to do the
same on the left. Gunby with the 1st Maryland, and Hawes with the
Virginia regulars, were ordered to attack with the bayonet in front,
while Washington with the cavalry was to get into the rear and take
advantage of any opening that might offer. Unfortunately, neither Ford
nor Campbell were able to put in their men before Rawdon, seeing his
danger, brought up his reserves and extended his flank. This was owing
partly to Ford being struck down in the beginning of the movement.

The defeat of Greene, however, was due to one of those accidents
against which no foresight can provide. It seems that as the 1st
Maryland was getting into position to charge, or perhaps as it was
moving forward, Beattie, the captain of one of the leading companies,
was shot. His men began firing, and fell into confusion. Then Gunby,
instead of pushing his rear companies forward, as Greene always
declared he should have done, ordered the regiment to form on the rear
companies. The men retiring were seized with a panic, and the heroes of
three battles broke. They were rallied soon after, but it was then too
late. The whole line was compromised, and Greene ordered a retreat.

Though Greene was not surprised, the attack was most unexpected.
This was owing in a great measure to the woods in his front, which
permitted Rawdon to reach the picket line without discovery. Even
then Greene fully expected victory, and had his men done their duty,
as he had a perfect right to expect, this adventurous attempt of the
young British commander would have resulted in his complete overthrow.
Such was Greene's opinion, and such is the opinion of most American
writers.[1024] Retiring first to Sanders Creek or Gum Swamp, the very
spot Gates was trying to reach when he met Cornwallis, and later to
Rugeley's Mill, Greene brought up his provisions and recruited the
strength of his men. Though not beaten at Hobkirk's Hill, Greene was
greatly discouraged. Especially distressing was the non-arrival of
expected reinforcements. The terms of service of his best men were
expiring, and he could see no source from which to draw recruits. His
losses in the recent engagement had not been so great as those of
his opponent; but Marion and Lee had been unable to prevent Watson
from rejoining his chief. Still Greene did not lose heart. As soon as
his men had recovered from fatigue he crossed the Wateree and posted
himself at Twenty-five-Mile Creek, on the road from Camden to Fishing
Creek and the Catawba settlements.

Watson reached Camden on May 7th. On the evening of the same day Rawdon
moved out from his fortifications, and, crossing the Wateree, turned
on Greene, intending to pass his flank and attack him from the rear.
But Greene was too vigilant, for, learning of Rawdon's departure from
Camden, he retired still higher up the river, first to Sandy's Creek
and later to Colonel's Creek, the latter being nine miles from his
former position. The position on the further bank of Colonel's Creek
was very favorable to the party attacked. The light troops had been
left in the front, as at Hobkirk's Hill. Coming upon them at Sandy's
Creek, Rawdon mistook them for the main body, and their position
seemed so strong that he did not feel willing to risk an attack. It
was impossible for him to remain longer in Camden with Greene in such
threatening attitude, especially as his line of communication with
Charleston was in the hands of Lee and Marion. On the 10th, leaving his
wounded who were unable to be moved at Camden, Rawdon evacuated that
place, and marching to the east of the Santee, he crossed at Nelson's
Ferry and took post at Monk's Corner, not more than thirty miles from
Charleston.

[Illustration: RAWDON.

From Doyle's _Official Baronage_, ii. 151. The likeness by Reynolds
was painted in 1789, and is at Windsor Castle, and is engraved in the
_European Mag._, June, 1791; it was also engraved in mezzotint by
John Jones. Cf. Hamilton's _Engraved Works of Reynolds_, pp. 56, 183,
and J. C. Smith's _Brit. Mezzotint Portraits_, ii. 767. Cf. Irving's
_Washington_, 4^o ed., iv. 331.—ED.] There is an account of Rawdon's
career to date in _Pol. Mag._, ii. 339, and Lossing has given a sketch
of his life in _Harper's Monthly_, xlvii. 15. He is better known by his
later title of Marquis of Hastings, which he bore as governor-general
of India. Cf. note to p. 49 of _Cornwallis Corresp._ It is to be noted
that both he and his chief, Cornwallis, showed a humanity in after life
which did not grace their careers in America.]

One of the motives which had induced Rawdon to make this precipitate
retreat was the hope of saving the garrison of Fort Motte, an important
post on the Congaree, near its confluence with the Wateree. Lee and
Marion had appeared before the place on the 8th. They had pushed the
siege with vigor, but were so destitute of artillery and siege tools
that it seemed the siege might be prolonged until the coming of Rawdon
should enforce its abandonment. Happily it occurred to some one that
the roof of Mrs. Motte's house, which stood in the middle of the
inclosure, could be set on fire. It is related that Mrs. Motte herself
furnished the bow and arrows with which this was accomplished. At any
rate, soon after Rawdon's watch-fires were seen in the distance the
house was on fire, the stockade untenable, and the garrison prisoners
of war. Marion then separated from Lee, and, turning toward Charleston,
compelled the enemy to look well to his communications.

When Rawdon evacuated Camden he sent orders to the commander at Fort
Granby to retire to Charleston, and directed Cruger, at Ninety-Six, to
join Brown at Augusta. Neither of these orders reached its destination.
As soon as the post at Motte's had surrendered, Lee was ordered to
Fort Granby. Proceeding with his usual celerity, he arrived before the
place in the night of the 14th. His single piece of artillery opened
on the fort as soon as the morning fog had dispersed. The garrison was
completely taken by surprise. Time being of the utmost importance to
Lee, the besieged were promised their baggage—in reality the property
of plundered patriots—if they would immediately surrender. The terms
were accepted, and Lee joined Pickens at Augusta.[1025]

Lee reached this place on the evening of the 21st of May. On his way
he had captured a small stockade, containing, under a strong guard,
valuable stores for the Indians. Augusta is, or rather was, situated
on the southern bank of the Savannah River. Its defences consisted
of a strong work, Fort Cornwallis, in the centre of the town. It was
garrisoned by a force of regulars under Lieutenant-Colonel Brown, who
had already once successfully defended the place. Not far from Fort
Cornwallis was a smaller work, named after its defender Fort Grierson.
While Lee watched the garrison of the larger fort, Pickens and Clarke
advanced to the attack of Fort Grierson. Its defenders soon were
compelled to leave their stronghold for the main fort. Their attempt
to reach it was a vain one, as most of the garrison were captured or
killed.[1026]

The attack on Fort Cornwallis was now pressed with vigor. As at Fort
Watson, use was here made of an expedient, already tried in the
campaign, of advancing a log pen or Mahem tower, on the top of which
was mounted the besiegers' only piece of artillery, whence it was
used with great effect. The defence was most gallant, the garrison
often sallying, and even attempting to blow up a house in which a
covering party of riflemen were to have been placed; but the explosion
was premature. Everything being ready for an assault, the garrison
capitulated after one of the most splendid defences of the war. Lee
then went to the assistance of Greene, who was now conducting the siege
of Ninety-Six.

The village of Ninety-Six was then situated near the Saluda River,
about twenty-five miles from Augusta. For many years a post had been
established there as a protection against the Indians. When the British
overran the State, it was selected as a proper position for one of the
exterior line of posts of which Camden was the most important, though
the possession of Augusta gave to the British the command of upper
Georgia. When Camden was evacuated, Ninety-Six became useless and
should have been abandoned; but the messengers bearing Rawdon's orders
to that effect were stopped by the Americans. When, therefore, Greene
arrived before the place, on the 22d of May, he found it defended
by Lieutenant-Colonel Cruger, with about 500 men, mainly New York
loyalists. A stockade protected the rivulet which supplied the garrison
with water, and their main fort, the "Star", had sixteen salient and
reëntering angles. Greene was not strong enough completely to invest
this fort, and he contented himself with an attempt to carry it by
regular approaches.

This was Greene's first siege, and, unfortunately, he had no engineer
of the requisite ability. Acting on the advice of Kosciusko, ground was
broken at a distance of seventy paces from the "Star." The besieged
soon sallied, destroyed the uncompleted works, and retired with
trifling loss, taking with them the intrenching tools. The British were
surprised at the temerity of the Americans in opening their trenches so
near. The sally taught Greene a lesson, for he next opened a trench at
a distance of four hundred paces, under the protection of a ravine. The
work was now pushed with vigor, and, notwithstanding numerous sallies
on the part of the garrison, by the morning of June 18th the third
parallel was completed. The assailants were now within six feet of the
ditch, while riflemen in a Mahem tower kept the besieged from their
guns during the day.

[Illustration: KOSCIUSZKO.

NOTE ON PORTRAIT OF KOSCIUSZKO.—After an engraving by Anton
Oleszeynski. Cf. Dr. Theodor Flathe's _Geschichte der neuesten Zeit_
(Berlin, 1887), i. p. 205. Cf. A. W. W. Evans's _Memoir of Kosciusko_,
privately printed for the Cincinnati Society, 1883. There was a model
made in wax from life by C. Andras, from which an engraving was made by
W. Sharp (W. S. Baker's _William Sharp, Engraver_, Philad., 1875, p.
66).

There are some notes on Kosciusko by Gen. Armstrong in the _Sparks
MSS._ Cf. Greene's _Hist. View_, 297, and B. P. Poore's _Index_, for
his claims on the United States (p. 131).—ED.]

Lee with the "Legion" had arrived from Augusta on the 3d, and had
conducted operations against the stockade covering the watering-place
with such vigor that it had been evacuated on the 17th. Four days more
would have placed the garrison in the power of the besiegers. But it
was not so to be. Rawdon, in Charleston, had received considerable
reinforcements direct from Ireland, and early in June he pushed forward
through the heat, and eluded Sumter.[1027] With Rawdon within a day's
march, Greene must either take the fort by storm or abandon the siege.
He decided on an assault,—probably more to satisfy the desires of his
men than because he thought it was the best thing to be done. On the
18th, at noon, the attack was made in two columns, Greene not being
willing to hazard his whole force in a general storm. On the extreme
right, Lee, with "Legion" infantry and the remains of the gallant
Delaware regiment, directed his efforts against the stockaded fort,
which had already been abandoned, according to the British account of
the siege. At all events, Lee had no trouble in carrying out his part
of the work. But on the other flank the assault was not so successful.
Lieutenant-Colonel Campbell, with his Virginia regiment and with the
1st Maryland, formed the storming column. They advanced with great
gallantry, but, though they gained the ditch, they could not effect a
lodgment on the parapet. They were driven back with considerable loss
by two parties of the besieged, which attacked them in the ditch on
both flanks in such a way that the artillery and riflemen in the tower
could not fire without injuring friend and foe alike. Greene called off
his men, and Rawdon being within a few miles, he retired on the next
morning to a safe place of retreat. In the end he retreated as far as
Timm's Ordinary, between the Broad and Catawba rivers. Rawdon, his men
worn down with their long march, could not overtake him, and finally
halting on the banks of the Enroree, he turned back to Ninety-Six. That
place being untenable with the means at his disposal, he divided his
men into two parties. With one he regained the low country, resigning
the command to Stuart on account of ill-health.[1028] Gathering the
Tories of the neighborhood, Cruger escorted them to Charleston, while
Greene led his army to the High Hills of the Santee, where he passed
the heats of the summer.

At length, toward the end of August, Greene learned that Stuart was
proposing to establish a fortified post at a strong and healthful
position called Eutaw Springs. Greene determined to prevent this,
and descending from his camp he made a wide detour to get across the
river which separated the two armies; for although he was distant from
Stuart only sixteen miles as a bird flies, the most practicable route
was nearly seventy miles long. He crossed the Wateree at Camden, and,
marching parallel to the river, crossed its affluent, the Congaree,
at Howell's Ferry on the 28th and 29th. Proceeding by slow and easy
marches, he reached Burden's plantation on the 7th of September.
At that place Marion joined him, and preparations were made for an
advance on the enemy the next day. Stuart at Eutaw seems to have been
singularly negligent. He sent out but one patrol, which was captured
by Lee. He would have been surprised had not two men deserted from the
North Carolina regiment and given him warning. As it was, he had barely
time to call in his foraging parties before Greene was upon him.

Stuart had with him about 2,300 men of all arms, Greene rather less.
The British commander ranged his men in one line, the right being
protected by Eutaw Creek, while the left was in the air, as the
military term is. Greene advanced in two lines, the militia, under
Marion, Pickens, and Malmady, being in the front. The right of the
second line was held by Sumner with the North Carolina regulars. In the
centre were the Virginia Continentals under Campbell, while on the left
J. E. Howard and Hardman led the two Maryland regiments. To Lee, who
had the advance during the march, was assigned the protection of the
right flank, Henderson with a South Carolina brigade covering the left.
The cavalry under Washington and the brave remnant of the Delaware
regiment brought up the rear, and acted as a reserve.

Here at last there was no wavering among the militia, excepting those
from North Carolina, who nevertheless fired several rounds before
breaking. Under Marion and Pickens the rest fought splendidly. It is
said that some of them fired no less than seventeen rounds before
giving way; then Sumner advanced with the North Carolina regulars. At
length they, too, were forced back; but the British following them
with too great impetuosity, their own line became deranged. This was
the opportunity for the men of Maryland and Virginia to retrieve
the reputation lost at Guilford and Hobkirk's Hill, and splendidly
they responded to the call. Rushing forward,—the Virginians alone
disobeying orders so far as to fire,—the whole burst upon the enemy
in front and swept him from the field. Unfortunately, their course led
through the British camp, and they dispersed to plunder the abandoned
tents. Now it happened that when the British fell back a party threw
themselves into a strong brick house and an adjoining picketed garden;
thence they delivered a withering fire upon the victors of a moment
before. And more unfortunate still, when the "Legion" was ordered to
charge the retiring foe, Lee could not be found, and the charge, being
made without vigor, was a failure. On the right, too, the British had
not retreated: they still occupied a flanking position, from which
they could not be dislodged, even though Washington and all but two of
his officers were killed or wounded in the attempt. All these things,
coupled with the heat, compelled Greene to sound the retreat. Leaving
such of the wounded as were within range of the brick house on the
field, he retired to his camp at Burdell's, seven miles distant, that
being the nearest point where a supply of good water could be obtained.
Both commanders claimed the victory. It would be not unfair, perhaps,
to call it a drawn battle. Neither party can be said to have retained
possession of the field, as Stuart retreated with great precipitation
from the vicinity on the night of the next day. Greene acknowledged a
loss in Continentals alone of 408 in killed and wounded. The loss in
militia has never been stated. It must have been considerable, as a
portion of the militia fought with great obstinacy. According to the
American accounts, the enemy lost in prisoners 500 men, including 70
wounded. But Stuart reported only 257 missing; his killed and wounded
he gives at 433.

As soon as Greene ascertained the retreat of the enemy he followed
with all speed; but Marion and Lee were too weak to prevent Stuart's
receiving a reinforcement. Stuart finally halted at Monk's Corner,
while Greene passed the Santee at Nelson's Ferry and retired to the
High Hills.

* * * * *

Cornwallis at Wilmington had a difficult problem to solve. Should he
go south to the relief of Rawdon, or north to the conquest of Virginia?
Another campaign in North Carolina was plainly out of the question.
The distances were so great and the country was so sparsely settled
that it was a matter of great difficulty to move any considerable force
there, even when unopposed. The recent campaign had fully demonstrated
that a bold and enterprising leader with a handful of trained troops
could seriously impair the usefulness of a royal army, even though he
could not destroy it. The best base of operations for another campaign
in South Carolina was Charleston, and the best way to get there was
by water; but any such movement looked too much like a retreat to be
seriously considered. Besides, Cornwallis did not believe that he
could get to Camden in time to relieve Rawdon, as the place was not
provisioned for a siege. On the other hand, a movement into Virginia
offered many advantages. There the army would always be within easy
march of the sea, and reinforcements could be brought from New York or
sent thither with great ease. Then, too, it seemed to Cornwallis—and
his supposition was probably correct—that with Virginia, the great
storehouse of the Southern armies, once in his hands, the complete
conquest of the Carolinas would be easy and certain. So impressed
was he with this idea that he endeavored to induce Clinton to shift
the headquarters of the army from the Hudson to the Chesapeake; but
Clinton had other views, and New York remained the base of operations.
Clinton even went further, and avowed his dislike of the whole plan
of operations; but Cornwallis had the approval of Germain, and the
northern movement was undertaken.

Clinton, however, had always looked with favor on desultory expeditions
to Virginia, as they drew the attention of that State to her own
defence, and therefore away from the defence of the Carolinas. As
early as the spring of 1779, he had sent Matthews and Collier to the
Chesapeake, with instructions to do as much damage to the Americans as
possible; but beyond plundering Portsmouth and burning Suffolk they
accomplished little, and returned to New York. The next year Leslie
was detached in the same direction to effect a diversion in favor of
Cornwallis's invasion of North Carolina. King's Mountain not only put
an end to that invasion, but compelled Cornwallis to call Leslie to
his aid. Leaving Portsmouth, which he had fortified, Leslie sailed
for Charleston, and reached the front in season to take part in the
campaign against Greene. On Leslie's withdrawal Clinton sent another
expedition to Virginia to destroy military stores which had been
collected for the supply of Greene. The command this time was given to
Arnold, though, to guard against a new treason, dormant commissions
were given to his chief officers, Lieutenant-Colonels Dundas and
Simcoe. Arnold penetrated to Richmond without encountering much
opposition. He destroyed nearly everything of value at that place, and
then endeavored to seize some arms which had at one time been deposited
at Westham. Failing in this, he descended the river to Portsmouth. The
militia had now collected in considerable numbers. For this or for
some other reason, Arnold kept within the fortifications of that place.

About this time Rochambeau had sent a few vessels to annoy the British
in the Chesapeake; but, besides capturing the "Romulus",—a 44-gun
ship,—they did little, and returned to Newport. Washington now
proposed that the two armies should unite in an attempt to capture the
traitor. To this end he detached Lafayette with the light infantry,—a
picked corps of about twelve hundred men from the New England and New
Jersey lines,—to act in unison with a force of the same size which
Rochambeau detached from his army. Lafayette, for a time concealing his
destination by a feigned attack on Staten Island, reached Annapolis
in safety. Leaving his troops there, to be brought the rest of the
way by the French fleet when it should arrive, Lafayette proceeded to
Suffolk. He found Muhlenberg, with the militia, at that place, guarding
the approaches to Portsmouth. But the French were not fortunate, since
their departure from Newport was so long delayed that the fleet arrived
off the Capes of the Chesapeake only to find Arbuthnot guarding the
entrance. In the fight which followed, both sides claimed the victory.
But all the advantages of victory were on the side of the British, as
Destouches' ships were so badly cut up that he was obliged to return
to Newport. Success now being improbable, Lafayette returned to his
troops, and the march to the North was begun. At the Head of Elk new
orders were found, directing him to return to the South and place
himself under the orders of Greene. The cause of this radical change
in plan was the reinforcement of two thousand men under Phillips which
Clinton had sent to Virginia.

Phillips arrived on March 25, and took command. Towards the end of
April, the British to the number of twenty-five hundred landed at City
Point on the James River. Steuben, who was then at Petersburg, took
up a strong position at Blandford, where the enemy found him on the
morning of April 25. He was soon obliged to retreat. The enemy then
marched to Petersburg, and destroyed a large amount of tobacco and
other valuable property. The 27th saw them at Osborn's, where they
captured, after some show of resistance, a fleet of merchant vessels.

When Phillips and Arnold arrived at Richmond they found that Lafayette
was before them. The young Frenchman had reached Baltimore on the
17th of April. Purchasing on his own credit shoes and clothes suited
to a Virginia summer, he made a forced march, and threw himself into
Richmond twenty-four hours in advance of the British. Not wishing to
attack him in such a strong position, Phillips retired down the river,
followed by the Americans. On the 7th of the next month (May, 1781),
the British commander received word from Cornwallis that he would join
him at Petersburg. Suddenly ascending the river, he reoccupied that
town on the night of the 9th. On the 13th Phillips died, and a week
later Cornwallis arrived and assumed command, Arnold returning to New
York.

Then followed a series of marches, the design of the British commander
being to cut Lafayette off from Wayne, who was marching to his support.
But Lafayette moved with too great celerity. Early in June the desired
junction of the Americans was made near Raccoon Ford, on the Rapidan.
Meantime, while Lafayette was out of reach, Cornwallis sent out two
expeditions. The first, under Simcoe, operated against Steuben, at that
time guarding the stores at the Point of Fork. The Prussian veteran,
mistaking Simcoe's detachment for the main army, abandoned the stores
and retired with great precipitation. The second expedition, led by
Tarleton, was designed for the capture of the civil rulers of Virginia,
but a Virginia Paul Revere warned them of their danger in time, and
they made good their escape,—though it is said that Jefferson, then
resting from the fatigues of the session at Monticello, had but five
minutes to spare. But the raid, successful, or not, had no importance,
although popular writers are wont to dwell upon it.

[Illustration: STEUBEN.

From Du Simitière's _Thirteen Portraits_, London, 1783. Cf. _Harper's
Mag._, lxiii p. 336, and the lives of Steuben.—ED.]

With Wayne and his Pennsylvanians, in addition to his own Light
Infantry, Lafayette felt strong enough again to oppose the enemy
in the field. By a well-executed movement through an unknown and
long-disused road, the young marquis placed himself between Cornwallis
and Albemarle Old Court House, whither the stores had been removed
from Richmond. Cornwallis, instead of attacking him, retired down the
James, Lafayette following at a distance of about twenty miles. On the
25th of June the British were at Williamsburg, the Americans being
not far off, at Bottom's Bridge. While at Williamsburg, Cornwallis
sent Simcoe to destroy some boats and stores which had been collected
on the Chickahominy. Lafayette, on his part, detached Butler of
the Pennsylvania line, with orders to attack Simcoe on his return.
A partial engagement ensued at Spencer's Ordinary, which ended in
Simcoe's being able to continue his retreat.

It can hardly be said that this retrograde movement on the part of the
British was due to the presence of Lafayette, although his presence
undoubtedly contributed toward making Cornwallis desirous of getting
into communication with Clinton. It is probable, too, that Cornwallis
hoped to be so strongly reinforced that the conquest of the State
during the coming autumn would be assured. But Clinton, believing, from
intercepted despatches, and from the movements of the Americans, that
Washington was meditating an attack on New York, instead of complying
with Cornwallis's desires, ordered him to send a portion of his own
troops to New York.

[Illustration]

[Illustration:

After a sketch supposed to be by Fersen, aide of Rochambeau, and
following a reproduction given in Balch's _Les Français en Amérique_,
p. 174. Cf. Irving's _Washington_, quarto ed., and E. M. Stone's _Our
French Allies_, p. 281; _Harper's Mag._, lxiii. 329.—ED.]

The latter, therefore, retired to Portsmouth, where the embarkation
could be easily effected. To Lafayette, the crossing of the James
seemed to offer the chance of at least picking off a rear guard; but
Cornwallis was attacked too soon, owing in part to the impetuosity of
Wayne, and the onset came near being a disaster. In the end, however,
Wayne succeeded in bringing off his men, though he lost two pieces of
artillery. Cornwallis, fearing an ambuscade, did not push the pursuit.
He then made his way to Portsmouth unmolested, while the Americans
sought a healthy summer camp on Malvern Hill. Just at this moment,
owing to the arrival of reinforcements in New York, Clinton decided
to leave Cornwallis's force intact. Furthermore, he determined to
establish a permanent base in the Chesapeake, and ordered Cornwallis
to fortify a place, mentioning Old Point Comfort, where the navy could
be sheltered. He also authorized him to take possession of some other
post, as Yorktown, if he thought it necessary. Now Cornwallis seems to
have regarded the fortifying of Yorktown as the only alternative, and
the engineers and naval officers declaring Old Point Comfort unsuitable
for a naval station, he seized York and Gloucester, and began the
erection of the proper works. Clinton always asserted that he had no
intention of ordering anything of the kind. But the weight of evidence
seems to be in favor of Cornwallis. At all events, he took possession
of Yorktown. As soon as his movements were discovered, Lafayette left
his summer camp, and, taking a strong position in the fork of the
Pamunkey and Mattapony rivers, sent out parties to watch the further
movements of the enemy, Wayne being ordered toward the south, as if
to the assistance of Greene. Such was the situation in Virginia when
the French came to the aid of the Americans, and began the operations
leading to the siege of Yorktown.

On the 1st and 2d of May, 1780, the Marquis of Rochambeau, with about
five thousand men, left the roadstead of Brest. The transports were
convoyed by a small fleet of seven ships of the line, under the command
of the Chevalier de Ternay. Their progress was slow, and it was not
until July 12th that the fleet anchored in Newport harbor.[1029]
Batteries were immediately erected on shore to protect the shipping
from the English fleet, which was under Arbuthnot. This admiral,
hastening from Charleston, in company with Clinton, now bent his whole
energy toward the destruction of the French fleet. But the British
commanders, always on bad terms, quarrelled, and Washington threatening
New York, while the New England militia rallied to the defence of their
newly arrived allies, the attempt on Newport was abandoned. A naval
blockade was kept up, however, and the French army was neutralized by a
few ships of war. Thus they passed the remainder of 1780 and the first
part of 1781.

On the 8th of May (1781) M. de Barras, successor to De Ternay, who
had died in the preceding year,[1030] arrived at Boston. He brought
news of the departure from Brest of a powerful fleet commanded by M.
de Grasse. This French admiral had with him a small convoy with six
hundred recruits for Rochambeau; but the bulk of his fleet was destined
primarily for the West Indies. De Grasse had been directed, however,
to come on the American coast in July or August, relieve the fleet at
Newport, and for a limited period act in conjunction with the American
and French armies. On May 21st a conference between Washington and
the French commanders was held at Weathersfield, in Connecticut. It
was there determined to make a united attack upon New York, provided
De Grasse could coöperate. This was Washington's plan, though an
expedition against the British in Virginia seems even then to have been
proposed. Later a note from De Grasse arrived, asking where he should
strike the American coast. Rochambeau replied that it would be best
for him to look into the Chesapeake, and then, should no employment
be found there, to proceed to New York. Rochambeau also inclosed the
articles of the Weathersfield conference, hinting at the same time that
De Grasse must be his own judge as to the practicability of crossing
the New York bar with his ships. Finally he asked him to borrow for
three months the brigade under St. Simon, which was destined to act in
conjunction with the Spaniards.

On the 18th the advance of the French left Providence for the Hudson.
Washington at this time was encamped at Peekskill. Ten days later,
on June 28th, he determined to seize by surprise, if possible, the
forts on the northern end of New York Island. The night of July 2d was
selected for the enterprise, and the command of the advance was given
to Lincoln; Lauzun, with the French Legion, making a forced march to
his aid. But the scheme failed. The enemy attacked Lincoln, and Lauzun
reached the scene of conflict too late to be of assistance. The troops
were drawn off in safety, however, and retired to Dobbs Ferry, where
they were joined by the French infantry on July 6th. While awaiting the
arrival of the fleet, nothing was attempted beyond a reconnoissance
in force of the northern defences of the island. It was this movement
which induced Clinton to send for the Virginia troops.

On August 14th a letter from De Grasse arrived which put a new face on
the whole war; for the French admiral announced that he should sail for
the Chesapeake, with a view to carry out the scheme of Rochambeau for
a united movement against Cornwallis. He added that his stay on the
American coast would be short, and that he hoped the land forces would
be ready to act with him.

[Illustration: FRENCH OFFICERS.]

There was now nothing to be done but to abandon the cherished project
against New York, and to move all of the allied armies that could
be spared from the vicinity of New York to the Chesapeake. Leaving
Heath with four thousand men to garrison the forts on the Hudson, and
suitable parties to guard against an irruption from Canada, Washington
set out with the rest of the land forces for Williamsburg, by the
way of Philadelphia, Head of Elk, and the Chesapeake. On the 19th
the army crossed the Hudson at King's Ferry, and moved as though to
attack Staten Island. This feint was so well managed that Clinton was
completely deceived. On September 2d the Americans marched through
Philadelphia, the French following on the 3d, 4th, and 5th. By the
8th the allied army was again united at the Head of Elk. The news of
the arrival of De Grasse at the Capes of the Chesapeake had reached
Washington on the 5th, and had been communicated to the troops on the
following morning.[1031]

De Grasse, on his arrival at Lynnhaven Bay, just inside Cape Henry, had
found an aide of Lafayette's, and soon the marquis arrived in person.
As soon as possible the troops under St. Simon were landed at Jamestown
Island, and Wayne was recalled from his southward march. These corps,
with the light infantry and the Virginia militia, took up a strong
position at Williamsburg, not more than twelve miles from Yorktown.
Cornwallis reconnoitred the lines; but they were too strong to be
attacked except at great risk. Confident in being relieved by Clinton
and Graves, he retired to his fortifications.

Had Rodney done his full duty he would have followed De Grasse in his
northward cruise. But pleading illness, he sent fourteen ships of the
line, under Hood, to the assistance of Graves, and sailed himself for
Europe.[1032] The event was most fortunate for the American cause,
as the control of the sea for a brief period passed away from the
British. It should be said that Rodney had written to Graves, warning
him of his danger; but through a fortunate accident the letter never
reached Graves, and the first he heard of the coming of De Grasse was
on the arrival of Hood. That admiral on August 25th had looked into
the Chesapeake on his way north; but the French had not yet arrived.
Graves had already discovered that Barras had sailed from Newport with
a siege train and tools, and the two admirals, conjecturing, therefore,
that the destination of Barras was the Chesapeake, determined to seek
him there and destroy him before the arrival of the main fleet. They
reached Cape Henry on the 5th of September, and there they found, not
Barras, as he had purposely taken a long, roundabout route to avoid
them, but De Grasse. The English fleet numbered nineteen sail of the
line, the French twenty-four, but fifteen hundred men were absent,
engaged in landing the troops of St. Simon. Nevertheless, De Grasse
slipped his cables and stood out to sea. The ensuing action was
indecisive, but De Grasse accomplished his purpose, as the British were
obliged to seek New York to refit. On his arrival back at Lynnhaven
Bay he found Barras. There was now abundant transportation, and by
the 26th of September the allied troops—Washington's, Rochambeau's,
Lafayette's, and St. Simon's—were concentrated at Williamsburg.

Two days later, on the 28th, the allied army marched to Yorktown, and
found Cornwallis occupying an intrenched camp outside the immediate
defences of the town. On the 29th the lines were extended so as to
envelop the place, the Americans taking the right, with their right
flank resting on Wormley Creek. Cornwallis, seeing that he would be
outflanked, withdrew to the inner defences, and on the morning of the
30th the besiegers took possession of the abandoned works.[1033]

[Illustration: COUNT DE GRASSE.

From Andrews's _Hist. of the War_, Lond., 1785, vol. ii. Cf. _European
Mag._, ii. 83; Hennequin's _Biographie maritime_, iii. 297; E. M.
Stone's _French Allies_, 396, 398; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, vi. p. 1;
_Harper's Mag._, lxiii. 330.

[Illustration]

_The Operations of the French feet under the Count de Grasse in
1781-82, as described in two Contemporary Journals_ (New York, 1864,
for the Bradford Club, 150 copies), edited by John G. Shea, gives two
narratives, of which one purports to have been written by a certain
Chevalier de Goussencourt, who is hostile and cannot be identified,
while the other is anonymous and friendly. This last had been printed
at Amsterdam in 1782, and it is suspected was written by De Grasse
himself. A sketch of De Grasse's life, for which his family gave
material, is prefixed. It also contains (p. 192) the account, abridged
from the _Gazette de France_, Nov. 20th, in the _Remembrancer_, xiii.
46. A _Notice Biographique_ of De Grasse, by his son, was published in
Paris in 1840.—ED.]

[Illustration: COMTE DE GRASSE.

From the _London Mag._, Aug., 1782, p. 355. There is a profile head in
_The Operations of the French fleet under the Count De Grasse_ (N. Y.
1864).—ED.]

On the night of the 5th and 6th of October the first parallel was
opened, at a distance of between five and six hundred yards from the
enemy's works. It extended from the river bank below the town to a deep
ravine nearly opposite the centre of the besieged lines. A battery on
the bank above the town opposed a battery of the enemy in that quarter,
and also prevented the British fleet from enfilading the works. Guns
were mounted and fire opened from this parallel on the afternoon of
the 9th. The ground was singularly favorable to the construction of
the approaches, and by the night of the 11th and 12th the works were
in such a state of forwardness that the second parallel was begun, not
more than three hundred yards from the British lines. On the extreme
right, however, there were two redoubts, commanding this parallel,
which on the night of the 14th and 15th were carried by storm,—the
smaller one, on the right, by Lafayette's division, the advance being
commanded by Alexander Hamilton; while the one further away from the
river was stormed by a party of French infantry commanded by Colonel G.
de Deux-Ponts, the Baron de Viomenil having command of the division.
The loss on the American side was inconsiderable, but that of the
French was severe, the redoubt carried by them being larger and much
more strongly garrisoned. Before morning the two redoubts were included
in the second parallel. Cornwallis, hoping for relief, determined to
prolong the defence as long as possible. To this end, on the morning of
the 16th, Lieutenant-Colonel Abercrombie led a determined but useless
assault on two batteries at the French end of the trenches. Cornwallis
next tried, on the night of the same day, to cut his way out by passing
his men over to Gloucester Point; but a storm arose in the midst of the
ferrying, and the enterprise, hazardous at best, was abandoned.

An assault becoming practicable, at ten o'clock of the morning of the
17th, four years since Burgoyne's surrender, a drummer-boy appeared on
the parapet and beat a parley. Negotiations were begun, but, though
pushed with the greatest energy by Washington, the final articles were
not signed in the trenches until two days later, on the 19th. On that
day, at noon, two redoubts were taken possession of by detachments from
the French and American forces. At two in the afternoon the British
army, with colors cased and drums beating "The World turned upside
down", marched out and laid down their arms; O'Hara, in the absence
of Cornwallis, making the formal surrender to Lincoln, Washington's
representative.

At the beginning of the siege the British numbered not far from seven
thousand men of all arms,—perhaps a few more. On the day of the
capitulation, according to Cornwallis, little more than thirty-eight
hundred were fit for duty, including the garrison at Gloucester Point.
The allied army is usually given at sixteen thousand men,—nine
thousand Americans, including thirty-five hundred militia. The French
numbered probably more than seven thousand. The total British loss
during the siege was five hundred and forty-one, including the missing.
The allied loss, excluding the missing, was seventy-six Americans and
one hundred and eighty French. It has been stated that, at the time
of the surrender, there were about fourteen hundred unfit for duty in
the allied camp. This great victory, due even more than most victories
to chance, virtually ended the war. It remains only to describe the
closing scenes in the South.

[Illustration: CAPITULATION OF YORKTOWN.

From a fac-simile of the articles in Smith and Watson's _Hist. and Lit.
Curios._, 1st ser., 6th ed., pl. xxxiv. Cf. Lossing's _Field-Book_,
ii. 523. The articles are given in Shea's _Operations of the French
fleet_, p. 78; R. E. Lee's ed. of Lee's _Memoirs_, 509; Tarleton, 438;
_Polit. Mag._, ii. 67; Sparks's _Washington_, viii. App. 8; _Cornwallis
Corresp._, App.—ED.]

[Illustrtation: NELSON HOUSE, YORKTOWN.

After a drawing given in Meade's _Churches and Families of Virginia_,
i. 204. It was here that Cornwallis had his headquarters.

See other views and accounts in Balch's _Les Français en Amérique_,
1; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (1881), vii. 47 (by R. A. Brock); x. 458,
July, 1881; Brotherhead's _Signers of the Declaration of Independence_
(1861), p. 61; E. M. Stone's _Our French Allies_, p. 428; G. W. P.
Custis's _Recoll. of Washington_, p. 337. A journal of Mr. Samuel
Vaughan in 1787, owned by Dr. Charles Deane, describes the havoc made
in this house by the bombardment.

The Moore house, at which the terms of surrender were arranged, is
depicted in _Appleton's Journal_, xii. 705; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
vi. 16 (etching); E. M. Stone's _French Allies_, 466; Lossing's
_Field-Book_, ii. 530. Washington's headquarters at Williamsburg is
shown in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, vii. 270. A view of the field
where the arms were laid down is in Paulding's _Washington_, vol.
ii. The so-called Cornwallis Cave is drawn in _Scribner's Mag._, v.
141. For other landmarks, see Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 509; _Cycl.
U. S. Hist._, 155-157; Porte Crayon's "Shrines of Old Virginia" in
_Lippincott's Mag._, April, 1879. In the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (1881),
pp. 270, 275, are views of Washington's headquarters at Williamsburg;
and of those, earlier occupied by Cornwallis, the president's house of
William and Mary College.

For the Yorktown and Saratoga medal, see Loubat's _Medallic Hist. U.
S._; _Amer. Jl. of Numismatics_, xv. 76; _Coin Collectors' Journal_,
vi. 173; Sparks's _Franklin_, ix. 173.

The best known picture of the surrender is Trumbull's painting, which
is engraved in _Harper's Mag._, lxiii. 344, and elsewhere. Cf. early
engravings of the scene in Barnard's _Hist. of England_; in Godefroy's
_Recueil d'Estamps_ (Paris, 1784).—ED.]

Greene's army had been so roughly handled at the Eutaws that it was the
first of November before he felt strong enough again to take the field.
He advanced first to Dorchester and the Round O. Then, reinforcements
arriving from the troops set free by the surrender at Yorktown, he
assumed a more vigorous offensive. He advanced to the eastern bank
of the Edisto, between Jacksonborough, where the legislature was
then assembling, and Charleston, still in the hands of the British.
But if the Pennsylvanians were a welcome addition on account of
their strength, they brought also a spirit of discontent. A plot was
discovered to betray the army into the power of the enemy. A few
examples were made and the attempted treason stamped out.

Greene now detached Wayne, with about five hundred men, to do what he
could toward the recovery of the Georgia seaboard. On his approach
the British retired to Savannah, burning everything that could not
be removed. Wayne was too weak to attempt more than the blockade of
the town. But on the 21st of May Lieutenant-Colonel Brown left the
fortifications as if to attack the Americans. Placing himself between
this party and the garrison, Wayne surprised Brown by a night attack,
killing or dispersing the whole party. About a month later he was
himself surprised by a large body of Creek Indians led by a British
officer. Successful at first, the savages were finally beaten off, with
the loss of their chief Escomaligo and a dozen braves. On the 11th of
the next month, July, 1782, Savannah was evacuated, and the whole State
once more came into the hands of the Americans.

The British government had decided upon the abandonment of all posts
in America with the exception of New York. On August 7th, Leslie,
then commanding in the South, announced in "after orders" that the
evacuation of Charleston had been determined on. He also wrote to
Greene, proposing a cessation of hostilities. The proposal was
declined, Greene having no instructions on the point. Later Leslie
again wrote, offering to pay for all rice and other provisions that
might be brought into Charleston; but Greene, fearing that the rice
was intended for use during a campaign against the French in the
West Indies, again refused. Leslie then endeavored to seize the
coveted articles by force. One of his foraging parties, commanded by
Lieutenant Benjamin Thompson,—better known by his later title of Count
Rumford,—surprised and dispersed Marion's brigade while its commander
was absent attending a meeting of the legislature. The most serious
loss through these desultory expeditions was in the death of the
younger Laurens, who was killed during a useless skirmish at Combahee
Ferry. This was the last action of the war in the South. On the 14th of
December the British left Charleston, and three days later their last
ship passed the bar and went to sea. The South was free.

CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THE most complete contemporary account of the Southern campaign is
David Ramsay's _Revolution of South Carolina_.[1034] This author, by
birth a Pennsylvanian, removed to Charleston in 1773, and at once
took a leading part in the management of the affairs of that town.
During the stormy years of 1779-1780 he was a member of the governor's
council, but went with the Charleston artillery company to the siege
of Savannah. When Rutledge, with a portion of his council, left
Charleston during the siege, Ramsay remained behind with Gadsden. He
was, therefore, a prisoner during the greater portion of Gates's and
Greene's campaigns. Ramsay was thus a prominent actor in many of the
scenes described in his volumes, while his facilities for obtaining
accurate information as to the rest were so excellent that his book
may be regarded as an authority of the first importance. He retold the
story in a condensed form in several other publications.

[Illustration: NATHANAEL GREENE. (_Norman's print._)]

Moultrie[1035] was a prominent actor in the defence of his native
State before the capitulation of Charleston. After that he resided
with the other officers at Haddrell's Point until his exchange in
1781. At a later day he was present at the entry of the victorious
army into Charleston. Whenever he speaks from his own observation,
Moultrie may be trusted[1036]. But he seems to have been too ready to
listen to exaggerated stories, and though we must believe that there
was a foundation for his account of the sufferings of the Charleston
prisoners, it should always be remembered that the charges were
indignantly denied by the British officers in charge.

[Illustration: GENERAL GREENE. (_From Andrews' History of the War._)

PORTRAITS OF GENERAL GREENE.—One of the earliest of the contemporary
prints is the rude copperplate, made by the Boston engraver Norman,
which appeared in the Boston edition (1781, vol. ii. p. 229) of _An
Impartial History of the War in America_. A fac-simile is annexed. In
1785, Andrews' _History of the War_, published in London (vol. i.), had
a youthful picture, a reproduction of which is also given herewith.
The next year the _Columbian Magazine_ (Sept., 1786), published in
Philadelphia, gave an engraving after R. Peale's likeness of Greene, of
which a better engraving by Robert Whitechurch can be found in Irving's
_Washington_ (ii. p. 8) and in E. M. Stone's _French Allies_ (p. 496).
In 1794 the _New York Magazine_ (May) gave as from an original painting
a copperplate engraving, of which a fac-simile is given on another
page. It is evidently a rendering of the canvas of which, after a
photograph given in George W. Greene's _Life of Greene_, the woodcut on
the page opposite to the other is a more adequate representation. There
is also a print in the _Monthly Military Repository_, N. Y., 1796-1797.
A portrait by C. W. Peale was engraved, while in the Philadelphia
Museum, by Edwin, and appeared in Lee's _Memoirs of the War in the
Southern Department_ (vol. i., Philadelphia, 1812). It was again
engraved by James Neagle in 1819 for Charles Caldwell's _Memoirs of the
life and character of the Honorable Nathanael Greene_ (Philadelphia,
1819); and in 1822 it furnished the head and shoulders, turned in
the opposite direction, for the full-length figure, engraved by J.
B. Longacre, after a drawing by H. Bounetheau, which is in the first
volume of William Johnson's _Sketches of the life and correspondence
of Nathaniel Greene_ (Charleston, 1822). One of the pleasantest of the
likenesses of Greene is that painted by Col. John Trumbull, which was
engraved by J. B. Forrest for the _National Portrait Gallery_ (New
York, 1834). The same picture is selected by W. G. Simms for his _Life
of Greene_, and it is given in R. E. Lee's ed. of Henry Lee's _Memoirs
of the War_ (N. Y. 1869), and H. B. Anthony's _Memorial Address_
(Providence, 1875) on presenting the statue of Greene to Congress.
This statue, modelled by Henry K. Brown, was offered in 1870, and a
cut of it is given in the _Presentation of the Statue of Major-General
Greene in the Senate_, Jane 20, 1870 (Washington, 1870), an account
of which, under the title of _Proceedings in Congress attending the
reception of the statue of Maj.-Gen. Greene_, was reprinted (twenty
copies) in Providence the same year. For congressional documents
pertaining, see B. P. Poore's _Descriptive Catal. of U. S. Gov't
publications_, pp. 896, 901, 1221. Congress voted a medal to Greene
after the battle of Eutaw, and on one side it bears a profile likeness
of Greene. It is engraved in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 704; and in
_Ibid._ p. 720, is a view of the monument erected to the memories
of Greene and Pulaski. The Polish hero has since, however, been
commemorated in a separate monument, so that the shaft first erected
is now called a memorial of Greene alone. Greene died in 1786 of a
sunstroke, at a plantation near Savannah, which had been given to
him by the State of Georgia,—it being the confiscated estate of the
late royal lieutenant-governor,—and he was buried in Savannah; but
when the monument was built, the search to discover his remains was
unsuccessful. Cf. _The Sepulture of Greene and Pulaski, by C. C. Jones,
Jr._ (Augusta, 1885)—ED.]

Henry Lee, of Virginia,—"Light-Horse" or "Legion Harry", as he was
often called,—though not in the South prior to the days of the
Cowpens, was so intimate with all the actors in the operations after
the fall of Charleston, and enjoyed such advantages for acquiring
information of earlier events, that as a source of information his
book[1037] is of considerable value. As the work of an outspoken and
generally impartial military critic of these campaigns, it has no
equal. It should be borne in mind, however, that as to dates and minor
details it needs the confirmation of contemporary documents.[1038] Like
so many of the Revolutionary heroes, Lee in his later years became
involved in unfortunate speculations, and a painful disease increased
the distress of his last days.[1039] As an orator he fashioned phrases
which have not yet lost their hold on the popular mind. As a writer he
avoided the stilted sentences of his contemporaries, and his book may
still be read with pleasure. Probably no one enjoyed the confidence of
Greene to such an extent as Henry Lee.[1040]

Nathanael Greene came of good Rhode Island stock,[1041] and, like
other prominent Rhode Islanders of his day, was a self-educated man.
Fortunately for posterity, though not always for himself, Greene was a
copious and candid letter-writer. His letters and fragments of letters,
so far as they have been printed, are his best biography.[1042] He has
not lacked biographers, however. First, in point of time, was Charles
Caldwell, who put forth a worthless volume as early as 1819.[1043]
William Gilmore Simms, the Carolina novelist, also tried his hand
at the alluring theme, and his book, while possessing no claim to
originality, has at least the merit of being interesting. The most
formidable of these early biographies was the work of Judge Johnson,
of Charleston. He enjoyed the best facilities, as the Greenes placed
the family papers at his disposal. Many of these documents he printed
at length, and as a repository his work has a value.[1044] In other
respects it is worth very little. This is due mainly to the fact
that in order to glorify his hero he belittled every other prominent
character—with the exception of Marion.[1045] A formidable antagonist
of Johnson was soon found in the person of Henry Lee, the son of
Light-Horse Harry. He resented the slurs of Johnson, and even wrote
a book[1046] to show the small reliance to be placed on the learned
judge's military criticisms. As a review, the work of the younger Lee
is interesting, but it is so one-sided as to be of little importance.

It is, however, to the labors of a descendant that the great leader
owes much of the honor in which he is held. In various publications,
from the little seven-page sketch in the _Pennsylvania Magazine of
History_ (vol. ii. p. 84) to the large three-volume biography,[1047]
the grandson sought to spread the fame of the grandsire. Unfortunately,
through these family works of love there runs the same spirit of
adulation that so disfigured Johnson. A still greater drawback to the
value of the largest work is the hesitation of the author in printing
letters and documents not elsewhere in print.

In this respect the biographer of Greene's able lieutenant, Daniel
Morgan, set a good example. In fact, Graham's _Morgan_[1048] is an
excellent and generally trustworthy book. It is to be noted that
Graham has cleared Morgan from the charge that he retired from the army
after the Cowpens, through a treasonable fear that the Revolution would
not be successful. Nor does the assertion that Morgan was chagrined at
the treatment accorded him by Greene appear to be well founded.

[Illustration: GENERAL GREENE. (_New York Magazine, 1794._)]

But of all the Southern leaders, Marion was most fortunate in his
biographers.[1049] It is true that Horry's work was largely written by
Mason L. Weems, notorious for his so-called _Life of Washington_. Both
Horry and James had a foundation for their narratives. The confidence
reposed by Greene in his ablest leader of irregular troops is best seen
in their letters printed by Gibbes in his _Documentary History_,[1050]
which is composed mainly of the "Horry Papers", already used in
Horry's memoir. Another partisan worthy of mention was Pickens. But of
him only slight and unworthy sketches have been printed.[1051]

The only extended notice of Benjamin Lincoln is the biography by
Francis Bowen in Sparks's collection.[1052] This book was not written
in the calm judicial spirit that should characterize an historical
work. Many of Lincoln's order-books have been preserved, and have
been of material service in preparing the foregoing narrative. Though
Lincoln's career was marked by no brilliant successes, his work was
always well done, and demands a fuller recognition.[1053]

[Illustration: GENERAL GREENE. (_After a Photograph of a Painting._)]

Little original material concerning the operations in Georgia has come
to light. It is fortunate, therefore, that Hugh McCall overcame his
physical infirmities to such an extent as to enable him to finish the
second volume of his _History of Georgia_. This writer was an active
cavalry leader in the defence of his native State. He also fought well
on other fields. It should he said, however, that what he wrote of
actions in which he did not take part should be received with caution.
His work is the basis of all subsequent accounts of the war in Georgia.

[Illustration]

Anthony Wayne and his Pennsylvanians did good service in Virginia, and
later in Georgia. But the life of Wayne remains to be written.[1054]
His letters and reports are scattered here and there through the books.
The best account of his career is the one printed by his son in the
_Casket_, a magazine not to be found in every library.

The second volume of Wheeler's _Sketches of North Carolina_ contains
many articles by actors in the struggle. But they were mostly
written long after the event, as, too, were those in the _North
Carolina University Magazine_. They should not be relied upon unless
confirmed.[1055] This is the more regrettable as there is very little
original material in print relating to these North Carolina campaigns
from a North Carolina point of view. The most labored defence of the
"Old North State" is Caruthers' _Incidents_.[1056] Much of this work
seems to be based on good material; but one should be especially
careful to separate such portions from those founded on tradition,
which must have misled Caruthers in several instances. Of the same
general character are Johnson's _Traditions_;[1057] Logan's _Upper
Country of South Carolina_; Foote's _Sketches of Western North
Carolina_; and C. L. Hunter's _Sketches of Western North Carolina_
(Raleigh, 1877). Such are the main sources of information from the
American side so far as the campaigns in the Carolinas and Georgia are
concerned. Let us now turn to Virginia.

On his way South, Greene left Steuben[1058] in Virginia to organize and
push forward recruits as fast as possible. The gallant Prussian seems
to have been ill-suited to the command of raw republican militia; but
the American leaders in the State, Muhlenberg, Lawson, and Stevens,
aided him as well as they could. It was not until the arrival of
Lafayette with his Continentals from the Eastern States that much was
done to oppose the enemy. The governor of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson,
showed a lamentable lack of energy during Arnold's and Cornwallis's
invasions, though the word "imbecility", applied to his conduct by
Howison, would seem to be undeserved.[1059] Of course, Jefferson's
biographers have defended their hero from these charges,[1060] but
Giradin's _Continuation of Burk's Virginia_,[1061] written in the
neighborhood of Monticello, and apparently under Jeffersonian auspices,
is the most extensive account of Jefferson's administration from his
side.

It was not, however, until the publication of the _Virginia State
Papers_[1062] that the truth concerning the campaigns preliminary
to Yorktown could be ascertained. But these two volumes taken in
connection with the _Nelson Papers_ have thrown a new light on all
these transactions.[1063]

Washington's _Writings_ and Sparks's _Correspondence of the Revolution_
contain much relating to all these operations, though Washington's
_Journal_ and his order-books are even more valuable for the Yorktown
campaign. Of the commander of the auxiliary troops, the Marquis
of Rochambeau, I have found little outside of his well-known
_Mémoires_.[1064] For much of what we know concerning the movements of
the French we are indebted to John Austin Stevens, a former editor of
the _Magazine of American History_. His articles, as well as those by
other hands, will be mentioned in the Notes.

The papers of the British commanders have been much better preserved.
All official documents of popular interest and conducing to the glory
of the nation were published, sometimes in full, sometimes in extract,
in the governmental organ known as _The London Gazette_. Thence they
were copied, in whole or in part, into the _Remembrancer_, _Gentleman's
Magazine_, _Scot's Magazine_, _Political Magazine_, and often into that
portion of the _Annual Register_ known as "Principal Occurrences." Many
of them, and many other papers of the greatest importance, were printed
in the _Parliamentary Register_, or Debrett's _Debates_, as it is often
called.

The Sackville Papers, forming the third appendix to the _Ninth Report_
of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts,[1065] contain much
of very great value; but many of the most important papers therein
printed have been accessible in other forms. Soon after the surrender
at Yorktown, the House of Lords appointed a committee to inquire
into the conduct of the Yorktown campaign. Later, upon their order,
many of the letters and papers bearing on this event were printed.
They may be found in the _Parliamentary Register_,[1066] while many
were translated into French, and published in a small volume under
the title of _Correspondance du Lord G. Germain avec les Généraux
Clinton, Cornwallis_, etc. (Berne, 1782). Most of these documents,
however, had been already printed in other places. The surrender
induced Cornwallis[1067] and Clinton to lay upon the shoulders of each
other the responsibility.[1068] The truth seems to be that neither was
responsible, since the disaster was due, above all, to the arrival
of De Grasse and the consequent transference of the control of the
sea from the British to the Allies. For this neither Clinton nor
Cornwallis was to blame. The quarrel led to the publication, however,
of so many papers of the greatest importance that the historical
student can hardly regret its occurrence.

Nor was Clinton on good terms with Mariot Arbuthnot, who had accused
Clinton of permitting thievery to go on under his very eyes.[1069]
Naturally this want of cordiality made coöperation very difficult.
After Clinton's departure Cornwallis was the commander-in-chief in
the South; but Colonel Nesbit Balfour, who commanded in the city of
Charleston, made separate reports to Germain. He does not seem to
have been possessed with a very sanguine disposition, and his reports
therefore present a more accurate picture of affairs than do the
despatches of Cornwallis himself.

Several of the British officers wrote formal accounts of their doings,
the most notable of which is Tarleton's _Campaigns_.[1070] Portions of
it are trustworthy, but in general the author placed his own services
in such a favorable light that the true course of history is almost
unrecognisable. Nevertheless, the book contains so many documents not
elsewhere to be obtained, except at great labor, that it has a value.
Tarleton's unjust discriminations and criticisms brought forth a most
caustic review from the pen of Mackenzie,[1071] a Scotch officer, who
served in a regiment which often accompanied the "Legion." Cornwallis,
who had also been attacked by Tarleton, never replied to his criticisms
in print; but he wrote to a "friend" (cf. letter dated Calcutta, Dec.
12, 1787, in the _Cornwallis Corres._, i. 59, note) that "Tarleton's
is a most malicious and false attack; he knew and approved the reasons
for several of the measures which he now blames. My not sending relief
to Colonel Ferguson, although he was positively ordered to retire,
was entirely owing to Tarleton himself: he pleaded weakness from the
remains of a fever, and refused to make the attempt, although I used
the most earnest entreaties." It should be noted, however, that this
alleged refusal on Tarleton's part created no coolness at the time.
Simcoe's narrative[1072] is even more egotistical than Tarleton's.
But his details may be relied upon if one constantly remembers that
events are related without any regard to their real importance.
Captain, afterwards General, Graham served with Cornwallis in the
76th Highlanders through the most important portions of his North
Carolina and Virginia campaigns. His _Memoirs_,[1073] therefore, though
execrably edited so far as the American portion is concerned, should
be consulted. Another book which partakes of the nature of an original
source is the so-called _Journal_[1074] of R. Lamb, who served through
the war, and his statements have a value. The only regimental history
of much interest is Hamilton's _Grenadier Guards_,[1075] a corps
which after Cowpens rendered good service, and this account of their
achievements bears all the marks of originality. There are but few
manuscripts of importance, written by British officers, accessible on
this side of the ocean.[1076]

The most valuable history of the Revolution from a British pen is
Gordon's well-known work. This author was assisted by Gates and Greene
so far as the Southern campaigns were concerned. The volumes contain,
moreover, many fragments of letters that have never seen the light
in their entirety. Taken altogether, this work ranks with Ramsay as
an authority of the very first importance. The only other important
_History of the American War_ from the English side is the work which
bears the name of Charles Stedman on the title-page. Whoever the author
of the text may have been, the writer of many of the notes in the part
devoted to the war in the South was undoubtedly an on-looker. Still
another work worthy of mention in this place, though mainly as the
repository of documents, is Beatson's _Memoirs_. In addition there are
numerous diaries, journals, etc. They relate mainly to but one battle
or campaign, and will be mentioned in the following "Notes."

NOTES.

SAVANNAH, 1778.[1077]—Campbell's formal report to Germain was first
printed in _The London Gazette_ for Feb. 20-23, 1779,—reprinted in
_Remembrancer_, vii. 235; Hough's _Siege of Savannah_, Introduction,
p. 7; _Gentleman's Magazine_, 1779, p. 177; and Dawson's _Battles_,
i. 477. Major-General Augustine Prevost's report is in the _Gazette_
for Feb. 23, 1779, and _Remembrancer_, vii. 243. It deals especially
with his march from St. Augustine and capture of Sunbury.[1078] An
American account of this latter event is in McCall's _Georgia_, ii.
176. Captain Hyde Parker[1079] reported to the Admiralty through the
customary channel, and his report usually follows that of Prevost,
as above. Howe seems to have presented no formal report, but Lincoln
wrote to Washington (_Corresp. Rev._, ii. 244) early in the next year,
describing the disaster. Howe's own side of the case, however, is
fully set forth in the _Proceedings of a General Court-Martial held at
Philadelphia in the State of Penna. by order of his Excellency General
Washington_, Phila., 1782; reprinted in the _New York Historical
Society's Collections_ (1879, pp. 213-311), where will be found Howe's
orders (Dec. 29th,[1080] p. 282) and statement (pp. 285-310). The
court, presided over by Steuben, acquitted Howe on all the charges
"with the highest honor." Nevertheless, the majority of writers have
been unfavorable to Howe. See especially Moultrie's _Memoirs_, i. 244;
Lee's _Memoirs_ (2d edition), p. 40; Ramsay's _Rev. in S. C._, ii.
4. This last is a fairer view, and is followed by Gordon (_American
Revolution_, iii. 212). See also Stedman, _American War_, ii. 66;
McCall's _Georgia_, ii. 164, and C. C. Jones's _Georgia_, ii. 314. In
this, the most recent history of Georgia, all the old statements are
repeated.[1081]

An American description from a different point of view is the _Account
of the Capture of Mordecai Sheftall, Deputy Commissary of Issues to the
Continental Troops for the State of Georgia_, in White's _Historical
Collections of Georgia_, p. 340. Sheftall also testified at the
court-martial.[1082]

* * * * *

MINOR ACTIONS, 1779.—There is not much to be found as to Lincoln's
doings before the siege of Savannah except his manuscript
"order-books." Moultrie made an elaborate report of his encounter near
Beaufort.[1083]

McCall was present at Kettle Creek, and his account[1084] of Boyd's
overthrow has been generally followed by later writers. No official
report of the affair has been found. The disaster at Brier Creek was
much better chronicled. First comes Ashe's report to Lincoln (Moultrie,
_Memoirs_, i. 323, and abridged in Dawson, _Battles_, i. 492). Lincoln
wrote a good account of the affair (an extract of his letter in Dawson,
as above), and the evidence given at the court-martial[1085] which
tried Ashe is as full as can be desired.[1086] The British accounts do
not differ essentially from these.[1087]

There is no lack of original material as to Prevost's unsuccessful
attempt on Charleston,[1088] and Lincoln's attack on Stono. Moultrie
made no formal report, but the documents and bits of journals scattered
through his _Memoirs_ (i. 412-506) may well take its place. Prevost's
report of his attempt was dated June 12, 1779 (_London Gazette_, Sept.
21-25, 1779, reprinted in _Remembrancer_, viii. 302). His report as
to Stono is in the _Gazette_, as above, and also in _Remembrancer_
viii. 300. Lincoln's version of the latter affair is contained in a
letter to Moultrie (_Memoirs_, i. 490, and Dawson, i. 501). Moultrie
also printed other letters (cf. especially one from Colonel Grimkie in
_Memoirs_, i. 495), and an interesting journal by an unknown hand is
in _Remembrancer_ (viii. 349). Capt. John Henry, who succeeded Parker,
in his reports corroborated Prevost as to the offer of neutrality on
the part of some one in Charleston (_London Gazette_, July 10-13, 1779,
and _Remembrancer_ viii. 183). Clinton also has something to say on
the campaign in general in a report to Germain (_Remembrancer_, viii.
297).[1089]

Lincoln has been criticised for his march into Georgia, but the
movement had the unanimous support of his generals. Cf. report of the
council of war in Moultrie, i. 374. He supposed rightly, as we now
know (cf. Prevost's report in _Remembrancer_, viii. 302), that the
British commander's only object was to compel his return to South
Carolina. Moultrie could have offered sufficient resistance if one
half of his men had not deserted. Nevertheless, Lincoln was assailed
in the Charleston papers, and complained bitterly of their unfairness.
Cf. letter to Moultrie in _Memoirs_, i. 477. With regard to Rutledge's
offer of neutrality, Professor Bowen has undoubtedly gone too far
in describing it as "little short of treason."[1090] Still, if, as
Rutledge's friends claim, the proposition was made merely to gain time,
it was not made in good faith, and was therefore highly discreditable
to the governor. But there is no evidence that the proposition was made
in any such spirit, except the statement in Ramsay, which was copied
by Gordon. The truth seems to be that Rutledge, greatly overestimating
the numbers of the enemy, sought to save his native State from pillage.
He yielded too easily to his fears. Moultrie takes no pains to conceal
his disgust at the offer. The younger Laurens refused to have anything
to do with the matter, while Gadsden and Ferguson, two members of the
Council, voted against the proposal, and Edwards, another member, wept
at the thought. Unfortunately, the minutes of the Council have been
lost. Cf. Johnson, _Reply to Bentalou and Sparks_.[1091]

[Illustration: SIEGE OF SAVANNAH, SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER, 1779.

Sketched from a MS. map belonging to Dr. Samuel A. Green, of Boston,
found in Paris, and giving the French view.

The plans of the siege are mainly English ones. That made by Colonel
Moncrieff and published by Faden is used in Stedman's _American War_,
ii. 79, and is reduced in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 736. Cf. also
C. C. Jones's _Two Journals_ for a fac-simile (reduced in _Hist. of
Georgia_, vol. ii.) of a _Plan of the French and American Siege of
Savannah in Georgia in South America_ [sic] _under Command of the
French general Count d'Estaing_. _The British commander in the town
was General August Prevost, 1779._ It is from Hessian sources, and
resembles Faden's. Also see Moore's _Diary of the Amer. Rev._, 1st ed.,
ii. 221. Carrington (p. 483) gives an eclectic map. Two contemporary
MS. French maps (one measuring 28 × 16 and the other 22 × 22 inches)
are in the Boston Public Library (Dufossé, _Americana_, no. 5,495).
There are various MS. plans of Savannah and the siege among the Peter
Force maps, and one in the Faden collection in the library of Congress.
A good map of this region is _The Coasts, Rivers, and Inlets of the
Province of Georgia; surveyed by Joseph Avery and others, and published
by command of Gov't by J. F. W. Des Barres, 1st Feb., 1780_. Parker did
not find his charts correct. _Remembrancer_, vii. 246.—ED.]

It is to be noted that, although there is no record of the actual
presence of Indians at this siege, their absence was not due to any
remissness on the part of Rutledge, who made every effort to persuade
a band of "eighty Catawbas" to act with Moultrie. (Cf. the latter's
_Memoirs_, i. pp. 397, 419, and 453.)

SIEGE OF SAVANNAH, 1779.—The best account of this disastrous siege
is the _Journal_, by an unknown hand, which Col. C. C. Jones has
translated, with copious notes, in his _Siege of Savannah in 1779 as
described in two contemporaneous journals of French officers in the
fleet of Count D'Estaing_, Albany, 1874, pp. 9-52. The other journal,
of which he there gives a partial translation, is the well-known
_Extrait du Journal d'un Officier de la Marine de l'escadre de M.
le Comte D'Estaing, 1782_.[1092] Still another French account is in
the form of an official report,[1093] and may have been the report
of the commander himself. This is by no means certain, though Soulés
(_Troublés_, iii. 217), in speaking of the numbers given in this
report, says: "Le Comte d'Estaing dit dans sa relation", etc. This was
first printed in the _Paris Gazette_, and was reprinted in the English
and American papers of the time.

Prevost made an elaborate report to Germain, under date of Savannah,
Nov. 1, 1779. It was accompanied by translations of the correspondence
between the commanders, and was first printed in _The London Gazette_,
Dec. 21-25, 1779.[1094] Captain John Henry also reported through
the usual channel. He viewed the siege from a point different from
Prevost's, and his report is therefore of interest.[1095] Hough
has also reprinted in his _Savannah_ two "journals" from English
sources.[1096] Mention must also be made of a valuable _Memorandum of
a very critical period in the Province of South Carolina_, inclosed in
a letter from J. H. Cruger to H. Cruger, etc., dated Savannah, Nov. 8,
1779, in _Magazine of American History_, 1878, p. 489.[1097]

Lincoln's report is very meagre (Hough, _Savannah_, 149). It should be
supplemented by _An Account of the Siege of Savannah furnished by an
Officer engaged in the attack, Major Thomas Pinckney_.[1098] Stevens,
the Georgia historian, had access to Prevost's order-book, and he has
printed in his _Georgia_ (ii. 200, etc.) a few documents not otherwise
accessible. Lincoln's order-book is still in existence, and his papers
were used by Lee in his valuable account of the affair (_Memoirs_, i.
99). The orders for the assault have been printed.[1099]

Moultrie was not present during the siege, but he gives a graphic
account of the assault (_Memoirs_, 33-43). It is curious to note his
attempt to defend the militia from the charge of luke-warmness on
the ground that they joined the army to witness the surrender of the
British, not to take part in a bloody storm. Ramsay was present at
the siege, and his account is good (_Rev. in S. C._, ii. 34. See also
Gordon, iii. 325, and Stedman, ii. 121). Captain McCall was there, too,
and his account (_Georgia_, ii. 240-283) may be regarded as an original
authority. The local histories[1100] are sufficiently detailed for the
general reader, and there are at least two good French accounts,[1101]
while the German historians[1102] should not be neglected, as there
was a "Hessian" regiment in the town.

D'Estaing has usually been represented as hurrying on board and sailing
away just in time to avoid a predicted storm. So far was this from
being the case, that, although the assault was made on the 9th of
October, the French were in front of the town on the 19th and 29th of
the same month. The bulk of the fleet was blown from the anchorage
on the 26th, though the last frigates did not leave until the 2d of
November.[1103] Historians ignoring these facts have too often praised
the prescience of D'Estaing. The truth seems to be, that, being
conscious of exceeding his instructions and impatient of delay, the
French commander hazarded everything on an assault, and lost. The delay
in getting away was due for the most part to the bad discipline which
prevailed in the fleet.[1104]

This gallant defence made Prevost a major-general, though he enjoyed
his honors for but a short time, as he died in 1786. Maitland, to whose
timely succor so much was due, died on the 26th of October from a fever
contracted, it was supposed, during his gallant march to the aid of
the beleaguered town. Cf. Hough, _Savannah_, p. 110. The success of
the defence was due mainly to the talents and energy of the engineer
officer, Moncrieff, attached to Prevost's expedition. No one was more
conscious of this than Prevost, who wrote of him in the warmest terms
in his report to Germain.[1105]

The charge of Oct. 9th was fatal to two of the most romantic characters
in our Revolutionary history, Jasper and Pulaski.[1106]

* * * * *

CHARLESTON, 1780.—Lincoln presented no detailed report of his
unsuccessful defence of Charleston, though a short note announcing the
capitulation is in print. Lincoln asked for a court of inquiry into
his conduct.[1107] But as no one doubted his integrity or capacity,
no court was ever held. As to the siege itself, Moultrie has been
the main reliance. His _Memoirs_ (ii. pp. 65 _et seq._) contain the
official correspondence between the opposing commanders, and a diary or
journal running from March 28th to May 12th, which bears all the marks
of a contemporaneous document. Ramsay, too, was present at the defence,
but his account (_Rev. in S. C._, ii. 45-62,—followed by Gordon, iii.
346) is very meagre.[1108]

On the British side, the descriptions in Tarleton (_Campaigns_,
4-23) and Stedman (_American War_, ii. 176-192) are interesting and
detailed. So far as they relate to events outside of the immediate
vicinity of the city, they are trustworthy; but neither of these
officers was present at the siege itself.[1109] Of more importance than
any contemporary account, with the possible exception of Moultrie's
journal, is the report of Clinton to Germain. It is also in the form
of a journal, and runs from March 29th to May 12th, and is printed
as a part of _The London Gazette Extra_, issued on the 15th of June,
1780.[1110]

[Illustration: CHARLESTON, 1780.

"KEY: A, landing of the king's troops at Edisto inlet on the 11th
Feb., 1780. B, march of the army on landing from James island. C, the
king's ships in the offing, waiting for the spring tides to cross the
bar, which being effected the 20th March, they anchored in Five Fathom
hole, whence having [passed] through a heavy fire from Fort Moultrie
and the batteries of Sullivan island, [they] dropped anchor before the
town on the 9th of April. E, redoubts to protect the transports in
Stono river. F, strong redoubt erected near Fort Johnson. G, battery to
remove the enemy's ships at _d_ in Ashley river. H, bridge made over
Wapoo. I, march of the army from Linning's to Drayton's, 29th March,
whence having crossed Ashley river, [it] halted the same night at X. K,
encampment of the army, 30th March, on Charlestown Neck. L, march of
a strong reinforcement to Col. Webster's corps, under the command of
Earl Cornwallis, to cut off the enemy's communication by Cooper river.
_a_, Fort Moultrie and works on Sullivan island, with the enemy's ships
to enfilade the channel (surrendered on terms the 4th of May to the
seamen and marines of the fleet). _d_, strong post on Lempries. _e_,
ships in Cooper river, and Boom to obstruct the navigation. _f_, post
on Mount Pleasant. _g_, Gibbs' Landing. _h_, redoubts and batteries
to establish the first parallel begun the 1st of April. _i_, second
parallel finished the 19th April. _k_, third parallel completed the
6th of May, whence having by sap drained and passed the enemy's canal
works, [it] was carried on towards the ditch of the place, and the
garrison, consisting of upwards of 6,000 men, [were] surrendered to his
Majesty's arms, under the command of Lt.-Gen. Sir Hen. Clinton, K. B.,
etc., and Vice-Admiral Mariot Arbuthnot, on the 10th of May, 1780. The
king's army and works are colored red, the enemy's yellow."—ED.]

The correspondence between Clinton and Germain with regard to the
planning of this campaign is in the _Ninth Report of the Hist. MSS.
Commission_, App. iii. pp. 95, 98, etc.[1111] In this same appendix
are three letters from Arbuthnot to Germain, giving interesting
details. His official report was made to Mr. Stevens, secretary of the
Admiralty, and was printed with Clinton's report. It is especially
valuable with regard to the operations of the fleet. There is a
critical account of the siege in Lee's _Memoirs_, i. 115-142, and the
more popular descriptions are unusually good, especially those from
German sources.[1112]

* * * * *

MINOR ACTIONS, 1780.—It is to be regretted that we have no official
account of the disaster at the Waxhaws from the American commander.
Tarleton's official report to Cornwallis was originally printed in
_The London Gazette Extra_, July 5, 1780.[1113] The description of the
affair in Dawson's _Battles_, i. 582, is based upon _Adj. Bowyer's
Particular Account of Colonel Buford's defeat_. It differs materially
from the account of the British commander.[1114]

Lee says that most of the wounded died of their wounds. This can
hardly be true, as Muhlenberg in a letter to Washington (Muhlenberg's
_Muhlenberg_, 368) says that the prisoners taken at the Waxhaws have
nearly all returned. There are no plans of the battle, and it has been
found impossible to make any estimate of the numbers engaged.[1115]

[Illustration: SIEGE OF CHARLESTON.

Reduced from the plan in Johnson's _Traditions and Reminiscences of
the Amer. Rev._ (Charleston, 1851), p. 247.—KEY (American works):
A, Wilkins, 16 guns; B, Gibbs, 9 guns; C, Ferguson, 5 guns; D, Sugar
House, 6 guns; E, old magazine, 5 guns; F, Cummings, 5 guns; G,
northwest point, 4 guns; H, horn-work (citadel) and lines, 66 guns,
beside mortars; K, Gadsden's wharf, 7 guns; L, Old Indian, 5 guns; M,
Governor's bridge, 3 guns; N, Exchange, 7 guns; O, end of the bay,
Littleton's bastion, 4 guns; P, Darrell's, 7 guns; Q, boom, eight
vessels, secured by chains and spars.

(British works). 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, redoubts begun April 1st; _o_,
second parallel, finished April 19th; _p_, third parallel, completed
May 6th; _q_, gun batteries; _r_, mortar batteries.—ED.

There is a contemporary English map: _Environs of Charleston, S. C.
Published June 1, 1780_. _By Capt. George Sproule, Assistant Engineer
on the spot_; and a MS. _Sketch of the coast from South Edisto to
Charlestown, 1 March, 1780_,—showing, among other things, "the rebel
redoubt" at Stono. The best plan of the siege itself is _A Sketch of
the operations before Charleston, the Capital of South Carolina_.
_Published 17th of June, 1780, according to Act of Parliament, by I.
F. W. Des Barres, Eng._ It will be noticed that this was put forth two
days after Clinton's despatch of May 14th was published in London.
It is a large map, showing the positions in colors. There are two
copies in the Harvard College library. It has been reprinted by Mayor
Courtenay in the _Charleston Year-Book for 1882_, P. 360, as "Sir
Henry Clinton's Map, 1780", with a description (p. 371). Some one has
apparently attempted to remove the inscription referred to above, and
only the words "of June, 1780" are legible. In other respects it is
identical with the Des Barres map. In his _Year-Book_ (1880, p. 264)
Mayor Courtenay has reproduced an interesting _Plan of Charlestown_.
_With its Entrenchments and those made by the English, 1780._ It
relates only to the lines themselves, and was probably the work of an
American. There is a good map, with lines in colors, in Faden's _Plans
of Battles_, which is reproduced in Tarleton, p. 32, and Stedman, ii.
184, Ramsay (_Rev. S. C._, ii. 59) gives an excellent map of a later
date, as does Gordon (iii. 358). See also Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii.
765; Marshall's _Washington_, atlas no. 10; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 258;
Carrington's _Battles_, p. 498; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, 1883, p. 827;
and R. E. Lee's edition of Lee's _Memoirs_, p. 146. Mention should also
be made of a MS. plan in the Faden coll., and of a map, apparently
of French origin, the property of Daniel Ravenal, of Charleston
(_Charleston Year-Book_, 1884, p. 295), which Mr. De Saussure regards
as a copy of "Brigadier-General Du Portail's engineer's map;" but
there seems to be no evidence of this in print. There is a good chart
of Charleston harbor in the corner of Des Barres's map, and in the
so-called _Mouzon Map_ (1775), while Ramsay (_Rev. S. C._, ii. 52) has
a _Sketch of Charleston Harbour, showing the disposition of the British
fleet under the command of Vice-Admiral Mariot Arbuthnot in the attack
on Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island in 1780_.

Attempts at the identification of localities have been made by W. G.
De Saussure in _Charleston Year-Book_ (1884, pp. 282-308), and in an
_Historical Map of Charleston, 1670-1883_, in the _Year-Book_ for 1883.
A plan of Fort Johnson on James' Island is in _Ibid._ (p. 473). These
latter maps are also in a reprint of a portion of this _Year-Book_,
issued under the title of _1670-1783: The Centennial of Incorporation,
1883_ (Charleston, 1884).

There are other charts of the harbor in the _No. Amer. Pilot_; in the
_Neptune Americo-Septentrional_. A chart of the harbor and bars by R.
Cowley is sometimes noted as published in London in 1780.

There are other maps of Charleston in Bellin's _Petit Atlas Maritime_,
vol. i. 37; in Castiglione's _Viaggio_ p. 309, etc. There are among the
Rochambeau maps in the library of Congress (no. 19) _Vues de la rade
de Charleston et du fort Sullivan, 1780_, and a colored plan (no. 46),
measuring 20 X 18 inches, called _Plan de la ville de Charlestown, de
les retrenchments et du siège fait par les Anglais en 1780_.—ED.]

For the period between the Waxhaws and the disaster near Camden, the
reports of Cornwallis are of value (_Remembrancer_, x. 261; _Pol.
Mag._, i. 261, etc.); Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 128-145, has a fair
account. The affair at Ramsour's Mill has not been given due prominence
in the general histories. There is a good account of it in Caldwell's
_Greene_, 123. But the description which has generally been followed
is the one which General Joseph Graham—who was not present at the
fight—printed in the _Catawba Journal_ for Feb. 1, 1825.[1116]

Colonel Williams transmitted a report of the action at Musgrove's Mill
to Gates (_Remembrancer_, xi. 87). But the best account of the affair
is in Draper's _King's Mountain_, who (p. 122) gives a list of his
authorities. See especially MCCall, _Georgia_, ii. 304-317; Jones,
_Georgia_, ii. 452; and _Amer. Whig Rev._, new series, ii. 578.

* * * * *

GATES'S DEFEAT NEAR CAMDEN, 1780.—The defeated general dated his
official report at Hillsborough, Aug. 20, 1780 (_Remembrancer_, x. 335;
Tarleton, 145; _Sparks's Correspondence of the Revolution_, iii. 66 and
76; _Mag. Amer. Hist._, v. 502, etc.). Cornwallis presented two reports
bearing on the campaign. In the first—sometimes dated Aug. 20th, and
sometimes Aug. 21st—he follows his movement to his arrival at Camden.
The second—always dated the 21st—takes up the story at that point.
They are both in the _London Gazette Extra_ for October 9th, 1780.[1117]

I have found nothing official from Rawdon; but on Sept. 19th, 1780,
he wrote to his mother, the Countess of Moira, describing the events
preceding the battle. He speaks of the course taken by Gates as "the
ruinous part which they, the Americans, actually did embrace", adding
that De Kalb had advised Gates to cross Lynch's Creek and attack him
there. This Rawdon learned from an aide to De Kalb[1118]—probably Du
Buysson—who was taken with his chief.[1119]

Tarleton, too, was a participator in the action, and his account
(_Campaigns_, 85-110), though written long after the event, is
valuable. It begins with Cornwallis's arrival at Camden.

But the description of the campaign and battle which far outweighs
all others, is the _Narrative of the Campaign of 1780, by Colonel
Otho Holland Williams, Adjutant-general_,—printed as "Appendix B" to
Johnson's _Greene_, vol. i. pp. 465-510, and copied thence into Simms's
_Greene_, Appendix. There is no reason to doubt the general accuracy
of the story, though no one knows when Williams wrote it. Two of the
American commander's aides wrote accounts. The more important is the
letter from Thomas Pinckney to William Johnson, the biographer of
Greene, dated Clermont, July, 1822, and therefore written long after
the battle; but the author's recollections so exactly agree with the
facts as now known that it is an account of the greatest value.[1120]

The other is Major McGill's letter to his father, written within eight
miles of the scene of action.[1121]

McGill carried Gates's despatches to Jefferson, then governor of
Virginia, and gave him an account of the battle, which formed part
of a statement "of this unlucky affair, taken from letters from
General Gates, General Stevens, and Governor Nash, and, as to some
circumstances, from an officer [McGill] who was in the action."[1122]

Still another excellent narrative of the campaign is in _A Journal of
the Southern Expedition, 1780-83. By William Seymour_ (_Penna. Mag.
of Hist._, vii. 286, 377), who was sergeant-major of the Delaware
regiment. The journal begins at Petersburg, May 26, 1780, thus
describing the whole movement.

[Illustration: CAMDEN, AUGUST 16, 1780.

Faden's map, dated March 1, 1787,—the same used in Tarleton (p.
108) and in Stedman (ii. 210) and in the latter dated Jan. 20, 1794.
KEY: 1. Three companies light infantry. 2. Twenty-third regiment.
3. Thirty-third regiment. 4. Volunteers of Ireland. 5. Infantry of
the British Legion. 6. Hamilton's corps. 7. Bryan's corps. 8, 8. Two
battalions, seventy-first regiment. 9. Dragoons, British Legion.

This same plan is re-engraved in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, v. 275,
and in R. E. Lee's ed. of Henry Lee's _Memoir of the War_, etc., p.
182. The original MS. of the plan is among the Faden maps (no. 51) in
the library of Congress. There is an eclectic plan in Carrington's
_Battles_, p. 533; but the best of the modern maps is that by H.
P. Johnston in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, viii. 496. Cf. Lossing's
_Field-Book_, ii. 466. The _Political Mag._, i. 731, has a map of the
roads about Camden.—ED.]

There are numerous descriptions by persons who, though not actually
present at the disaster, yet enjoyed exceptionally good advantages for
obtaining correct information.[1123]

Of the earlier historians, Gordon (_History_, iii. 391 and 429)
enjoyed the best advantages. He visited Gates in 1781 and used his
papers. These MSS. had disappeared until a few years ago, when Dr. T.
A. Emmet, whose grandfather was Gates's counsellor, found them in a
garret. (Cf. _Mag. Amer. Hist._, v. 241.) A portion of this collection
was printed in _Ibid._ v. 281; as to the value of those reserved I have
been able to learn nothing. A large part of the papers printed consists
merely of the orders issued during the campaign. The most important
of these—technically termed "after-orders", giving the order for the
movement which brought on the action—have been printed over and over
again.[1124]

We have no detailed account of Sumter's attempt to injure the enemy,
nor of his overthrow at Fishdam Ford, except that in Tarleton's
_Campaigns_, 110-116. As may be imagined, Tarleton gave his own side
of the case more than due prominence. Lee, in his _Memoirs_ (i. 187),
gives a good account. He adds that "Tarleton evinced a temerity which
could not, if pursued, long escape exemplary chastisement." There is
something in Stedman, ii. 211, and in Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii.
152. The accounts in the more popular books are so inaccurate that no
mention of them is required.[1125]

TREATMENT OF THE SOUTHERN PEOPLE BY THE BRITISH.—The well-known
letters from Rawdon to Rugely have been widely printed.[1126]

[Illustration: GATES'S DEFEAT AT CAMDEN.

The movements as detailed in a plan by Colonel Senff, preserved among
the _Steuben Papers_ (N. Y. Hist. Soc.), are shown in this sketch after
a cut in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (1880), vol. v. p. 275. The plan
and accompanying journal, taken from the Steuben Papers, are in the
Sparks MSS., no. xv. A marsh and the river were on the American right
and the British left. The road to Camden is marked by parallel lines.
The American right, 400 Marylanders under General Gist, were between
the road and the low ground at 1, with two cannon on their right at
2, and two others on the left in the road at 3. Beyond the road were
three brigades of North Carolina militia (4, 4, 4), under Brigadiers
Rutherford, Graigery, and Butler, with two field-pieces at 5, on their
left. Beyond this the American line was completed by 700 Virginia
militia under Brigadier Stevens (6), and 300 light infantry under
Colonel Potterfield (7). Colonel Armand, with 60 horse, was in the rear
(8) of this part of the line, and as a reserve Smallwood with the first
Maryland brigade of about 400 men, was across the road at 9. [The names
are given as in the sketch.]

On the British side the first troops to appear were at 10 with a
field-piece, and their main body formed at 11. The American troops at 6
and 7 advanced to 12, and were met by the British (11) moving by their
right flank and then advancing to 13. The American reserve (9) then
moved to 12 to support the left wing, while the right wing (1) advanced
to 12 and engaged the British left (13). The Americans at 4, 4, 4, and
12 (opposite 6 and 7) now broke and fled. At this opportune moment the
British cavalry (14) charged along the line shown by small crosses, and
turning to the right and left took in reverse the Americans at 1, and
the reserve (9) in their new position at 12. The whole American army
scattered in retreat before the British advance.—ED.]

With regard to the treatment of those captured at Savannah and
Charleston, Southern writers do not seem to have strictly adhered to
the truth. Those captured by Campbell were protected by no treaty of
capitulation; and as to those taken at Charleston, the charges of
Moultrie and others were always denied.[1127]

Isaac Hayne, at the time of the surrender of Charleston, was a colonel
in a militia regiment, but, being in the country, he was not included
in the capitulation. His wife and two children were ill with the
small-pox, and it was impossible to take them to a place of refuge. He
went to Charleston and offered to give his parole as a prisoner of war.
He was told that he must take the oath of allegiance or be confined as
a rebel. It was a hard position, and, thinking of his wife dying at
home, he took the oath; not, however, until he had called Ramsay (_Rev.
in S. C._) to bear witness that he was forced to it by necessity. He
retired to his farm, and lived there unmolested until the success of
the American arms once more brought his friends around him. Then he
was told by the British leaders that he must arm on the king's side or
go to prison. He regarded this as a violation of his agreement, and
enlisted under Pickens. He commanded a regiment of militia drawn from
the neighborhood, and composed of men who believed with him that when
protection was withdrawn the duty of allegiance went with it. Soon
after this he captured, not many miles from Charleston, Williamson, a
noted renegade, who was regarded by his former friends as the "Arnold
of the South." On his way back Hayne was captured, taken to Charleston,
and hanged.[1128] The fact that Greene and Marion (Gibbes, _Doc.
Hist._, i. 125) both regarded it as calling for retaliation[1129] goes
a great way towards showing that Rawdon and Balfour acted harshly and
precipitately in the matter; but the case is an admirable example of
the light in which Cornwallis—for Balfour tried to justify his conduct
by a reference to the letter or order issued by Cornwallis after
Camden—persisted in regarding those who fought for their country and
their rights. It seems to me, however, that Cornwallis's position was a
false one; and to assert, as Balfour asserted, that South Carolina was
completely conquered in 1780, was to assert what was not true. Rawdon
sailed for home soon after this affair. He was captured by the French,
and did not reach London until after Yorktown. He was immediately
assailed in the House of Peers by the Duke of Richmond for his share in
this business. In reply he challenged the noble duke, and the upshot
was that Richmond apologized.[1130] Many years later, Lee sent Rawdon
a copy of his _Memoirs_, in which Hayne is warmly defended. Rawdon,
then Earl of Moira, wrote a long letter (June 24, 1813) in reply, but
his defence does not appear to be sound.[1131] It should be said, in
justification of the light in which Hayne was regarded by the British
officers at the time, that they believed he had taken a second oath to
the king just before his capture in arms; but this does not appear to
have been the case.[1132]

The most aggravated case of murder on the American side was the
shooting of the Tory Col. Grierson after his surrender, near Augusta.
The murder was committed in broad day, yet Pickens declared that the
murderer was not known.[1133]

KING'S MOUNTAIN.—There is very little original material in print
bearing on Clarke's siege of Augusta. McCall's narrative (_Georgia_,
ii. 321) has been very generally followed. An anonymous account from a
British source is in the _Remembrancer_, xi. 28.

Lyman C. Draper,[1134] in his _King's Mountain and its Heroes_,
gives nearly all the important documents relating to that action.
Unfortunately, as its title indicates, there is too much hero
worship[1135] in the volume, and Draper's own account is based too
largely on tradition to be wholly trustworthy, and is too diffuse and
intricate. As a repository of documents, however, the volume is of
the first importance. I shall attempt only a summary of the documents
bearing on the movement.

Shelby wrote to his father five days after the fight (Draper, 302),
and later, on October 26th, to Col. Arthur Campbell (Draper, 524). The
statements in the first letter as to losses, etc., are strangely at
variance with those contained in an official report signed by Campbell,
Shelby, and Cleveland on October 20th.[1136] Col. William Campbell
also wrote to Arthur Campbell on the same day (Draper, 526; Gibbes,
p. 140, and elsewhere). Draper gives several other accounts, the most
important being "Battle of King's Mountain", probably written by Robert
Campbell, "an ensign in Dysart's corps" (Draper, 537, from MS. in
possession of the Tenn. Hist. Soc.). Gen. Joseph Graham, who had no
part in the fight, being still confined in the hospital from the wound
received at the defence of Charlotte, wrote a description.[1137] David
Campbell, in a letter (Foote's _Sketches of Virginia_, 2d series, p.
126) dated Montcalm, Dec. 1, 1851,[1138] defended his ancestor. Still
other accounts are in Draper, many of them reprints; and a letter from
Iredell to his wife, dated Granville, Oct. 8, 1780 (McRee's _Iredell_,
i. 463), should not be overlooked.

The most interesting description of the campaign from the British
side is in the _Diary of Anthony Allaire_, of Ferguson's corps.[1139]
The chronology is useful in fixing dates, and his narrative of his
treatment while in captivity and during his successful attempt to
escape is very interesting. He is also supposed to have been the author
of a letter written by "an officer from Charleston, Jan. 30", which is
printed in Rivington's _Royal Gazette_ of Feb. 14, 1781, and reprinted
in Draper, 516.[1140]

There are two interesting letters from Rawdon, showing the extent of
the disaffection to the royalist cause in the Carolinas.[1141]

Cornwallis seems to have presented no detailed report; at least, none
has been printed, to my knowledge. There are allusions to the affair
which show how deeply he was impressed by the coming of the men from
beyond the mountains. The effect it had upon the plans of the British
can be learned from a letter from Germain to Clinton, dated Jan. 3,
1781, in which he regrets that Ferguson's defeat compelled Cornwallis
to require Leslie to quit the Chesapeake.[1142]

There is also an anonymous memoir of A Carolina Loyalist in the
Revolutionary War in Chesney's _Essays in Modern Military Biography_
(London, 1874, pp. 461-468), which contains something of interest.

[The latest contribution to the story of the parts played by John
Sevier, Isaac Shelby, and James Robertson in helping to work the
discomfiture of the British in the Southern colonies is the _Rear Guard
of the Revolution by Edmund Kirke_ [J. R. Gilmore], N. Y., 1886. The
author says "his materials were principally gathered from old settlers
in East Tennessee and Western North Carolina, one of whom was the
son of a trusted friend of Sevier, Dr. J. G. M. Ramsey of Knoxville,
the author of the _Annals of Tennessee_, who in his youth had known
Sevier and Robertson, and who was nearly ninety years old when he was
questioned by Gilmore."—ED.]

MINOR ACTIONS, 1780.—The library of the Massachusetts Historical
Society contains an original account of Weemys's unfortunate night
attack on Sumter's camp at Fishdam Ford, from the pen of the British
commander. It should not be followed too closely, as it was not written
until many years of peace and poverty had clouded Weemys's judgment
and memory. A more trustworthy description is in a letter from Sumter
to Smallwood, written on the field of battle, Nov. 9, 1780 (_Maryland
Papers_, p. 122). It is to be regretted that no letter of his relating
to the affair at the Blackstocks has been preserved; for the British
accounts are very confusing, Tarleton even claiming the victory
(_Campaigns_, p. 178). This he did on the strength of a despatch from
Cornwallis to Clinton, dated at Wynnesborough, Dec. 3, 1781.[1143]
This, in its turn, as Mackenzie points out (_Strictures_, p. 71),
was based—so far as it relates to the affair at the Blackstocks—on
Tarleton's own report. In fact, Tarleton was beaten at that time.
Mackenzie does not seem to have been present in person, but his account
was based on the declarations of witnesses. It is the best description
of the fight that we have, and has been followed by later writers,
notably by Stedman (ii. 226-231). The only account that we have from an
American source was written by Col. Samuel Hammond, who was present, as
he was at the Cowpens (Johnson's _Traditions_, pp. 507, 522). It should
not be too closely followed. There are a few reports and letters
written by Cornwallis, and by Rawdon during his chief's illness,
relating to this period, that should not be overlooked.[1144]

GREENE'S CAMPAIGN IN GENERAL.—The standard authorities relating
to Greene's campaign have already been mentioned.[1145] Lee was
Greene's most trusted adviser, but there were others also deep
in his confidence, such as Morgan, O. H. Williams,[1146] William
Washington,[1147] Carrington,[1148] Howard,[1149] and W. R.
Davie.[1150] Greene also utilized the services of the partisans Marion,
Sumter, Pickens, and the rest. There is a noted passage bearing on
the proper method of treating these men in one of Greene's letters
to Morgan before the affair at the Cowpens. It seems that Morgan had
complained of Sumter's order to his subordinates to obey no commands
unless conveyed through him. Greene replied to Morgan: "As it is better
to conciliate than aggravate matters, where everything depends so
much upon voluntary principles, I wish you to take no notice of the
matter, but endeavor to influence his conduct to give you all the aid
in his power." It was by pursuing such a course that Greene secured the
coöperation of all men in the South.

A good knowledge of the scene of operations is indispensable to a
thorough understanding of Greene's remarkable campaigns. The general
direction of the rivers should be especially noted, as upon it the
success of a particular movement often turned.[1151]

THE COWPENS.—Morgan's official report (Jan. 19) to Greene and Greene's
instructions to Morgan (Charlotte, December 16, 1780) are in Graham,
pp. 260, 467, while from that point and date the whole campaign can be
traced by the letters printed by Graham.[1152]

A letter from Tarleton to Morgan dated on the 19th, two days after the
battle, and relating to prisoners and wounded, is in _The Charleston
News and Courier_. I have nowhere found a formal report by Tarleton.
His description of the fight, at the time, is undoubtedly embodied in
Cornwallis's report to Germain, dated Turkey Creek, Broad River, Jan.
18, 1781.[1153]

At a later day Tarleton wrote out an account (_Campaigns_, pp.
213-223). Seldom has a commander written a more unfair account of
his defeat. Not merely that he is unjust to Morgan, but he is also
very unjust to his own men. A much better description, by a British
eye-witness, is Mackenzie's (_Strictures_, 95, followed by Stedman,
_Amer. War_, ii. 316-325). Indeed, this last is in some respects the
best account that we have. A narrative from "Colonel Samuel Hammond"
(Johnson's _Traditions_, pp. 526-530) is not trustworthy.[1154]

THE RETREAT.—Our knowledge of the period from the Cowpens to the
crossing of the Dan is based to a great extent upon the letters of the
American leaders.[1155]

Cornwallis made a formal report to Germain, dated Guilford, March
17, 1781.[1156] Balfour in an independent report to Clinton
(_Remembrancer_, xi. 330, and _Polit. Mag._, ii. 328), gave a somewhat
similar account of the operations; but the most important document
that has yet been printed is Cornwallis's _Order-book_, covering
this period. It opens with an order of January 18, 1781, and runs
with scarcely a break to March 20th. It was used by Graham in his
preparation of the _Life of Morgan_, but was not generally accessible
until some years later, when Caruthers printed it as the appendix to
the second volume of his _Incidents_. Caruthers' own account of the
movement (_Incidents_, pp. 13-67), although weighted with personal
reminiscences, is still the best single narrative.[1157]

Tarleton's description (_Campaigns_, 222) of the march is far from
satisfactory, and should be supplemented by that of the less partial
Stedman (_Amer. War_, ii. 325) and Gordon (iv. 37).[1158]

The only action of this retreat that deserves special mention is the
very gallant charge of the Guards at Cowan's Ford over the Catawba. It
was especially creditable to the Grenadiers, and has received far less
attention at the hands of American writers than it deserves. A good
account is in Hamilton's _Grenadier Guards_, ii. 243,[1159] and Stedman
has devoted considerable space to it. On the other hand, it should be
said that the description in Tarleton cannot be reconciled with known
facts, and deserves no credit.

THE GUILFORD CAMPAIGN.—Lee's description of the overthrow of Pyle
and his companions has been generally followed by historians. It is
not entirely satisfactory (_Memoirs_, i. 306).[1160] Lee says that
the action was begun by the Tories, and that he acted merely on the
defensive. General Joseph Graham, who was on the field as a captain of
militia, asserts the contrary.[1161]

[Illustration: GUILDFORD, MARCH 15, 1781.

Sketched from Faden's map (March 1, 1787), which is the same as the
map in Tarleton (p. 108), with the same date, and in Stedman, ii.
342, with slight changes, dated Jan. 20, 1794. It is followed in the
maps in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (1881), p. 44; in R. E. Lee's _Lee's
Memoir_, etc., p. 276; in Caruthers' _Incidents_ (Philadelphia, 1808),
p. 108; in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 608. There are among the Faden
maps (nos. 52, 53) in the library of Congress two MS. drafts of the
battle,—one showing the changes in the position of the forces. Johnson
(_Greene_, ii. 5) gives five different stages of the fight, and G. W.
Greene (iii. 176) copies them. His lines vary from the descriptions of
Cornwallis. Cf. Carrington's _Battles_, p. 565; Hamilton's _Grenadier
Guards_ (ii. 245); _Harper's Monthly_, xv. 162, etc.—ED.]

As to the other operations leading up to the final action at Guilford
Court-House, and as to that combat itself, the reports and other
letters of the opposing commanders, Greene[1162] and Cornwallis,[1163]
are all that can he desired.

The narratives of Lee (_Memoirs_, i. 338-376) and Tarleton
(_Campaigns_, 269) are interesting, though neither saw much of the
battle,—Tarleton being in reserve, and Lee's attention being fully
occupied by the regiment of Bose. Wounds received at the Cowpens
unfortunately prevented Mackenzie from speaking with authority of
Tarleton's account of this battle.[1164]

The best account by a later writer is that in Caruthers (_Incidents_,
2d series, pp. 103-180); but, like all North Carolinians, he endeavors
to excuse the early flight of the militia of that State, and his
narrative is too largely founded on tradition.[1165]

HOBKIRK'S HILL.—The official reports serve us first: Greene's, full
and precise,[1166] on the American side; and on the British, Rawdon's
and those of the intermediate officers, till the accounts reached
Germain.[1167]

Col. O. H. Williams also wrote an interesting account of the fight in
a letter to "Elie" (his wife), dated Camp before Camden, April 27,
1781 (Potter's _American Monthly_, iv. 101, and Tiffany's _Williams_,
p. 19). Still another of Greene's officers—Major William Pierce—in
a letter (August 20) devoted considerable space to this indecisive
engagement (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, vii. 431-435). A somewhat different
description by a looker-on was written many years afterwards by Samuel
Matthis, an inhabitant of the district. It is entitled: _Account of the
battle of Hobkirk's Hill as some call it, or Battle of Camden as called
by others, tho' the ground on which it was fought is now (1810) called
the Big Sand Hill above Camden_ (_American Historical Record_, ii. 103).

[Illustration: From the _Political Magazine_ (vol. ii p. 117).

There is a chart of Cape Fear River, 1776, in the _No. Amer. Pilot_,
no. 28.—ED.]

Whether Greene was or was not surprised is the only point about which
there has been much dispute in recent years. Johnson (_Greene_, ii.
72) has effectually disposed of this question in Greene's favor; but
it must be admitted that he was "very suddenly attacked", to use the
words of Lee, who was not present at the battle, and who seems to have
forgotten the exact relation of events of this campaign. The account of
this affair in the lives of Greene by Johnson and Greene (iii. 241),
as well as that in Marshall's _Washington_ (iv. 510), is based upon
an unpublished narrative by Colonel Davie, which is among the "Greene
MSS."[1168]

[Illustration: HOBKIRK'S HILL. (_Sometimes called the Second Battle of
Camden._)

_Sketch of the battle of Hobkirk's Hill, near Camden, on the 25th
April, 1781, drawn by C. Vallancey, Capt. of the Vols. of Ireland._
[The cross-swords show] _where the enemy's piquets were attacked_.
_Faden_, Aug. 1, 1783. It is the same plate, with slight changes,
used in Stedman (ii. 358), where it is dated Feb. 6, 1794. It is
reëngraved in R. E. Lee's ed. of Henry Lee's _Memoirs of the War_, p.
336. Johnson's plan (_Greene_, ii. 76) is reproduced in G. W. Greene's
_Greene_, iii. 241. Carrington (p. 576) gives an eclectic plan, and
there is a small plan in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 679.—ED.]

THE CAPTURE OF THE POSTS.—For the account of the capture of Fort
Watson, Marion's report (April 23) to Greene has been the main reliance
(Simms, _Marion_, p. 231; _Pol. Mag._, ii. 548; _Remembrancer_, xii.
127, etc.). Lee's narrative of this period (_Memoirs_, ii. 50) is
detailed, but it was written too long after the war to be accurate.
This is unfortunate, as we have no other account of the taking of Fort
Motte (_Memoirs_, ii. 73) by an on-looker, unless we accept the letter
sent by Greene to Congress as an original source. It is not known
when Greene arrived at Fort Motte, which was at some time before the
surrender.[1169]

At this time Marion became discouraged, and wrote to Greene that he
contemplated retiring. These letters are in Gibbes, p. 67-69. Rawdon
presented a report covering this period.[1170]

The siege of Augusta was much better chronicled, as with it McCall
(Georgia, ii. 321) again becomes useful.[1171] Another description,
though from what source is not stated, is in Johnson's _Traditions_,
354. Lee's account is in his _Memoirs_, ii. 81-95 and 100-118. The
first part refers more especially to the capture of Fort Granby and
of Fort Galphin, an outpost of Augusta. The official correspondence
between Lee and Pickens on one side and Brown on the other has been
printed over and over again.[1172]

SIEGE OF NINETY-SIX.—Cruger[1173] presented no formal report of his
defence—so far as I know; but there is a good account of the siege in
Mackenzie's _Strictures_, pp. 139-164, written by Lieutenant Hatton,
of the New Jersey Loyalist Volunteers: cf. p. 129. Mackenzie himself
is very severe on Tarleton's account (_Campaigns_, 495). Greene's
very meagre report is dated Little River, June 20, 1781 (Caldwell's
_Greene_; _Pol. Mag._, Tarleton, 498, etc.).[1174]

Rawdon's report of his successful attempt to relieve the garrison is in
_Remembrancer_, xv. 9.[1175]

Neither Greene nor Lee (_Memoirs_, ii. 119) intimate that the stockaded
fort was abandoned before Lee's assault, though the English authorities
assert it. Nor does Greene allude to the gallant sally of the defenders
of the "Star", which compelled the assailants to retire from the
ditch, with great loss to themselves.[1176]

EUTAWS.—I should place first Greene's official report, though it is
not as full as could be desired.[1177]

Williams has left two accounts: the first is a letter, dated Fort
Motte, Sept., 1781 (Tiffany's _Williams_, p. 22). The important paper,
however, is entitled: _Account furnished by Colonel Otho Williams, with
additions by Cols. W. Hampton, Polk, Howard, and Watt_ (when written
is not stated), in Gibbes (pp. 144-157). It is a long and detailed
description of the battle by men who actually took part, but as it may
have been written long after the event, too much reliance should not be
placed upon it. Still another description of the campaign, though not
of the battle, is contained in two letters from Major William Pierce to
St. George Tucker (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, vii. 435). Lieutenant-Colonel
Stuart presented a report to Cornwallis, which has been widely
reprinted.[1178]

It differs from the American accounts in many particulars, especially
as to the disorganization of his own troops, which very likely has
been described in too glowing colors by American writers. Lee was
present at the battle, but his description (_Memoirs_, ii. 276-301) of
the contest is sometimes hard to reconcile with the accounts of his
fellow-soldiers. Greene, according to Williams, was hardly satisfied
with the conduct of that partisan leader, and Lee soon after retired
from the army, ostensibly for other reasons. Neither Johnson (_Greene_,
ii. 219) nor G. W. Greene (_Greene_, iii. 384) have added much to our
knowledge of this action, and the same may be said of the other writers
on the war.[1179]

GREENE'S LATER CAMPAIGNS.—There are many letters of this period in
the third volume of Sparks's _Correspondence of the Revolution_, and
in Gibbes's _Documentary History_ (1781-1782). Many of those in the
latter are of merely local interest, a large number of them relating
more especially to a quarrel between Horry and Mahem, Marion's
two subordinates. Lee, too, after his return from Yorktown became
discontented, and many letters which passed between him and his
commander are printed by Gibbes. Much of Lee's uneasiness was doubtless
due to the prominence which Greene awarded to Laurens. Leslie's letter
proposing a cessation of hostilities was enclosed by Greene in a letter
to the President of Congress (_Remembrancer_, xiv. 324). A truce not
being acceded to, he demanded provisions (_Remembrancer_, xv. 28). This
too being refused, he endeavored to seize them. One of the expeditions
resulted in the death of Laurens.[1180] Gist made a report of this
action, and there is a note from Greene to Washington.[1181] Benjamin
Thomson,—afterwards Count Rumford,—at this time lieutenant-colonel
in a regiment stationed near Charleston, wrote many letters in Jan.,
1782, which have been printed by the Royal Commission on Hist. MSS. in
their _Ninth Report_, Appendix, iii. p. 118.[1182]

An account of the march of the reinforcements sent south under St.
Clair is in _Harmer's Journal_, while the "Journal" of Major Denny in
_Penna. Hist. Soc. Memoirs_, vii. pp. 249 _et seq._, contains much of
interest relating to the operations around Charleston.[1183] Mention
should also be made of a series of letters from Major Pierce to St.
George Tucker, bearing on this period, in _Mag. Am. Hist._ (1881),
pp. 431-445, while there is an original account by Seymour in _Penna.
Mag._, vii. 377. A British narrative of the same operations is in
_Political Mag._, iv. 36-44.[1184]

There are several descriptions of the triumphant entry of the
Americans into Charleston on the 14th of December, 1782; that by Horry
in _Charleston Year Book_ (1883) is perhaps the best.[1185] Of the
contemporary historians, Gordon (vol. iv. 173-177, 298-305) has given
the best account of this time.[1186] In the library of the Mass. Hist.
Soc. there is a manuscript giving details of the emigration at the
evacuations of Savannah and Charleston.[1187] It appears from this
that no less than 13,271 of the former inhabitants of those States,
including 8,676 blacks, left with the British army when it finally
retired from the South.

THE BRITISH IN VIRGINIA, 1779 AND 1780.—Besides the documents
mentioned in the _Virginia Calendar of State Papers_, there are
full and detailed accounts by Mathews and Collier of their doings
at Portsmouth and Suffolk.[1188] There is some account also of the
naval portion of this expedition in Town's _Detail of Some Particular
Services performed in America, compiled from journals ... kept aboard
the Ship Rainbow_, New York, 1835, pp. 77-88.[1189]

Clinton's instructions to Leslie are in _Clinton's Observations on
Cornwallis_, App., pp. 25, 27. There is little else bearing on this
movement except a few letters from Steuben in _Historical Mag._, iv.
301, and _Corres. of the Rev._, iii. 203.[1190]

ARNOLD AND PHILLIPS IN VIRGINIA, 1781.—With regard to the first part
of Arnold's raid into Virginia, we have several letters from him to
Clinton.[1191] On the American side there are many interesting letters
in the _Maryland Papers_ (134-144), and in Muhlenberg's _Muhlenberg_,
404, etc. See also _Ibid._ 216-253, for a description of Gen.
Muhlenberg's share in resisting these incursions. Steuben, as Greene's
lieutenant, had the chief command in Virginia at the time, and Kapp in
his _Steuben_ (Amer. ed., p. 371 _et seq._) has not failed to give him
full credit for his courageous endeavors.[1192]

* * * * *

LAFAYETTE AND CORNWALLIS IN VIRGINIA.—Lafayette, during his campaign
against Phillips, and afterwards against Cornwallis, was considered as
under the command of Greene. He reported to Greene, and his reports may
be found in the _Remembrancer_, (vol. xii.).[1193] He also kept up an
incessant correspondence with Washington, and Sparks's _Corres. of the
Rev._[1194] should therefore be compared with the papers in Lafayette's
_Memoirs_.[1195] A few reports and letters from Cornwallis at this time
will be found in his _Correspondence_ (i. 105 _et seq._). Tarleton
(_Campaigns_, 279) gives a good account of the march from Guilford
to Wilmington and thence to Petersburg, from his point of view. Gen.
Graham was at that time a captain in the 76th regiment, which, with
the 80th, bore the brunt of the action at the crossing of the James.
The account of the affair in his _Memoirs_ (pp. 53-55) is one of the
best we have. Simcoe, in his _Journal_ (ed. 1787, pp. 146-177; Am. ed.,
pp. 209-250), has given a detailed description of the campaign. He has
exaggerated his own services, but has atoned, in part, for this by
giving a set of good plans of the rencounters which he tried to dignify
into battles.[1196] Giradin (_Continuation of Burk_, iv. 490) has given
the Jeffersonian version of the period.[1197]

This gallant struggle of Lafayette against great odds was very
creditable to him and to his soldiers; but it had little or no
influence on the final result. Nevertheless, it has attracted the
attention of recent writers, and has brought out two good articles: one
from the pen of Carrington (_Mag. Am. Hist._, vi. 340, with map), the
other from a less known writer, Mr. Coleman (_Ibid._ vii. 201).[1198]

* * * * *

THE YORKTOWN CAMPAIGN.—Clinton and Cornwallis, in their pamphlets on
the conduct of the campaign, printed most of the important documents
which passed between them and their superiors and subordinates. Others
will be found in the documents printed by order of the Lords, and still
others in the biographies of the different commanders. I shall point
out only the most important. In a letter (Wilmington, April 18, 1781)
Cornwallis explained the reasons for the Guilford campaign, gave an
account of his later movements, and advocated a march into Virginia. On
the 24th he wrote to Phillips that his situation at Wilmington was very
distressing (_Parl. Reg._, xxv. 155, etc.). On the preceding day he had
announced his determination to Germain to go north (_Parl. Reg._, xxv.
145; extracts in numerous places, among others in Tarleton, 325). But
more valuable than these are two letters to Clinton written April 24th
(_Parl. Reg._, xxv. 156; extracts in Cornwallis's _Correspondence_, i.
94; Cornwallis's _Answer_, p. 55; and in many other places). Clinton
disapproved this movement from the outset. (Cf. letter, May 29th, in
Clinton's _Observations on Cornwallis_, App. p. 99.) Cornwallis tried
to justify his conduct in a letter dated Portsmouth, July 24th (_Parl.
Reg._, xxv. 207, etc.). On the other hand, Germain was "well pleased to
find Cornwallis's opinion entirely coincided" with his (_Parl. Reg._,
xxv. 135). Cornwallis therefore went north without any misgivings.[1199]

[Illustration: DE GRASSE'S VICTORY.

A contemporary type-sketch from the _London Magazine_. The _Political
Mag._, 1784, p. 20, has a folding plan. The most detailed plan is in
Stedman (ii. ch. 44), _The position of the English and French fleets
immediately previous to the Action on the 5th of Sept., 1781_, which
is reproduced in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Nov., 1881, p. 367. For
the operations in and about the bay, see Carrington's plan in his
_Battles_, p. 596. Contemporary charts of the bay are in the _No. Amer.
Pilot_, nos. 26 and 27; the _Neptune Americo-Septentrional_, no. 20;
and Des Barres's _Atlantic Neptune_. Graves's despatch on his failure,
dated at sea, Sept. 14, is in the _Political Mag._, ii. 605, with
other accounts (p. 620); with further explanations from Clinton and
Graves (p. 668). Cf. _Ibid._ iii. 153. John G. Shea edited in 1864 two
contemporary journals as _Operations of the French Fleet_, etc., with a
plan. One of these journals was printed at Amsterdam in 1783 (_Murphy
Catal._, no. 1,386). Cf. Stedman, ii. ch. 44; Chevalier's _Hist. de
la marine française_ (Paris, 1877), ch. vii.; Léon Chotteau's _Les
Français en Amérique_, p. 248; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 476.—ED.]

On June 11th Clinton ordered Cornwallis to seek some defensive position
(_Parl. Reg._, xxv. 160). Four days later he wrote that he should need
some of Cornwallis's troops (_Parl. Reg._, xxv. 175, and Cornwallis's
_Answer_, App. p. 112). This request he repeated on the 19th, and again
on the 26th (_Parl. Reg._, xxv. 177, and _Germain Corresp._, 187). In
this last he announced his purpose of marching on Philadelphia. On the
30th Cornwallis wrote one or two letters questioning the utility of the
defensive post he was ordered to occupy (_Parl. Reg._, xxv. 169, and
at greater length in Cornwallis's _Answer_, App. p. 118). In another
letter, dated July 8th, he again questioned the utility of a defensive
post. Clinton on his part, in two letters of July 8th and 11th,
censured the Virginia commander for repassing the James, and ordered
him to occupy Old Point Comfort (_Parl. Reg._, xxv. 171). Again, in
another letter of the same date as the second of these, he reiterates
his order to fortify a station in the Chesapeake for the protection of
large ships. Admiral Graves also wrote to Cornwallis, urging him to
seize and fortify Old Point Comfort (Cornwallis's _Answer_, App. p.
180). A board of officers was now sent to report on the practicability
of holding Old Point Comfort as a station for line-of-battle ships.
They reported (_Parl. Reg._, xxv. 182) that the proposed site was not
suitable, and this decision Cornwallis communicated to Graves (Aug.
26th, in the App. to his _Answer_). He also wrote to Clinton on the
next day somewhat bitterly in regard to his criticisms and orders
(_Corn. Corresp._, i. 107). Thinking that his orders required him
to fortify Yorktown, he repaired thither, though writing to O'Hara
that the position was a bad one on account of the heat, etc. (_Corn.
Corresp._, i. III.). Clinton also wrote three letters at about this
time, which Cornwallis did not receive until after his surrender. The
first and important one is in _Parl. Reg._, xxv. 182, while all three
are in the Appendix to Cornwallis's _Answer_, pp. 237, 251, 257. Such
are the most important documents bearing on the responsibility[1200]
for the disaster at Yorktown.

Cornwallis's official report to Clinton (Yorktown, Oct. 20, 1781)
was forwarded by Clinton to Germain on Nov. 15, 1781.[1201] The two
commanders kept up a constant correspondence during the siege, and from
their letters the details may be gathered. These are all printed in the
Appendix to the _Parliamentary Register_ and in numerous other places.

As soon as it was known at New York that Cornwallis was besieged by
such superior numbers, every effort was made to relieve him.[1202] The
fleet had been so badly cut up during the recent encounter with De
Grasse that Graves refused to venture again to sea before extensive
repairs had been completed. Consequently, when the relieving fleet
arrived off the capes of the Chesapeake the capitulation of Yorktown
had been signed. The letters and reports relating to this abortive
endeavor will be found in the _Parl. Reg._, xxv. pp. 190-200. There
seems to be no reason to blame Clinton or Graves for this delay.[1203]

The correspondence between the opposing commanders as to the surrender
has been often printed, as have the articles.[1204] As late as Oct.
19th Clinton wrote to some one in England giving an account of the
operations leading to the siege.[1205] On Oct. 29th Clinton wrote to
Germain the first official news concerning the surrender. This letter
(_London Gazette_, Nov. 24-27, 1781, and _Remembrancer_, xiii. 33) is
marked as received on Nov. 27th; but Wraxall, in a well-known passage,
says that the first official news of the surrender was received on the
25th.[1206]

The _Ninth Rep. of the Hist. MSS. Commission_ (App. iii. pp. 112-114)
contains four letters from "G. Damer" to Lord George Germain, relating
to the Virginia campaigns from Phillips's expedition to the end.
These letters are of exceeding value and interest. They bear out the
assertion so often made in the preceding narrative as to the great want
of harmony which prevailed in the higher ranks of the British forces in
this country.

Washington's official report[1207] announcing the surrender
(_Remembrancer_, xiii. 60, and innumerable other places) is of far less
importance than his order-book and his journal (May to Nov., 1781),
which last is in the State Department at Washington (T. F. Dwight in
_Mag. Am. Hist._, vi. 81). The portion on this campaign is in _Ibid._
(vol. vi. pp. 108-125; vii. 122-133).

[Illustration: YORKTOWN CAMPAIGN.

From the _Political Mag._, ii. 624, being the westerly half of the map
there given, originally published in London, Nov. 30, 1781, by J. Bew.
Faden published in 1781 _A Plan of the Entrance of Chesapeake Bay, with
James and York Rivers, by an officer_, which shows the condition in the
beginning of October.—ED.]

[Illustration: SIEGE OF YORKTOWN, 1781. (_Ramsay._)

NOTE ON THE MAPS OF THE YORKTOWN CAMPAIGN.—There is among the
Rochambeau maps the original sketch, done with a pen and a wash, 40×12
inches, showing the different encampments of the French army between
Boston and Yorktown, which is etched in Soulés' _Histoire des Troubles
de l'Amérique Anglaise_, and reproduced in Balch's _Les Français en
Amérique_, and in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, v. p. 1, and vii. pp. 8, 12,
17.

_The route of the allies from Chatham to Head of Elk, by Lieutenant
Hills_, a British map, is in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, v. 16. Cf., for
a general view, _Harper's Mag._, lxiii. p. 328. The best account of
this march and the return to Boston is by J. A. Stevens in _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, iii. 393; iv. 1; v. 1; vii. 1.

The earliest American map of the siege is one by Sebastian Bauman, an
officer of German extraction attached to Lamb's artillery, whose draft
was engraved in Philadelphia in 1782. There are copies in the N. Y. and
Penna. Hist. Societies, and, reduced one half, it is given in the _Mag.
of Amer. Hist._ (vol. vi. 57), and it is also in Johnston's _Yorktown_,
p. 198. There is among the Rochambeau maps in the library of Congress
(no. 63) a _Plan of the investment of York and Gloucester by Sebastian
Bauman_; the French in yellow, the Americans in blue, and the English
in red.

The earliest American maps issued to accompany narratives were Ramsay's
in his _Rev. in So. Carolina_, ii. 545 (reproduced herewith, and
followed in _Harper's Mag._, lxiii. 333, and Lowell's _Hessians_,
278); Gordon's, in his vol. iv. 196, also follows Bauman; Marshall's,
in his _Atlas_ to his _Washington_ (reproduced herewith). Later
published are the maps in Sparks's _Washington_, viii. 186; in Atlas
to Guizot's _Washington_; in Irving's _Washington_, quarto ed., iv.
356; E. M. Stone's _Our French Allies_, 424; Carrington's _Battles_,
646; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 518; Ridpath's _United States_; J. A.
Stevens's _Yorktown Centennial Handbook_; Johnston's _Yorktown_ (pp.
133, 144).

The leading British map of the siege is _A Plan of Yorktown and
Gloucester ... from an actual survey in the possession of Jno. Hills,
late lieut. in the 23d Regiment_ (Faden, London, Oct. 7, 1785). There
is another dated March 1, 1787, and, though a different plate, it
corresponds nearly to the one in Stedman, ii. 412, which is reproduced
in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, vi. p. 8; Tarleton's _Campaigns_, ch.
vii.; R. E. Lee's ed. of Henry Lee's _Memoirs_, etc., p. 300; Hamilton,
_Repub. of the U. S._, ii. 263. Other early English maps are: _A Plan
of the Posts of York and Gloucester in the Province of Virginia,
established by his Majesty's Army, etc., which terminated in the
Surrender ... on the 17th Oct., 1781. Surveyed by Capt. Fage of the
Royal Artillery_, which contains a small plan showing the position of
the army between the ravines. What appears to be an original map is the
_Plan of York Town shewing the Batteries and Approaches of the French
and Americans, 1781_, on p. 61 of the _Memoir of General Graham_. A
large map in colors is: _Plan of York Town in Virginia and adjacent
country exhibiting the operations of the American, French, and English
armies during the siege of that place in Oct. 1781_, by J. F. Renault.
Leake's _Lamb_, p. 278, contains a fair map, with contours shown,
although incorrectly.

There are MS. maps of the siege in the British Museum. Other MS. maps
of Yorktown and the neighboring waters, including the drawn plan made
for Faden's engraved map, are among the Faden maps (nos. 90, 91, 92) in
the library of Congress.

There are among the Rochambeau maps in the library of Congress
several illustrating the siege of Yorktown and attendant movements in
Virginia:—

No. 50, _Carte des environs d'Hampton_, 1781, measuring 36 x 24 inches,
and colored faintly.

No. 52, a pen-and-ink _Plan de Portsmouth, Va._, 15 x 12 inches.

No. 53, _Plan des ouvrages de Portsmouth en Virginie_, colored, 15 x 12
inches.

No. 54, _Carte detaillé de West Point sur la rivière de York au
confluent des rivières de Pamunky et Matapony_, a colored sketch.

No. 55, a pen-and-ink sketch, _Batteries de West Point de la rivière
York_, 15 x 12 inches.

No. 56, a pen-and-ink sketch, _Plan des environs de Williamsburg, York,
Hampton and Portsmouth_, measuring 12 x 12 inches.

No. 57, a colored plan, 3 x 4 inches, showing the French army in camp,
Sept., 1781, called _Carte des environs de Williamsburg en Virginie_.

No. 58, _Plan d'York en Virginie, avec les attaques faits par les
armées français et Américain en Oct. 1781_, a colored sketch.

No. 59, _Siége d'York, 1781_, a colored plan, 23 x 24 inches.

No. 60, _Plan des ouvrages faits à Yorktown en Virginie_, a tracing, 24
x 20 inches.

No. 61, a sketch in ink and water-colors, with an elaborate key, _Notes
sur les environs de York_, 24 x 12 inches.

Balch refers to a MS. map by Soulés, preserved in the Archives de la
Guerre at Paris, and another attached to the MS. _Journal de mon séjour
en Amérique_, which he attributes to Cromot-Dubourg. Soulés' map,
_Plan d'York en Virginie avec les attaques et les campemens de l'Armée
combiné de France et d'Amérique_, is given in his _Troubles_, etc.,
vol. iv., reduced in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (June, 1880).

Another published French map is a _Plan de l'armée de Cornwallis,
attaquée et faitte prisoniere dans Yorktown, le 19 8^{bre} par l'armée
combinée Française et Américaine. Dessiné sur les lieux par les
Ingenieurs de l'armée à Paris. Chez Le Rouge, X^{bre}, 1781._ Another
good French map has no clew to its authorship except the words "M.
fecit." It is entitled _Plan de l'Attaque des villes de Yorck et
Gloucester dans lesquelles etoit fortifié le Général Cornwallis fait
prisonnier le 19 Octobre, 1781_ (a copy in Harvard College library).
Two anonymous French maps are: _Plan d'York en Virginia avec les
attaques et les Campemens de l'armée de France et de l'Amérique_
(fac-simile in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, 1880, p. 440), and _Carte de
la partie de la Virginie ... avec le plan de l'Attaque d'Yorktown
et de Gloucester_. There is also a Paris map of Virginia, published
by Esnauts and Rapilly, giving the _Baie de Chesapeake avec plan de
l'attaque_.

There is a German map by Sotzman.

All these maps were based on more or less imperfect surveys. A map
giving correct topography, _Yorktown, Virginia, and the Ground
Occupied in the Siege of 1781; a topographical survey by direction
of Brev.-Maj.-Gen. G. W. Getty, U. S. A., commanding Artillery
School, Fort Monroe, 1880_, was drawn by Lieut. Caziare. A reduced
fac-simile is given in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (vii. 408,—described,
p. 339). Caziare also drew the plan, embodying the lines of Faden and
Renault, which is given in Patton's _Yorktown_, p. 34, and _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, vii. 288. A section of another and earlier government
survey, by Major Kearney, showing the roads as they were in 1818, is
in Johnston's _Yorktown_, p. 103. Cf. his list of maps in _Ibid._, p.
198.—ED.]

[Illustration: YORKTOWN, 1781. (Marshall's _Washington_.)]

Portions of his orderly-books, extending, with breaks, from June 19,
1781, to April 30, 1782, were printed in the _Amer. Hist. Record_
(iii.; on the siege itself, pp. 403, 457-462). The orderly-books were
reprinted at Philadelphia in 1865,[1208] while two orders of Sept.
15th and 25th, not included, are in the _Penna. Hist. Mag._ (1881),
and in Johnston's _Yorktown_, 199. Many other important journals and
orderly-books on the American side are preserved.[1209]

On the French side we have several contemporary accounts. First of
all I should place an anonymous journal which has been attributed to
Rochambeau.[1210] The _Diary of a French Officer, 1781_ (March 26
to Nov. 18, 1781), presumed to be the work of Baron Cromot-Dubourg,
an aide to Rochambeau, was brought to light by Mr. Balch (_Mag.
Am. Hist._, vii. 295), and is printed in _Ibid._ iv. 205, from an
unpublished MS. then in the possession of Mr. C. Fiske Harris,[1211]
of Providence, R. I.[1212] In some respects this is the most valuable
paper of this class that we have. Still another important diary is the
_Journal of Claude Blanchard, Commissary of the French Auxiliary Army
sent to the United States during the American Revolution, 1780-1783.
Translated from the French MS. by William Duane, and edited by Thomas
Balch_ (Albany, 1876, pp. 92-184 especially including the march back to
Boston).[1213]

In 1879 Mr. J. A. Stevens printed in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ a series
of letters from Count Fersen to his father, occasionally inclosing
a bit of journal, a great deal of which relates to the operations
before and after Yorktown, and it is in all respects a very valuable
contribution. The greater part of Deux-Pont's _Campaigns_[1214] relates
to this period, while the _Journal of an Officer_ (pp. 148-164) and
portions of the diaries kept by the naval officers refer to the same
campaign.

The French accounts of the assaults on the redoubts are in the above.
Hamilton's report to Lafayette is in _Remembrancer_, xiii. 61, while
Lafayette's report to Washington is in _Corresp. of the Rev._, iii.
425.[1215]

There are good accounts of this campaign in the standard books.[1216]
Of the more recent works, Henry P. Johnston's _Yorktown_[1217] stands
first, though it was written with an evident bias. J. H. Patton[1218]
also produced a small volume. Giradin's _Continuation of Burk_ (iv.
519) contains a one-sided description; and the lives of any of the
Revolutionary worthies[1219] devote a considerable space to the
campaign. Among these is the _Life of Muhlenberg_ by his son (268-276),
in which an unfounded claim is advanced for the sire that he commanded
the storming party led by Hamilton. The more popular books also have
detailed accounts,[1220] while the subject has been repeatedly treated
by orators, notably by Robert C. Winthrop.[1221]

[Illustration]

EDITORIAL NOTES ON EVENTS IN THE NORTH, 1779-1781.

WHILE the events followed in the preceding chapter were all tending,
both by Washington's victory and Greene's defeats, to a discouragement
of the English necessary to induce the British government to desire
a peace, the succession of events in the North had hardly any
interdependence, and of themselves conduced but little to the same end.
The campaigns of Sullivan in 1778 and 1779, the dismal failure of the
Massachusetts expedition to Penobscot in 1779, and the plot of Arnold,
are considered in other chapters. A brief commentary upon the other
transactions of this period here follows. The spring of 1779 was not
an encouraging one for the cause. Washington had kept his main army
during the winter at Middlebrook (Irving, iii.; Greene's _Greene_, ii.
160), and he was now resolved on a defensive campaign (Bancroft, x.
ch. 9). He gave his views to Congress (Sparks, vi. 158); but that body
inspired little confidence. It did something to increase the efficiency
of the army in creating an inspector-general (_Journals_, iii. 202);
but its internal bickerings were sadly discouraging (Greene's _Hist.
View_; Bancroft, x. 208; Greene's _Greene_, ii. 170, 175; John
Adams's _Works_, i. 292). The legislators were powerless to regulate
prices as they wished, and riots were in progress at their very doors
(Reed's _Reed_, ii. ch. 6). They sent _A circular letter_ to their
constituents, and urged enlistments in an address (May 26th; Niles's
_Principles_, etc., 1876, p. 405); while Gouverneur Morris prepared for
them some _Observations on the American Revolution, published according
to a Resolution of Congress, by their Committee for the Consideration
of those who are desirous of comparing the Conduct of the Opposed
Parties, and the several Consequences which have flowed from it_
(Phila., 1779). (Cf. Sparks's _Gouv. Morris_, and the letter of Thomas
Paine, _Hist. Mag._, i. 20.)

[Illustration: HESSIAN MAP OF THE HUDSON HIGHLANDS.]

The British in New York were as inactive as Washington was. We get
pictures of the life of the fortified town in the _Memoirs_ of the
Baroness Riedesel; Duncan's _Royal Artillery_, ii. ch. 28; Montresor's
account in _N. Y. City Manual_, 1870, p. 884,—also see that for 1863;
Gen. Pattison's letters in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1875; _Memoirs of
General Samuel Graham_.

Heath was commanding east of the Hudson (_Memoirs_), and Gen. McDougall
at West Point, which had been fortified the previous year (Sparks, v.
224, 282, 311; Ruttenber, _Obstructions_, 115; Lossing, _Field-Book_,
ii. 132; Journal of Capt. Page in _Essex Inst. Hist. Coll._, iv.,
v.) There is among the _Moses Greenleaf MSS._ (Mass. Hist. Soc.) an
orderly-book beginning at West Point, Jan. 1, 1779, and ending at
Morristown, Dec. 12, 1779.

[Illustration: STONY POINT.]

There is annexed a sketch from the Hessian _Plan des opérations dans
l'Amérique septentrionale depuis 12 Aoûst, 1776, jusqu'à 1779_. The
broken lines mark the roads. Cf. _The Country west of the Hudson,
occupied by the American army under Washington, from a MS. map drawn
for Lord Stirling in 1779_, given in Evans's _Memoir of Kosciuszko_
(1883), etc.

Early in July (2d) there was an affair between Tarleton and Col.
Sheldon at Poundridge in Westchester (Tarleton's _Memoirs_; _Mag.
Amer. Hist._, iii. 685). Washington, as the season advanced, kept to
the Highlands, and an attempt to draw him down was made by Clinton
in dispatching Tryon with a marauding force to invade Connecticut by
water. Tryon's instructions, July 2d, are in Charles H. Townshend's
_British Invasion of New Haven and Connecticut, with some account of
the burning of Fairfield and Norwalk_. They did not contemplate the
destruction of houses; and Johnston, in his _Observations on Judge
Jones_ (p. 59), controverts that Tory chronicler who charged such
intent upon Clinton. Cf. Hinman, _Hist. Coll. of Conn._, 607; Stuart's
_Jona. Trumbull_, ch. 37; Chauncey Goodrich in _New Haven Hist. Soc.
Coll._, ii. 27; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 180; Ithiel Town's _Particular
Services_, etc., p. 90; Gen. Parsons's letters in Hildreth's _Pioneer
Settlers of Ohio_, 537; Dawson, i. 507; _Hist. Mag._, ii. 88; Lossing,
i. 424; Sparks, _Corresp. of Rev._ i. 315; Leonard Bacon's oration on
the Centennial; and addresses of E. E. Rankin and Samuel Osgood in
the _Centennial Commemoration of the burning of Fairfield_ (New York,
1879). Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, iii. 103; _Diplom. Corresp._, ii.
253; iii. 99.

There is an address of Admiral Collier and Gen. Tryon, July 4th, to the
inhabitants of Connecticut. Tryon subsequently published an _Address
of Maj.-Gen. Tryon, written in consequence of his late expedition into
Connecticut_ (Sabin, xiii. 53, 495). Trumbull feared another invasion
in the autumn (_Hist. Mag._ ii. 10).

[Illustration: VERPLANCK'S POINT.]

The posts at Stony Point and Verplanck's had been begun as outposts
of West Point, and to protect King's Ferry, the crossing below the
Highlands. Before the works were finished the British had captured
them, in June (Sparks's _Washington_, vi. 292). Washington planned
a surprise of the British garrison, and the two annexed sketches,
furnished to him by Gen. Heath, seem to have been prepared in
anticipation of the movement.

The first, "Stoney Point", is from a pen-and-ink sketch, indorsed
"From Genl. Heath, letter 3d July, 1779", which is among the Sparks
maps in Cornell University library, and carries the following KEY:
1, the capital work on the highest part of the point, commanding the
out-flêches, which is conformed to the broken eminence it is built on;
2, 3, 4, 5, flêches built on so many little eminences, each with one
embrasure; but in the principal work (1) the number of embrasures is
uncertain, being covered by the works and the declivity of the hill.
Two rows of abatis (× × ×) cross the point from water to water. The
other plan, marked "Verplanck's Point", is sketched from a pen-and-ink
drawing in the same collection, also indorsed "From Gen^l. Heath,
letter 3d July, 1779", and bears this KEY: 1, Fort de la Fayette, with
block-house and barbette battery; 2, board huts in form of tents; 3,
American barbette; 4, British tents, about one regiment; 5, 6, two new
flêches by the Britons; 7, block-house on a stony hill, with a redoubt.
The abatis is marked × × ×.

[Illustration: FADEN'S STONY POINT, 1779.]

The lead of the movement was entrusted to Wayne. His instructions,
in Washington's handwriting, are given in Dawson, in fac-simile (p.
18). His orders are dated July 15 (Niles, _Principles_, 1876, p.
495; _Essex Inst. Hist. Coll._, v. 7). Wayne's first report of his
successful attack to Washington is given in fac-simile in Armstrong's
_Wayne_, Dawson, and Lossing (ii. 179); and his longer account of the
next day is in Sparks's _Washington_, vi. 537; and in _Ibid._ vi. 298,
is Washington's report to Congress. H. B. Dawson's _Assault on Stony
Point_ (Morrisania, 1863) is an elaborate monograph. H. P. Johnston
has a special paper in _Harper's Monthly_ lix. 233 (July, 1879), and
J. W. De Peyster another in the _N. Y. Mail_, July 15, 1879, while a
controversy of Johnston and De Peyster is in the _Monmouth Inquirer_.
"Who led the forlorn hope at Stony Point?" is discussed in the
_Penna. Mag. of Hist._, Oct., 1885, p. 357. Cf. Armstrong's _Wayne_;
Dawson's _Battles_; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 192; _Penna. Archives_,
vii.; Marshall's _Washington_, iv. ch. 2; Irving's _Washington_, iii.
465; Hull's _Rev. Services_, ch. 16; Reed's _Reed_, ii. 110; Kapp's
_Steuben_, ch. 11; Hamilton's _Republic_, i. 443; acc. of Col. Febiger
in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, March, 1881; Duncan's _Royal Artillery_, 3d ed.,
ii. 353; Pattison in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1875, p. 95; and Gen.
Joseph Hawley's _Centennial Address_, July 16, 1879. The British later
reoccupied the post (Sparks's _Corresp. of Rev._, ii. 328).

The chief map of the attack is a _Plan of the Surprise of Stoney
Point, 15 July, 1779, from surveys of Wm. Simpson, Lt. 17th Regt. and
D. Campbell, Lt. 42d Regt., by John Hills, Lt. 23d Regt., London,
Faden, March 1, 1784_. There is a fac-simile in the _N. Y. Calendar
of Hist. MSS._, p. 347, and in Dawson. It needs the following KEY:
1, Two companies of the 17th regiment. 2, Ditto. 3, Sixty of the
loyal Americans. 4, Two grenadier companies of the 17th regiment.
5, A detachment of the royal artillery. A, Ruins of a block-house
erected and destroyed by the Americans. B, A temporary magazine.
C, One 24 and one 18 pounder, ship guns. D, Ditto. E, One iron
12-pounder. F, One 8-inch-howitzer. G, One brass 12-pounder. H, One
short brass 12-pounder. I, One long brass 12-pounder. Cf. plans in
Hull's _Revolutionary Services_, ch. 16; Sparks's _Washington_, vi.
304; Guizot's _Washington_, Atlas; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 175.
The medals given to Wayne, De Fleury, and Stewart are described in
Loubat. (Cf. Lossing, ii. 180, 181.) A rude view of the capture in
Bickerstaff's (Boston) _Almanac_, 1780, is reproduced in _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, xvi. 592.

A few weeks later (Aug. 19), Major Henry Lee emulated Wayne in a
sudden attack on Paulus Hook (Jersey City). We have reports on both
sides. That of the British, General Pattison's, is in Duncan's _Royal
Artillery_, ii. 355, and his letter to Townshend in _N. Y. Hist.
Coll._, 1875, p. 79. On the American side we have accounts in Sparks's
_Washington_, vi. 317, 326, 332-336, 376; Lowell (_Hessians_, 228) says
that R. E. Lee's statement (in H. Lee's _Memoirs_) that Paulus Hook was
captured by a stratagem is not borne out by Marshall (_Washington_, iv.
87) or by the German accounts (Ewald, ii. 295). Cf. Moore's _Diary_,
ii. 206; Irving's _Washington_, iii. 475; Dawson's _Battles_; Quincy's
_Shaw_, 65; Reed's _Reed_, ii. 125; Duer's _Stirling_, 204; Bancroft,
x. 229; J. W. De Peyster in _N. Y. Mail_, Aug. 18, 1879; and S. A.
Green in _Hist. Mag._, Dec., 1868 (2d ser., iv. 264). George H. Farrier
prepared a _Memorial of the centennial celebration of the battle
of Paulus Hook, Aug. 19th, 1879_ (Jersey City, 1879), which has an
appendix of documents.

Loubat and Farrier give an account of the medal presented to Lee.

The annexed sketch, "Paulus Hook", is from a draft of an original
Hessian map in the library at Cassel, furnished by Mr. Edward J. Lowell
(cf. his _Hessians_, p. 228), with the following KEY: A, Covering force
of the attacking Americans. B, Line of attack on the block-houses (1,
2, 3) and fort (C), which mounted seven six-pounders, which were not
used. D, Barracks in which one hundred and ten prisoners were taken. E,
Work occupied by a Hessian captain, one officer and twenty-five men,
possessed at the time the Americans retired, at daybreak. (Cf. plan in
Lossing, ii. 828.) Farrier gives a plan from an original in the library
of Congress.

The winter of 1779-80 was an exceptionally severe one in the North
(Jones's N. Y., i. 320; Greene's _Greene_, ii. 184; Leake's _Lamb_;
Almon's _Remembrancer_, ix.) After Clinton had gone South to attack
Charleston, Knyphausen was left in command in New York (Eld's journal
in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xviii. 73; Eugene Lawrence on life in N.
Y. in Hist. Mag., i. 37; Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, vol. ii.).

[Illustration: OCTOBER 18-19, 1779.]

Washington was encamped at Morristown, New Jersey. Views of his
headquarters are in Lamb's _Homes of America_; _Appleton's Journal_,
xii. 129; Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 309, and his _M. and M.
Washington_, 191. (Cf. _Poole's Index_, p. 873; _Harper's Mag._, xviii.
289; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, iii. 89, 118.) Letters of Washington, while
in Morristown, in addition to those given in Sparks, are in _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, iii. 496. Orderly-books are in N. Y. Hist. Soc. cabinet and in
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xvii. 48.

The trials and deprivations of the army were so great that Washington
did not dare take advantage of an ice-bridge formed across the Hudson,
for an attack on New York, though the British feared that he might.
There were varying councils on this point in the American camp (Duer's
_Stirling_, ch. viii.). The British apprehension (Feb., 1780) is shown
in Duncan's _Royal Artillery_, ii. 359; _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._,
1875, pp. 147, 152. The difficulties in the American camp are followed
in Irving's _Washington_, iv. ch. 1 and 4; Thacher's _Mil. Journal_;
J. F. Tuttle in _Hist. Mag._, June, 1871, and _Harper's Mag._, Feb.,
1859. A lack of money in the paymasters' chests caused dissatisfaction,
which grew into an insurrection. The British, seeking to increase the
trouble, marched into New Jersey, under General Matthews, but they
were driven back, and waited on the coast till Clinton, returning
from Carolina, reinforced them, when they again advanced. Washington,
meanwhile, suspecting an incursion up the Hudson, had gone thither
with a large part of his troops, leaving Greene at Morristown. Greene
met the British and defeated them at Springfield, when they returned
to New York. The progress of these events can be followed. On the
American side, Greene's _Greene_, ii., and his letters in Sparks's
_Washington_, vii. 75, 506; Gordon, iii. 368; Marshall's _Washington_;
Sedgwick's _Livingston_; Bancroft, x. ch. 18; Irving's _Washington_,
iv. 6; Carrington, 502; Lossing, i. 322; in histories of N. Jersey;
Atkinson's _Newark_, 104; Hatfield's _Elizabeth_, ch. 22; _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, iii. 211, 490. On the British side, Moore's _Diary_, ii. 285;
Simcoe's _Queen's Rangers_; in letters in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._,
1875, p. 458. George Mathew, of the Coldstream Guards, wrote an account
(_Hist. Mag._, i. 103,—App., 1857), and some details are in the
_Court Martial of Col. Cosmo Gordon_ (London, 1783). For maps, John
Hill's, published by Faden, 1784, is the principal one. Cf. Carrington;
Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 322; and the map of Elizabethport Point
(1775-1783) by E. L. Meyer, published in 1879.

What is known as the affair of Bull's Ferry (July 21, 1780) was
an unsuccessful attempt by Wayne upon a block-house garrisoned by
Tories. (Cf. _Mag. Amer. Hist._, v. 161; Armstrong's _Wayne_; Sparks's
_Washington_, vii. 116; and his _Corresp. of Rev._, iii. 34, 37;
Sargent's _André_, 234.) André wrote on this misadventure of Wayne the
well-known doggerel verses called _The Cow-Chace_, part of Wayne's
project having been to gather cattle. The verses appeared in three
numbers of _Rivington's Gazette_ (New York, Aug. 16, 30, Sept. 23,
1780; Menzies, $23), and were republished by Rivington separately,
1780 (J. A. Rice's sale, $265), and also in Philadelphia, 1780. The
book was reprinted at London with notes in 1781; at New York in 1789
(Morrell's _Catal._, $36); at London in 1799, with Dunlap's tragedy of
_André_ (Menzies, 61, $23); at Albany in 1866, edited by F. B. Hough;
at Cincinnati in 1869. André seems to have made several copies of the
MS. Sargent prints it from one of these. Another belonged to Dr. W. B.
Sprague, and Lossing printed from this (_Field-Book_, ii. 878; _Two
Spies_, 68). It will also be found in Moore's _Songs and Ballads_, 299;
J. A. Spencer's _United States_, vol. ii. etc.

The summer was barren of military interest. Steuben was trying to
reorganize the army (Kapp's _Steuben_, ch. 12-15). The low condition of
the army is shown in Washington's letters (Sparks, vii. 156; _Corresp.
of Rev._, iii. 15; _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Aug., 1879). Washington issued
a circular letter on the army's distress (_New Hampshire State
Papers_, viii. 870; cf. _Journals of Congress_, iii. 469). The British
intercepted some mournful letters, and printed them (_Political Mag._,
ii. 73).

In August there was a gathering of delegates from the New England
States at Boston, "to advise the most vigorous prosecution of the war,
and provide for the reception of our French allies." The _Proceedings_
of this meeting have been edited from the original MS. by F. B. Hough
(Albany, 1867). In November a convention of the Northern States at
Hartford sought methods of furnishing men and supplies (_Mag. Amer.
Hist._, Oct., 1882, viii. 688; and Clinton's knowledge of it in _Ibid._
x. 411).

Hope revived with the prospect of the arrival of Rochambeau and the
French, in July, 1780 (Heath's _Memoirs_, 243; _Corresp. of Rev._,
iii. 12). The first communications of Washington and Rochambeau are
in Sparks's _Washington_, vii. 110, and App. 4, with an account of
Lafayette's conference with the French. Rochambeau's instructions are
in _Ibid._ vii. 493. The letters of Rochambeau and Lafayette are in the
_Sparks MSS._, lxxxv.

The English fleet blockaded the French in Newport harbor. The
_Political Mag._, 1780, has a map showing the blockade of the French
admiral Ternay by Arbuthnot. Letters of the English admiral are in the
_Hist. MSS. Com. Report IX._, App. iii. p. 106.

On the occupation of Newport by the French, see Mason's _Newport_;
_Newport Hist. Mag._, ii. 41; iii. 177; Stone's _French Allies_, 256;
_Lippincott's Mag._, xxvi. 351; Drake's _Nooks and Corners of the N.
E. Coast_; _Harper's Mag._, lix. 497. The correspondence of Rochambeau
and the Rhode Island authorities is in the _R. I. Col. Rec._, ix. There
is a diary of a French officer in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, iv. 209; and
Fersen's letters are in _Ibid._ iii. 300, 369, 437.

Several maps of Newport and vicinity are given in the _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, like the plan of the town by Blaskowitz; the _Defences of
Newport, 1781_, from a MS. French chart; and the _Scene of Operations
before Newport, 1781_, from a MS. survey by Robert Erskine, geographer
to the American army, of which the original is in the cabinet of the N.
Y. Hist. Society.

There are among the Rochambeau maps several plans of Newport and its
neighborhood, including no. 38, _Plan de Rhodes Isle et position de
l'armée française à Newport_, measuring 5 x 3 inches, colored and
showing roads, fences, forts, and the fleet in the harbor; no. 39,
_Plan de la ville, port, et rade de Newport, avec une partie de Rhode
Island, occupée par l'armée française_, evidently by the same draftsman
as the preceding, dated 1780, colored, measuring 24 x 30 inches,
showing forts, Gen. Sullivan's old camp, the old line of the English,
etc.; no. 41, a plan, 8 x 15 inches, called _Quatre positions de la
flotte française et position de la flotte anglaise_; no. 42, evidently
by Montresor, colored, measuring 4 x 3 inches, dated 1780, called _Plan
de la position de l'armée française au tour de Newport, et du mouillage
de l'escadre dans la rade de cette ville_. Le Rouge published a map of
this title in Paris, in 1783. Cf. map in _Political Mag._, i. 692.

On the French participation in the war we have Rochambeau, _Mémoires_,
with an English translation by Wright, and the _Troubles_ of Soulés,
which is supposed to have been inspired by Rochambeau. Cf. Walsh's
_Amer. Register_, ii. The other French contemporary accounts are the
_Mémoires_ of Count Ségur and the Duc de Lauzun; the _Travels_ of Abbé
Robin and of Chastellux, of which there is an English translation by
George Greive (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, April, 1869); the _Journals_
of Deux-Ponts, edited by S. A. Green, and of Claude Blanchard.
(Cf. _Revue militaire française_, and Tuckerman's _America and her
Commentators_.) The later French accounts in general are Leboucher's
_Hist. de la guerre de l'indépendance des Etats-Unis_; Balch's _Les
français en Amérique_ (1872), Chotteau's _Les français_, etc. A
comprehensive later American account is E. M. Stone's Our _French
Allies_. Cf. Lossing in _Harper's Mag._, xlii. 753.

Counter attacks of Clinton on Newport and of Washington and Rochambeau
on New York were prevented by untoward circumstances (Sparks's
_Washington_, vii. 130, 137, 171, with App. 6; Jones's _New York during
the Rev._, i. 358; _Mémoires_ of Rochambeau).

In September, 1780, Washington had an interview with Rochambeau
at Hartford to devise further operations, but the plot of Arnold
disconcerted all measures (E. M. Stone, 281; Irving's _Washington_; J.
C. Hamilton's _Republic_, ii. 49). Alexander Hamilton had drawn up a
plan of combined operations.

In October there was an unsuccessful expedition to Staten Island (_Life
of Pickering_, i. ch. 17; _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. 257; _Hist.
Mag._, i. 104).

Washington was now in camp at Totowa and Preakness, in New Jersey.
There are a map and view of his headquarters in _Mag. Amer. Hist._,
Aug., 1879. Cf. orderly-book in _2 Penna. Archives_, xi., and Journal
of Capt. Joseph McClellan in _Ibid._

The Pennsylvania line was at Morristown, under Wayne, and in January,
being without pay and supplies, they revolted, and marched towards
Philadelphia to claim redress of Congress. The New Jersey line was
similarly affected. Prompt and judicious measures quelled the mutiny,
but not till some emissaries, whom Clinton had sent to increase the
trouble, had been hanged by the insurrectionists. Original sources:
Wayne's letters to Washington, in the _Corresp. of Rev._, iii. 192;
Sparks's _Washington_, vii. 348, with App. x.; proposal of a Committee
of Sergeants, with Wayne's comments, in the _Sparks MSS._, xxxix. p.
100 (also no. liv. 5); documents in _Penna. Archives_, viii. 698,
701, 704, and ix.; second series, xi.; _Colonial Records_, xii. 624;
_Hazard's Register_, ii. 160; _St. Clair Papers_, i. 108, 532; _Bland
Papers_, ii. Cf. also Marshall's _Washington_, iv. 393; Irving's, iv.
195; Hamilton's _Hamilton_, i. 323, and _Works_, ii. 147; Amory's
_Sullivan_, 181; _Madison Papers_, i. 77; Reed's _Reed_, ii. ch. 14.
Clinton's report is in Almon's _Remembrancer_, xi. 148. The information
reaching the British camp is in Clinton's _Secret intelligence_, in
_Mag. Amer. Hist._, x. 328, 331, 418, 497; an account of the hanging of
the British emissaries is in the _Hist. of First Troop of Philad. City
Cavalry_, p. 28.

Washington and Rochambeau had held a conference at Weathersfield, Conn.
(May 22, 1781), to arrange for a plan of combined action (Sparks's
_Washington_, viii. 517, for their views respecting the safety of
Newport, meanwhile). The conference was held at the Webb House (_Mag.
Amer. Hist._, June, 1880). The French army then moved by way of
Providence to the Hudson, and there is among the Rochambeau maps in
the library of Congress a plan of their route, with key, giving their
twelve encampments on the way (nos. 42 (bis), 43, 44). _Marche de
l'armée française de Providence à la Rivière du Nord, 1782._ In the
_Mag. Amer. Hist._ (iv. 299) there is a map of the _Route of the French
from Providence to King's Ferry_, following a MS. attached to a diary
of a French officer.

Rochambeau established his headquarters at the Odell House, in
Westchester (Stone, _French Allies_, 394; C. A. Campbell in _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, iv. 46). On June 12th, the two commanders held a council of
war at New Windsor (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, iii. 102). Clinton's secret
journal shows how well the British commander was informed of what was
going on (_Ibid._ xii. 73, etc., 162, etc.). Beside the correspondence
of Washington at this time, in Sparks, there are other letters in
Ibid. iv. and v. Washington's first attempt to act in union with the
French was in the proposed attack on the forts on New York Island.
(Cf. Washington's journal in _Ibid._ vi. 117; xi. 535.) There is
among the _Lincoln Papers_ (_Sparks MSS._, xii.) a "memorandum to
regulate the movements of the allied army on the night of the 31st
of July, 1781." J. A. Stevens follows the operations of the combined
armies at this time (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, iv., Jan., 1880). He gives
a map of the attempt at King's Bridge, July 3, 1781. There is among
the Rochambeau maps an excellent draft, about thirty inches wide by
fifteen high, showing New York with Long Island, with the French
camp as high up as Tarrytown, called _Position du camp de l'armée
combinée de Phillipsbourg du 6 Juillet au 19 Août, 1781_. Stevens
gives a fac-simile of this, and also a map of the environs of New
York between the Sound and the Hudson, called _Surveys in New York
and Connecticut States for his Excellency, Gen. Washington, by Robert
Erskine, Anno 1778, W. Scull delin._,—a MS. plan in the New York
Hist. Soc. library (_Proc._, 1845, p. 56), where is also a MS. _Chart
of the Harbour of New York, with a map of the Country bordering upon
the Sound, and extending to the Connecticut, with the names of the
principal places laid down thereon, by Robert Erskine, 1779_ (_N. Y.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1848, p. 188). The Rochambeau maps contain other
evidences of the activity at this time of the French topographical
engineers; as, for instance, a plan (no. 29) done in ink and color,
measuring ten inches wide by twelve high, and not very exact, called
_Reconnaisance Juillet, 1781, ouvrages [de] Morrisania, Isle de New
York_, by Montresor and Buchanan, and a second (12 x 15 inches) which
gives the works at Frog's Point (no. 30), and adds to the title "Plan
d'une batterie de Long Island." Another (no. 32), called _Reconnaisance
des ouvrages du nord de l'Isle New York, 22-23 Juillet, 1781_, measures
twelve inches wide by fifteen high, apparently the work of Montresor,
and shows Fort Washington, Laurel Hill, etc. It was Washington's
purpose at this time to make Clinton expect an attack on New York
(Sparks's _Washington_, viii. 54, 130, 517; _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._,
2d series, i. 327). Clinton has recorded his reason why he did not
venture to attack Washington in July and August, while the Americans
were encamped at King's Bridge (_New York City during the Rev._, New
York, 1861, pp. 177-184). By August 14th, the coöperation of the French
fleet being assured, Washington decided to march to Virginia (_Mag.
Amer. Hist._, vii.; also xi. 343; _Diplom. Corresp._, xi. 417). He
said the main cause of his coming to this decision was the failure of
the New England States to supply men (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, vi. 125).
Washington's headquarters at this time were in the Livingston mansion
(Lossing, ii. 195).

The question of Washington having been made a marshal of France has
caused some discussion. _Hist. Mag._, ii., iii.; E. M. Stone's _French
Allies_, 373; Balch, _Les Français en Amérique_, 122.

While Washington marched towards Virginia, the marauding expedition
which Clinton had sent under Arnold, along the Connecticut coast,
failed to divert him from his purpose, as the British commander had
hoped it would. The attack fell upon New London and Groton, early in
September. Trumbull's letter to Washington is in the _Corresp. of
Rev._, iii. 403. Cf. Stuart's _Trumbull_, ch. 45; Arnold's account in
the _Polit. Mag._, ii. 666; Sparks's _Arnold_, and Arnold's _Arnold_;
"Sir Henry Clinton and the burning of New London", in _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, March, 1883, p. 187. There are contemporary accounts in _N.
E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, x. 127 (1856); Niles's _Principles_ (1876),
p. 143; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 479; and in the _Narrative of Jonathan
Rathbun, with accurate accounts of the capture of Groton fort, the
massacre that followed, and the sacking and burning of New London,
Sept. 6, 1781, by the British forces_, by Rufus Avery and Stephen
Hempstead, with an appendix (1810).

The principal monograph is William W. Harris's _Battle of Groton
heights: a collection of narratives, official reports, records, etc.,
of the storming of Fort Griswold, the massacre of its garrison and the
burning of New London by British troops. With introd. and notes; rev.
and enl. with additional notes, by Charles Allyn_ (New London, 1882).
The original issue was in 1870. The perfected edition is enriched with
many documentary proofs.

There have been other anniversary addresses: Tuttle's at Fort Griswold
(1821); W. F. Brainerd's (1825); Griswold's in commemoration of Col.
Ledyard (1826), who was run through by his own sword after he had
surrendered it; R. C. Winthrop's (1853) in his _Addresses_ (1852-1867,
p. 84); Leonard W. Bacon's, with an historical sketch by J. J. Copp, in
the _Battle of Groton Heights_ (1879).

The local authorities are Hollister's and other histories of
Connecticut; Caulkins' _New London_, ch. 32; Hinman's _Hist.
Collections_; L. W Champney's "Memories of New London" in _Harper's
Mag._, lx. (Dec., 1879), p. 62, with views in Lossing's _Field-Book_,
ii. 43, 46.

A paper by C. B. Todd on the massacre (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, vii. 161)
has an account of Ledyard and his family, with views of his house in
Hartford and the monument on Groton Heights (cf. Harris and Allyn,
p. 179), and a list of the slain. Gov. Trumbull made a report on the
losses inflicted at New London and Groton, Sept. 6, 1781, which, with
affidavits respecting the conduct of the enemy, are in the State Dept.
at Washington.

There are critical accounts in Dawson's _Battles_ and in Carrington's
_Battles_. The latter has a plan. A map of Mass., Rhode Island, and
Connecticut, showing the geographical relations, is in _Polit. Mag._,
iii. 171.

A MS. "Sketch of New London and Groton, with the attacks made on Forts
Trumbull and Griswold by the British troops, under the command of
Brig.-Gen. Arnold, Sept. 6, 1781", is among the Faden maps (no. 98) in
the library of Congress, together with a separate ink drawing of Fort
Griswold (no. 99),—both of which are engraved in Harris and Allyn.

CHAPTER VII.

THE NAVAL HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

BY THE REVEREND EDWARD E. HALE, D. D.

THE battles of the Revolution were fought on the sea as often as on the
land, and to as much purpose. The losses inflicted on their enemies
by the United States in their naval warfare were more constant, and
probably more serious, than any losses which they inflicted elsewhere.
At the beginning of the war, the mercantile class of England, even
then a powerful element in her politics, were far more indifferent to
the questions at issue than they became afterwards, when the rates
of maritime insurance began to rise rapidly. These high rates had
begun long before France and Spain entered into the struggle; and the
captures which the English navy made by no means compensated England
for the losses which she sustained. In such a contest, it generally
proves that the richer combatant is he who pays the most. The loss of
an English Indiaman or a Mediterranean trader on her voyage to "the
Pool",[1222] or to Bristol, was but poorly compensated by the capture
of even a dozen American schooners laden with salt fish and clapboards.

The men of New England, after the early exodus of the Tories, were
almost unanimously engaged against England, and they were engaged with
that intensity of purpose which belongs to Puritans and to republicans.
They were then almost wholly a maritime race; and those ethnologists
who think that New Englanders have a larger share of Norse blood than
most Englishmen may well justify their theory by the fearlessness of
the genuine Yankee upon the sea and his passion for maritime adventure.
So soon, therefore, as the outbreak of hostilities began to disturb the
natural course of their commerce, the seamen of the New England coast
took up the business of cruising against their enemies, as if it were
quite normal and something to which they had been born and trained.

New England was at this moment an important factor in the maritime
interest of the world. She had special facilities for ship-building. In
that essential department of maritime commerce her artisans excelled
any in the world, and for three quarters of a century the export of
ships, which were sold abroad, had been one of the most profitable
features of New England commerce. It required two thirds of a century
after John Winthrop built the "Blessing of the Bay" to persuade the
masters of the royal ship-yards that there was any timber in America
which they could use in preference to that which they received from
Norway.[1223] But Lord Bellomont, as early as 1700, had urged that
the king should not buy his spars in the open market in England, but
should send his own vessels to New England for them. In the same
letters he pointed out to his correspondents that the effect of the
present regulations was that the Americans shipped spars to Portugal,
which were then used in the navy of France. In point of fact, when
at last, in 1778, all four parties were engaged in the Revolutionary
War, the spars of most of the vessels of England, France, Spain, and
America had all been cut in the forests of New England. It is, indeed,
quite within the memory of men now living that in the wildernesses of
Maine or New Hampshire some fine old monarch of the forest might still
be found bearing the broad arrow of the king of England. He had been
marked for the royal navy while King George yet reigned over half this
continent, and he had been spared from the axe by the Declaration of
Independence.[1224]

A people thus bred to the sea, and able to assert themselves upon
it, lost no time, when they found themselves at war with England, in
carrying their war upon the element to which they were born. They
won their first naval victory over England on the 5th of May, 1775,
scarcely a fortnight after the battle of Lexington. The "Falcon", a
British sloop of war, had, under some pretence, seized one or more
prizes from the people of Buzzard's Bay. Inspired probably by the
success at Lexington and Concord, the people of New Bedford and
Dartmouth fitted out a vessel, with which they attacked and cut out
one of the "Falcon's" prizes, with fifteen prisoners, from a harbor in
Martha's Vineyard. On the 12th of June the people of Machias, in Maine,
seized the "Margaretta", a king's sloop, and two other vessels. The
captain and his crew resisted, but he was killed, with one of his men,
and five were wounded.[1225] Her armament was transferred to another
vessel, which was placed under the command of Jeremiah O'Brien, who
received from the government of Massachusetts a commission as marine
captain. As early as the 2d of September, Washington, who was then in
command at Cambridge, issued commissions, authorizing those who held
them to cut off the supply-vessels of the English as they entered the
harbor.[1226] The provincial congress at once legalized their capture,
so far as its enactments could do so, and six vessels were commissioned
by the province of Massachusetts Bay,—the "Lynch", the "Franklin", the
"Lee", the "Washington", the "Harrison", and the "Warren."

On the 16th of October, Washington, acting under instructions from
Congress,[1227] directed Broughton and Selman, captains in the
Marblehead regiment of Continentals, to take their companies on board
the "Lynch" (six guns) and "Franklin" (four guns), and attempt to
intercept in the river St. Lawrence two English transports bound for
Quebec, with military stores. They did not find these two vessels; but
they took ten other prizes, attacked and took a fort on the Island
of St. John, and brought off as prisoners of war the governor and
one of the judges of that island.[1228] On their return in December
to Massachusetts, both officers were reprimanded for exceeding their
instructions, and both prisoners and prizes were released. The
Congress and Washington were still maintaining a friendly attitude
towards Canada and the other northern provinces, and gave up prizes
and prisoners in hopes of conciliating them. Meanwhile, on the 29th of
November, another Marblehead captain, John Manly, in command of the
schooner "Lee", took the brigantine "Nancy" from London, as she entered
Massachusetts Bay, laden with military stores for Howe.[1229] We have
the contemporary records of the joy of the Americans at Cambridge,
and the dismay of the besieged in Boston. The extemporized camp of
the besiegers read with delight from the invoice of her stores such
phrases as "two thousand muskets", "one hundred and five thousand
flints", "sixty reams of cartridge paper", "thirty-one tons of musket
shot", "three thousand round-shot for 12-pounders, four thousand for
6-pounders."

[Illustration: COMMODORE TUCKER'S ORDERS.

After original in the _Tucker Papers_, in Harvard College library,
giving him, by direction of Congress, charge of the frigate
"Boston."—ED.]

Before the end of 1775 the Continental Congress ordered that five
ships of thirty-two guns should be built, five of twenty-eight, and
three of twenty-four. This order was carried out, and these vessels are
the proper beginning of the navy of the United States.[1230] Almost
every one of them, before the war was over, had been captured, or
burned to avoid capture. But the names of the little fleet will always
be of interest to Americans, and some of those names have always been
preserved on the calendar of the navy. They are the "Washington",
"Raleigh", "Hancock", "Randolph", "Warren", "Virginia", "Trumbull",
"Effingham", "Congress", "Providence", "Boston", "Delaware",
"Montgomery." The State of Rhode Island, at the very outbreak of
hostilities, commissioned Abraham Whipple, who went with his little
vessel as far as Bermuda, and, from his experience in naval warfare
earned in the French War, he was recognized as commodore of the
little fleet of American cruisers. England had no force at Bermuda to
resist him, and he found the inhabitants friendly. A raid, directed
by Congress, had already brought from the island all the powder in
their stores, and this was one of the first supplies which Washington
received at Cambridge.[1231] Meanwhile, every maritime State issued
commissions to privateers, and established admiralty or prize courts,
with power to condemn prizes when brought in. Legitimate commerce had
been largely checked,[1232] and, as has been said, the seamen of the
country, who had formerly been employed in the fisheries,[1233] or in
our large foreign trade with the West India Islands and with Europe,
gladly volunteered in the private service. Till the end of the war
the seamen preferred the privateer service to that of the government.
This fact, indeed, materially affected the somewhat bold proposals
with which the Continental Congress began the war; and, at the time
when the war virtually closed by Cornwallis's surrender, the national
government, if it can be called such, had very few vessels in its
service.

The larger maritime States had in commission one or more vessels from
the beginning, but they found the same difficulty which the Congress
found in enlisting seamen, when any bold privateer captain came into
rivalry with them. The States of Massachusetts, of Rhode Island, of
Connecticut, of Pennsylvania, of Virginia, and of South Carolina had,
however, as we shall see, each nominally a naval force of its own,
all through the war. The general disposition of all parties being the
same, it was not difficult to unite Continental ships, state ships, and
privateers, on occasion, in the same endeavor.

In March, 1776, the English fleet in Boston Bay, with a large number
of transports, carried to Halifax the whole English army, and those
inhabitants of Massachusetts who did not venture to remain.[1234]
Meanwhile, the English government at home was sending large
reinforcements to Howe, and he was not as successful as he could have
wished in meeting at sea the vessels which brought them, and turning
them into Halifax. Among the first considerable successes of the
privateers and the armed ships of Massachusetts Bay were the capture
of several of these vessels as they came unsuspiciously toward the
harbor of Boston. The Connecticut brig "Defence", of fourteen guns,
the Massachusetts State schooner "Lee", of eight, and three privateer
schooners attacked two armed English transports off Cape Cod, and
captured them after a sharp action of an hour. The next day they took
a third, and in this way five hundred prisoners fell into the hands of
the Americans. This was on the 17th and 18th of June, 1776.[1235]

As early as the 22d of December, in 1775,[1236] Congress had appointed
Esek Hopkins, of Rhode Island, commander-in-chief of its navy, and had
named four captains beside, with several lieutenants, the first of
whom was John Paul Jones. Hopkins and the rest fitted a squadron of
eight small vessels, of which the "Alfred" (twenty-four guns) was his
flag-ship. Jones was with him as his lieutenant. With this force they
made a descent upon New Providence in the Bahamas, and although they
failed in obtaining a stock of powder, which they had hoped for, they
did capture a hundred cannon and a large quantity of other military
stores.

[Illustration: ESEK HOPKINS.

From an engraving in _An Impartial History of the War in America_,
London, 1780, p. 310, where he is called "Robert Hopkins, Commodore of
the American Sea-forces", in a sketch of his life which is far from
accurate, and which is cited in the _United Service_, Feb., 1885,
etc. A more common picture is given in Murray's _Impartial History_
(vol. ii.), which has been quently reëngraved. (Cf. _The Providence
Plantation for 250 Years_, Prov., 1886, p. 61; Lossing's _Field-Book_,
ii. 844 _Cyclop. U. S. Hist._, i. 844; _Harper's Mag._, xxiv. 160.)
There is a German print in the _Geschichte der Kriege in und ausser
Europa_ (1778), and a Dutch one in _Nederlandsche Mercurius_, xxiii. p.
128.

The best known picture is one published in London, Aug. 22, 1776,
by Thomas Hart, of which a reproduction is given in Smith's _Brit.
Mezzotint Portraits_, and in the _United Service_ (xii. 137, 300),
Feb., 1885, accompanying a memoir by Admiral Geo. H. Preble. (Cf.
Preble's _Hist. of the U. S. Flag_.) It represents "Commodore Hopkins"
standing on his deck, sword in hand, with two ships in the background,
one bearing a Liberty Tree flag with the motto "An appeal to God;" the
other having a striped flag with a serpent across the stripes, and the
motto "Don't tread on me." (Cf. E. M. Stone's _Our French Allies_, p.
12, and Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. p. 844.)—ED.]

On his way home, Hopkins took a tender of six guns and a bomb brig off
Long Island, and on the 6th of April, with a part of his squadron,
engaged the English ship-of-war "Glasgow", of twenty guns. He did not
take her, but the audacity of the attack, made by vessels each of which
was her inferior, pleased the country, and it was at first represented
as a great victory. When it was learned that Hopkins had five vessels,
however small, to the Englishman's one, a reaction of public feeling
took place, from which he never recovered. He was honorably acquitted
by a court-martial, but never regained full public confidence, and he
does not appear in the public naval service afterwards. This hasty
public condemnation seems to have been unjust, and to have cost the
country the service, in its national navy, of a skilful and brave
commander.[1237]

While Hopkins was undergoing his trial, on the 10th of May, 1776, Paul
Jones was appointed to the command of the "Providence", in place of
Hazard, who did or did not fight her as he should have done in the
engagement with the "Glasgow." Through the summer, Jones was engaged in
cruising. At one time he ran as far as Bermuda, and afterwards to the
eastward as far as Canso. In this summer cruise he made sixteen prizes,
and his reputation as a favorite dates from this time.

On the 10th of October a resolution of Congress fixed the rank
of captains in the navy. James Nicholson[1238] was first, Manly
second, McNiel third, Saltonstall fourth, Lambert Wickes eleventh,
John B. Hopkins fourteenth, and Paul Jones eighteenth on a list of
twenty-four.[1239]

Jones was not pleased that his rank was not higher, but eventually his
achievements were such that his reputation probably now stands higher
as a successful officer than that of any of the number.

While he was cruising at the East, Nicholas Biddle,[1240] in the
"Andrea Doria", a little brig carrying fourteen 4-pounders, took two
armed transports filled with soldiers, and captured many merchantmen.
On returning from his cruise he was appointed to the "Randolph"
(thirty-two guns), which had been built that summer in Philadelphia and
was launched in the autumn. Biddle's reputation was high in consequence
of his success, and early in 1777 he sailed on the "Randolph's" first
cruise. He captured four Jamaica-men when he was three days out, one
of which had an armament of twenty guns, but he was then blockaded in
Charleston by an English force through the summer.[1241]

In the autumn of 1776, Jones, at Newport, took command of the "Alfred"
(twenty-four guns) and "Providence" (twelve guns), and in the month of
November went to sea. He was fortunate enough to take the armed ship
"Mellish", with stores for Burgoyne's army. But while returning to
Boston with her, he met the "Milford" (thirty-two), an English frigate.
He succeeded in turning her away from his prize and brought it into
Boston harbor. The "Mellish" had ten thousand suits of uniform on
board, in charge of a company of soldiers. It was when he arrived that
Jones found that he was only eighteenth on the list of captains, and
this really meant that there was hardly a ship which he could expect in
the service, and that if he found any it would be even inferior to the
"Alfred."

On this occasion he first used Poor Richard's rule, "If you want a
thing done, do it yourself." He went to Philadelphia to urge his own
claims on Congress or its naval committee. But they could not work
impossibilities, and it was not till some months later that he was
appointed to the "Ranger." He believed that she was the first armed
vessel to display the national American flag. It was not till November,
1777, that he got to sea with her. He hoped to carry out the great news
of Burgoyne's surrender. But the government of Massachusetts had been
too quick for him. They had commissioned the brigantine "Perch", with a
special messenger, Jonathan Loring Austin, and he had arrived in France
with the news some days before Jones appeared.

Lambert Wickes, the eleventh on the list of captains, had been the
first officer to carry a national cruiser across the ocean. He was
directed to take Dr. Franklin to France in the "Reprisal", and did
so,—in a voyage which gave Franklin a high opinion of his ability.
Several times he beat to quarters when an attack from a hostile force
seemed possible, but with such a passenger he did not, of course, court
an action. When near the coast of France he made two or three prizes
and brought them in with him.

His arrival and theirs, and the arrival of some other prizes which
had been taken early in the year by other privateers, opened all the
questions regarding neutrality, which recently, in our civil war and
afterwards, made the history of the cruiser "Alabama" so important a
feature in modern international law. France made no treaty with America
until the end of 1777. Till that time—indeed, until the formal rupture
with England—she was under very strict treaty obligations with that
power. The Treaty of Utrecht (1713) provided that "it shall not be
lawful for any foreign Privateers to fit their ships in the Ports of
one or the other of the aforesaid Partys, to sell what they have taken,
or in any manner whatever to exchange either Ships, Merchandises, or
any other Ladings." Wickes was annoyed and provoked at the treatment
he received from French officials, who pretended to observe the
obligations by which the French king was thus bound. But he succeeded
in going to sea again, and made a successful cruise around Ireland,
taking several prizes.[1242]

The French people looked with great satisfaction on such captures.
But war was not yet declared with England by France, and the French
cabinet knew perfectly well that the act of Wickes involved a flagrant
violation of French neutrality. The fitting out war-vessels in French
ports was not only wrong, under a fair construction of international
law, but the king of France had specially waived all right to harbor
privateers of foreign powers—unless they were in actual distress—by
these special articles in this treaty. Wickes could never understand
this. He knew that France was sending munitions of war to his
countrymen. Why should France not permit him to bring his prizes into
French ports to sell? And the temptation was great. Once and again he
slipped out to sea; and he sent in one and another prize. But at last
Vergennes, the French minister, could bear it no longer. Poor Wickes's
last letters show how strong the hand of France was, even upon her
friends.[1243]

All the diplomacy of Franklin, the good-nature of Vergennes, and the
real sympathy of the French people could not forever prevail. Wickes
was at last ordered squarely to make ready for America, and did so.
But, alas! the refitting seems to have been incomplete, and he never
reached the United States. His vessel was lost off Newfoundland, and
only one man was saved.

The other name which should rank with those of Jones and Wickes as one
of those early naval heroes who in a courageous though fitful manner
kept the stars and stripes afloat in European waters, and infested
the English shores to the annoyance of their merchant marine and the
terror of the maritime towns, is that of Gustavus Conyngham. In the
spring of 1777, before Wickes had rendered himself so utterly obnoxious
to the French ministry as he afterwards did—before the complaints of
Lord Stormont had received much attention, Silas Deane, ever on the
lookout for the accomplishment of some successful naval enterprise,
took thought with William Hodge, a Philadelphia merchant, and planned
what was to be the boldest raid yet made upon the English shipping. A
lugger was purchased at Dover and sent around to Dunkirk, that old nest
of smugglers and privateersmen. She was fitted out with an armament
and crew, and given, with the name of the "Surprise", to Gustavus
Conyngham, for a raid on the English marine. The expedition was partly
public and partly private in its nature. Conyngham was, however,
an officer in the navy, for he was furnished with one of the blank
commissions given the commissioners for that very purpose, signed by
John Hancock, president of Congress. This point was of some importance
to him afterwards, when he was accused by the English of piracy. The
charge was groundless. The commissioners had received power to create
officers in the navy of the United States, by virtue of these blank
commissions, which were to be filled out to suit the circumstances.
Conyngham sailed from Dunkirk with instructions to cruise in the
British Channel for merchant vessels, and to look particularly for the
"Prince of Orange" packet from Harwich. He was fortunate. On one of the
very first days of the cruise he came across the packet, captured her
without a blow, and then made sail with his prizes for Dunkirk. He had
also taken a brig.

But this breach of French neutrality was too shameless. A storm of
English complaint compelled the French court to take firmer measures
than they may have desired. Conyngham and his crew were put in prison,
the lugger was confiscated, the prizes were returned. The French,
indeed, went so far that the English government, quite deceived by
their great zeal, sent over vessels to bring to England Conyngham and
his crew to be tried for piracy. But to this point the French could not
quite go.

The affair caused great excitement in England. It was so unexpected,
so bold, so audacious, that no one could tell what would come next. As
a consequence, insurance rose quickly. British ships were no longer
considered safe, even in the English Channel. There were at one time
in the Thames as many as forty French vessels loading with English
merchandise, while it is said that ten per cent. was sometimes paid as
insurance for the short passage between Dover and Calais. Although the
measures of the French government tended to quiet apprehension, it was
some little time before confidence was restored.

Meanwhile, the planners of the first scheme had resolved to repeat
the outrage. Another cutter was bought, again at Dover, and equipped
with fourteen sixes and twenty-four swivels. Conyngham's release was
obtained through the courtesy of the French ministry, and that of his
crew, by the representation that they were to sail upon a trading
voyage. Mr. Hodge himself went surety for the truth of this statement.
The French court did not like the business; they would have preferred
that the expedition should be abandoned, and they offered to purchase
the cutter of its owners. But it was declared to the ministers that
the voyage was for trading purposes only, and that the owners would
suffer serious loss if it were not allowed to proceed, and they gave
way. The business is not a clear one. It seems evident that the French
suspected that all was not as it should have been, but that they were
deceived as to the real object of the expedition. It is not probable
that they desired to blind themselves to the truth, for they were at
this time in a delicate position with England through the operations of
Wickes, Johnston, and Nicholson, and there was but little in the aspect
of American affairs that would have tended to make them consider an
alliance with the United States with such seriousness as to be willing
to allow the English ministry to have more cause for complaint than
could be helped. However this was, Conyngham sailed in the "Revenge"
on the 18th of July for another cruise, by no means a trading voyage.
In this case, also, although the ship was undoubtedly fitted out
in a measure by private parties, Conyngham himself sailed with a
regular commission. His former one had been taken from him when he
was imprisoned, and sent to Versailles, and was never heard of again.
This second commission was drawn on one of the blanks with which the
commissioners were furnished.

This cruise was even more successful than the former, although no such
capture was made as that of the Harwich packet. Conyngham made prize of
several ships, alarmed the English merchant marine again, threatened
the English coast, actually refitted his vessel in an English port,
having made his way thither in disguise, and escaped with safety to
Spain in course of time. Most of his prizes were disposed of to the
benefit of the United States government as well as of the private
parties concerned. There was more English complaint in Paris, but
nothing actually came of it beyond the imprisonment of Mr. Hodge in
the Bastille. But he was shortly released on such representations by
the commissioners as seem to have satisfied the French court.

Captain Johnston does not appear among the twenty-four captains first
commissioned by Congress; but in the spring of 1777 he took the
"Lexington" across to Europe, and arrived there in April. With the
"Dolphin", under Lieutenant Nicholson, a brother of Nicholson who was
senior captain, he went to sea under Wickes's command in the cruise
which has been described. But in a second cruise fortune failed him.
He engaged the "Alert", an English man-of-war cutter of force somewhat
less than his own; but after a long action, having expended all his
ammunition, he was obliged to surrender. It is said that his little
vessel was the first to bear the American flag in an ocean victory. She
had already been taken once, and once recaptured by her own crew, after
they had been placed under an English prize crew. She had taken many
prizes, and had won for herself a reputation in both hemispheres in
only one year and eight months, which comprise all her American service.

As a consequence of her capture, Johnston and his crew were made
prisoners. At one time the English had nearly one thousand American
seamen imprisoned in Forton, near Portsmouth. But the successes of
Jones and other cruisers, after the French alliance enabled the
Americans to keep their prisoners, compelled the English administration
to assent to an exchange; and in the winter of 1779-80, most of the
Americans were released by such exchanges.[1244]

It is impossible, within the space at our command, to give any detail
of the successes of the various armed vessels, whether fitted out
by individuals, by States, or by the Congress on the shores of the
United States. A good authority[1245] says that, in 1776, 342 sail of
English vessels were captured by the Americans. Of these, forty-four
were recaptured, eighteen released, and the rest carried into port.
The same authority tells us that in the year 1777 the commerce of
England suffered a loss of 467 sail, though the government kept seventy
cruisers on the American coast alone. Such successes were not of course
without their compensations. In March the English captured the brig
"Cabot", of sixteen guns, one of the first American cruisers. When
Gen. Howe took Philadelphia the Americans were obliged to destroy the
"Andrea Doria", the "Wasp", and the "Hornet." The "Raleigh", one of the
Continental frigates, got to sea from New Hampshire. She engaged the
"Druid", an English vessel in convoy of the Windward Island fleet, and
disabled her, so that she returned to England.

When 1778 began, of the new frigates ordered in 1775, the "Congress"
and "Montgomery" had been burned in the Hudson that they might not
be taken; the "Delaware" had been captured in the bay whose name she
bore, and the "Hancock" taken off Halifax. At about the same time
the "Randolph" blew up, as has been told. In 1778 the "Washington"
and "Effingham" were burned in the Delaware by the enemy, and the
"Virginia" was captured by a squadron of theirs on her first voyage.
To supply the places of the unfortunate ships which were lost so soon
after they were built, the government had commissioned the "Alliance",
the "Confederacy", the "Deane", afterwards called "The Hague", and
the "Queen of France." Of these, the three first carried thirty-two
guns each, and the last twenty-eight. The "Alliance" and "The Hague"
were the only two, of all the seventeen, which remained in the service
when the war was over. While the American naval force, so far as it
was under Continental orders, was thus insignificant for any action
against an English fleet of more than seventy vessels, the arrival of
D'Estaing with a large French fleet off the capes of the Delaware, in
July, did much to hold that force in check and to compel it to act on
the defensive. Before describing the movements of D'Estaing's fleet,
we must return to the eastern side of the Atlantic, and continue the
history of naval warfare on the coast of England.

Such captures as those made by Wickes and Conyngham, under the very eye
of the English nation, naturally attracted more attention among those
who led the public opinion of England than did any captures made by the
navy of America on her own coast, and there were bolder movements yet
to claim their attention than any we have chronicled.

John Paul Jones was a native of Scotland, but at an early age he
removed to America, and he had been engaged there in commerce many
years before the breaking out of the war. As the reader has seen,
he crossed the Atlantic in hopes of obtaining a better vessel than
Congress could give to him on this side of the water. But he found on
his arrival that no such vessel was to be had at once. He therefore
refitted the "Ranger", the vessel in which he had crossed the ocean,
and in the month of April, 1778, he made a bold descent on the coast
of Scotland and England. In this expedition he took the English ship
"Drake", of a force quite equal to his own, and he brought her with him
as a prize into the harbor of Brest. In this voyage he made a landing
on the Scotch coast, and his men carried off the family plate from the
mansion of the Earl of Selkirk. Jones himself had been in the service
of this nobleman, and he made it a point of honor to buy back the plate
from his men and send it to the Countess of Selkirk.

The news of his exploit was of no little importance for the American
name in France. It seemed to open an opportunity for giving to Jones
the command of the "Indian", a fine vessel then upon the stocks,
and through the summer he was amused by this hope and by various
enterprises which were proposed for so energetic a leader. Of his
disappointments and of his renewed expectation full record has been
left in his letter-books. One of the plans was that of a descent on the
English coast, to be made by a French force under the command of La
Fayette. Jones was to be the naval leader of this expedition. But as
the alliance of France with America was now determined on, the French
government enlarged their plans. D'Estaing was sent to the American
coast, and La Fayette and Jones were told that their services would not
be needed. In the midst of these disappointments, Jones had given up
the command of the "Ranger", which he would have thought better than
nothing. It is at this moment that he says he adopted "Poor Richard's"
motto, which, as our reader knows, he had tried before in America,—"If
you want a thing done, do it yourself",—and went to Paris himself to
urge his claims for employment. The result of his visit was that an old
Indiaman was bought for him, which he transformed into a two-decked
frigate, and to this ship, in compliment to Franklin, his fast
friend, he gave the name of "Bonhomme Richard", that being the French
translation of "Poor Richard." She was armed and equipped in haste,
which, as it proved, was almost ruinous. The "Alliance", under Landais,
the "Pallas", hired for the expedition, and two smaller vessels, joined
the squadron. These two vessels were privateers, and the cost of the
whole expedition seems to have been borne, in part at least, by private
adventurers. The seamen were persons of all nationalities. But Jones
and his own officers on the "Richard" were Americans serving under the
American commission. With this heterogeneous squadron Jones sailed,
and the several vessels made a good many rather insignificant prizes.
They passed around the north of Scotland, and came down on the east
side of the island into the Northern Ocean. On the 23d of September
he discovered the Baltic squadron of merchantmen in the convoy of the
frigate "Serapis", and the "Countess of Scarborough." Jones's squadron
at this time consisted of the "Richard", the "Alliance", and the
"Pallas." The English squadron was commanded by Richard Pearson.

Pearson signalled to his convoy to take care of themselves, and at
once engaged the American squadron, unless we say that they engaged
him. The "Pallas" took the "Countess of Scarborough" in an action of
which we have not any such account as could be wished for. The fight
between the "Richard" and the "Serapis" was long and close, and proved
indeed to be one of the most remarkable naval duels in history. The two
vessels were of about the same force in respect to the number of guns.
But on the first discharge of the lower-deck guns of the "Richard",
two of them burst, so inferior was their metal, and the men at the
other guns on that deck refused to fight their batteries, probably not
unwisely. They repaired to the upper deck, and through the rest of this
remarkable action the lower-deck guns of the "Serapis" were served
against the main deck of the "Richard" without receiving any reply.
Jones fastened the ships together, it is said, with his own hand, as
soon as they first touched each other. Through the action their sides
were so close that not only at the moment when one party attempted to
board the other, but for most of the battle, it was easy to pass from
ship to ship. They had been for some time engaged when the firing of
the "Richard" slacked, and Pearson called to know if she had struck.
It was then that Jones made the ominous reply which has become almost
proverbial: "I have not begun to fight." When he did begin to fight he
showed all the remarkable qualities which certainly made him a great
naval commander. He was willing to serve guns with his own hands,
but he kept an eye on everything which was passing on both ships. He
succeeded in so placing one or two of his guns that he nearly raked the
enemy's deck fore and aft, and it was almost impossible for any man
to stand against his fire. This terrible action raged through several
hours of the night. The anxieties attending it for the Americans were
the more acute, because Landais, in the "Alliance", rendered no direct
assistance, but hovered around, firing occasional shots, which the
American seamen always declared were aimed at their vessel and not
at their enemies. The crisis came at last, when some sailors on the
main-yard of the "Richard" succeeded in dropping hand-grenades through
the open hatchways of the "Serapis" upon the men at work there. One
of these grenades fired some loose powder, which was followed by the
explosion of a powder-chest, which demoralized all the crew in that
part of the vessel. Pearson was obliged to surrender. But so close and
so confused had been the action that it is said that his first officer,
when he heard the cry "She has struck!" believed that it was their
antagonist that had surrendered, so confident was he still of victory.

Jones carried the prizes, the "Serapis" and the "Scarborough", into the
Texel, in Holland. The "Richard" was so damaged that she sank the day
after the battle.

It may readily be imagined that this exploit, by which two English
men-of-war were carried away in triumph under the very eyes of the
people of Scarborough, excited immense attention in all Europe. Jones
was the hero of the hour. He was literally crowned with laurel at
the theatre, and the French government made him the most flattering
proposals with a view to his taking command in their service. Jones
himself and all his officers were mad with rage at the conduct of
Landais. Nothing but the enthusiasm of the alliance between the two
nations had made him the commander of an American frigate. Franklin
and Jones would have been glad to try him by court-martial, but this
proved impossible. He was sent home in the "Alliance", and on the way
became evidently insane. All necessities of a court-martial were thus
avoided.[1246]

This ill-success of Landais was a good enough illustration of the
danger of entrusting seamen of one nation to a commander from another.
Either this danger or some other consideration prevented the French
government from employing Jones. But the hope of such service was
so constant with him that he took no command from the government of
the United States for some time. And thus his service, which might
have been of great importance, was lost, while he was dangling in
antechambers.

These conflicts on the coast of Europe attracted, as has been said,
more of the attention of Europe than the naval battles between England
and America in other seas. But the years 1777 and 1778 had not passed
without frequent naval engagements on the American coast, some of them
of considerable importance. In May, 1777, Manly took the "Hancock" and
"Boston", frigates from the port of Boston, with which he captured
the English frigate "Fox." The three vessels looked into the harbor
of Halifax, and drew into action the "Rainbow", the "Flora", and the
"Victor", a superior force. The two smaller American vessels escaped,
but the "Hancock" was sacrificed.

The "Raleigh", one of the thirteen frigates built for the Continent,
had, as the reader knows, made a successful cruise in the end of 1777.
The next year, with the "Alfred", one of the little favorites in
the beginning of the war, she sailed from France. Both vessels were
overtaken by a superior English force, and the "Alfred" was lost,
though the "Raleigh" succeeded in reaching Boston. At that time most of
the naval force of the Congress was in Boston harbor. It consisted of
but three vessels, the "Warren", the "Raleigh", and the "Deane", each
of thirty-two guns. The State of Massachusetts had in the same harbor
the "Tyrannicide", the "Independent", the "Sampson", and the "Hancock",
of fourteen guns and of twenty. But besides this little fleet, so
insignificant in itself, hundreds of privateers were afloat, many of
them of force nearly equal to the largest of the vessels which have
been named.

It had been the hope of Franklin in Paris, of Paul Jones, his naval
adviser, and of the court to which they both gave counsel, that
D'Estaing's fleet might arrive off Delaware Bay in time to shut up the
English fleet there. The same issue was feared in England.[1247] But
D'Estaing was just too late. He arrived on the 7th of July off the
capes; he only landed his passengers, Deane, and Gérard, the new French
minister, and without even watering his fleet followed the English
fleet to New York. Had he entrapped them in the Delaware, a crisis like
that of Yorktown might have come three years earlier.

But the harbor of New York was too well protected by the intricacies
of its channels to make an attack possible. D'Estaing remained in the
offing off Sandy Hook for some days, and then bore away for Newport.
His coöperation with the army of Sullivan is described in another
place.[1248]

A full letter from Cooper to Franklin exists among the Franklin
papers,[1249] which gives D'Estaing's own view of the transactions
which followed, and that view is probably substantially correct. When
he threatened the English fleet in New York Bay, it consisted of six
ships of the line, six fifty-gun ships, two of forty-four guns, with
smaller vessels. When he entered Newport Bay the English burned the
"Orpheus", the "Lark", the "Cerberus", and the "King-Fisher",—of
various force, from thirty-two guns to twenty,—and several smaller
vessels. When, in conjunction with Sullivan, D'Estaing attacked
the town, the English burned the "Grand Duke" and the "Flora", of
thirty-two guns, with fifteen transports. While he was in Newport
Bay, Byron's English fleet reinforced the fleet in New York, and they
were now strong enough to retaliate on D'Estaing and give to him
the challenge which he had so lately given to them. With a fleet of
thirty-six sail, fourteen of which were double-deckers, they appeared
off Newport.

D'Estaing was not averse to a contest. On the 10th of August, with
the advantage of a fresh north wind, he took his squadron to sea.
The English admiral, Howe, slipped his cables and went to sea also.
D'Estaing did not avoid a battle, and, in the gale which followed,
engaged the rear of the English fleet. But his own flag-ship, the
"Languedoc", was dismasted in the gale, and, after communicating with
Sullivan again, he went round to Boston to refit.

Samuel Cooper, in writing the letter to which we have alluded, is well
aware that there was some popular disappointment because the Count
D'Estaing had not done more. But he resumes the whole by saying: "The
very sound of his aid occasioned the evacuation of Philadelphia by the
British army; his presence suspended the operation of a vast British
force in these States, by sea and land; it animated our own efforts;
it protected our coast and navigation, obliging the enemy to keep
their men-of-war and cruisers collected, and facilitated our necessary
supplies from abroad. By drawing the powerful squadron of Admiral Byron
to these seas, it gave security to the islands of France in the West
Indies, an equilibrium to her naval power in the Channel, and a decided
superiority in the Mediterranean."

When it is remembered that, in the events of the summer and autumn,
the English lost twenty vessels in their collisions with D'Estaing's
fleet, it must be granted that its exploits were by no means
inconsiderable.

[Illustration]

Of the American ships which have been spoken of, the "Raleigh" was
the only one which was seriously engaged in this year. She put to sea
on the 25th of September, with a small convoy. Before night she was
pursued by two cruisers of the enemy. Barry, the commander, ran his
ship on shore and saved his officers and men; but the "Raleigh" was
floated by the English and taken into their service.[1250]

Meanwhile, in adventures which separately do not claim the dignity of
historical narrative, the public and private cruisers from New England
so swept the ocean that they sent into Boston most of the provision
ships intended for the English army in New York. D'Estaing was able
to leave Boston on the 3d of November for an expedition to the West
Indies, with a fleet provisioned with the very stores which had been
provided for his enemies. His vessels had been thoroughly repaired,
cleaned, and sailed in good condition, and well fitted for the
important duty assigned to them.

Early in 1779 the "Alliance" was fitted out for France, from Boston,
to take General Lafayette on an important mission home. She was under
the command of Pierre Landais, of whose misbehavior afterwards, in the
battle of the "Serapis", the reader has been informed. Landais was
already so unpopular that American sailors would not enlist under him,
although the "Alliance" herself was a favorite vessel. Lafayette was,
however, eager to be on his way, and at his urgent instance a crew
was made up by accepting the services of English seamen, prisoners of
war, who had been taken when the "Somerset" was shipwrecked on Cape
Cod. As might have been expected, a mutiny was planned before she
reached France; but it was fortunately revealed by an Irish seaman
who was loyal to his new country. Passengers and officers united in
confining the mutineers, and the ship was safely brought to France. She
was a fine, new, swift vessel. Seamen liked her, though they disliked
Landais. Another crew was obtained for her, and it was thus that she
sailed with Paul Jones. It has been more convenient to speak of her
after-history as we described transactions in the European waters.

In April, a squadron of three vessels, commanded by Hopkins in the
"Warren", sailed from Boston and overtook a fleet of transports and
store-ships which Clinton had sent from New York to Georgia. Hopkins
captured eight out of ten vessels, of which three were armed. By this
brilliant success the Americans took as prisoners twenty-four officers
and a large number of private soldiers.

In the same summer, Whipple, one of the old commanders, in the
"Providence", fell in with a large convoy of English merchantmen bound
from the West Indies to England. The American officer disguised his
vessel, or concealed her character, so that he boldly entered the fleet
as one of their number. As night fell, on each of ten successive days
he boarded and captured some vessel from the convoy, and eight of the
prizes thus taken arrived in Boston. Their cargoes were sold for more
than a million dollars, and the bold venture is spoken of as the most
successful pecuniary enterprise of the war.

Early in the same year, Hallett, in the "Tyrannicide", a cruiser of
the State of Massachusetts, took the "Revenge", a privateer cruiser
from Jamaica.[1251] In the same summer, John Foster Williams, in the
Massachusetts cruiser "Hazard", engaged the "Active", an English vessel
with a larger force, with success. He was then transferred to the
"Protector", a ship of twenty guns, in which he engaged the "Duff", an
English privateer, which blew up after an action of an hour.[1252]

These successes, perhaps, stimulated the State of Massachusetts to
attempt an enterprise which proved the most unfortunate in her military
history, and was the end of her separate state naval force. John Foster
Williams, who had commanded the "Protector", was very popular, and
he was placed at the head of the state squadron, consisting of the
"Tyrannicide", the "Hazard", and the "Protector", fitted out by the
State against the English post at Penobscot, which was then within
her own borders. The state authorities obtained from Congress, as an
accession to their own force, the "Warren", the "Diligent", and the
"Providence", which were nearly all that were left of the Continental
navy. Some privateersmen joined the expedition. The whole naval force
was placed under Saltonstall, who had a Continental commission. The
land force consisted of 1,500 militiamen. This little force landed near
the end of July; but Lovell, the land commander, thought his force
insufficient, and sent for reinforcements. While they were waiting,
Sir George Collier appeared with five English vessels. Saltonstall did
not dare engage them, and ran his own ship, the "Warren", on shore and
burnt her. Most of the other vessels followed his example, and the
rest were captured by the English. The crews, with the land forces,
abandoned the expedition, and returned to Boston by land.

The national navy of the United States was thus reduced to the very
lowest terms. Of the few vessels left, four were taken by the English
when they captured Charleston, namely, the "Providence", the "Queen
of France", the "Ranger", and the "Boston." Nor had Congress much
enthusiasm for replacing them. In the first place, Congress had no
money with which to build ships; and in the second place, the alliance
with France gave it the use of a navy much more powerful than it could
itself create.[1253] It was also clear enough that the great prizes
to be hoped for in privateering gave a sufficient inducement to call
out all the force the country had for naval warfare. The history of
such warfare can never be written, but the damage which the privateers
inflicted upon the enemy's commerce was such that the mercantile
classes of England became bitterly opposed to the war. On the other
hand, it has been said, and probably truly, that New England, the home
of the privateers, was never more prosperous than in the last years
of the Revolution, so large were the profits made in privateering
enterprises.

[Illustration: TUCKER'S PAROLE, MAY 20, 1780.

From the _Tucker Papers_, in Harvard College library. He commanded the
"Boston" when surrendered.]

After the fall of Charleston, the principal vessels left in the
national navy were the "Alliance", the "Hague", formerly the "Deane",
the "Confederacy", the "Trumbull", the "Saratoga", and the "Ariel."
In February, 1781, the "Alliance" crossed to France, and started to
return with the "Marquis de Lafayette", a ship of forty guns, laden
with a very valuable cargo of stores for the government. A few days
after, she took the "Mars" and the "Minerva", heavily armed privateers,
and then parted from her consort. The "Lafayette" was captured soon
after, to the great distress of the American army, which needed her
stores; but the "Alliance" completed her cruise, and, on the 28th of
May, captured the "Atalanta" and the "Trepasy", two English cruisers.
The "Atalanta", however, was subsequently taken by an English squadron.
The "Confederacy", which was launched in 1778, was captured by the
English in the West Indies, on the 22d of June. Captain Nicholson, in
the "Trumbull", after a romantic series of adventures, surrendered to
the "Iris" and the "Monk" in August of the same year. The "Congress"
in September captured the sloop-of-war "Savage." In the next year,
which was the last of the war, the "Alliance" made a cruise in which
she maintained her reputation. The "Hague", the only frigate which
remained to the nation, having been given to Manly, whose success in
the beginning of the war gave such joy to Washington and his army,
"this officer in a manner closed it", as Fenimore Cooper says, "with a
very brilliant cruise in the West Indies."

The signal success of Count de Grasse in blocking up Lord Cornwallis
in the Chesapeake, and the history of his engagements with Rodney and
others, belong more properly to another chapter of this history.[1254]

It is a misfortune for the history of this country that no intelligent
man in New England interested himself in the systematic history of the
privateer enterprises of the United States in the Revolution while
the seamen lived who engaged in them. But no such person undertook
this historical work, and the materials do not now exist from which it
could be thoroughly done. Some details noticed by authors of the time
excite attention and surprise as they reveal the magnitude and number
of the prizes made by the privateers. Such is the statement, cited
above, that the prizes sent in by Whipple in one cruise exceeded one
million dollars in value. Hutchinson, in his diary, reports the belief
that seventy thousand New Englanders were engaged in privateering at
one time. This was probably an overestimate at that moment. But it
is certain that, as the war went on, many more than seventy thousand
Americans fought their enemy upon the sea. On the other hand, the
reader knows that there was no time when seventy thousand men were
enrolled in the armies of the United States on shore.[1255]

In the year 1781 the privateer fleet of the port of Salem alone
consisted of fifty-nine vessels, which carried nearly four thousand
men, and mounted seven hundred and forty-six guns. In 1780 the
Admiralty Court of the Essex district of Massachusetts, which was the
largest of the three admiralty districts, had condemned 818 prizes. It
must not be supposed that other districts were insignificant. In the
single month of May, 1779, eighteen prizes were brought into New London.

As has been said, there seems to be no method of making any complete
computation of the magnitude of the privateer fleet at any one time.
But an incomplete list in the _Massachusetts Archives_ of those
commissioned in that State gives us the names of two hundred and
seventy-six vessels. As the reader has seen, the fleets from Rhode
Island, Connecticut, and Philadelphia were also large. It would
probably be fair to say that between the beginning and end of the
war more than five hundred privateers were commissioned by different
States. The magnitude of the injury inflicted upon the English trade
by these vessels may be judged by such a comparison as is in our
power of the respective forces. In the year 1777 the whole number
of officers and men in the English navy was eighty-seven thousand.
Although Hutchinson's estimate is probably an overestimate, it is to be
remembered that, as the reader has seen, there were at the same time
very considerable naval forces in the employ of the several States and
of the United States government. This would seem to show that, man for
man, the numerical forces engaged by the two parties were not very much
unlike. In the Atlantic Ocean, the Americans seem to have outnumbered
the English.

After the navy of the United States, which was officered and built
or purchased by Congress, the largest separate force was that of the
State of Massachusetts. So soon as O'Brien and his friends seized the
"Margaretta", as has been told, the provincial government took her into
its service, and christened her the "Liberty", keeping her at first
under the care of O'Brien.

For the first five years of the war, Massachusetts was governed by
a committee of the Council. Many of the members of this committee,
from time to time, were Boston merchants, of large experience in
maritime affairs. The State was acting as an independent sovereignty.
It contributed to the resources of its allies, the other States in
the confederation, but none the less did it carry on war against the
common enemy. It would sometimes happen that the State needed to make a
remittance to France in its purchase of military stores. If the market
were favorable, the merchants on the council boards would arrange for
the purchase or charter of a vessel on State account, and the State
bought and sent to Europe the freight by which it made its payments
to its agents. The naval archives of the commonwealth are therefore a
curious mixture of warlike operations and of commercial adventure. It
will sometimes happen that the vessel which appears in one month as a
cruiser, officered and manned for war by the authority of the State,
shall appear in another month as a merchantman, freighted for a foreign
port and intended to bring home a cargo to be sold to the credit of
the State. An interesting instance of the promptness of the government
was its readiness in taking up and fitting for use a little brigantine
which carried to Franklin, in Paris, the first news of Burgoyne's
surrender. Paul Jones hoped, as has been seen, to carry out the same
news in the "Ranger" from Philadelphia; but although his passage was
but twenty days in length, he did not arrive at Bordeaux till the same
day on which Austin, the messenger of Massachusetts, was telling the
great news to Franklin and the commissioners at Passy.[1256]

The navy of Massachusetts, between the beginning and end of the war,
numbered at least thirty-four vessels. One or two of these were vessels
which ranked in the language of that day as frigates. The finest
and largest of them was the "Protector", built on state account at
Salisbury, Mass., where the fine frigate "Alliance", which proved so
successful and popular, was also built, almost at the same time. It
may be said, in passing, that the names of the New England vessels
showed very distinctly that men had not yet lost the traditions of
their ancestry. The "Tyrannicide" was a favorite cruiser in the state
navy, and the action which has been spoken of, in which she took the
"Revenge", was one of the best fought battles of the war. The "Oliver
Cromwell" was a Massachusetts privateer, and the name of the "Hampden"
appears twice on the lists of those days. The keel of the "Protector"
was laid in 1778, and she sailed first in 1780. But she was also one of
the unfortunate squadron destroyed in the Penobscot. The failure of the
well-planned but disastrous expedition to that river resulted in the
destruction of all the important vessels belonging to the State.

We have only a partial catalogue of the privateers commissioned by the
State between 1775 and 1783. It is sometimes difficult to draw the line
between state cruisers and privateers, and it will sometimes happen
that a vessel which has one year been chartered by the State, and
officered in her commission, falls back the next year into the hands
of her owners, and is equipped and fought by them under a privateer's
commission. In this list there are rather more than three hundred names
of separate vessels. Of the privateersmen sent out from Salem there is
a separate list. Between the beginning and end of the war, the Salem
vessels alone numbered nearly one hundred and fifty. The _Massachusetts
Archives_ give a list of three hundred and sixty-five, as commissioned
and belonging in Boston. If we had lists, equally full, of the
privateers which sailed from Falmouth (Portland), from the Merrimac,
from Marblehead, from Falmouth, Dartmouth, Plymouth, Barnstable, and
the other towns on Cape Cod, it is probable that we should enlarge
the list of Massachusetts privateers so that it should include more
than six hundred vessels. It is to be remembered that all the regular
operations of the fishing fleet were stopped, and that therefore, in
every town on the coast, there were vessels and men ready for service,
and very easily commissioned if a spirited commander appeared. To this
number must be added the considerable list of what were virtually New
England privateers among the vessels commissioned in France by Deane
and Franklin.

The largest of these privateers, at starting, carried one hundred
and fifty men. Such an exploit as Whipple's, which has been already
recorded, would have been impossible unless he had as many as ten prize
crews on his vessel, of fifteen men each. With each prize sent in, the
fighting force of the captor was reduced, and in such reduction is
the reason to be found why we often find that at the last a privateer
captain was not able to fight his own ship, and, after he had sent in
many prizes, was himself taken. On the other hand, the smallest of
these vessels, equipped for short cruises, carried but few guns and few
men.

Mr. Felt's statement of the privateer force of Salem and Beverly at
the end of the war gives a total force of fifty-nine ships, carrying
four thousand men. This would give an average of about sixty-six men
to a vessel. The general estimate is higher, and we suppose that the
average crew of a Massachusetts privateer, when she sailed, was about
one hundred men.

If this estimate is correct, we must modify Hutchinson's statement so
far as to say that, sooner or later, Massachusetts alone probably sent
sixty thousand men out in warfare upon the seas. Rhode Island, New
Hampshire, and Connecticut probably sent twenty thousand more. Next
to this fleet was that of the Delaware; next to that, the privateers
commissioned in France; and to these must be added those from the
Chesapeake and more southern waters.

The number of seamen and officers employed by the Continental Congress
was probably largest in the earlier years of the war. No papers now
exist which give full returns of this force. But it would probably be
fair to estimate it as varying in different years from five thousand
to ten thousand men. The several state navies represented, perhaps, as
many more.

When one considers these forces in the privateer fleet and the national
and state navies, the English force opposed seems surprisingly small.
We have the official returns of the officers and men in the whole
English navy for every year of the contest. The number comes up to
87,000, after England was well engaged with America, France, and Spain.
But of this fleet a very considerable part was in the East Indies and
on other stations. Almon's _Remembrancer_ says distinctly that the
number of men engaged against the colonies at sea in 1776 was 26,000.
It is very sure that in that year the colonies had many more men at sea
engaged against England. There were some English privateers; but their
number was not considerable.

A comparison between the military and naval forces of America in the
Revolution shows that the navy, in its various forms, embodied almost
as many men as the army, and sometimes, indeed, more.

In a report sent by General Knox to Congress on the 11th of May,
1790, he gives the number of men actually in the Continental army
year by year, the number of militia called out from time to time,
and the number of men demanded in the quotas fixed by Congress. The
last figures are of no great importance now, though they have some
historical curiosity. The others exhibit the forces for seven years,
thus:—

_Continentals._ _Militia._
1775 27,443 37,623
1776 46,891 42,760
1777 34,820 33,900
1778 32,899 18,153
1779 27,699 17,485
1780 21,015 21,811
1781 33,408 16,048
1782 14,256 3,750
1783 13,476 _No militia._

A curiously extravagant estimate of the extent of the continental
forces engaged has been commonly set forth by adding these yearly
figures, a process which takes no recognition of the fact that a man
serving through three years, for instance, is counted in each year.
The history of this confusion is traced in a paper by Justin Winsor in
the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Jan., 1886.—ED.

It is to be observed that the number of militia stated here is largely
conjectural; and in no instance were the men called out in service for
any considerable time. A comparison of these figures with figures quite
as authentic, which give the number of men who were afloat year by year
for purposes of offence, either in the national or state navies, or
in larger numbers in privateers, will show that, in some of the later
years of the war, this naval service enlisted a larger number of men
than were serving in the army. Indeed, as has been shown, Great Britain
appears to have often had more American enemies afloat on the Atlantic
than she had seamen and officers of her own upon that ocean.

[Illustration]

GENERAL EDITORIAL NOTES.

THE earliest account of the Revolutionary navy was in Thomas Clark's
_Naval History of the United States from the Commencement of the
Revolution_ (Philad., 1813; second ed., 1814), in two volumes.

Chas. W. Goldsborough's _United States Naval Chronicle_, bringing the
story down to 1822, was printed in Washington in 1824.

In 1828 there appeared at Brooklyn, N. Y., a _General View of the rise,
etc., of the American Navy_,—a book of little importance.

The most important of all the accounts is the _Naval Hist. of
the United States_, by James Fenimore Cooper, first published in
Philadelphia in 1839, and in a second edition in 1840. In some
respects, relating to the war of 1812, Cooper's views have been called
in question; but his story of the Revolutionary navy is the result of
investigations that have not, on the whole, been improved upon.[1257]
Cooper gives a list of the Continental cruisers, with the fate of each;
and Lossing, in the summary of the Revolutionary naval history in his
_Field-Book_, ii. 851, copies this list. An official and authentic
record, with no attempt at a readable narrative, is found in G. F.
Emmons's _Navy of the United States, 1775-1853, with a brief history
of each vessel's service, to which is added a list of private armed
vessels, previous and subsequent to the Revolutionary War_ (Washington,
1853, published under authority of the Navy Department). The book
contains a list of captures during the Revolution, both by public and
private armed vessels.

On the British side, the earliest connected narrative is that in the
fourth and fifth volumes of Robert Beatson's _Naval and Military
Memoirs of Great Britain_, 1727-1783 (London, 1804). Among the later
books are C. D. Yonge's _Hist. of the British Navy_,[1258] and Allen's
_Battles of the British Navy_.[1259]

SPECIAL EDITORIAL NOTES.

I. PAUL JONES.—In respect to the lives of Paul Jones, Sabin's (ix.
nos. 36,546, etc.) enumeration includes many anonymous and unimportant
ones not now to be mentioned. The earliest biography of any original
authority was one issued at Washington in 1825 (second ed. 1851), _Life
and Character of John Paul Jones_, by John Henry Sherburne, register of
the U. S. navy, and this was reprinted in an abridged form at London,
the same year as _The life of Paul Jones from original documents in
the possession of John Henry Sherburne, register of the Navy of the U.
S._ This life was based upon documents in the naval archives of the
government, upon some letters contributed by Thomas Jefferson, and upon
some papers brought to light in a baker's shop in New York (_No. Amer.
Rev._, Oct., 1826, p. 292). These papers had been left by Jones, when
he went to Europe, in the hands of his friend Ross, of Philadelphia.
At Jones's death, and on his heirs' orders, these papers were handed
over to Robert Hyslop, and, upon this gentleman's death, came into
the charge of his cousin, John Hyslop, the baker, in whose shop they
were found by Mr. George A. Ward, of New York, by whom they were put
at Sherburne's disposal. This biographer, hearing of other papers in
Scotland, applied for them, but was refused, as it was intended to use
them in another memoir. This other narrative appeared as _Memoirs of
Rear Admiral Paul Jones, now first compiled from his original journals
and correspondence_ (Edinburgh, 1830, in 2 vols.; London, 1843, in 2
vols.). The author of it referred rather slightingly to the New York
MSS. as "a few fragments", and claimed that Jones took to Europe the
essential part of his papers, which by his will passed to his sisters
in Scotland, and eventually to his niece, Miss Janette Taylor, of
Dumfries, who possessed several bound volumes of them, beside other
loose papers. Some of Jones's papers are in the possession of J. C.
Brevoort, of Brooklyn; others are among the Force Papers in the library
of Congress; and others in the Lee Papers in the libraries of Harvard
College and of the University of Virginia. Franklin's letters to him
are in Sparks's ed., vol. viii. The Taylor MSS. were the original
material mentioned in the title of this Edinburgh edition, which was
reprinted, under the editing of Robert Sands, in New York (1830) as
_The life and Correspondence of Paul Jones from original letters and
manuscripts in the possession of Miss Janette Taylor_. The Sparks
Library has a copy of this book, with Miss Taylor's MS. annotations.
Based upon the same material, but with some alterations and additions,
was the _Life of Rear Admiral John Paul Jones, compiled from his
original Journals and Correspondence_ (Philad., 1845, 1847, 1853, 1858,
1869), which appeared under the editing of B. Walker. The _Life of Paul
Jones by Alexander Slidell Mackenzie_ (Boston, 1841, in two vols.) was
written at the instance of Jared Sparks, and its merit is that it has
sifted all the existing material, making a more readable and better
constructed narrative than the others. Mackenzie acknowledges his use
of the preceding lives, but says he has used guardedly a _Memoir of the
Life of Capt. Nathaniel Fanning, an American naval officer, who served
during part of the American Revolution under Commodore John Paul Jones_
(New York, 1808), which is known in another edition as _A narrative of
the Adventures of an American Naval Officer_ (New York, 1806). Fanning
is said to have been Jones's private secretary, though he is also
spoken of as a midshipman on the "Bon Homme Richard." Thomas Chase,
of Chesterfield, Va., published _Sketches of the life, character, and
times of Paul Jones_ (Richmond, 1850), which is of small extent, and
in part derived from stories told by the author's grandfather, who had
served with Jones.

A French _Mémoire de Paul Jones_ (Paris, 1798) purports to be a
translation under his own eyes, by "Citoyen André", of a narrative
written by Jones himself. _Poole's Index_, p. 695, gives various
periodical references to articles on Jones; and his career is the
subject of J. F. Cooper's novel of _The Pilot_, and of its sequel,
Dumas' _Capitaine Paul_. Cf. Herman Melville's _Israel Potter_. The
Rev. E. E. Hale gives a chapter (no. xiv.) to his career in his
_Franklin in France_.

For Jones's services in the "Ranger", see, beside the lives of Jones,
the _Annual Register_ (xxi. 176); Parton's _Franklin_ (vol. ii.); a
journal of Dr. Ezra Green in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1875,
edited by Admiral Preble (whose own copy with additions is in the
Mass. Hist. Soc.). A log of the "Ranger" is cited as belonging to a
gentleman in Greenock in 1830; and one, Aug. 24, 1778, to May 10, 1780,
is printed in the _Granite Monthly_, v. 64. The _Memoirs of Andrew
Sherburne, a pensioner of the navy of the Revolution_ (Utica, 1828;
Providence, 1831) covers the service of a lad on the ship.

Of the remarkable fight of the "Bon Homme Richard" and the "Serapis"
we have Jones's account in his letter from Texel to Franklin, also
transmitted to Congress; the narrative of Dale, his lieutenant; and
the letter sent to the admiralty by Capt. Pearson, of the English
ship. These are given by Sherburne, the Edinburgh editor, and others.
The account in Cooper's _Naval History_ passed under the eye of Dale.
The log-book of the "Richard" was in 1830 in the possession of George
Napier, of Edinburgh. The statements about the progress of the fight
are somewhat contradictory, and Dawson (_Battles_, 554) collates them.
A letter of Jones to Robert Morris, Oct. 13, 1779, is in the _N.
Y. Hist. Coll._, 1878, p. 442. Beside the accounts in the lives of
Jones and the general histories, see Parton's _Franklin_ (ii. 335);
_Analectic Mag._ (vol. viii.); Allen's _Battles of the British Navy_;
J. T. Headley's _Miscellanies_. The effect in England is depicted in
Albemarle's _Rockingham and his Contemporaries_ (ii. 381). The story of
the flag of the "Bon Homme Richard" is told by Admiral G. H. Preble in
his _Three Historic Flags_ (_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Jan., 1874,
and separately with additions, Boston, 1874,—the author's annotated
copy being in the Mass. Hist. Soc.). There is a contemporary print of
the fight by Peltro, after a painting by Robert Dodd (London, 1781).
Cf. Barnard's _Hist. of England_, p. 693.

Jones accused Landais, who commanded the "Alliance", of failure to
afford assistance, and of even firing into the "Bon Homme Richard."
Landais published a _Memorial to justify Peter Landais' conduct during
the late war_ (Boston, 1784), and a _Second Part_ (New York, 1787?),
being his defence against the specifications of _Charges and proofs
respecting the conduct of Peter Landais_ (New York [1787]). Landais'
quarrel with Jones and his subsequent career are traced in Hale's
_Franklin in France_, ch. xvii. For Landais' claims on government, see
B. P. Poore's _Descriptive Catal. of govt. publications_, pp. 61, 67,
82, 94; and Jones's claims can be traced in _Ibid._ Cf. _Journals of
Congress_, iv. 796.

The _Diplomatic Correspondence_ (vol. i.) shows the complications which
the harboring of Jones and his prizes in Holland caused. For titles on
this point, see Sabin (ix. 36,562, etc.) and Muller, _Books on America_
(1872), p. 187, and nos. 1,181-1,187. The difficulty occasioned by the
captures of Wickes and Conyngham, and their efforts to refit in French
ports, as well as those of Jones, are set forth in Hale's _Franklin in
France_.

* * * * *

II. PRIVATEERING.—The Provincial Assembly of Massachusetts, Nov. 13,
1775, authorized private-armed vessels to cruise, and established a
court for condemning their prizes,—the law being drawn by Elbridge
Gerry (Austin's _Gerry_, i. 92, 505; Barry's _Mass._, iii. 58, and
references; Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 155; Frothingham's _Siege of
Boston_, 261; _Gent. Mag._, Jan., 1776; Almon' s _Remembrancer_, ii.
149). For the provincial legislation, see Goodell's _Provincial Laws_,
vol. v., under "Admiralty", "Letters of Marque", "Armed Vessels", and
"Privateers", in the index.

For the early captures, see _Siege of Boston_, 269, 272, 289, 308;
Adams's _Familiar Letters_, 208, 220, 230. Abigail Adams wrote, Sept.
9, 1776, "The rage for privateering is as great here as anywhere, and
I believe the success has been as great" (_Familiar Letters_, 226).
The _Massachusetts Archives_ show how large the number of privateers
was that hailed from that State. Cf. _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 118,
with references; and the _Report on the Mass. Archives_ (1885), pp.
25, 27-29, 31, 34. Cf. a letter of Thomas Cushing on the building of
armed vessels in Mass., in _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, Oct., 1886, p. 355;
and a list by Admiral Preble of those fitted out in Massachusetts,
1776-1783, in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Oct., 1871. After Boston,
the most activity was in Salem. Cf. extracts from _Salem Gazette_,
quoted in A. B. Ellis's _Amer. Patriotism on the Sea_ (Cambridge, 1884,
and _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Jan., 1884); _Annals of Salem_, by J. B.
Felt; _Curwen's Journal_, 589; W. P. Upham's _General Glover_; life of
E. H. Derby in Hunt's _Amer. Merchants_, vol. ii; T. W. Higginson, in
_Harper's Monthly_, Sept., 1886.

The records of the proprietors of the New Hampshire privateer
"Gen. Sullivan" (1777-1780), showing how the business part of such
enterprises was conducted, and the instructions given to commanders,
have been printed by Charles H. Bell in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal.
Reg._, 1869, pp. 47, 181, 289. Correspondence of Josiah Bartlett and
William Whipple on privateering is in _Hist. Mag._, vi. 73.

Concerning the Rhode Island privateers, we have William Paine
Sheffield's _Rhode Island privateers and privateersmen_ (an address,
Newport, 1883); and an account of the privateer "Gen. Washington",
in E. M. Stone's _Our French Allies_, p. 275. (Cf. Arnold's _Rhode
Island_, etc.) Newport is thought to have furnished more seamen than
any port except Boston.

For those of Connecticut, see _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1873, p.
101; and on the whale-boat warfare, of which a large part was on Long
Island Sound, see _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, March, 1882, p. 168; _N. Y.
Evening Post_, July 18, 1853 (quoted by Ellis); Lossing's _Field-Book_,
ii. 851; Onderdonk's _Rev. Incidents of Long Island_, i. 170-234. Cf.
also F. M. Caulkins's _New London_, ch. 31; Hinman's _Conn. during
the Rev._, 592. The British expedition to Danbury was offset by the
incursion of Connecticut whale-boats (May, 1777), under Return Jonathan
Meigs, to Sag Harbor, where captures were made and shipping burned.
Cf. Hildreth's _Pioneer Settlers of Ohio_, 532; Sparks's _Washington_,
iv. 440; _Mag. of American History_, April, 1880. Judge Jones (_N.
Y. during the Rev._) asperses Meigs's character, and Johnston
(_Observations_, etc., 23) defends him.

For those of New York, see _N. Y. City Manual_, 1870, p. 867. We know
less about the privateers fitted out south of New York; but Robert
Morris is said to have grown rich on the profits of such enterprises
(Chastellux's _Voyages_, Eng. tr., i. 199, etc.). These ventures were
far from uniformly successful, and the losses were many (cf. such
instances as are detailed in Moore's _Diary_, i. 284, 316, etc.), but
the losses inflicted by privateers on the British were vastly greater.
Lecky (iv. 17) thinks that, though the allurements of such service
helped to stay enlistments in the army, it was quite worth such a cost
in the damage which the British suffered.

Congress first authorized privateers under Continental commissions
March 23, 1776, and regulations were adopted April 2d and
3d,—Washington having made suggestions (_Journals_, i. 183, 296, 305;
John Adams's _Works_, iii. 37). A collection of _Extracts from the
Journals of Congress relative to prizes and privateers_ was printed at
Philad. in 1777 (Brinley, no. 4,112). For prize claims, see Poore's
_Descriptive Catalogue_ p. 1347; and for lists of prize cases, cf.
_Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, 2d ser., ii. 120.

We have various journals and narratives of cruises in privateers: the
MS. _Journal_ of Capt. J. Fish in the Amer. Antiq. Soc. (1776-77);
Timothy Boardman's _Log-book, kept on board the privateer Oliver
Cromwell, during a cruise from New London, Ct., to Charleston, S.
C., and return, in 1778; also, a biographical sketch of the author,
by S. W. Boardman_, issued under the auspices of the Rutland County
Historical Society (Albany, N. Y., 1885); Solomon Drowne's _Journal
of a cruise in the fall of 1780, in the private sloop of war Hope,
with notes by H. T. Drowne_ (New York, 1872), and reprinted in _The
R. I. Hist. Mag._, July, 1884; narrative of Capt. Philip Besom, of
Marblehead, in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, v. 357.

[Illustration: PAUL JONES.

After the medal struck in his honor by Congress, to commemorate his
victory over the "Serapis." Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xi. 299;
Loubat's _Medallic Hist. U. S._; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 845; Gay's
_Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 622; Thomas Wyatt's _Memoirs of the Generals,
Commodores_, etc. (Phil., 1848, no. 23); John Frost's _Pictorial Book
of the Commodores_ (New York, 1845). Madison called Houdon's bust
of Jones "an exact likeness." The familiar portrait by C. W. Peale
represents him full face, with chapeau, has been engraved by J. B.
Longacre, and is in Sherburne's _Life of Jones_. For a contemporary
English print, see J. C. Smith's _British Mezzotint Portraits_, v.
1735.]

Respecting the international complications occasioned by the
privateers, see the _Diplom. Corresp. of the Rev._ Capt. John Lee, of
Marblehead, carried some prisoners taken from prizes, which he had
sent home, into Bilbao in 1776, where he was put under arrest; but the
news of the Declaration of Independence arriving at Madrid, he was
discharged (George Sumner's _Oration at Boston_, July 4, 1859, p. 12;
_Dipl. Corresp._, i. 53). The Grantham correspondence, copied in the
_Sparks MSS._ (no. xxiii.), shows much on these complications. The
histories of American diplomacy in Europe at this time necessarily
cover these points; and the copies of the Lord Stormont and Sir Joseph
Yorke Papers, among the Sparks MSS., show the complications which the
ministers of England had to encounter in France and Holland. E. E.
Hale's _Franklin in France_ has a chapter on the American privateers
sailing from Dunkirk. On the participancy of Franklin and Deane in the
movements of the privateers, see Parton's _Franklin_, ii. 239. There
were instances of privateers being retaken by their prisoners and
carried into England (P. O. Hutchinson's _Gov. Hutchinson_, ii. 86).

* * * * *

III. THE RHODE ISLAND CAMPAIGN OF 1778.—In 1776 all the entrances to
Narragansett Bay had been fortified, except the westerly, or that
one lying between Conanicut Island and the western shore of the bay;
and accordingly, in December of that year, Sir Peter Parker with a
British fleet entered by this passage, and, passing round the northern
end of Conanicut, landed Sir Henry Clinton and a force of British and
Hessians on Rhode Island, and occupied Newport (_New Hampshire State
Papers_, viii. 411, 431; Bancroft, ix. 200, 357. Cf. G. C. Mason on the
English fleet in R. I. in the _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._, vii. 301). The
_Journals_ of Congress, ii. 233, show a proposition to send fire-ships
against the British in August, 1777. The Americans, under the direction
of a French engineer, Malmedy, completed at once the defences of all
vulnerable points round the bay, and the chart of the bay, made by the
English engineer Blaskowitz in 1777, shows what some of these points
were. The American as well as the British defences are enumerated
in Gen. George W. Cullum's _Historical sketch of the fortification
defences of Narragansett Bay_ (Washington, 1884). Cf. also his paper in
_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, June, 1884. A section of Blaskowitz's map of the
bay, 1777, given in E. M. Stone's _French Allies_, shows the defences
of Providence.

[Illustration: CAPTAIN PEARSON.]

D'Estaing, by reason of the draft of his heavier ships, had declined to
risk entering New York harbor (Sparks, _Corresp. of the Rev._, ii. 155;
_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, iii. 387). A sketch in the Montresor Papers (_N.
Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., 1881_, p. 505) gives the positions of the English
and French fleets, July 22, 1778, respectively, within and without
Sandy Hook. When D'Estaing sailed to Newport, it was in pursuance of
a plan contrived with Washington for the capture of that place and
the British forces there. On July 29, 1778, D'Estaing anchored near
Point Judith. Sullivan was now in command of about ten thousand men,
largely militia, and under him were Greene and Lafayette commanding
divisions, and they all were gathered about the head of the bay. Copies
of Lafayette's letters during this campaign, made by him for Sparks,
are in the _Sparks MSS._ no. lxxxiv. There were about 6,000 men under
Maj.-Gen. Pigot in the Newport defences. On Newport in the hands of
the British, see _Hist. Mag._, iv. 1, 34, 69, 105, 133, 172, and the
Journal in _Narragansett Hist. Reg._, i. 28, 91, 167, 277. There was a
small British fleet, mostly of thirty-two guns each, protecting their
water-front. When on August 5 D'Estaing began to send his ships in,
the British burned or sunk their ships. The plan agreed upon by the
joint forces was to attack the British on August 10; but Sullivan had
crossed his troops over to the island earlier than D'Estaing expected,
since he found that Pigot was drawing in his troops from the northern
end of the island, and massing them nearer Newport, while the French
troops had not yet landed so as to be ready to act in concert. This
was the condition, when one morning, as the fog lifted, the English
fleet of Howe was seen off the entrance of the bay. Some of the French
ships were outside and exposed, and so D'Estaing promptly passed out to
keep his fleet together and present his strongest front. Howe declined
battle, because the French had the weather-gauge. A gale coming
on, both fleets sought sea-room and were widely scattered, so that
little fighting took place except as opposing vessels chanced to come
together. The storm damaged both fleets equally, and each commander
sought a harbor as best he could; Howe at New York, and D'Estaing at
Newport.

[Illustration: COUNT D'ESTAING.

After a copperplate engraving of a picture by Bonneville.]

The movements of the British fleet are followed in a _Candid and
impartial narrative of the transactions of the fleet under Lord Howe_
(London, 1779). Cf. also Sir John Barrow's _Life of Richard, Earl Howe_
(London, 1838). In the _Third report of the Hist. MSS. Commission_,
p. 124, there is noted a diary on the fleet, July 29-Aug. 31, 1778.
There is an account of a participant on the French fleet, given in
Moore's _Diary_, ii. 85. Paul Revere speaks of the storm as being of
unexampled severity (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiii. 251).

[Illustration: D'ESTAING.

[Illustration]

From Andrews' _Hist. of the War_, London, 1785, vol. i. It is also
engraved in _Extrait du Journal d'un officier de la marine_ [Paris?],
1782 (two editions, but with different engravings). Cf. the portrait in
Hennequin's _Biographie Maritime_ (ii. 221); an engraving by Porreau in
Jones's _Georgia_,] vol. ii.; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 78, etc.]

Meanwhile, on August 15, Sullivan began a movement down the island, and
the British retired behind their two lines of defences. When D'Estaing
reëntered the bay on the 20th, Sullivan had begun his approaches
against the British works, but not wisely in plan, as General Cullum
says. Sullivan urged D'Estaing to join in the attack; but that officer
thought that his first duty, under his instructions, was to make the
safety of his fleet sure, and accordingly did not dare risk, in his
shattered condition, an attack from Howe, should the English admiral
chance to have fared better in the gale, and have made ready to fall
upon him. So D'Estaing told Sullivan he must go to Boston to refit, and
on the 22d he set sail, expressing regret that Sullivan had been so
precipitate in passing over from the main. He declared that he could
not help the American general, and this purpose he insisted upon,
despite the protests of Sullivan and his officers. The predicament of
the American commander was certainly an unfortunate one, but he was
not steady enough of head to refrain from publicly casting reproach on
the French general, in an order which he found he must in part recall
after the mischief had been done (Lodge's _Hamilton's Works_, vii.
557. Cf. Lafayette's letter to Washington in Sparks's _Corresp. of
the Rev._, ii., Aug. 25; and a letter of Greene, in _Ibid._, Aug. 28;
also Greene's _Greene_, iii. 148). Sullivan thus gave the militia an
excuse for deserting him. While in front of the British works and in
this condition, Sullivan got intelligence from Washington that Clinton
had sailed from New York with reinforcements for Pigot. Beginning a
retrograde movement on the 26th, Sullivan stopped at the northern end
of the island and strengthened his position, while Lafayette made a
fruitless visit to Boston to induce D'Estaing to return. That officer
was not yet ready; his ships not yet repaired.

[Illustration: SIEGE OF NEWPORT, 1778.

From the map in the atlas of Marshall's _Washington_. Cf. E. M. Stone's
_Our French Allies_, p. 68; and the map given in Diman's address on the
capture of Prescott. A MS. plan of the attack on Rhode Island, Aug.,
1778, is among the Faden maps (no. 88) in the library of Congress.]

[Illustration: NEWPORT.

This plan, by Charles Blaskowitz, was published by Faden in 1777, and
is here somewhat reduced. Cf. fac-simile in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
July, 1879. A MS. map of the mouth of Taunton River and Newport harbor,
by Charles Blaskowitz, is among the Faden maps (no. 89) in the library
of Congress. There is another plan by Des Barres, published April 24,
1776, and making part of the _Atlantic Neptune_. A plan of Newport and
the bay is in the _American Atlas_, nos. 17 and 18. The British had
contemplated founding a navy yard at Newport in 1764 (_Rhode Island
Hist. Mag._, July, 1885, p. 42). Rider (_Hist. Tracts_, no. 6) gives a
fac-simile of an old map.]

Meanwhile, on the 29th, the British, who had followed Sullivan, began
to press him, and some fighting took place. The centennial of this
action was celebrated August 29, 1878, and S. S. Rider includes an
account of it in his _R. I. Hist. Tracts_, vi. S. G. Arnold delivered
the historical address. This book has also Sullivan's Report, Aug.
31st; Pigot to Clinton; and the German account from Eelking's
_Hülfstruppen_, translated by J. W. De Peyster. Cf. also _R. I.
Hist. Soc. Proc._ (1877-78), p. 88. A letter of Col. Trumbull, Aug.
20th, is in the _Trumbull MSS._, and the fight is described in his
_Autobiography_. A letter of James Lanman, Sept. 16th, is in the
_Sparks MSS._ (xlvii. p. 29). Cf. Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 89,
and Arnold's _Rhode Island_ and other histories of the State, and of
Newport.

The British strength on the island, Aug. 22d, is given as 6,860 men;
and the loss in the action of the 29th is given at 207 in all. _Sparks
MSS._, xlix. vol. iii.

As night fell, the Americans deceived Pigot into thinking them at work
on their defences, when in fact they were crossing to the mainland
by two ferries. An hour before midnight Lafayette got back from
Boston, and found this retreat going on. He took at once charge of the
rear-guard, and by midnight the entire army was rescued.

[Illustration: GENERAL SULLIVAN'S CAMPAIGN MAP, AUGUST. 9-30, 1778.

This follows a sketch in E. M. Stone's _Our French Allies_, p. 108,
which is a reduction of the original (38 inches long,—scale, one inch
to mile), given by Sullivan, after the retreat, to the government of
Rhode Island, and discovered in the State House a few years ago.

KEY: A, "American army under the command of the Hon'ble Gen'l
Sullivan." B, "British lines." B L W, "British Lines and works." B
A, "British Army. Order of March." "Here a severe cannonading and
bombarding on both sides began Aug. 17, 1778, and continued till the
27th." C, "British Army. Order of Battle." D, "Daify Hill" is properly
Durfee's Hill. Y, Turkey Hill. A H, Almy's Hill. O, "British redoubts",
north of Easton's pond. _Windmill._ "Here the British army came up
with the Light Corps of Gen. Sullivan, which was in advance Aug. 29th,
1778, 7 o'c'k A. M., when the battle of that day began." A B, "American
batteries and covered way." R, Howland's Ferry. "Here the American army
landed Aug. 9th, 1778, beginning after 6 o'clock A. M., and retreated
the 30th in the evening."

The sentences above in quotation-marks are legends on the map at the
points indicated. A letter of Sullivan, Oct. 25, 1778, respecting this
map is in the _Trumbull MSS._, iv. p. 181.]

The conduct of Sullivan in this brief campaign has been much
criticised, and Thomas C. Amory attempts his defence in the _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._ (Sept., 1879), vol. xvii. p. 163; and _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._ (1879), vol. iii. pp. 550, 692. Cf. Amory's _Sullivan_,
p. 70, and his papers in the _R. I. Hist. Mag._, 1884, p. 106; 1885,
pp. 244, 271. Sullivan's general orders are in the _Sparks MSS._, no.
xlvii., and in Upham's _John Glover_, p. 46. Letters of Sullivan are
in _Sparks MSS._, no. xx., including his correspondence with Pigot;
others are in the _Trumbull MSS._; some to Laurens, Aug. 6th and 16th,
in the _Laurens Corresp._ (ed. by F. Moore), pp. 116, 120. One of the
miscellaneous volumes of MSS. in the Mass. Hist. Soc. library (_Letters
and Papers, 1777-1780_) is mostly made up of the papers of Meshech
Weare, President of New Hampshire, and they include various letters
from Sullivan, Whipple, and others during this campaign.

The French side of the controversy with D'Estaing is given in
Chevalier's _Histoire de la Marine Française pendant la guerre de
l'Indépendance Américaine_, and in a _Journal d'un officier de la
Marine_ (1782). The correspondence of D'Estaing is in the Archives de
la Marine at Paris, and copies of much of it are in the _Sparks MSS._
(lii. vol. i.) Arnold (_Rhode Island_, vol. ii.) used papers from these
French archives.

[Illustration:

NOTE.—This view of the action of August 25th, taken from Mr.
Brindley's house, is from the _Gentleman's Mag._, 1779, p. 100. The
key is wanting. Cf. Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 83, and Drake's _New
England Coast_.]

[Illustration:

NOTE.—The map on the preceding page is sketched from a colored map
belonging to the Lafayette copies in the Sparks collection at Cornell
University, called _Carte des positions occupées par les troupes
Américaines après leur retraite de Rhode Island, le 30 août, 1778_.

The contemporary English engraved maps of Narragansett Bay of the
most importance are those published by Des Barres and Faden. That
of Des Barres is called _A chart of the harbour of Rhode Island and
Narreganset Bay, published at the request of the Right Honourable Lord
Viscount Howe, by F. F. W. Des Barres, 20 July, 1776_, in two sheets,
which subsequently made part of the _Atlantic Neptune_. It bears
the following "Notes and references explaining the situation of the
British ships and forces after the 29th of July, 1778, when the French
fleet under the command of Count D'Estaing appeared and anchored off
the harbour. The same day two French frigates went up the Seakonnet
Passage. July 30th two French line-of-battle ships anchored in the
Narraganset Passage, on which the king's troops quitted Connanicut
Island. Aug. 5th the French ships came towards Dyer's Island where the
British advanced frigates were destroyed and the seamen encamped. 8th,
the rest of the French fleet came into harbour and anchored abreast
of Gold Island [small island south of Providence Island], upon which
the king's troops withdrew within the lines [north of Newport]. 9th,
the enemy's forces landed." It places the sinking and burning of the
"Alarm" (10 guns), "Cerberus" (28), "Juno" (32), "Kingfisher" (18),
"Lark" (32), "Orpheus" (32), "Pigot" (8), "Spitfire" (8), "Flora" (32),
and "Falcon" (18).

The Faden map was published July 22, 1777, and is entitled _A
Topographical Chart of the Bay of Narraganset, in the Province of New
England, with all the Isles contained therein, among which Rhode Island
and Connonicut have been particularly surveyed ... to which have been
added the several Works and Batteries raised by the Americans, taken by
order of the Principal Farmers on Rhode Island, by Charles Blaskowitz_.

A marginal table gives the names of the farmers, and enumerates ten
batteries, mounting one hundred and twenty-seven guns in all. The map
is dedicated to Earl Percy.

A French reproduction of it. _Plan de to Baie de Narragansett_ makes
part of the _Neptune Américo-septentrional_, no. 6. It is given in
fac-simile in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, July, 1879.

The _Sparks Catalogue_, p. 206, shows a "Map of the Nara Gansett Bay,
by Lieut.-Col. Putnam, Jan. 7, 1776, presented to his Excellency,
George Washington, Esq.;" but it is not among the maps at Cornell
University.

There is in the British Museum a colored plan (1778) of Rhode Island
and the adjacent islands and coast, made by Edward Page, second
artillery (measuring 1 2-12 × 7 6-12 inches); and a colored view of
Bristol Neck (1765).

Modern eclectic war maps of the bay are given in Lossing's
_Field-Book_, ii. 80; Carrington's _Battles_, 456 (the last repeated in
the _R. I. Hist. Mag._, 1884, p. 106).]

The despatch of Pigot to his government is in the _Gent. Mag._, Nov.,
1778, p. 537; in Dawson; in Rider's _R. I. Hist. Tracts_, vi.; in
_Newport Hist. Mag._, ii. 253; in E. M. Stone's _Our French Allies_, p.
111. Cf. also paper of Aug. 31, to Clinton, in _London Gazette_, Oct.
15; _Gent. Mag._, Nov., 1778; Almon's _Remembrancer_; Stone's _French
Allies_. See diaries at Newport in _Hist. Mag._, 1860, and Mrs. Almy's
in _Newport Hist. Mag._, July, 1880. Stedman (ii. ch. 23, 24) tells the
story.

The loyal wits had now their chance, and some of their effusions can
be seen in Moore's _Songs and Ballads of the Rev._, p. 231. Wells
(_S. Adams_, iii. 38) traces the effect of Sullivan's retreat on the
country. Upon the general management of the campaign a committee of
Congress reported, Aug. 7, on the early stages (_Journals_, iii. 9).
An orderly-book of Glover's is in the _Essex Inst. Hist. Coll._ (vol.
v.; cf. also i. p. 112), and another is noted in the _Cooke Catal._
no. 1,897. Maj. Gibbs' diary (Aug.) is in _Penna. Archives_, vol. vi.
A diary of Manassah Cutler, who was a chaplain in Titcomb's regiment,
is in E. M. Stone's _Our French Allies_, p. xv. Lafayette gave an
account fifty years afterwards which is in the _Hist. Mag._, Aug.,
1861. His letters to Washington are in Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._
(ii. 181, 196). Cf. also Sparks's _Washington_, v. 29, 40, 45; vi.,
etc.; Irving's _Washington_, iii. ch. 36; Marshall's _Washington_, iv.;
Bancroft, ix. 209, 357; x. ch. 5; Greene's letter in Sparks's _Corresp.
of the Rev._, ii. 188, and Greene's _Greene_, ii. 100, etc. A long
letter of Dr. Cooper of Boston, Aug., 1778, to Franklin, defending
D'Estaing's action, in Hale's _Franklin in France_, p. 183; Heath's
_Memoirs_; John Trumbull's _Autobiog._ 51; Stuart's _Gov. Trumbull_,
ch. 32; Williams' _Gen. Barton_, ch. 3; Arnold's _Rhode Island_, ii.
419; Barry's _Mass._, ii. 150; Hamilton's _Republic of the U. S._, i.
ch. 17. There are rolls of the campaign in the _Mass. Archives_; and in
_N. H. Rev. Rolls_, ii. 500, 508. Connecticut did not respond (_Hist.
Mag._, ii. 7; cf. also iv. 145).

[Illustration: RHODE ISLAND, AUGUST, 1778.

Sketched from a colored plan among the Sparks maps at Cornell
University, which follows a plan made for Lafayette. It is called _Plan
de Rhode Island avec les différentes opérations de la flotte Française,
et des troupes Américaines, commandées par le Major Général Sullivan,
contre les forces de terre et de mer des Anglais, depuis le 9 Août,
jusqu'à la nuit du 30 au 31 du même mois, 1778, que les Américains ont
fait leur Retraite_.

KEY: The British works are solid black, their troops diagonally black
and white; the American works of open lines, and their troops shaded
obliquely. The British in Newport were protected on the water side
by batteries (3, 3, 3); on the land side by an inner line of defence
(4) and an outer line (5, 6, 7, 8), with nine guns (8) commanding the
water approach by Easton Pond. At the north end of the island they had
works (16, 18, 20,—solid black) to resist attack from the mainland.
Upon the entrance of the French fleet by the Newport batteries, the
English evacuated these advanced posts, and some frigates were sent
into the East passage (15) to protect the movements of the Americans,
who, moving over to the island, threw up redoubts (17) to protect their
first position, and erected a battery of two guns at 20 to cover their
retreat across Howland's Ferry, should that become necessary. They now
advanced, and on August 15th took position on the line 11, and began
their approaches (9). The French had landed from the ships at 22, and
joined the left wing under Lafayette. The redoubts on the extreme
left and right of the line 11 were never completed. The fire from the
parallels was kept up from the 19th to the evening of the 28th, when
the retreat began, and the Americans in the night of the 28th, erected
the breastworks (19, 19) flanking the abandoned British forts (18), and
during the night of the 30th left the island by Howland's Ferry, while
the British were at Turkey Hill (16). The position of the British fleet
was at 1.

Sparks has added to the plan these references: 12, Overing's house,
where Col. Barton captured Gen. Prescott; 13, guard-house; 14, round
redoubt thrown up by the New Hampshire militia,—skirmishing commenced
here under Col. Laurens; and 10, Bishop Berkeley's house. The broken
lines are roads.

The most elaborate of the manuscript contemporary maps is one belonging
to the Mass. Hist. Society, which is reproduced, full size, in the
_Proceedings_ of that society (vol. xx. p. 350), and is given in its
essential parts in Gen. G. W. Cullum's _Historical Sketch of the
Fortification Defences of Narragansett Bay_ (Washington, 1884). It
is on a scale of nearly an inch and a quarter to the mile, and is
signed "J. Denison scripsit." The French fleet is represented as going
out to join battle with Lord Howe's fleet, exchanging shots with the
English shore batteries, which are more numerous than in the Lafayette
map. The French ships in the East passage are shown as sailing out
to sea, to join D'Estaing on his way to Boston. In the battle of the
29th, near Butt's Hill, English ships are drawn as engaging both the
American right and a battery on the Bristol shore. The first line of
the Americans stretches across the island in this order from west to
east,—Livingston, Varnum, Cornell, Greene, Glover, Tyler. These are
without the breastworks. Behind them are Lovell at the west, Titcomb
between the abandoned British forts, with a reserve under West behind
them.]

There are general surveys in Carrington and Dawson; in _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, by J. A. Stevens, July, 1879; in Stone's _Our French Allies_
(Providence, 1884), part iii. On the British side see the contemporary
account in _Gent. Mag._, xlix. 101; the Tory account in Jones, _N.
Y. during the Rev._, ii. ch. 12; the German in Ewald, _Belehrungen_,
ii. 249; Eelking's _Hülfstruppen_, i. 105; ii. 14, 30; epitomized in
Lowell's _Hessians_, 215, 220. Cf. J. G. Rosengarten on the German
soldiers in Newport, in _R. I. Hist. Mag._, vii. 81. Silas Talbot, a
Rhode Islander, who had gained credit in the land service, and had
managed some fire-ships against the British fleet in New York, captured
a floating battery of the enemy near Newport, and made his subsequent
record on the water as an officer of the navy. Henry T. Tuckerman
wrote the _Life of Silas Talbot_, which had been intended for Sparks's
_Amer. Biography_, but was published separately in N. Y. in 1850. Cf.
Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 849.

The next morning Clinton's reinforcements appeared, brought by Howe's
fleet. They were not needed; and so, while Gen. Grey made some raids,
with transports and light craft, upon Fairhaven and other ports, whose
privateers had annoyed the British (cf. _Harper's Monthly Mag._, 1885,
p. 823; and statement of losses in _Sparks MSS._, lii. vol. ii. 29),
Clinton took his troops back to New York, and Howe went round Cape Cod
and cruised off Boston harbor, trying in vain to allure D'Estaing to
battle. The French commander remained in port till November. As the
time for his sailing approached, another English fleet, under Admiral
Byron, appeared off the harbor; but a storm scattering his ships, the
French, on the 3d of November, left the port unmolested, and sailed for
the West Indies.

D'Estaing, while in Boston, addressed a letter to Congress (_Sparks
MSS._, lii. vol. iii.), and promulgated a proclamation (Oct. 28th) to
former French subjects in Canada, seeking to detach them from English
interests (Andrews's _Late War_, iii. 171; Niles's _Principles_, 1876
ed., p. 136, _Doc. rel. to Col. Hist., N. Y._, x. 1165).

The reports which reached Boston relative to the campaign under
Sullivan, and the impressions respecting the French, are given in
Ezekiel Price's diary (_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Oct., 1865, p.
334). Hancock, who had been in command of the Massachusetts militia
during the campaign, returned to Boston to do what he could by his
hospitality to prevent the general indifference of the Boston people
producing evil effects on the French (_Memorial Hist. Boston_, iii.
185; Loring's _Hundred Boston Orators_, 102; Adams's _Familiar
Letters_, 342; Greene's _Greene_, ii. 143). On the unfortunate riot
(Sept. 17, 1778) in the town, in which the French were roughly handled,
see _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, viii. 785, 856, xv. 95. Considerable
apprehension was felt lest the British, elated by success, should push
towards Boston from Rhode Island, and beacons were got in readiness
(Sept. 7th) on Blue Hill in Milton. A regiment of artillery had been
raised for the defence of the town, and an orderly-book covering
its service, June 8, 1777, to Dec. 18, 1778, is given in the _Essex
Inst. Hist. Coll._, xiii. 115, 237; xiv. 60, 110, 188. Heath (cf. his
_Memoirs_ for this period), at a time when the French were making ready
to sail, wrote from Boston, Oct. 22, 1778, to Weare, of New Hampshire,
that he feared the British were planning an attack by water (_Letters
and Papers, MSS._, 1777-1780, in Mass. Hist. Soc. cabinet).

* * * * *

IV. THE PENOBSCOT EXPEDITION, 1779.—This expedition was fitted out
in Boston by the Massachusetts authorities, with some assistance from
New Hampshire, for the purpose of dislodging a British force, which in
June, under General McNeill, supported by a few vessels under Captain
Mowatt, had taken possession of the peninsula now called Castine. The
treasury of Massachusetts issued bills to cover the cost (Goodell's
_Province Laws_, v. 1191).

[Illustration]

Solomon Lovell was put in command of 1,200 militia and 100 artillery,
while Peleg Wadsworth was second in command, and Paul Revere had
charge of the artillery. The general government lent the "Warren"
and "Providence", Continental vessels, and Dudley Saltonstall, a
Continental officer, commanded the fleet. The expedition, consisting
of nineteen armed vessels, of three hundred and twenty-four guns,
with twenty transports, and 2,000 men in all, left Boston harbor
July 19th. Quarrels between Lovell and Saltonstall prevented prompt
action, and before success could be insured the expedition was
overcome by a naval force which Clinton had sent from New York when
he heard of the undertaking. Our main sources on the American side
are _The original Journal of General Solomon Lovell, kept during the
Penobscot Expedition, 1779, with a sketch of his life by Gilbert
Nash_, published in 1881 by the Weymouth (Mass.) Hist. Society; the
_Boston Gazette_, March 18, 25, April 1, 8, 1782; journal on board the
Continental sloop "Hunter", July 19-Aug. 11, in _Hist. Mag._, viii.
51. Further on the American side Thacher's _Military Journal_; Heath's
_Memoirs_; Thomas Philbrook's account in Cowell's _Spirit of '76 in
Rhode Island_; Pemberton's journal in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii.
172; letters of Artemas Ward, Peleg Wadsworth, and Charles Chauncey;
a letter of James Sullivan, saying that it had involved Massachusetts
in a debt of $7,000,000, "which is not so distressing as the disgrace"
(Amory's _James Sullivan_, ii. 376; _Sparks MSS._, xx.); Wheeler's
_Pentagoet_, p. 36; Kidder's _Military Operations in Eastern Maine_,
p. 265; Williamson's _Maine_ (ii. 471) and _Belfast_, ch. 12; Willis's
_Portland_, ch. 19; William Goold's _Portland in the Past_, p. 374;
Barry's _Mass._, ii. ch. 14; J. W. De Peyster in the _N. Y. Mail_, Aug.
13, 1879.

The _Revolutionary Rolls_, in the Massachusetts Archives, give the
_personnel_ of the expedition; the orders, vessels, etc. (vols.
xxxvii., xxxviii., xxxix.)

On the English side we have John Calef's _Siege of Penobscot by the
Rebels_ (London, 1781,—Sabin, iii. no. 9,925), which is copied in
Wheeler; the journal, July 24-Aug. 12, in the _Nova Scotia Gazette_,
Sept. 14, 1779, which is reprinted in the _Maine Hist. Soc. Coll._,
vii. 121, and that in the _Particular Services_, etc., edited by Ithiel
Town. There is a Tory view in Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, i. 297.

[Illustration: SIEGE OF PENOBSCOT, 1779.]

Lovell's troops and the seamen struggled in disorder through the Maine
wilderness, and the general himself reached Boston about Sept. 20th.
A court of inquiry, under Gen. Artemas Ward, exonerated Lovell, and
blamed Saltonstall. Nash prints its report, which is preserved in the
_Mass. Archives_, vol. cxiv. It is examined by Eben Hazard in a letter
printed in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iv. 129, in which he intimates
that the blame was not all the naval commander's, and that it was a
part of the plan to throw the responsibility on a Continental officer,
in order to force the cost of the expedition upon Congress.

The annexed sketch is a combination of the two maps on a much larger
scale in Calef's _Siege of Penobscot_ (London, 1781). On the approach
of the American fleet up the river, the British garrison was encamped
on the peninsula of Maja-big-waduce (the modern Castine) at Q, and
their main fortification, Fort George (A), was not completed. Capt.
Mowatt, the naval commander, placed his three vessels in line (L) to
defend the harbor. The Americans were first seen July 24th. On the
25th the American transports passed up the river and anchored, while
nine armed ships in three divisions at K attacked the British ships
at L; the American land forces, meanwhile, attempting to land at R,
were repulsed. On the 26th, towards night, the Americans placed some
heavy guns on Nautilus Island, whereupon the British ships moved back
to a position at M. On the 27th the American ships engaged the British
battery D with little result. On the 28th the Americans succeeded in
landing at R, captured the battery D, and established the lines C.
The battery on Nautilus Island disturbing the ships at M, they moved
farther up to N. On the 29th the Americans opened their batteries along
the lines C, and the British moved some guns from the half-moon E to
the fort, and the ships sent ashore some cannon to be mounted at E. On
the 31st the American seamen and marines attempted a landing between D
and E, but were repulsed. On August 4th the Americans opened a battery
at G, annoying the ships at N, and endangering their communications
with the forts. The American batteries at F and H were not completed,
and the one at H was abandoned on August 9th. On August 5th the British
naval commander began the battery B to protect his communications with
the fort; and while building it, the Americans planted, on the 8th, a
field-piece at F to annoy the men working.

On the 13th arrangements were making for a vigorous attack, when the
reinforcing British fleet appeared in the offing. During the night
the Americans reëmbarked, and all their vessels fled up the river.
Only the "Hunter" and "Hampden" attempted to escape down the river,
and these were captured. Night coming on, the British anchored; while
the Americans landed their men, and then blew up their vessels. The
commodore's ship, "Warren", of thirty-two guns, was burned at Oak Point.

Calef's map is given in Wheeler's _Pentagoet_. A MS. plan of the
operations of the English fleet is among the Faden maps (no. 101), in
the library of Congress. As a result of their success at Penobscot,
the British government, the next year, attempted to erect Maine into
a province under the name of New Ireland (Bancroft, x. 368; Barry's
_Mass.; Me. Hist. Soc. Coll._, vii. 201).

CHAPTER VIII.

THE INDIANS AND THE BORDER WARFARE OF THE REVOLUTION.

BY ANDREW McFARLAND DAVIS,

_American Antiquarian Society._

THE peace which followed the quelling of the Pontiac war gave
opportunities for settlements to be pushed westward. The population
on the border, rendered lawless by environment, was not likely to
observe treaties. Fear of the Indians was more potent to restrain
these restless men than dread of punishment by colonial authorities.
Conflicts of colonial jurisdiction and disputed land claims added to
the chronic confusion of the situation.

It needed all the tact and discretion of which that remarkable man,
Sir William Johnson, was master to prevent outbreaks, and the danger
was not over until the boundaries were adjusted with the Six Nations
and other Indians, at Fort Stanwix, in 1768. There was far more cause
for complaint against the English on the part of the tribes whom Sir
William was able to control than on the part of the Senecas, who, in
September, 1763, had surprised and scalped a working party with their
guard. Encroachment upon their lands had also irritated the Mohawks,
who particularly resented an attempt of a Connecticut company to
colonize the valley of the Susquehanna. Early in the spring of 1763,
the Connecticut company sought to secure Sir William's influence with
the Indians in quieting the company's title, which was based upon the
Connecticut charter and upon alleged Indian deeds. The company failed
in this, as well as in an attempt to negotiate with the confederacy.
The Indians, instead of granting a deed, sent to Connecticut a
delegation of Mohawks, accompanied by Guy Johnson, to represent to
the governor of that colony the peril with which further attempts
at colonization would be attended.[1260] These efforts arrested the
movements of the company, and for the time immigration was checked.
They were not early enough, however, to prevent one of those horrible
attacks which stand out in our memories as types of Indian warfare
and which in the minds of many readers obscure all other conceptions
of Indian character. A number of families had already settled in this
region, under the auspices of the Connecticut company, and had built
themselves homes near the present site of Wilkesbarré. On October 15,
1763, they were suddenly attacked by Indians, and one woman and nine
men were killed and scalped. The rest of the inhabitants fled to the
mountains, and such as did not perish worked their way through the
wilderness to the nearest settlements. Their villages were destroyed,
their cattle killed, and their crops laid waste. Avenging expeditions
were promptly organized in Pennsylvania. One marched to the Delaware
town at Wyoming, but found it deserted. Another laid waste the Delaware
and Munsee towns on the west branch of the Susquehanna.

The Moravian Indians at Wyoming, who had taken no part in the massacre
of the Connecticut settlers, removed for safety to Gnadenhütten,
whence they were taken to Philadelphia for greater security. At
Paxton, Pennsylvania, the inhabitants assembled secretly, and attacked
a settlement of the harmless Conestogoes. The cause for this wicked
slaughter has never been clearly explained,[1261] but the subsequent
memorials of the rioters seem to indicate that it was part of a
general plan to exterminate the Indians. Whatever the motive, popular
approval was strong enough to shield the perpetrators of such shameless
deeds.[1262] The entire band of the Conestogoes was exterminated,[1263]
and their town was destroyed. The first attack was made on them on the
night of the 14th of December, when this band of murderers surrounding
the town, killed all who happened to be there. Those Indians who were
absent took refuge in Lancaster, where they were lodged in a public
building, spoken of by some as the workhouse, by some as the jail. On
the 27th, their enemies followed them to this refuge, and in cold blood
slaughtered them all, men, women, and children, indiscriminately.

The Moravian Indians, who had taken refuge at Philadelphia, were next
threatened by the rioters, who marched towards that place with the
avowed intention of killing them also. The provincial authorities
appealed to General Gage for help, but before his reply reached
them they sought to throw the Indians upon New York for protection.
It happened that a company of regulars was about to march from
Philadelphia for New York, and under their escort the Indians were
dispatched, with intention to place them under charge of Sir William
Johnson. The New York authorities refused, however, to permit the
Indians to enter that province. Meantime General Gage placed troops
at the disposal of Governor Penn. The Indians were conducted back to
Philadelphia, and orders were given to repel by force any attack. The
rioters again approached Philadelphia, but were dissuaded from attack,
and Pennsylvania was spared the shame of further atrocities by the
"Paxton Boys."

After this excitement was over the labors of Sir William Johnson to
prevent renewed conflict were still constant. He complained, in his
correspondence,[1264] of murders, robberies, and encroachments on
the rights and possessions of the natives. The frontier inhabitants,
according to him, thought themselves at liberty to make settlements
where they pleased. He lost heart, while on the other hand the settlers
openly bade defiance to authority. In 1766 he wrote: "Murders are now
daily committed on the frontiers, and I fear that an Indian war is
inevitable." In January, 1767, he announced that Colonel Cresap, of
Maryland, himself held a treaty some time during the last year with
several warriors of the Six Nations, who passed that way, and who were
persuaded to grant to him a considerable tract of land down the Ohio
toward Green-Brier. With prophetic instinct, Sir William added: "If
this be true, it will be productive of dangerous consequences." A large
part of Johnson's time was spent in protecting the Indians from such
fraudulent conveyances of their land as were made through transfers
where there was but a shadow of title, through forgeries, and through
deeds executed without proper formalities, under circumstances which
would prevent recognition of the transaction by the tribes. Many
deeds, which upon the face seemed properly executed, were secured from
the signers when they were so completely intoxicated that they were
ignorant what they were doing. Others conveyed by metes and bounds an
extent of territory far exceeding the intention of the grantors. No
transfer of land made by a band of warriors, on the war-path or on a
hunting expedition, would have been recognized by the confederacy. Sir
William himself said: "A sachem of each tribe is a necessary party to a
fair conveyance, and such sachem affixes the mark of the tribe thereto,
as a public seal of a corporation." The title to the land was supposed
to be in all. Even the women had a voice in transfers by bargain and
sale.[1265] It was one of the principal occupations of Sir William
Johnson's life to adjust difficulties arising out of transfers, such as
the one to Cresap, of which he had heard, and in which he saw the seeds
of future trouble, if it should prove to be true. In his review of the
trade and affairs of the Indians in the northern district of America,
he recapitulates the wrongs of the Indian.[1266]

Life in the midst of such impending dangers bred contempt for
authority, even on the part of men who were well disposed. The strong
arm of the government was but feebly felt in the distant bottoms in the
western parts of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, which settlers
were beginning to appropriate to their own use. The inhabitants of
the frontiers were a law unto themselves, and sometimes unto the
authorities. Men who diligently read their Bibles and pondered over
the teachings of the gospels could tear scalps from the heads of
Indians. The government was powerless to protect the frontiers except
through the agency of volunteers, and they in turn were able at any
moment seriously to complicate the situation. In the organization of
companies of rangers the weakness of the government was exposed, and
through them the independence of the settlers was developed. Such
companies frequently adopted Indian costumes, painted their faces,
and manœuvred by Indian tactics. The habits of the Indian more than
the civilization they had left, influenced their modes of life. They
attacked for revenge, and were barbarous because the savages were. In
the case of the Indians such methods in warfare came by inheritance.
They were modified somewhat by the spirit of the missionaries, and
however cruel they may have been, they were at any rate absolutely free
from assaults on woman's chastity. In the case of the settlers, the
promptings of civilization were disregarded, and it would seem as if
the system of bounties for scalps had taught them to regard the Indian
as on the level of a brute. Nevertheless, the rule had exceptions; and
it would not be just to paint all the settlers along the borders in
these repulsive colors, or to believe that there was a universal desire
for the extermination of the Indians.

[Illustration:

NOTE.—This map was found in MS. among a collection of maps and charts
which were presented to the New York State library by Obadiah Rich, of
London. It had been sent to Lord Hillsborough in 1771, accompanying a
memorial concerning the Iroquois, prepared by the Rev. Charles Inglis,
of Trinity Church, New York city, who had endeavored to christianize
them. This paper was subsequently recovered from the descendants of
Dr. Inglis in Nova Scotia, and is printed in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._
(quarto), iv. p. 661, accompanied by an engraved copy of Johnson's
map, of which a reduction is given herewith. The map is also given in
Pearson's _Schenectady Patent_, 1883, p. 433; in Hough's edition of
Pouchot, ii. 148.

In _N. Y. Col. Docs._, viii. 136, Guy Johnson's map, showing the line
fixed at Fort Stanwix, Nov., 1768, is given as copied from the original
in Sir William Johnson's letter, Nov. 18, 1768, to Hillsborough,
preserved in the State Paper Office. In _Ibid._ viii. 31, is a copy of
the map annexed to the Report and Representation of the Board of Trade,
March 7, 1768, showing the line of the bounds with the Indians. Cf. on
this line _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, i. 587; _N. Y. Col. Docs._, viii. 110;
_New Jersey Archives_, x. 55, 95; Mill's _Bounds of Ontario_, p. 21;
_Olden Time_, i. 399; Schweinitz's _Zeisberger_, ch. xviii.; _View of
the title to Indiana_ (1776; see Hildeburn's _Bibliog._, no. 3,490).
Respecting the territory of the Oneidas, see _Magazine of American
History_, Oct., 1885, p. 387, where the accuracy of the map in Morgan's
_League of the Iroquois_ is questioned.—ED.]

This hazardous contact of Indian and border settler stretched along a
doubtful line which extended from Oneida Lake to the central part of
the valley of the Ohio. In 1768 the boundaries were adjusted at Fort
Stanwix, between representatives of the English government, on the one
part, and the Six Nations, the Delawares, the Shawanese, the Mingoes
of Ohio, and other dependent tribes, on the other. A deed of the land
to the east and south of a line which ran from a point just west of
Fort Stanwix south to the Susquehanna, thence up the West Branch and
across to Kittanning on the Alleghany, thence down that river and the
Ohio to the mouth of the Tennessee, was then duly executed to the king
of England. An exception from its terms was made of the land occupied
by the Mohawks, whose settlements were all to the east of the agreed
boundary line. The hunting-grounds comprised within the limits of
the States of Kentucky and Tennessee were claimed by the Six Nations
as conquered territory, and they paid no regard to the claims of the
Cherokees, who had arranged a boundary with Stuart, the Indian agent,
to a part at least of the same region, the northern termination of
which was the mouth of the Kanawha River. It was understood by the
Indians that no white man was to settle to the west of the line agreed
upon.[1267]

The far-reaching influence of the Indian superintendents restrained
this aboriginal population from violent outbreak from 1764 until
the collision at Point Pleasant, Virginia, in 1774. This was
undoubtedly precipitated by atrocities committed upon the Indians in
the Ohio Valley, near Wheeling. Underlying the immediate causes for
irritation during this period were reasons for complaint, revealed
in the correspondence of Sir William Johnson, which would probably
have led to warfare at an early date. Among these was the influx of
settlers upon the hunting-grounds of the Indians, where, regardless
of treaties, the land across the Ohio was parcelled out in "tomahawk
improvements", as the squatter rights of the day were denominated.
These proceedings attracted the attention of General Gage, and on the
8th of August, 1772, he issued a proclamation, calling attention to
the fact that some persons had "undertaken to make settlements beyond
the boundaries fixed by treaties made with the Indian nations", "where
they lead a wandering life, without government and without laws",
"causing infinite disturbance." Such persons were ordered to "quit
these countries instantly and without delay, and to retire at their
choice into some one of the colonies of his majesty." The peace which
was negotiated by Lord Dunmore brought but little quiet to the settlers
on the border. Indian raids were frequent, and the details of their
horrors are sickening, but the loss of life by these raids has been
greatly exaggerated. The Indians seldom ventured beyond the region
which was scantily peopled. The watchfulness of the settlers, and their
promptness to assemble and pursue, averted many disasters. At such a
time Virginia and Pennsylvania were wrangling over the right to grant
patents for land, the settlement of which had so much to do with the
uneasiness of the Indians.[1268]

In New York, settlements were more compact. Rights of territory were
better defined and better understood. Indian lands had been better
protected there from direct invasion and from fraudulent transfer.
Danger from trespass was better appreciated. The Indians themselves,
being under the personal oversight of their superintendent, were
better controlled. His immediate presence made him more useful in the
adjustment of disputes without resort to the tomahawk. The frontier
patriots of Tryon County, "unlike the rude inhabitants of most frontier
settlements", are stated by a careful student of the records to have
been "scrupulous in their devotion to the supremacy of the laws." The
confederacy of the Six Nations, as a whole, had not participated in the
events in the valley of the Ohio, but they shared with their dependants
and allies in the uneasiness caused by such aggressions upon Indian
territory. Some of their warriors had taken part in the Virginia war,
and the "temper of the whole Indian race, with the exception of the
Oneidas, was soured by these occurrences of the year 1774." The first
official labors of importance which devolved upon Colonel Guy Johnson,
who, after the death of Sir William Johnson in 1774, had been appointed
to the office of superintendent, were to check the resentment of the
Six Nations.[1269] His success in those labors showed that he had
inherited, by virtue of his office, some of the respect and affection
which the natives had lavished upon his predecessor.

Such was the condition of affairs when Washington took command of
the army, in July, 1775, with instructions not to disband any of the
forces already raised, until further directions from Congress. It is
not probable that all the members of the Congress were aware of the
full meaning of these instructions. There were among the men whom
Washington was thus instructed not to discharge a number of Indians
regularly enlisted as minute-men. Had the question of employing
Indians been submitted to Congress at that time, it would probably
have been answered in the negative; but it had already been settled by
the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts Bay when they accepted the
services of Indians.[1270]

On the first day of April, 1775, the Committee on the State of
the Province reported to that congress a resolve beginning with
these words: "Whereas a number of Indians, natives of the town of
Stockbridge, have enlisted as minute-men." A committee was next
appointed to draft a letter to the Rev. Mr. Kirkland,[1271] and to
frame an address to the chief of the Mohawk tribes. The letter requests
Mr. Kirkland to use his influence with the Six Nations "to join with
us in the defence of our rights;" but if he could not "prevail with
them to take an active part in this glorious cause", he was "at least
to engage them to stand neuter." The address calls upon the Indians to
"whet their hatchet, and be prepared to defend our liberties and lives."

It is evident that the Stockbridge Indians were further
importuned,[1272] for on the 11th of April their chief sachem answered
a communication from the President of the Provincial Congress (the
contents of which can only be conjectured) by offering to visit the
Six Nations and find out how they stood. "If I find that they are
against you", he said, "I will try and turn their minds."... "One thing
I ask of you, if you send for me to fight, that you will let me fight
in my own Indian way." The Massachusetts Congress also tried to draw
recruits from the Indians of Nova Scotia, and addressed them on the
15th of May, 1775,[1273] as their "friends and good brothers;" adding
as an inducement for their enlistment that "the Indians at Stockbridge
all join with us, and some of their men have enlisted as soldiers."
Captain John Lane was sent down among these Eastern Indians to raise
one company of their men, "to join with us in the war with your and
our enemies." Nothing, however, resulted from this, except the arrival
in June of Captain Lane with one chief and three young men, and at a
later date the execution of a barren treaty.[1274] In addition to these
efforts put forth by the Provincial Congress, attempts were early made
in the same direction by provincial officers;[1275] and thus by general
or special effort at the very beginning of the war, the Americans
secured the services of such Indians as were willing to enlist, and the
English followed so close in their steps as to confound, to the casual
observer of their mutual criminations, the evidence of priority. The
Indians engaged upon the American side produced no material influence
upon military movements. Their presence in camp has been ignored by
many writers. The responsibility for the intention is the same as if
the effort had been successful. It must, however, be remembered that
small bodies of Indians, serving with whites, were controllable and
easily restrained from excesses. After the evacuation of Boston, the
tide of events changed the field of war, and altered the composition of
the troops. The army began to assume a national aspect. The voice of
Massachusetts was no longer pre-eminent in military affairs.

The Continental Congress contained representatives of other colonies
who keenly felt the dangers from the use of Indians by the enemy.
The expressions of opinion in that body were, therefore, much more
conservative than in the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts Bay. On
the 18th of May it appears by the _Journals_ that indubitable evidence
of a design formed by the British ministry of making an invasion
had been received. In June, according to the _Secret Journals_,
Governor Carleton was making preparation to invade the colonies, and
was "instigating the Indian nations to take up the hatchet against
them." On the 30th the Committee on Indian Affairs was instructed "to
prepare proper talks to the several tribes of Indians for engaging the
continuance of their friendship to us, and neutrality in our present
unhappy dispute with Great Britain." On the 1st of July there is a hint
of a possible change of position shown in the passage of a resolution,
"that in case any agent of the ministry shall induce any Indian tribes,
or any of them, to commit actual hostilities against these colonies, or
to enter into an offensive alliance with the British troops, thereupon
the colonies ought to avail themselves of an alliance with such Indian
nations as will enter into the same, to oppose such British troops
and their allies." The statement that Carleton was instigating the
Indians to "fall upon us" was repeated July 6th.[1276] On July 12th the
Committee on Indian Affairs recommended that the country be divided
into three Indian departments, and that commissioners be appointed,
with power to "treat with the Indians in their respective departments,
in the name and on behalf of the United Colonies, in order to preserve
peace and friendship with the said Indians, and to prevent their taking
any part in the present commotion." This recommendation was adopted.
On July 13th, a formal speech was addressed to the Six Confederate
Nations, urging them to keep peace. On the 17th the commissioners were
recommended to employ Mr. Kirkland, in order to secure the friendship
of the Indians and continue them in a state of neutrality. On July 21st
a plan of confederation was submitted to Congress by Franklin, in which
"a perpetual alliance, offensive and defensive", was proposed, "to
be entered into as soon as may be with the Six Nations." On December
2d it was resolved that the Indians of the St. Francis, Penobscot,
Stockbridge, and St. John and other tribes may be called on in case of
real necessity, and that giving them presents is suitable and proper.
On March 8, 1776, the growing disposition to make use of Indians found
expression in a resolve "that Indians be not employed as soldiers in
the armies of the United Colonies, before the tribes to which they
belong shall, in a national council, held in the customary manner, have
consented thereto, nor then without express approbation of Congress."
On May 25th the opposition seems to have been completely overcome, when
Congress resolved "that it is highly expedient to engage the Indians
in the service of the United Colonies."[1277] On June 3d authority
was conferred upon General Washington to employ in Canada a number
of Indians, not exceeding two thousand; and on the 6th instructions
were given to the standing Committee on Indian Affairs to devise
ways and means for carrying into effect the resolution of the 3d.
Meantime the news of the disaster at the Cedars was received, and its
circumstances impelled Congress to special efforts in behalf of the
colonies. On June 14th the commissioners of the Northern Department
were instructed to "engage the Six Nations in our interest, on the
best terms that can be procured." On the 17th, the restriction in the
resolution of the 3d, which limited to Canada the use of the Indians
to be raised, was removed, and the general was permitted to employ
them in any place where he should judge they would be most useful.
He was further authorized "to offer a reward of one hundred dollars
for every commissioned officer, and thirty dollars for every private
soldier of the king's troops, that they should take prisoners in the
Indian country, or on the frontiers of these colonies." The days of
irresolution were over. Congress was now irrevocably committed to
the proposition of permitting the general commanding the armies to
take what advantage he could of Indian auxiliaries, and to offer them
bounties for prisoners. The next utterance of Congress on this subject
is to be found in the Declaration of Independence, in which the king
is arraigned because "he has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants
of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of
warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and
conditions." This was closely followed by a resolution on July 8th,
authorizing Washington to call forth and engage the Indians of the St.
John, Nova Scotia, and Penobscot tribes. The address to the people of
Great Britain was adopted the same day. The address to the people of
Ireland, in which it is asserted that "the wild and barbarous savages
of the wilderness have been solicited by gifts to take up the hatchet
against us, and instigated to deluge our settlements with the blood of
defenceless women and children", was agreed to July 28, 1776.[1278]
After this, the acts and resolutions of Congress were consistent with
the resolution in which they declared that it was highly expedient
to employ the Indians. Instructions were given from time to time to
secure the greatest advantage out of the services of the Indians, in
behalf of the country which was now struggling for independence; and
in 1779 it was resolved that twelve blank commissions be furnished the
commissioners of the Northern Department for the appointment of as many
Indians, the name and the rank of each commission to be filled at the
discretion of the commissioners.[1279]

The English approached the question differently; and there can be
but little doubt that the proposition to use Indian warriors was
more shocking to the cultivated Englishman, who was in no danger
from their barbarous excesses, than to the American of corresponding
attainments, whose life had been spent in close contact with men
to whom such incidents had been every-day experiences. The fierce
invectives of Chatham,[1280] in 1777, against the ministry for having
enlisted the services of Indians, were founded on a proper estimate of
the responsibilities of an invading army. Lord North recognized this
distinction when, in 1775, he said that Carleton raised Indians only
for purposes of defence. Military men knew that the natives, who had
taken part in every war in America between the French and the English,
must inevitably be drawn into any protracted contest between Great
Britain and the colonies. It could be foreseen that, if the English
retained Canada and Detroit, operations would be conducted by way of
Lake Champlain, Oswego, and Detroit, which would involve the use of
Indian territory. If any inference could be drawn from the past, no
armed occupation of strategic positions within Indian territory, and
no use of the rivers and natural highways of the back country for
military purposes during a time of actual war, could be made without
collision with the natives, unless such occupation and use was by their
consent. Such consent could only be gained by alliance. General Gage
and Lord Dunmore, both in close contact with the situation, placed
their opinions on record soon after hostilities broke out. On June,
12, 1775, Gage wrote to Lord Dartmouth: "I hear that the rebels, after
surprising Ticonderoga, made incursions and commenced hostilities upon
the frontier of the province of Quebec, which will justify General
Carleton to raise bodies of Canadians and Indians to attack them in
return; and we need not be tender of calling on the savages, as the
rebels here have shown us the example, by bringing as many Indians
down here as they could collect." Lord Dunmore, whose indiscretions
and brutality were so serviceable in stamping out loyalty among men of
wealth and intelligence in Virginia, sought no justification in the
example of the rebels. He wrote to the Earl of Dartmouth, on May 1st,
that he hoped "to be able to collect from among Indians, negroes, and
other persons a force sufficient, if not to subdue rebellion, at least
to defend government;" and in the fall of the same year he endeavored
to carry out his policy.[1281] Carleton was apparently averse to the
employment of Indians in aggressive movements. At any rate, he took
refuge behind his orders, which did not permit him "to act out of the
line of the province."

Colonel Guy Johnson was the object of much suspicion during the
months of May and June, 1775. He repudiated with vigor the position
which these suspicions attributed to him, and said that he could not
sufficiently express his surprise at those who had, either through
malice or ignorance, misconstrued his intentions, and supposed him
capable of setting Indians on the peaceable inhabitants of Tryon
County. He was a servant of the king and an ardent loyalist. From the
mere performance of his official duties he was necessarily an object
of suspicion to the Americans. He was the person who furnished the
natives with supplies. "We get our things from the superintendent.
If our ammunition is stopped we shall distrust you", said an Indian
speaker to the delegates from Albany and Tryon counties. These supplies
were furnished by the king to those whom he termed his allies. It was
evident that the king would not continue to furnish supplies, if their
only effect was to keep the neighboring Indians on good terms with
colonists who, while claiming to be loyal subjects, were actually in
arms against his government. As the distributer of supplies, the safety
of the superintendent was of great importance to the natives, and a
rumor that the "Bostonians" contemplated seizing his person[1282]
caused the Indians much alarm. Whether Johnson believed this rumor or
not, he fortified his house. This act, as well as his sudden removal
to Fort Stanwix, and thence to Oswego,—at both of which places he
held conferences with Indians,—increased the numbers who doubted the
sincerity of his statements. Yet even here, after these suspicious
movements, he protested to the Provincial Congress of New York against
the charges brought against him: "I trust I shall always manifest more
humanity than to promote the destruction of the innocent inhabitants of
a colony to which I have been always warmly attached." The conference
at Oswego caused alarm to the inhabitants of Tryon County, and the air
was filled with rumors of Indian invasion. Colonel Johnson reported
to Dartmouth that he left home the last of May, "having received
secret instructions from General Gage", and that he "assembled 1,458
Indians at Ontario,[1283] and adjusted matters with them in such
a manner that they agreed to defend the communications and assist
his majesty's troops in their operations." At the Albany conference
the Indians were interrogated about the proceedings at Oswego, and
repeatedly asserted that the superintendent's advice to them was to
preserve neutrality.[1284] The statements made by the Indians at the
conferences were generally to be relied upon. Johnson's language has
perhaps been misunderstood. The assistance "to his majesty's troops in
their operations" may have been limited to the agreement to defend the
communications, the military value of which Johnson appreciated, but
the full effect of an agreement to defend which the Indians did not
comprehend. In the middle of July, Johnson arrived at Montreal, and
another conference was held with 1,664 Indians, at which their services
were secured for the king. Brant, who was present, afterwards said: "We
immediately commenced in good earnest, and did our utmost during the
war."

In the South, John Stuart, the Indian superintendent of that
department, was also an object of suspicion. At a hint from friends
he fled from Charleston to Savannah, and in turn to St. Augustine.
From this spot, on July 18th, he wrote to the Committee of Safety
of Charleston, asserting that he had never received any orders
from his superiors "which, by the most tortured suspicion, could
be interpreted to stir up or employ the Indians to fall upon the
frontier inhabitants, or to take any part in the disputes between
Great Britain and the colonies."[1285] A few weeks later he received
from Gage a letter written just before that officer left Boston, the
vindictiveness of which was probably prompted by anger. This letter
contained instructions to "improve a correspondence with the Indians
to the greatest advantage, and even when opportunity offers make them
take arms against his majesty's enemies, and distress them all in your
power; for no terms are now to be kept with them; they have brought
down all the savages they could against us here, who, with their
riflemen, are continually firing on our advanced sentries;[1286] in
short, no time should be lost to distress a set of people so wantonly
rebellious."[1287] Stuart apparently proceeded to carry out what he
conceived to be the desires of his superior officer, and, in a letter
of October 3d, reported progress.

From England instructions were forwarded on July 5, 1775, by Lord
Dartmouth to Colonel Johnson, "to keep the Indians in such a state
of affection and attachment to the king as that his majesty may rely
upon their assistance in any case in which it may be necessary." On
the 24th Dartmouth wrote: "The intelligence his majesty has received
of the rebels having excited the Indians to take a part, and of
their having actually engaged a body of them in arms to support
their rebellion, justifies the resolution his majesty has taken of
requiring the assistance of his faithful adherents, the Six Nations.
It is, therefore, his majesty's pleasure that you do lose no time in
taking such steps as may induce them to take up the hatchet against
his majesty's rebellious subjects in America, and to engage them
in his majesty's service, upon such plan as shall be suggested by
General Gage." This work Johnson had already accomplished even before
the instructions of July 24th were written. In the fall of the same
year that Dartmouth thus placed the British government on record as
willing to employ Indians in the war, without other restrictions than
such as were to be suggested by General Gage, the Earl of Shelburne,
on information received, attacked the administration. "The Indians
had been tampered with", he said. "A trial of skill had been made to
let the savages on the back settlements loose on provincial subjects.
Barbarous as was the measure and cowardly as was the attempt, it had
failed." This was on November 10th. Ten days later Lord North asserted
that, "as to the means of conducting the war, there was never any idea
of employing the negroes or the Indians, until the Americans themselves
had first applied to them; that General Carleton did then apply to
them; and even then it was only for the defence of his own province."
Lord North was not well informed on proceedings in the colonies.

The attitude assumed by the British government in the order of July
24th represented the position which was retained during the remainder
of the war. From Halifax, on June 7, 1776, General Howe assured
Lord George Germain that his best endeavors would be used to engage
the Indians of the Six Nations, and he hoped by the influence of
Colonel Guy Johnson to make them useful. Notwithstanding the fact
that the intercepted correspondence between General Gage and John
Stuart, the superintendent, had been in possession of the Americans
for some months, Henry Stuart, a deputy of his brother, on May 18,
1776, asserted that it was not the design of his majesty "to set his
friends and allies on his liege subjects." This was probably true, but
there were a number of inhabitants of the Southern colonies who could
hardly have been classified as "liege subjects" at that time, to whom
this announcement could not have conveyed much satisfaction. From an
intercepted letter from the same source a scheme for co-operating with
the fleet when it should appear on the coast, by marching troops from
Florida in concert with a force composed of Creeks and Cherokees, to
the frontiers of North and South Carolina, was made public. In the
fall of 1776 Lord George Germain forwarded a supply of presents to the
Indians, and called the attention of the generals in command to the
necessity of securing their services. In November, 1777, the Earl of
Suffolk justified the alliance with the Indians on two grounds: "one as
necessary in fact, the other as allowable on principle; for, first, the
Americans endeavored to raise them on their side, and would gain them
if we did not; and next, it was allowable, and perfectly justifiable,
to use every means that God and nature had put in our hands."[1288]
This avowal called forth from the Earl of Chatham a fierce denunciation
of its author.

In the review which has been submitted of the acts and opinions,
official and personal, on both sides the ocean, concerning the
employment of the Indians in the Revolutionary War, the actors have
been allowed to speak for themselves as nearly as possible. If we
follow the order of events, we can see that the flaming rhetoric of the
address of the Continental Congress to the people of Ireland, and the
caustic arraignment of the king of Great Britain in the Declaration of
Independence, were calculated to produce an erroneous impression as to
the American position upon the subject. With the publication, which
afterwards took place, of the correspondence of prominent men of the
times, and of official documents from state and national archives, this
became evident. Sparks, in his _Washington_,[1289] says: "It has been
usual in America to represent the English as much the most censurable
on this score in the Revolutionary War; and if we estimate the amount
of deserved censure by the effect produced, this opinion is no doubt
correct. But such is not the equitable mode of judging on the subject,
since the principle and intention are chiefly concerned, and not the
policy of the measure nor the success of the execution. Taken on this
ground, historical justice must award the Americans a due share of the
blame." We may complain of the brutal eagerness of Lord Dunmore to
sustain his official position at any expense to his people; we may hold
up for abhorrence the vindictive nature of the orders transmitted by
General Gage; we may point out the disingenuous evasions or downright
falsehoods of Colonel Guy Johnson; but we must accept responsibility
for the enlistment, before the battle of Lexington, of the Stockbridge
Indians by the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts Bay. We may claim
with apparent justice that the Continental Congress was reluctant to
employ Indians; yet we cannot undertake to reconcile the resolutions
of that Congress on May 25 and on June 17, 1776, with the indignation
against Great Britain, expressed so shortly afterward in the
Declaration of Independence and the Address to the people of Ireland,
for doing what Congress, by resolutions of previous date, had first
declared to be highly expedient, and then had specifically ordered to
be done.

The examination which has heretofore been made of the position of the
colonies on the question of the employment of Indians as soldiers has
already brought to light some of the events requiring notice which took
place in the Northern Department. The few Mohegans, whose unfortunate
enlistment as minute-men furnished argument for Gage "that the colonies
were collecting all the Indians that they could", were practically
the only Indians the colonies found ready to take up arms in their
behalf. During the summer and autumn of 1775 Washington was much
encouraged by reports of the friendly disposition of the Eastern and
Canadian Indians. He was visited at Cambridge by delegations from the
Penobscot, the St. Francis, and the Caughnawaga tribes, who in friendly
talks conveyed the impression that they favored the colonies. The Six
Nations were sorely perplexed and divided in their councils.[1290]
The residence of the superintendent among them, his power as the
distributer of gifts, the traditional respect and affection that they
had for his predecessor, and, above all, the active agency of Joseph
Brant, the Mohawk chief, whom the superintendent adroitly engaged as
his private secretary, all conspired to take them over to the enemy.

[Illustration: JOSEPH THAYENDANEGEA.

This portrait of Brant, "from an original drawing in the possession of
James Boswell, Esq.", is engraved in the _London Mag._, July, 1776. It
is reëngraved in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, ii. 345.—ED.]

It is surprising that any influences could have overcome, even
partially, this combination of circumstances in favor of the English;
but, as it proved, the personal attachment of the Oneidas and
Tuscaroras for Kirkland the missionary, and Dean the interpreter, was
powerful enough, when exerted in favor of neutrality, to prevent the
greater part of those tribes from following their brethren. Various
conferences were held during the summer between delegations of whites
and representatives of the Eastern tribes of the confederacy, in all
of which those Indians who participated professed their willingness to
remain neutral.[1291] In the autumn of 1775 the Indian commissioners
of the Northern Department held a preliminary conference at German
Flats, and thereafter a formal conference at Albany, at which the
peace-speech of Congress was presented to the Six Nations, or
rather to that part of the confederacy which was represented at the
conference.[1292] An agreement of neutrality was entered into, but
its value was greatly diminished by the fact that in the preliminary
speeches the Indians insisted upon the necessity of keeping open their
communications. This meant that they would regard the occupation
of Fort Stanwix as an invasion of their rights.[1293] While these
proceedings were going on, some of the Indians who had accompanied
Guy Johnson to Montreal returned to their homes. When Dean, under
orders from the commissioners, went out to explain to the tribes the
nature of the Albany treaty, he met these Indians from Montreal. He
says they were members of the Cayuga, Mohawk, and Seneca tribes, and
they informed their brethren that they had taken up the hatchet at
Montreal against the colonies. The Indians who had been at Albany were
displeased at this, and their influence so far prevailed that the
famous war-belt delivered by Guy Johnson was surrendered to General
Schuyler on the 12th of December at Albany.[1294]

In the Mohawk Valley, the departure of Guy Johnson, in the summer of
1775, left Sir John Johnson the most prominent royalist, and at the
same time the most conspicuous friend of the Indians, in that region.
He was surrounded by several hundred Scotch Highlanders, who were
devoted to him personally, and followed his lead in politics. Early
in January, 1776, General Schuyler received orders to proceed to
Johnstown, apprehend Sir John, and disarm his followers. In carrying
out these orders the jealousy of the Indians had to be considered.
Conferences were held with them. They tried to dissuade the general
from invading the valley with an armed force, but he carefully
explained to them the situation, and insisted upon advancing.

[Illustration: BRANT.

Stone gives two portraits of Brant: one in his younger days, after a
picture belonging to the Earl of Warwick, and painted by G. Romney; the
other after a painting by Catlin, following an original by E. Ames, and
representing him at a later age.

[Illustration]

The younger of these two is herewith given. (Cf. J. C. Smith's _Brit.
Mez. Portraits_, iii. 1306; and McKenney and Hall's _Indian Tribes_,
vol. ii.) Cf. also J. N. Hubbard's _Sa-go-ye-wat-ha_ (Albany, 1886), p.
88.—ED.]

The Indians were, however, invited to be present at the conference with
Sir John. As a result of the expedition, the Highlanders were disarmed
and Sir John was arrested and paroled. In May, it being reported
that Sir John was not observing his parole, a second expedition was
dispatched to Johnson Hall.[1295] Without waiting to be arrested, Sir
John fled to Canada with a numerous body of followers, and shortly
thereafter entered the English army. It was in this same month that
the affair of the Cedars took place. Here, for the first time, Joseph
Brant—_Tha-yen-dan-e-gea_—appeared in the field against the colonies.
As a youth he had been placed at the school for the instruction of
Indians, which was conducted by the Rev. Eleazer Wheelock, afterwards
president of Dartmouth College. Brant is said to have been a man of
good personal appearance and of great physical courage. Enough of
his life had been spent among the whites to make him feel at ease in
European costume, and to fit him to enter society without fear of
transgressing ordinary rules of etiquette. As the private secretary
of Guy Johnson, he had followed the superintendent to Montreal.
From that point he went to England, where he was received with
consideration. After a brief stay he returned to Canada, arriving in
time to participate, while his memory of British adulation was still
fresh,[1296] in the joint attack of the British troops and Indians on
the Americans at the Cedars.[1297]

The necessity for occupying Fort Stanwix became early apparent to the
Americans, and was the subject of frequent correspondence. This fort
was at the carrying-place between Lake Ontario and the Mohawk,[1298]
and from this post, on September 23, 1776, Colonel Dayton wrote
that "Indian rumors report Colonel Johnson at Oswego with a large
force."[1299] The alarm was, however, premature.

In the spring of 1777[1300] intelligence reached the Tryon County
committee of the march of Brant, with a large body of warriors, across
the country from Canada to the region where the Susquehanna River
crosses the line between New York and Pennsylvania. Considerable
restlessness was also noted at this time among the Tories. The presence
of this large force of Indians under Brant caused great uneasiness to
the settlers, and in June General Herkimer, with about three hundred
of the militia, marched to Unadilla. Then followed one of the most
singular incidents, as the story is generally told, of the whole border
war. Herkimer's whole proceedings up to this point were aggressive.
He had ventured with an armed force into Indian country. Upon his
application, a co-operative force under Colonel Van Schaick was
dispatched to Cherry Valley. The presence of Brant in the vicinity with
a large body of followers was known, and Brant had already avowed his
loyalty to the king. Yet after a conference, to which Brant came with
evident reluctance, and at which he made a display of the force with
him in such a way as to make Herkimer's followers uneasy, the meeting
terminated without apparent result, unless Brant's renewed assertion of
loyalty may be so regarded.[1301] Very soon after this a conference was
held at Oswego between the officers of the British Indian Department
and the Six Nations, at which the greater part of the latter were
secured for the service of the king, and the lines were finally drawn
between them and those members of the confederacy who were disposed
either to maintain neutrality or who actually favored the American side.

While these events were occurring, Burgoyne had started upon his
march by way of Lake Champlain, confident that he could without
difficulty effect a junction with the British force from New York.
Lieutenant Hadden mentions that Burgoyne said at an early date in the
campaign that "a thousand savages brought into the field cost more
than twenty thousand men." What confidence he had in his allies at
the start diminished as he advanced. On the 11th of July he wrote
to the secretary of state "Confidentially to your lordship, I may
acknowledge that in several instances I have found the Indians little
more than a name",—a name which he sought by a proclamation to make a
terror; but in doing so he gave his adversaries ground for holding him
responsible for such enormities as the murder of Miss McCrea,[1302]
and for refusing to believe his indignant denials. His doubts of the
value of the Indians as soldiers were soon verified. They could scout
and forage, but at Bennington they were useless. They, in turn, finding
that Burgoyne endeavored to restrain them in their customary methods of
warfare, and that there was but little opportunity for plunder, began
to drop away. At the most critical period of the campaign they deserted
in large numbers, and could not be prevailed upon to return. Their
presence, far from proving a terror to the provincials, consolidated
and thus strengthened them, while on the other hand it undoubtedly led
the English to overestimate their own strength.[1303]

By orders from London, dated March 26, 1777, the advance of Burgoyne
was supported by a simultaneous movement by way of the St. Lawrence and
Lake Ontario. Lieutenant-Colonel Barry St. Leger, made a brigadier for
the purpose, led a force of about 650 regulars, Hessians, Canadians,
and Tories, with upwards of 800 Indians, as stated by Colonel Claus,
who had charge of them.

[Illustration: ST. LEGER'S ORDER OF MARCH.

After the cut in Stone's _Brant_, i. 219, following the original draft
found in St. Leger's baggage. Cf. Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 241.—ED.]

This command, bearing a few six-pounders, three-pounders, and cohorns,
marched from Oswego, in the latter part of July, for the valley of
the Mohawk. Unusual precautions were taken to protect the flanks by
Indians, and the way was led by scouts. The Oneidas gave the Americans
ample warning. Fort Stanwix was at the time under the command of
Colonel Gansevoort, with Colonel Marinus Willett as second,—both
excellent officers. The regular garrison consisted of 550 men, who
were poorly supplied with provisions and munitions of war. Indians
infested the woods during the summer, and several atrocious murders
were committed, even near the fort. On August 2d, a reinforcement of
200 men reached the garrison, with two bateaux loaded with stores. The
supplies had been barely taken into the fort when St. Leger's advanced
guard appeared. The increased garrison had now six weeks' provisions
and an abundance of ammunition for small arms, but only nine rounds a
day for the cannon for the same period. During the summer the garrison
had partly repaired the fort, and had felled trees along the banks of
Wood Creek, so as to impede navigation.

News was conveyed to St. Leger of the approach of the reinforcement,
convoying supplies for the garrison. In the hopes of intercepting
them he authorized Lieutenant Bird to invest the place with the
advanced guard, at the same time adding to Bird's command a body of
Indians under Brant. Thinking perhaps that the garrison might offer
to surrender upon the approach of the investing force, he instructed
Lieutenant Bird not to accept a capitulation, but to await the approach
of the main body of troops; saying, "This is not to take any honor
out of a young soldier's hands, but by the presence of the troops to
prevent the barbarity and carnage which will ever obtain where Indians
make so superior a part of a detachment." On the 3d of August, St.
Leger arrived with the greater part of his force, himself taking charge
of operations which had been begun by Lieutenant Bird on the 2d. Wood
Creek had been "most effectually choaked up", as St. Leger termed it,
by the garrison of the fort; consequently he could not at once bring
forward his artillery and stores. He forwarded to the garrison copies
of a proclamation similar in tenor to that issued by Burgoyne, and on
the 4th completely invested the fort and began the siege. Instead of
the unfinished work which he says he had been led to expect, he found
it "a respectable fortress, strongly garrisoned with 700 men, and
demanding for its speedy subjection a train of artillery of which he
was not master."

[Illustration: PETER GANSEVOORT.

After a picture by Stuart as engraved by Prud'homme. Cf. Stone's
_Brant_, i. 209; and his _Campaign of Burgoyne_, p. 221; Lossing's
_Field-Book_, i. 240.—ED.]

The torpor of the inhabitants of Tryon County had excited indignation
at Kingston and at Albany. Under the pressure of an invading force,
the people responded to the call of General Herkimer, and that officer
soon found himself at the head of about 700 men.[1304] Among them were
a small number of Oneida Indians. On the 4th of August this assemblage
of men from the frontier moved forward from Fort Dayton at German
Flats, where they had gathered together, and on the 5th encamped near
Oriskany. From this point a message was sent to Colonel Gansevoort
reporting their approach, and asking him to announce his knowledge of
the fact by three rapid discharges of cannon. The messengers did not
succeed in entering the fort until the morning of the 6th between ten
and eleven o'clock. The three guns which were intended to communicate
to Herkimer the intelligence that the garrison knew of his approach,
were then fired at the fort. Herkimer's men were, however, too
impatient to wait for co-operation on the part of the garrison. At that
hour they had already advanced between two and three miles from their
camp, and were engaged with the enemy. In justice to Herkimer, it must
be said that he endeavored to prevent the advance, but it was evident
from the temper of his men that if he had not consented to move he
would have lost their confidence.

At the time of Herkimer's approach, St. Leger was but poorly prepared
for an engagement. The garrison and the relief column together were
equal in number to St. Leger's total force. The passage of the creek
had been so completely blocked that 110 men were nine days in freeing
it from obstruction. To get his artillery and stores forward, St.
Leger was obliged to clear a path or roadway sixteen miles in length.
He had but 250 soldiers on duty at the camp when the news reached him
that the Americans were advancing. From these he could spare but 80
men to co-operate with 400 Indians in an ambuscade which was prepared
for Herkimer. Sir John Johnson commanded 50 of these, and was posted,
for the purpose of checking the column, on the road over which the
Americans were advancing. It was intended that the Indians and a small
party of rangers under Colonel Butler, who concealed themselves in the
woods by the sides of the road, should, when Sir John had performed
his part of the work, pour in their fire from all sides. At ten
o'clock on the morning of the 6th, the approach of the unsuspecting
and undisciplined American troops, with their wagons, was heard by
the Tories and Indians in their place of concealment. The presence of
the enemy was first revealed to the Americans by a volley from the
impetuous Indians, who could not restrain themselves long enough for
the perfect development of the plan, but opened fire before the head
of the column had reached Sir John Johnson's post, and before the
rear guard, with the wagons, had completely entered the fatal circle.
Had the regiment which composed the rear guard been made up of men
accustomed to warfare, they might even then have done good service
in behalf of the surprised column. Unfortunately, those who could
get away fled, leaving their companions to their fate. The returns
show that even this regiment suffered severely in the engagement. A
desultory combat followed, in which each of the entrapped Americans
fought for himself, taking advantage of whatever opportunities offered
for defence. The remnant of the surprised and disordered troops, thus
brought to bay, proved formidable opponents, and punished severely
the Indians, who bore the brunt of the fighting. Quite early in the
action several of the American officers were killed or wounded.
General Herkimer was shot through the leg, and his horse was killed.
The saddle was removed from the animal and placed at the foot of a
tree. Upon this the disabled general was seated by his men, and by
his coolness and indifference to suffering and to danger won their
respect. A heavy shower, which interrupted the progress of the battle,
afforded opportunity for the Americans to arrange for co-operation.
After the shower was over, the contest was renewed, and, according to
the American accounts, fresh troops from the English camp participated.
Local annals are filled with tales of feats of valor and vindictiveness
which characterized this portion of the combat. At length the Indians,
wearied with the protracted contest, and disheartened by the loss of
several of their warriors, left the field. The English troops closely
followed them. A diversion made by the garrison probably hastened the
retreat. During this action the American loss was, according to their
own accounts, about two hundred killed and nearly as many wounded and
prisoners. The British loss was stated by themselves to have been not
over six killed and four wounded. From the same source we learn that
the Indians lost thirty-three killed and about as many wounded.

[Illustration: THE BUTLER BADGE.

NOTE.—The above cut of a brass emblem worn by Butler's men follows
one in Simms's _Frontiersmen of New York_, ii. 68, drawn from a sample
ploughed up in Otsego County;—ED.]

After the shower which checked the battle at Oriskany was over, Colonel
Willett, at the head of two hundred and fifty men, with a three-pound
carronade, sallied forth from the fort. The camp was almost entirely
unprotected. Lieutenant Bird, who was in charge of the portion which
Willett attacked, had received information that Sir John Johnson needed
succor, and had abandoned his post and marched towards Oriskany.
Colonel Willett penetrated the camp, secured a large quantity of guns,
ammunition, Indian weapons, blankets, etc., captured nearly all the
books and papers of the expedition, evaded an attempt on the part of
St. Leger to cut off his retreat, and safely effected his return to the
fort with all his plunder, without losing a man.[1305] The Indians,
before going out to fight, had stripped themselves nearly naked. On
their return to camp they found neither clothing, tents, nor blankets.
Thus ended the day. The relief party under Herkimer was shattered.
The fort was still besieged, and the besiegers had now opportunity to
open their communications; but their camp had been rifled, and their
Indian allies, discouraged by their losses, had no further interest in
the siege, and began to think of home. St. Leger sought to secure a
capitulation on the ground of the defeat of Herkimer, and caused the
captured militia to write accounts setting forth the strength of his
force and the excellence of his artillery; but Gansevoort was firm.
The argument that the English would be unable to restrain the Indians
from barbarities if the siege were protracted was also spurned by the
garrison. Failing in this direct attempt upon their fears, an effort
was made to reach them through the people of the county. A proclamation
was put forth by Sir John Johnson, D. W. Claus, and John Butler as
superintendents. This also was of no effect. It being desirable to
communicate with Albany, Colonel Willett and Major Stockwell penetrated
through the enemy's camp by night, and proceeded on foot through the
woods to Fort Dayton. From that point Colonel Willett went to Albany.
He found that General Arnold had already been ordered to relieve the
fort. The siege, notwithstanding the fact that the artillery was of
little avail, was continued until the 23d of August. The garrison,
ignorant of the fate of Colonel Willett and Major Stockwell, were in
grave doubts as to how long they could hold out. On the 23d, the enemy
suddenly abandoned their camp, leaving a great quantity of material
behind. The retreat was precipitated by false intelligence which
Arnold caused to be conveyed to the English camp. St. Leger evidently
suspected the ruse, but was unable to prevent its effects.

The gallant Herkimer did not long survive the battle. A simple,
unlettered man, without experience in leading troops, he paid the
penalty of his mistakes at Oriskany with his life. His intrepidity
during the action and the coolness with which he faced death convinced
his followers of his dauntless courage, and his loss was deeply felt.

The Indians, in their resentment for the severe losses with which they
had met, murdered several of the American prisoners. They also burned
one of the Oneida settlements, destroyed the crops, and killed or drove
away the cattle belonging to the village. Colonel Butler, in his report
to Sir Guy Carleton concerning affairs at Fort Stanwix, coolly says,
"Many of the latter [prisoners] were, conformable to the Indian custom,
afterwards killed." On the retreat the Indians became uncontrollable,
and robbed the English officers. In the words of St. Leger, they
"became more formidable than the enemy we had to expect."

The failure of St. Leger and the capitulation of Burgoyne placed the
affairs of the colonies in such position that Congress deemed it worth
while to renew negotiations with the Indians. The time seemed opportune
for securing the services of the Six Nations, and the commissioners
were, on the 3d of December, 1777, instructed "to urge them to some
decisive enterprise which will effectually tie them to our cause."
On the 4th the commissioners were authorized to expend $15,000 as a
reward to the Indians for reducing Niagara. In February, 1778, they
were instructed to speak to the Indians "in language becoming the
representatives of free, sovereign, and independent States." "Whether
it would be prudent to insist upon the Indians taking an active part
in behalf of these States" would depend upon the temper in which they
should appear to be. Action upon that point was submitted to the
discretion of the commissioners. The temper of the Senecas was found to
be far from favorable; and instead of attending the conference, they
sent a message expressing surprise that while the tomahawk was still
sticking in their heads, and they were still grieving for the loss of
their friends at Oriskany, the commissioners should think of inviting
them to a treaty. On March 4th, Washington was empowered by Congress,
if he should think it prudent and proper, to employ in the service of
the United States a body of Indians, not exceeding five hundred. On the
7th, Colonel Nathaniel Gist was instructed to enlist Indians on the
borders of Virginia and North Carolina, not to exceed two hundred in
number. On June 11th, Congress recommended aggressive warfare, being
satisfied, from the presence of British agents among the Indians, that
the cruel war had been "industriously instigated" and was still being
"prosecuted with unrelenting perseverance by principal officers in the
service of the king of Great Britain."

In 1778, according to the plan of campaign as given by Guy Johnson in
his correspondence, the English forces on the western borders of New
York were divided into two bodies: one, consisting of Indians under
Brant, to operate in New York, while Deputy Superintendent Butler with
the other should penetrate the settled district on the Susquehanna.
Brant, who, according to Colonel Claus, "had shown himself to be the
most faithful and zealous subject his majesty could have in America",
did his work unsparingly, and ruin marked his track. In the valley of
the upper Mohawk and the Schoharie nothing but the garrison-houses
escaped, and labor was only possible in the field when muskets were
within easy reach. Occasionally blows were struck at the larger
settlements. In the last of May, Brant, with about three hundred and
fifty Indians, destroyed a number of houses in the Cobleskill Valley,
and routed, with severe loss, a militia company which attempted to
pursue him.[1306] In June, the little town of Springfield, at the head
of Otsego Lake, was burned. Such of the men as did not take flight were
seized as prisoners. The women and children were not injured. During
the same month, Sir John Johnson, with a company of loyalists, made a
sudden descent upon the Mohawk Valley, the scene of their former homes,
and took a number of citizens prisoners.

In July, 1778, the threatened attack on Wyoming took place. This region
was at that time formally incorporated as the county of Westmoreland
of the colony of Connecticut. This result had been accomplished by the
persistence of the emigrants, under most discouraging circumstances and
at the expense of some bloodshed. In the fall of 1776, two companies,
on the Continental establishment, had been raised in the valley, in
pursuance of a resolution of Congress, and were shortly thereafter
ordered to join General Washington.[1307] Several stockaded forts had
been built during the summer at different points. The withdrawal of so
large a proportion of the able-bodied men as had been enlisted in the
Continental service threw upon the old men who were left behind the
duty of guarding the forts. Repeated alarms, during the summer of 1777,
compelled the young men to scour the woods, but their vigilance did
not prevent some prisoners being taken by the Indians. In March, 1778,
another military company was organized, by authority of Congress, to be
employed for home defence. In May, attacks were made upon the scouting
parties by Indians, who were the forerunners of an invading army. The
exposed situation of the settlement, the prosperity of the inhabitants,
and the loyalty with which they had responded to the call for troops,
demanded consideration from Connecticut, to whose quota the companies
had been credited, and from Congress, in whose armies they had been
incorporated; but no help came. On June 30th, an armed labor party of
eight men, which went out from the upper fort, was attacked by Major
Butler, who with a force estimated by the American commander in his
report at eight hundred men, Tories and Indians in equal numbers, had
arrived in the valley. This estimate was not far from correct; but if
we may judge from other raiding forces during the war, the proportion
of whites is too large, for only a few local Tories had joined Butler.
The little forts at the upper end of the valley offered no resistance
to the invaders.

On July 3d, there were collected at "Forty Fort", on the banks of
the river, about three miles above Wilkesbarré, two hundred and
thirty Americans, organized in six companies (one of them being the
company authorized by Congress for home defence), and commanded by
Colonel Zebulon Butler, a resident in the valley and an officer in
the Continental army. It was determined, after deliberation, to give
battle. In the afternoon of that day, this body of volunteers, their
number being swelled to nearly three hundred by the addition of old
men and boys, marched up the valley. The invaders had set fire to the
forts of which they were in possession. This perplexed the Americans,
as was intended, and they pressed on towards the spot selected by the
English officer for giving battle. This was reached about four in the
afternoon, and the attack was at once made by the Americans, who fired
rapidly in platoons. The British line wavered, but a flanking fire
from a body of Indians concealed in the woods settled the fate of the
day against the Americans. They were thrown into confusion. No efforts
of their officers could rally them while exposed to a fire which in a
short time brought down every captain in the band. The Indians now cut
off the retreat of the panic-stricken men, and pressed them towards the
river. All who could saved their lives by flight. Of the three hundred
who went out that morning from Forty Fort, the names are recorded of
one hundred and sixty-two officers and men killed in the action or
in the massacre which followed. Major Butler, the British officer in
command, reported the taking of "two hundred and twenty-seven scalps"
"and only five prisoners." Such was the exasperation of the Indians,
according to him, that it was with difficulty he saved these few.
He gives the English loss at two whites killed and eight Indians
wounded.[1308]

During the night the worst passions of the Indians seem to have been
aroused in revenge for Oriskany. Incredible tales are told of the
inhumanity of the Tories. These measures of vengeance fell exclusively
upon those who participated in the battle, for all women and children
were spared.

As soon as the extent of the disaster was made known, the inhabitants
of the lower part of the valley deserted their homes, and fled in
the direction of the nearest settlements. Few stayed behind who had
strength and opportunity to escape. In their flight many of the
fugitives neglected to provide themselves with provisions, and much
suffering and some loss of life ensued. The fugitives from the field
of battle took refuge in the forts lower down the valley. The next
day, Colonel Zebulon Butler, with the remnants of the company for home
defence, consisting of only fourteen men, escaped from the valley.
Colonel Denison, in charge of Forty Fort, negotiated with Major Butler
the terms of capitulation which were ultimately signed. In these it
was agreed that the inhabitants should occupy their farms peaceably,
and their lives should be preserved "intire and unhurt." With the
exception that Butler executed a British deserter whom he found among
the prisoners, no lives were taken at that time. Shortly thereafter,
the Indians began to plunder, and the English commander, to his
chagrin, found himself unable to check them. Miner even goes so far as
to say that he promised to pay for the property thus lost. Finding his
commands disregarded, Butler mustered his forces and withdrew, without
visiting the lower part of the valley. The greater part of the Indians
went with him, but enough remained to continue the devastation, while
a few murders committed by straggling parties of Indians ended the
tragedy. The whole valley was left a scene of desolation. In August the
American forces returned, and a few settlers came back and endeavored
to save some of their crops, but occasional surprises by Indians warned
them that the region was still unsafe. In September, Colonel Hartley
marched with one hundred and thirty men against the Indian towns of
Tioga and Sheshequin, and broke up those settlements.

* * * * *

Brant, meanwhile, had not been idle. On July 18th he burned a little
settlement about six miles from German Flats, called Andrustown. In
the latter part of August, German Flats, a settlement containing
thirty-four houses, was destroyed and the cattle were driven away.
Only two lives were lost, the inhabitants having taken refuge in Fort
Dayton. The rapine was not, however, all on one side. From Schoharie
an American expedition under Colonel William Butler threaded its way
through the woods, forded the flooded streams, and destroyed the Indian
town of Oquaga, and on their return burned the Tory settlement and the
grist and saw mills at Unadilla.

In the spring of 1778, General Lafayette ordered a fort to be built
at Cherry Valley, and this post was afterwards garrisoned by the
Continental regiment under Colonel Ichabod Alden. During the fall,
information of a positive character was conveyed to Colonel Alden that
the place was threatened. Some of the officers of the garrison were
accustomed to sleep outside the fort, and notwithstanding the warning,
this practice was continued. Neither Alden nor his men were familiar
with Indian warfare. The citizens wished to move their effects into the
fort, but Colonel Alden quieted them by saying that he had good scouts
out, who would give timely warning. One of these scouting parties,
through carelessness, was captured on the night of November 10th,
and by this means the enemy learned the exact condition of affairs.
The invading force is said to have consisted of two hundred whites
and about five hundred Indians, the whole under command of Captain
Walter N. Butler. This officer had been arrested as a spy near Fort
Stanwix during the siege, and had been condemned to death, but had been
reprieved, and had escaped from custody. He had with him a body of
Senecas, besides Brant and his Mohawks. The night after the capture of
the scouting party, the enemy encamped near the village. On the morning
of the 11th, under cover of a heavy rain, they penetrated a swamp
in the rear of the house used as headquarters, where they concealed
themselves, awaiting a favorable opportunity for attack. Chance favored
the garrison, and gave them a brief warning. A resident of the valley,
on the way to the village, at about half past eleven o'clock discovered
two Indians, and was fired upon by them.

[Illustration:

From the _Gesch. der Kriege in und ausser Europa, Dreyzehnter Theil_,
Nürnberg, 1778. The original of this design was a print published in
London, Aug. 22, 1776. Reproductions of it will be found in Irving's
_Washington_, quarto ed., vol. iii.; E. M. Stone's _Our French Allies_,
p.76; T. C. Amory's _Sullivan_. Cf. also Murray's _Impartial History_,
p. 241; Jones's _Campaign for the Conquest of Canada_, p. 88; Lossing's
_Field-Book_, i. 272.

For a view of Gen. Sullivan's house at Durham, N. H., with a paper on
its associations, see _Granite Monthly_, v. 18, 80. For his family, see
_N. E. H. and Gen. Reg._, 1865, p. 304.—ED.]

Although wounded, he was able to reach headquarters in advance of the
enemy, and give the alarm. The regimental officers hastened towards
the fort, and some of them succeeded in reaching it before the Indians
surrounded it. Colonel Alden was one of the first victims of his own
infatuation, having been shot while trying to reach the fort. For
three hours and a half the enemy protracted their efforts to capture
the post. Sixteen Continental soldiers were killed during the attack
on the village, and thirty-two of the inhabitants, principally women
and children, were massacred. Some of the murders were committed under
circumstances of peculiar barbarism, in which whites competed with
Indians. The houses, barns, and out-houses of the settlement were
burned. The garrison, although too weak to attack the enemy, was strong
enough to defend the fort. The enemy having completed the work of
destruction as far as they could, retired, but made a feeble renewal
of the attack on the 12th. This was easily repelled, and they then
devoted themselves to collecting the cattle belonging to the villagers.
The greater part of the prisoners who had been captured were liberated
on the 12th, and permitted to return to the settlement. In setting
them free, Captain Butler entered into a correspondence with General
Schuyler, in which he endeavored to relieve himself from responsibility
for the massacre. Brant also denied responsibility for it. Butler in
his letter asserted that at Wyoming "not a man, woman, or child was
hurt after capitulation, or a woman or child before it." If we admit
the disclaimers of the Butlers, father and son, the fact still remains
that they headed raiding parties, where plunder and destruction of
property were the main purposes of the expeditions, and where the
massacre of the inhabitants was one of the possibilities of success.
Strip from the stories of Wyoming the exaggerations of the frightened
refugees, the brutal massacre of the prisoners remains. The mercy which
was extended to the prisoners at Cherry Valley merely reduces the
number of horrors which were committed there. The massacre still stands
out conspicuously as the most shocking in its details of any event in
this region during the Revolution. Fortunately for the memory of Sir
John Johnson, notwithstanding his prominence as the scourge of the
Mohawk Valley during the war, his name is not associated with either of
these events.

* * * * *

On March 6, 1779, Washington, acting under instructions from Congress,
"to take effectual measures for the protection of the inhabitants
and the chastisement of the Indians", tendered to General Gates the
command of an expedition "to carry war into the heart of the country
of the Six Nations, to cut off their settlements, destroy their next
year's crops, and do every other mischief which time and circumstances
will permit." This offer Gates declined, and on March 31st General
Sullivan was appointed to the command. He was to lay waste all the
Indian settlements in the most effectual manner, "that the country
may not be merely overrun, but destroyed." Sullivan was to assemble
his forces in Pennsylvania. General James Clinton was to assemble a
force in the Mohawk Valley. In all the preliminary discussions of the
campaign it was contemplated to make the main advance by way of the
Mohawk. This idea was, however, abandoned, and it was arranged that
Clinton should cross over to the Susquehanna River, and by that route
effect a junction with Sullivan. As a preliminary to the campaign,
Colonel Van Schaick, on the 18th of April, left Fort Stanwix at the
head of five hundred and fifty-eight men, including officers, and
made a sudden descent upon the Onondaga towns. The expedition was
completely successful, and on the 24th Van Schaick was back at the
fort, and able to report that this work of destruction and plunder
had been accomplished, with the loss of only one man. On June 16th,
General Clinton arrived at Canajoharie, where he found about fifteen
hundred troops. From that point over two hundred boats and three
months' provisions for the command were transported over the hills
to Lake Otsego. On June 30th, Clinton reported to Sullivan that this
transfer had been accomplished, and that he was now ready to come down
the river. Here he remained with his troops until August 9th, awaiting
orders. Meantime he constructed a dam across the outlet of the lake, by
means of which he raised the water about a foot.

By the latter part of June the troops which were under Sullivan's
immediate command had assembled in the Wyoming Valley. They numbered,
on the 21st of July, 2,312 rank and file. They remained in this valley,
awaiting the arrival of stores, until the last day of July, when
marching orders were issued. During this period of idleness the troops
at Wyoming and at Lake Otsego chafed at their inaction. The enemy
continued the policy of desultory attacks and devastating raids, some
of which were committed in close proximity to the American encampments.
In May, at Fantinekill and at Woodstock, in Ulster County, New York,
houses were destroyed, cattle killed, and prisoners taken. On the
night of July 19th, Brant, with a force one third white and two thirds
Indians, variously estimated at from ninety to one hundred and sixty
men, made a descent upon the Minisink settlement. The citizens and
militia of Goshen marched next day in pursuit, and were joined on the
21st by a small detachment of the Warwick militia, the whole number
being, according to Colonel Hathorn, who took command, one hundred and
twenty. On the 22d they overtook Brant, were completely outwitted by
him, and were defeated, with a loss of forty-four killed.

In Pennsylvania several outrages were committed in the immediate
vicinity of Sullivan's army. On July 28th Freeland's fort, on the
West Branch of the Susquehanna, was taken by the enemy, and a small
detachment sent from Northumberland for its relief was badly cut up.
Neither Clinton nor Sullivan were diverted from the purposes of the
campaign by these forays. The Oneidas had agreed to join Clinton,
but were prevented by a threatening message from General Haldimand.
They excused themselves to the American general on the ground that
they feared an attack on their castles, should they assist in the
campaign. Their defection had no influence upon operations. On the
13th Sullivan destroyed the Indian town of Chemung, and then fortified
a post at a narrow point on the peninsula, a short distance above
the junction of the Tioga and Susquehanna. Clinton, on receipt of
orders to advance, destroyed the dam at the foot of the lake on the
9th, and successfully embarked his bateaux on the flood of his own
creating. On the 22d the junction of the two columns was effected. On
the 26th the united forces moved forward, and on the 29th encountered
the enemy under the Butlers, McDonnell, and Brant at Newtown, five
miles from Elmira. Here the enemy had selected a spot on rising ground
which commanded the road, and had thrown up a rude breastwork of logs.
Some attempt had been made to conceal it by placing before it brush
and young trees. Here they were apparently prepared to make a stand.
General Poor was dispatched with his brigade to gain a hill to the
right, and from thence to attack the enemy's left flank. After allowing
some time for Poor to reach his destination, Sullivan opened with his
artillery. Poor met with resistance, but when he had forced his way
to a position which became threatening to the enemy, they abandoned
their whole line.[1309] On the 30th Sullivan proposed to his men, as
provisions were short, that they should go on half rations, trusting
to the country to furnish them the rest. This was readily agreed to.
The baggage and heavy guns were sent back, and on the 31st the column
advanced, taking for campaign artillery four light three-pounders and
a small howitzer. The main army marched down the east side of Seneca
Lake to its outlet, destroying villages, cornfields, and orchards on
the way. From the foot of the lake a party was sent down the Seneca
River towards Lake Cayuga to destroy a town, and another was sent a
short distance up Lake Seneca, on the west side, for the same purpose.
From the foot of this lake the main army moved westward, skirting
the northern ends of lakes Canandaigua, Honeyoye, and Hemlock,
destroying as it moved. Then it bore to the southwest, and passed
the southern end of Lake Conesus. On the 14th of September, about
sunset, the expedition arrived at the great castle of the Senecas,
on the west side of the Genessee River, and on the opposite side of
the valley from the site of Geneseo. On the evening of the 12th, as
the army approached this region, Sullivan ordered a scouting party to
be sent out. It was his intention that only five or six men should
go, but the officer in charge of the party, Lieutenant Thomas Boyd,
took with him twenty-six men, including the Indian guides. In the
darkness, Boyd unconsciously passed the encampment of Butler and his
force, who were ambushed near Lake Conesus, waiting for Sullivan. On
the morning of the 13th, Boyd, having reconnoitred an Indian town,
sent word to camp by two of his men, and halted where he intended
to await the approach of the army. While waiting here, some Indians
were discovered by the party, whom Boyd indiscreetly pursued. By this
means his force was led directly into the power of Butler, whose men
completely surrounded the Americans and opened fire upon them. Nerved
to desperation, a gallant attempt was made by the devoted band to break
through the enemy's lines. In this attempt eight of them succeeded.
Fifteen of the party were killed. Two, Boyd and his sergeant, were
captured. The two captives were taken to Seneca Castle, or "little
Beard's town", and honored for their brave defence with tortures of
unusual cruelty. The "western door of the Long House", as this place
was termed by the Indians, consisted of one hundred and twenty-eight
houses, some of which were well built. The gardens were filled with
corn and vegetables. All these were destroyed; and on the 15th the
army, having completed its work, began its return march. Sullivan had,
on the outward march, dispatched a messenger from Catharine's town to
the Oneidas, calling upon them to furnish him with some warriors. At
Kanadasaga, near the foot of Lake Seneca, on his return, he received a
message from them, explaining why their warriors had failed him, and
putting in a plea for mercy in behalf of the Cayugas. He accepted their
excuses, but paid no attention to their requests. From Kanadasaga he
sent Colonel Smith, with a command, to complete the destruction on the
west side of Lake Seneca. He also detached Colonel Gansevoort, with one
hundred and five men, with instructions to proceed to Albany, and on
the way to destroy the lower Mohawk Castle. Through motives of policy,
the latter part of this order was not carried out to the letter. A
detachment was also sent out to destroy the towns on the eastern side
of Lake Cayuga. On the 21st another detachment was dispatched, with
orders to lay waste the towns on the western side of Lake Cayuga, and
to intercept the Cayugas if they should attempt to escape the officer
who had gone up on the other side of the lake. The rest of the army
then marched south, between Seneca and Cayuga lakes. When they reached
the valley of the Tioga, an expedition was sent up that river on an
errand of destruction. On the 28th these several detachments, with the
exception of Gansevoort's, had all rejoined the main column, having
accomplished their work without resistance. They were then met by a
supply of provisions from Tioga. The work of destroying Indian towns
and crops was finished. Fort Sullivan, near the junction of the rivers,
was abandoned and razed. The army descended the Susquehanna to Wyoming,
which place they reached October 7th. By the route which they took,
the distance marched by the army, in going from Wyoming to Seneca
Castle, was two hundred and fifteen miles, all of it in Indian country,
without a road over which a wagon could be transported. Forty Indian
towns were destroyed. Some of them were insignificant. Several had from
twenty to thirty houses. One had one hundred and twenty-eight houses.
Colonel Gansevoort, speaking of the lower Mohawk Castle, said: "It is
remarked that these Indians live much better than most of the Mohawk
families. Their houses were well furnished with all necessary household
utensils, and a great plenty of grain." The excellent construction
of some of the houses of the Seneca and Cayuga villages was a source
of surprise to the invaders. They marvelled at the well-conditioned
orchards, the cultivated gardens, and the extensive cornfields. They
left behind them, on the sites of these villages, smoking ruins and
blighted vegetation. Notwithstanding the fact that the expedition
was delayed so long waiting for stores, it was undertaken with the
certainty that there was not enough on hand for the purpose, if the
army was to rely upon what was supplied. General Sullivan was compelled
to march thus or not at all. In numbers the troops fell short of what
had been counted on. They met with no opposition worthy of note. The
losses during the campaign, by accident, by sickness, and in the field,
amounted to only forty. They could not have foreseen that General
Haldimand would be so completely bewildered as to their intentions,
and that he would refuse to believe that they could purpose invading
this region, until too late to render the Indians assistance.[1310]
The greater part of the warriors of the Six Nations were in the field
on the side of the English. It was but reasonable to anticipate that
the Indians would receive aid from their allies in defence of the
Indian country. Everything militated against the probability of the
expedition being able to accomplish its work with such ease. The
expedition was too large to treat the question of supplies in the same
way that an ordinary raiding party would have done. Through the delays
in procuring supplies, it was prosecuted at a time when the army could
subsist partially upon the growing crops. Had Sullivan started when he
expected, he must have depended upon his train. Otherwise the Indians
could easily have destroyed their stores and impeded the progress of
the army.[1311]

As a part of the original scheme, a simultaneous movement from
Fort Pitt against the Indian towns on the Alleghany was ordered.
The difficulty of communication between the two forces led to the
abandonment of all idea of co-operation. Colonel Brodhead, who had
charge of the movement on the Alleghany, was left to pursue his own
course. On August 11th he left Pittsburgh at the head of six hundred
and five rank and file, with one month's provisions. With this force
he proceeded up the river by boat to Mahoning; there the stores were
loaded on pack-horses, and the march was begun. On the way to the
Indian towns the advance guard came in contact with a party of between
thirty and forty warriors, whom they put to flight. The detachment
marched for a distance of about two hundred miles from Pittsburgh,
and destroyed the Indian settlements along the Alleghany extending
for eight miles, and consisting of one hundred and thirty houses. The
growing crops and provisions were ruined. This extraordinary march was
made without the loss of a single man, and without meeting any warriors
except the party already mentioned.

On October 20, 1779, Washington wrote to the Marquis de Lafayette,
saying: "General Sullivan has completed the entire destruction of the
country of the Six Nations, driven all the inhabitants, men, women,
and children, out of it, and is at Easton on his return." He further
said that Colonel Brodhead had inflicted similar chastisement on the
"Mingo and Muncey tribes", living on the Alleghany, French Creek,
and other waters of the Ohio. Washington concluded with these words:
"These unexpected and severe strokes have disconcerted, humbled,
and distressed the Indians exceedingly, and will, I am persuaded,
be productive of great good; as they are undeniable proofs to them
that Great Britain cannot protect them, and that it is in our power
to chastise them whenever their hostile conduct deserves it."[1312]
The cruel steps taken against the Senecas, Cayugas, and Onondagas
were probably justifiable as war measures. War against these Indians
without the adoption of their own tactics could only be prosecuted at
a great disadvantage.[1313] The destruction of their homes and the
consequent removal of the natives to a point more distant from the
American settlements, together with the necessity thus thrown upon the
British government of providing for their allies, undoubtedly affected
the aggressive power of the Indians and diminished the value of their
alliance. But if it was expected that raids upon the border settlements
would be stopped by this campaign, then the authorities must have been
disappointed. The border knew no peace until the war was ended.

The Indians, driven out of their own country and left without shelter
and without food, took refuge at Niagara for the winter. The Oneidas
feared an attack, and abandoned their castles. About four hundred
of them placed themselves under the protection of the government
at Schenectady. In April, 1780, the settlement at Harpersfield was
destroyed, and a scouting party of Americans which happened to be
in the neighborhood was captured. Repeated blows were struck at the
scattered, poorly defended settlements along the border. The lower
Mohawk was invaded by a force under Sir John Johnson, and the local
histories, in their records of the work of the summer of 1780, have
a melancholy monotony of conflagration and plunder. In August the
settlement at Canajoharie was laid waste by Brant, and several small
settlements adjacent to Canajoharie, and at Norman's Kill, not far
from Albany, were ravaged. From the valley of the Mohawk the enemy
moved southward, destroying a number of houses and capturing prisoners
in Schoharie Valley. In October, 1780, Schoharie Valley was again
ravaged, this time from the south, by an invading force of about one
thousand in all, under Sir John Johnson, which consisted of Tories,
together with Brant and his Mohawks, and Cornplanter with a body of
Senecas. They had, by way of artillery, two small mortars and a brass
three-pounder.[1314] There were three forts in the valley, in which
the inhabitants took refuge. The invaders did not succeed in capturing
either of the forts, and the loss of life in them was small, but they
left scarcely a building standing in the whole valley.

After thoroughly completing the work of destruction in Schoharie
Valley, the invaders proceeded to the valley of the Mohawk, and ravaged
the country on the north side of the Mohawk from Caughnawaga to Stone
Arabia and Palatine. A little force from Stone Arabia, acting, it is
supposed, under a promise of support from General Van Rensselaer,
undertook to check them. The general had collected some of the militia,
and was to fall upon the rear of the enemy. The promised support was
not furnished. Colonel Brown, who led the attacking party, was killed,
and his followers were badly cut to pieces. After this encounter
Sir John's forces renewed their work of destroying property in the
neighborhood of Stone Arabia, and then moved slowly up the river,
ravaging the country as they went. The invaders were followed by the
Americans, whose numbers increased as they moved, until they were
numerically stronger than the enemy. There were some Oneidas with
the Americans, under command of one of their own number holding a
commission from the Continental Congress as lieutenant-colonel. On the
afternoon of October 20th, just at nightfall, a skirmish took place
between the two commands at the spot selected by Sir John for his
evening bivouac. It was soon terminated by the increasing darkness,
of which the Americans took advantage to withdraw to a camping place
about three miles back, and the invaders, availing themselves of the
opportunity, hurriedly sought the woods. During their flight the enemy
captured a party of Americans which had been dispatched to destroy
their boats.[1315] After this raid the upper Mohawk Valley and the
Schoharie Valley rivalled in their desolation the region of the lakes
which had been invaded by Sullivan the preceding year. Numbers of
prisoners had been carried off during these raids, some of whom were
liberated shortly after capture. Others were detained till the close of
the war. In one instance a child was returned by Brant, with a letter,
in which he said "I do not make war upon women and children. I am sorry
to say that I have those with me in the service who are more savage
than the savages themselves."

Simultaneously with the operations in the Mohawk Valley, the enemy
ascended Lake Champlain and captured Forts Ann and George. Portions of
Kingsbury, Queensbury, and Fort Edward were burned. A branch of this
expedition destroyed the settlement at Ballston. At the same time, a
party of about two hundred, chiefly Indians, under Major Haughton of
the 53d, left Canada, and destroyed several houses in the upper part
of the Connecticut Valley, and carried off thirty-two inhabitants as
prisoners.[1316]

The work of retribution on the part of the Indians did not stop with
what has been recorded. Even during the succeeding winter Brant was
on the war-path, appearing now here and now there in the Mohawk
country cutting off stragglers and detached parties. Great difficulty
was experienced in furnishing the garrisons at the outposts with
provisions. Distress ensued, and there was serious danger that the
outlying defences could not be maintained. Fort Stanwix was badly
damaged in May, 1781, both by flood and by fire, and in consequence
the post was shortly afterward abandoned. The command of the Mohawk
Valley was this season assigned to Colonel Willett. He carefully
acquainted himself with its condition, and infused a portion of his
own active spirit into the management of affairs. Very shortly after
he assumed command, on June 30th, Currietown, a village near the mouth
of the Schoharie, was destroyed. With a small force, Willett pursued
the raiders, overtook them, and routed them with severe loss. In July,
Colonel Willett wrote that the number of men in Tryon County liable to
bear arms did not exceed eight hundred. At the beginning of the war the
enrolled militia numbered 2,500 men. He accounted for this reduction by
supposing that one third had been killed or made prisoners, one third
had gone over to the enemy, and one third had abandoned the country.
Indeed, life in the valley had become almost unendurable. The only
places of safety were within the walls of the stockaded forts which
were scattered through the region. All through the summer of 1781
detachments of the enemy struck blows at different points along the
border. The most conspicuous of these desultory acts of devastation was
the destruction of the little town of Wawarsing. Unsuccessful efforts
were made this season to seize the persons of both General Gansevoort
and General Schuyler. The active movements of the year closed with a
foray on the Mohawk by Sir John Johnson and Major Walter N. Butler, in
the latter part of October. When the Americans learned the approach
of the invaders, Colonel Willett gathered a force together, with
which, although inferior in numbers to the enemy, he attacked them at
Johnstown. The varying fortunes of the day were, on the whole, with the
Americans. The enemy fled, after dark, to the woods. Willett followed
them for some days, and had a collision with their rear guard, in which
the notorious Major Walter N. Butler was shot through the head and left
on the field.[1317] The difficulties of the military as well as the
political situation had been greatly complicated this summer by the
menacing aspect of the British forces on Lake Champlain, and doubts as
to the fidelity of certain of the leaders in Vermont, whose hostility
to the threatened extension of the authority of New York over the
inchoate State had been pronounced in terms of bitter earnest.

During the summer of 1782, although the frontiers of New York were
not altogether quiet, the scene of activity in border warfare was
transferred further west. There were none of the organized raids of
the enemy in the valleys of the Mohawk and Schoharie, with which the
inhabitants had become so familiar.

In February, 1783, the last movement of the war on the border took
place in this region. It was an attempt by Colonel Willett to surprise
the garrison at Oswego. A forced march of a night and a day was made
through the trackless forests, on the snow, from the Mohawk Valley to
the vicinity of the fort. Then preparations for the assault were made,
but when the column advanced the guide became confused and lost his
way. As surprise was essential for success, the attempt was abandoned.
Willett and his men found their way back as best they could, enduring
on the return march intense suffering from fatigue, cold, and exposure.
Colonel Willett then proceeded to Albany, at which place he arrived in
time to hear peace proclaimed.

The story of this chapter opened with the determination of a boundary
line between the king of Great Britain and his allies. It closes
with an assurance on the part of the Continental Congress, which is
intended to pacify the Indians, that, "as the country is large enough
to contain and support us all, and as we are disposed to be kind to
them, to supply their wants, and to partake of their trade, we, from
these considerations and from motives of compassion, draw a veil over
what is passed, and will establish a boundary line between them and us,
beyond which we will restrain our citizens from hunting and settling,
and within which the Indians shall not come, but for the purpose of
trading, treating, or other business equally unexceptionable."[1318]
The discussion of how far the kindly spirit which pervades these
promises has been maintained in subsequent dealings with the Indians
does not fall within the subject of this chapter.

CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THE relations of the Indians to the British government and to the
colonies during the period immediately preceding the Revolutionary
War, is readily studied in _The life and times of Sir William Johnson,
Bart._, by William L. Stone (Albany, 1865, in 2 vols.[1319]), which was
intended to form a part of a history of the relations of the Iroquois
to current events. Stone completed but two volumes of the series, the
_Life of Brant_ and the _Life of Red Jacket_. The _Life of Sir William
Johnson_, being incomplete at the time of his death, was finished and
published by his son, of the same name.[1320] The book for awhile stood
alone in its detailed treatment of the official relations and dealings
of the superintendent with the Indians. Later publications have
infringed somewhat upon its monopoly.

The _Pennsylvania Archives_, and the _Minutes of the Provincial Council
of Pennsylvania_, commonly cited as "Colonial Records", lay bare the
secrets of the province, and furnish authentic information upon many
points which prior to their publication were obscure.[1321]

The documentary publications of the State of New York are for the
purposes of this chapter of even more value than those of Pennsylvania.
They contain many official papers from the hands of Sir William
Johnson, and letters from Guy Johnson, Daniel Claus, and Generals
Carleton and Haldimand, treating of Indian affairs. Some of these
documents help us materially in the study of the situation. The
history of the publications known as the _N. Y. Colonial Documents_
and _Documentary History of N. Y._ is told elsewhere;[1322] but
the _Journals of the Provincial Congress_ are of peculiar use in
the present inquiry.[1323] Such of the conferences, treaties, and
agreements with Indians on the part of the colonies, the Continental
Congress, and the government of the United States as have been printed,
are scattered through a variety of publications.[1324]

The literature of border life, from which the habits and methods of
life of the frontier inhabitants may be drawn, is too extensive to
permit any attempt at an exhaustive recapitulation of titles. Especial
use has been made in this chapter of Dr. Joseph Doddridge's _Notes
on the Settlements and Indian Wars_,[1325] perhaps the most valuable
of the many works upon this subject. Notwithstanding the sufferings
from Indian raids which Dr. Doddridge himself endured, he deals fairly
with the subject of border warfare, and candidly admits the terrible
responsibility of the whites for counter outrages. He draws a vivid
picture of the lack of law on the frontier, aggravated as it was by the
conflicts of colonies. "In the section of the country where my father
lived", he says, "there was for many years after the settlement of the
country neither law nor gospel. Our want of legal government was owing
to the uncertainty whether we belonged to Virginia or Pennsylvania."
"Thus it happened that during a long period we knew nothing of courts,
lawyers, magistrates, sheriffs, or constables." "Every one was,
therefore, at liberty to do whatever was right in his own eyes."

In _An Account of the remarkable occurrences in the life and travels
of Col. James Smith, etc., etc._,[1326] the author unconsciously gives
us a picture of the lawlessness of frontier life and the power of the
volunteers. The story is told in a simple manner, and the narrative is
full of interest. The rare _Chronicles of Border Warfare_, by Alexander
S. Withers (Clarksburg, Va., 1831), is a recognized authority, and is
frequently quoted. It was reproduced in substantial form in Pritt's
_Border Life of Olden Times_,[1327] a compilation of reprints of
volumes, narratives and statements relating to border life. The
relations of the Indians to current events are also to be traced in
Gale's _Upper Mississippi_, etc.,[1328] and in Ketchum's _History of
Buffalo_.[1329] The latter work covers much of the ground which Col.
Stone had preëmpted. The materials are well arranged, the views of
the author are clearly presented, and as a result the volumes form a
valuable contribution to the history of the Indians.[1330] Many details
will be found collected in Drake's _Book of the Indians_.[1331]

James Handasyd Perkins was a careful student of the early history of
the country, and contributed many articles to the periodical literature
of his day on the subject of Indian history and border warfare, which
have been collected.[1332] The compiler of _Annals of the West_,[1333]
in the preface to the third edition of that work, says: "The first
edition was issued at Cincinnati, where he (the compiler) was assisted
by the lamented James H. Perkins, a gentleman highly competent for
the task." In the second edition of the _Annals_ "the editor had
the valuable assistance of Rev. J. M. Peck, a gentleman whose long
residence in the far West, and familiarity with the history of those
portions of the work less elaborately treated of in the first edition,
rendered him admirably qualified for the undertaking." This work, in
its chronological arrangement of events, touches upon a portion of the
ground covered by this chapter. In 1791, J. Long published in London
a volume entitled _Voyages and Travels of an Indian Interpreter_,
etc. Long arrived at Montreal in 1768. His occupation for the next
seven years made him familiar with frontier life and Indian ways. He
volunteered in 1775 with the Indians who entered the English service,
and was at Isle au Noix with a few Mohawks on the occasion of their
collision with the Americans. He also served a short time with the
regulars. He states intelligently the value of the alliance of the Six
Nations to the English.

Wills de Haas, in his _Indian Wars of Western Virginia_,[1334] has
devoted one chapter to "Land Companies",[1335] and another to the
"Employment of Indians as Allies." His treatment of these topics is
brief, but the chapters contain much more information on the subjects
than can generally be obtained from American histories.

In _Fugitive Essays_, etc., by Charles Whittlesey (Hudson, Ohio, 1852),
an article is reproduced from the January number (1845) of the _Western
Literary Journal and Review_, entitled "Indian history: their relations
to us at the time of the American Revolution", which is well worth
examination.

The _Calendar of the Virginia State Papers and other Manuscripts_,
1652-1781 (Richmond, 1875),[1336] though meagre as a whole, is
particularly full on the subject of the encroachments of individuals
and companies on Indian lands. Among these papers is the deposition
of Patrick Henry, setting forth that he felt compelled to withdraw
from all connection with land schemes, when, as a member of Congress,
he found himself in a position where he might be called upon to act
as a judge in matters in which he was directly interested. It may be
inferred from what he says that there were among his associates some
who were not so scrupulous.

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."

[Illustration

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.]

This powder was seized by the royalists, but as an offset the annual
presents of Stuart were seized at Tybee by the "Liberty People." It was
stated that the best friends of Great Britain lived in the back parts
of Carolina and Georgia. If the Indians were put in motion, they, and
not the rebels, would suffer. Nevertheless, the first blow from the
Indians came from that quarter. Early in July, 1776, news was received
at Savannah, at Charleston, and at Fincastle, Va., that the Indians
were at work upon the border, carrying destruction wherever they went.
On the 7th of July, General Lee wrote to the president of the Virginia
Convention that an opportunity offered for a coöperative movement. The
Continental Congress, having received a report of the circumstances
from the president of South Carolina, recommended, on the 30th of July
(1776), the States of Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia to afford
all necessary assistance. As soon as the first intelligence of the
outbreak in South Carolina reached Col. Andrew Williamson, who at the
beginning of this campaign apparently ranked as major, he promptly
rallied the inhabitants of the frontier of that State. By the middle
of July he had collected a body of 1,150 volunteers. With this force
he invaded the Indian territory, and during the remainder of the month
of July and the first half of August he was occupied in destroying the
Cherokee lower towns. On his return to his main camp from a raid with a
detachment, about the middle of August, he found that a number of his
men had gone home, and that many of those who remained were suffering
for clothes and other necessaries. He erected a fort at Essenecca,
which he named after President Rutledge, and furloughed a part of his
force until August 28th.

At the same time that the depredations were committed which caused Col.
Williamson to invade the Indian country, the settlements in Virginia
and North Carolina, on the border of what we now know as Tennessee,
were threatened by the Indians. The inhabitants along the border at
once "forted" themselves. A small force collected at Eaton's station
met a party of Indians on the 20th of July, and repulsed them, with a
loss of thirteen of their warriors. Watauga, where 150 persons, of whom
40 were men, had assembled in the fort, was besieged by another band.
The Indians hung about the fort for six days, and skulked in the woods
for a fortnight longer, but left on the approach of a relief column.
Other Indians went up the Holston to Carter's Valley, but accomplished
nothing in that immediate vicinity.[1416] The settlements in Virginia,
in the Clinch Valley and for a long distance from this point, were,
however, raided, and the surrounding country devastated.

Georgia performed her share of the season's work simultaneously with
Colonel Williamson's first raid. An independent command, led by Major
Jack,[1417] operated against the lower towns beyond the Tugaloo, during
the latter part of July.

The work performed by South Carolina and Georgia during the months
of July and August was not considered complete. It was determined
to inflict a blow which would be remembered. About the first of
September Colonel Williamson again marched into the Indian country,
this time at the head of about two thousand men. It was intended that
on an appointed day in September he should effect a junction with
General Rutherford of North Carolina, who at the head of twenty-four
hundred men simultaneously marched from that State. Although the two
columns met in Indian territory, the junction was not effected at
the appointed date, and the work of destroying the middle towns and
valley settlements was independently performed. Virginia sent out an
expedition at the same time against the upper or over-hill towns. This
force, after it was joined by some companies from the northwestern
portion of North Carolina, numbered eighteen hundred men, and was
commanded by Colonel William Christian. The purposes of this expedition
were successfully accomplished.

The South Carolina troops had the misfortune to encounter nearly
all the resistance that was offered by the Indians, and the two
expeditions lost 22 men killed, with 11 men mortally wounded, and
63 men otherwise wounded. They had the satisfaction, however, of
knowing that the joint expedition had thoroughly performed its work.
The Cherokee towns were burned, and the crops of the Indians were
destroyed. The attack by the Indians consolidated the colonists and
aroused their indignation. The Council of South Carolina asserted that
they were now convinced of what they had before but little reason to
doubt, "the indiscriminate atrocity and unrelenting tyranny of the
hand that directs the British war against us." The Assembly spoke of
it as a "barbarous and ungrateful attempt of the Cherokee Indians,
instigated by our British enemies." The Cherokees accepted such terms
of peace as their conquerors allowed. Next year separate treaties were
made between representatives of the tribes and Virginia and North
Carolina, and between other representatives and South Carolina and
Georgia. In the treaty in which South Carolina participated, a portion
of the Indian territory was ceded to that State on the ground of
conquest. For several years thereafter the Indians kept so quiet that
but little was heard from them in that portion of the country. As a
sequel to the campaign it may be noted that, on the 25th of September,
President Rutledge informed the Assembly of South Carolina that Colonel
Williamson desired instructions as to whether the Indians taken
prisoners should become slaves. Such an impression prevailed in camp,
and one prisoner had already been sold as a slave.[1418]

McCall, in his _History of Georgia_, is authority for the statement
that General Rutherford was accompanied on his march by a small band
of Catawba Indians. In Virginia the matter of enlisting Indians
was considered in the Convention, and on the 21st of May, 1776, a
resolution was passed to engage a number of warriors, not to exceed
two hundred. A few days afterward, however, the execution of this
resolution was postponed in such a way as to make it ineffective.

In January, 1777, Col. Nathaniel Gist was authorized by Congress to
raise four companies of rangers, and was instructed to proceed to the
Cherokee or any other nation of Indians, and to attempt to procure a
number of warriors not exceeding five hundred, who were to be equipped
by Congress and receive soldiers' pay.[1419]

We have seen that in 1777 treaties were made with the Cherokees. The
Indians at the Chickamauga settlements, which were clustered along
the Tennessee, below the site of Chattanooga, and near where the
river crosses the state line, had not participated in the treaties.
In the interval between the joint campaign in the fall of 1776 and
the spring of 1779 outrages had been committed by these Indians, and
it was determined to punish them. A thousand volunteers from the back
settlements of North Carolina and Virginia assembled on the banks of
the Holston, in the northeastern part of Tennessee, a few miles above
where Rogersville stands. Of these Col. Evan Shelby had command. They
were joined by a regiment of twelve-months men which belonged to
Colonel Clarke's Illinois expedition. On the 10th of April, 1779, this
force embarked in dug-outs and canoes, descended the rapid running
stream, surprised the Indians, killed a number of them, burned eleven
of their towns, destroyed their provisions, and drove off or killed
their cattle. All this having been accomplished without a battle, the
troops returned.

In 1780 the contribution of men by the border settlements of North
Carolina to the force which fought the battle of King's Mountain left
those settlements exposed to Indian raids. As soon after the battle
as possible some of the men were sent to Watauga. They learned upon
arrival that news had been received of an Indian advance. Col. John
Sevier organized an expedition against the Indians, and marched to meet
them. The number of volunteers thus hastily gathered together reached
about one hundred and seventy. At the end of the second day's march
the Indians were discovered. They retreated, and the next day Sevier
followed them. The customary ambuscade was prepared by the Indians,
but the American leader was too wary to be deceived. On the contrary,
he adopted their own tactics, and defeated them in a brief engagement
at Boyd's Creek, in which twenty-eight Indians were killed. A few days
after this Colonel Sevier was joined by Col. Arthur Campbell, with
troops from Virginia. The united forces amounted to seven hundred
men. They penetrated the country to the southward, burning a number
of Indian towns, and held a council with a large body of Cherokees.
After completing the expedition, a message was sent, on January 4,
1781, to the chiefs and warriors of the Indians. It was signed by Col.
Arthur Campbell, Lieut.-Col. John Sevier, and Joseph Martin, agent and
major of militia, and consisted of a summons to the Indians to send
deputies to negotiate a treaty of peace at the Great Island within two
moons.[1420]

Towards the end of August, 1780, Colonel Williamson and Colonel
Pickens, of South Carolina, raided the Indian territory and destroyed
a large amount of stores. To prevent further depredations, the Indians
were compelled to remove their habitations to the settled towns of the
Creeks.

During the summer of 1781 the Cherokees invaded the settlements on
Indian Creek. Colonel Sevier called for volunteers, and attacked them.
He killed seventeen Indians and put the rest to flight.

Early in 1781 General Greene made a treaty with the Cherokees, by which
they engaged to observe neutrality. This treaty having been violated
by the Indians during the summer, Gen. Andrew Pickens, at the head
of a mounted force of three hundred and ninety-four men, penetrated
to the Cherokee country, burned thirteen towns, killed upwards of
forty Indians, and took a number of prisoners. McCall (_Georgia_, ii.
414) thus summarizes Pickens's method of campaigning: "The general's
whole command could not produce a tent or any other description of
camp equipage. After the small portion of bread which they could
carry in their saddle-bags was exhausted, they lived upon parched
corn, potatoes, peas, and beef without salt, which they collected in
the Indian towns." Soon after this expedition some of the Creeks and
Cherokees again invaded Georgia. They were met beyond Oconee River
by Colonel Clarke and by Col. Robert Anderson, of Pickens's brigade,
and were driven back. Major John Habersham was sent out by Wayne on
an expedition, and his report, Feb. 8, 1782, is in _Hist. Mag._, iv.
129. In February, 1782, Governor Martin addressed a letter to Colonel
Martin and Colonel Sevier, instructing them to drive intruders off the
Cherokee lands.

During the summer of 1782 a body of Indians crossed the State of
Georgia without being discovered, and on the morning of the 24th of
June surprised General Wayne's command. After the first flush of
success attendant upon the surprise had been overcome by the Americans,
they repulsed the Indians, with the loss of fourteen killed, among whom
was one of their chiefs. The kind treatment of some prisoners who were
taken aided in detaching the Indians from the British side.

In September, 1782, the upper-town Cherokees, in a talk, complained
piteously of the intruders upon their lands, and said they had done
nothing to break the last treaty. At the same time, other Indians of
the same tribes began depredations. Colonel Sevier, with one hundred
volunteers, marched into the Indian country, held a conference with the
friendly Indians, and punished those who were hostile by burning their
villages.

The Southern campaigns against the Indians have not been treated as
fully in local and general histories as those against the Northern
tribes. The policy of the several leaders in these campaigns was not
entitled, perhaps, to the same recognition as has been awarded to
that which governed the Sullivan campaign. The several columns from
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia each burned
Indian towns and devastated Indian crops, but the plan was not directed
by the general in command of the national armies. There have been
but few local historians in the South who have searched for diaries,
journals, and letters containing details of such affairs. At the time
when the centennial anniversaries of these events might fitly have been
celebrated by the publication of such original material as could be
found, there was not the same disposition in the South to be grateful
for the results of the Revolutionary War as then prevailed in the
North. Further than that, the materials from which such contributions
to history are generally made had been scattered and destroyed during
the civil war. For these reasons, the number of books which treat of
the border wars in the South is small.

The most complete accounts of the attacks upon the Cherokee settlements
which have been published are to be found in the histories of
Tennessee. John Haywood's _Civil and Political History of the State
of Tennessee from its earliest Settlement up to the year 1796_, etc.
(Knoxville, 1823), is an extensive collection of facts concerning
the various raids of the Indians and the counter attacks upon their
scattered settlements, which has been freely used by subsequent
writers. J. G. M. Ramsey, in his _Annals of Tennessee to the end of
the eighteenth Century: Comprising its settlement as the Watauga
Association from 1769 to 1777; A part of North Carolina from 1777 to
1784_ (Charlestown, 1853), relies to a great extent upon Haywood, and
acknowledges his obligation by frequent references in his footnotes. In
the preparation of this work, Mr. Ramsey says that he had access to the
journals and papers of his father, a pioneer of the country, and also
to the papers of Sevier, of Shelby, the Blounts, and other public men.
He examined the papers of all the old Franklin Counties and the public
archives at Milledgeville, Raleigh, Richmond, and Nashville.

Haywood says the Georgia expedition was commanded by Col. Leonard
McBury. Ramsey follows Haywood in this regard. All the other accounts
say that Major or Colonel Jack was in command.

The campaign of the Virginia column is briefly described in Girardin's
continuation of Berk's _History of Virginia_.[1421] Brief allusions
to this campaign are made in Wheeler's _Historical Sketches of North
Carolina_, and in Martin's _History of North Carolina_. The story is
more fully told in an _Historical Sketch of the Indian War of 1776_,
by D. L. Swain, which is reprinted from the _North Carolina University
Magazine_ (May, 1852) in the _Historical Magazine_ (Nov., 1867, p.
273). This account states that there were "three armies simultaneously
fitted out by Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina", but
makes no mention of the work which the Georgia contingent had already
performed.

A journal kept during the Williamson expeditions was published in the
_Historical Magazine_, vol. xii. (Oct., 1867, p. 212), by Professor E.
F. Rockwell, of North Carolina, as "Parallel and combined expedition
against the Cherokee Indians in South and North Carolina in 1776." The
writer describes the houses in the Cherokee towns as follows: "Their
dwelling-houses is made some one way and some another. Some is made
with saplings stuck in the ground upright; then laths tide on these
with splits of cane or such like; So with daubing outside and in with
mud merely, they finish a close warm building. They have no chimnies,
and their fires are all in the middle of the houses."

C. L. Hunter, in _Sketches of Western North Carolina, Historical and
Biographical, illustrating principally the Revolutionary period_, etc.
(Raleigh, 1877), under "General Griffith Rutherford" gives a brief
account of the march against the middle towns, and under "Colonel Isaac
Shelby" he gives a paragraph to the expedition against the Chickamaugas
in 1779.

It has been stated that the Cherokee outbreak in the South was the
first aggressive movement made by the Indians during the Revolutionary
War, and that this fact has caused the joint attack of the colonies to
be noticed in the general histories of the times. It naturally finds
a place in Moultrie's _Memoirs_ and in Ramsay's _South Carolina_,
but without detail. If we turn to Drayton's _Memoirs_ we shall find
an extended account of the expeditions of Colonel Williamson, who
commanded the South Carolina troops, in the summer of 1776, when they
ravaged the Cherokee settlements,—the campaigns being illustrated by
a map of which a fac-simile is given herewith. Several letters are
published in the Appendix as authorities. The movements of Major Jack
in Georgia are given (_Ibid._ p. 313), and some account of the march of
General Rutherford's army from North Carolina and of the attempts at
coöperation. It is stated (_Ibid._ p. 353) that Virginia also raised an
army, but no account of the movement of the troops is given.

The _American Archives_ contain reprints of letters from several points
in the South, which enable us to trace the history of most of these
movements. We have rumors of the outbreak from various places scattered
from Georgia to Virginia; stories of the siege of Watauga and of the
gathering of the Indians in Carter's Valley; accounts of the desolation
along the frontier; of the marches of Rutherford and of Williamson; of
the speech of Rutledge, and of the replies of the Council and of the
Assembly of South Carolina.

The _Remembrancer_ also reprints some of these letters. Drayton, in his
_Memoirs_ (ii. p. 212), says that Col. Bull, in March, 1776, marched
to Savannah with four hundred Carolina troops, "to awe the disaffected,
to support the Continental regulations, and in particular to prevent
the merchant ships from going to sea." These troops were accompanied
by some Georgia militia and by "about seventy men of the Creek and
Euchee Indians." In corroboration of this statement Drayton cites the
_Remembrancer_ (1776, Part ii. pp. 333, 334), where is a letter from
Charleston, which opens, "By a remarkable Providence, the Creek Indians
have engaged in our favour." It then goes on to describe how they
became enraged with the Tories because they destroyed the house of a
white man with whom the Indians were friendly, and adds that "they have
brought down 500, who have killed several men of the fleet."

Another reference to the use of Indians by the Americans will be
found in McCall's _Georgia_ (ii. p. 82), where he says that General
Rutherford was "joined by the Catawba Indians."

Various accounts of events connected with these campaigns will be
found in the _Remembrancer_ (Part ii., 1776, pp. 286, 319-334; and
Part iii., 1776, pp. 50, 252-274, and 275), including a letter, Sept.
4th, which says: "The colonel's (Williamson's) next object will be the
middle towns, where he expects to be joined by General Rutherford with
200 [2,000?] North Carolinians. Colonel Lewis, of Virginia, will go
against the upper or over hill settlements, so that we have no doubt
the savages will be effectually chastised."

The treaty at De Witt's Corner, May 20, 1777, between South Carolina,
Georgia, and the Cherokees was printed in the _Boston Gazette and
Country Journal_, Aug. 18, 1777.

A description of the Cherokee lower towns and of the siege of Watauga
is given by Edmund Kirke (James R. Gilmore) in _Lippincott's Magazine_
(July and August, 1855), in a paper on "The Pioneers of the South
West." Bare mention is made of the fact that Georgia participated in
the campaign of 1776, by Stevens in his _Georgia_, who follows Moultrie
in assigning the command of the Georgia troops to Colonel Jack.

McCall, in his _History of Georgia_, gives a curious account of an
attempt by a party of Americans to penetrate the Indian country and
seize Cameron. Their leader, Capt. James McCall, had with him two
officers, twenty-two Carolinians, and eleven Georgians. They were
suspected by the Indians of treachery, and were themselves attacked.
Their leader was captured and several of the men were killed, but
the greater number escaped, and after severe sufferings reached the
settlements. Drayton (_Memoirs_, ii. 338) states that this expedition
of McCall's was forwarded in consequence of an agreement on the part
of the Cherokees in June to permit the arrest of refugees in their
towns. The attack was therefore a piece of treachery on the part of
the Indians. McCall himself escaped shortly afterward, and joined
the Virginia column of invasion. He again made an attempt to seize
Cameron. This time he reached the Indian town where Cameron had his
headquarters, but the latter had left for Mobile the morning that
Captain McCall arrived at the town. McCall gives an account of a raid
by General Pickens in the fall of 1782. This apparently is the same as
the one described in 1781.

C. C. Jones's _Georgia_ deals with the border wars to about the same
extent as McCall. The precise time of Jack's raid is not given, but
Jones has followed those who have spoken of it as simultaneous with the
joint movement in Virginia and North and South Carolina, among whom we
find Ramsay in his _History of the Revolution of South Carolina_. A
letter to Gov. Bullock, from B. Rea, July 3, 1776 (_Remembrancer_, Part
iii., 1776, p. 50), says: "I shall order the draft that has been made
of this regiment to Broad River and Ogeechee as soon as possible, but
not to go over the line till I receive your excellency's orders, which
I shall wait for with impatience. I shall likewise be glad to know how
far we are to act in concert with the Carolinians, or if we are only to
guard our own frontiers." This shows that troops were put in the field
by Georgia before the question of coöperation was raised, but that it
immediately suggested itself as a possibility.

It will be inferred from what has been said that confusion of dates
as to the movement of the troops exists. McCall tells the story as if
Jack's march in the middle of July were part of a preconcerted plan, in
which South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia participated. Jones,
as has been seen, follows him in this respect. Ramsey, in his _Annals
of Tennessee_, says Christian went into the field on the 1st of August.
Williamson, on his second raid, and Rutherford started out about the
1st of September. Christian's march was evidently in coöperation with
them, and doubtless at the same time, although in Foote's _Sketches
of Virginia_ it is said (pp. 118, 119) that Col. William Christian's
campaign against the Cherokees was in October. It is probable that he
did not return to the settlements until that month.

It is evident that the attack upon the lower towns of the Cherokees
by the Georgia militia was not regarded at the time as a part of the
joint concerted movement. On the 5th of August President Rutledge
issued a proclamation requiring the Legislative Council and General
Assembly to meet at Charleston on the 17th of September, at which time
his excellency congratulated them on the success of the troops under
Colonel Williamson, and added, "It has pleased God to grant very signal
success to their operations; and I hope by his blessings on our arms,
and those of North Carolina and Virginia, from whom I have promises of
aid, an end may soon be put to this war." In the replies of the Council
and of the Assembly recognition is made of the coöperative movements of
the North Carolina and Virginia forces. No reference is made in any of
these proceedings to the Georgia contingent.

The _Boston Gazette and Country Journal_, Sept. 16, 1776, contains an
account of the outbreak in North Carolina, which says: "The ruined
settlers had collected themselves together at different places and
forted themselves: 400 and upwards at Major Shelby's, about the same
number at Captain Campbell's, and a considerable number at Amos
Eaton's." It then describes the relief of Watauga by Colonel Russell
with three hundred men. The acts of these men and the first raid of
Williamson were the spontaneous movements of the frontier inhabitants.
The participation of Georgia was inspired from headquarters at Augusta,
with intelligent comprehension of the value of coöperation. The
campaigns of the month of September were concerted.

The raid of Gen. Andrew Pickens is described in Ramsay's _South
Carolina_ and in Henry Lee's _Memoirs_, the account in the latter
being copied in Cecil B. Hartley's _Heroes and Patriots of the South_
(Philad., 1860). The raid of Col. Arthur Campbell is described in
Girardin's continuation of Burk's _Virginia_ (iv. p. 472). Campbell's
report, in the _Calendar of the State Papers of Virginia_ (i. p. 434),
says that he destroyed upwards of one thousand houses, and not less
than fifty thousand bushels of corn and a large quantity of other
provisions.

=D.= CONNECTICUT SETTLERS IN PENNSYLVANIA.

In 1768, the Proprietaries of Pennsylvania secured an Indian deed
for the territory already claimed by the Susquehanna Company of
Connecticut, and a lease was executed, which vested in certain
enterprising individuals the rights of the Proprietaries to this
region, whether gained by royal grant or by purchase. This was followed
by simultaneous preparation on the part of the Pennsylvanian lessees
and of the Connecticut Company for the occupation by settlers, who
were expected to defend their rights against other claimants. The
Pennsylvanians were first on the ground, and in January, 1769, built a
block-house on the land which had been improved by former Connecticut
settlers. Early in February the first detachment of colonists from
Connecticut arrived, and then began the contest for possession, which
was waged, with success alternating on either side, until the fall of
1771. Houses were burned, crops were laid waste, cattle were driven
off and killed, and there was some bloodshed during the progress of
these hostilities. Proclamations were put forth by the governor of
Pennsylvania, and warrants were issued by the courts of that province
for the arrest of the Connecticut leaders for the crime of arson. The
several military expeditions of the Pennsylvanians were generally
accompanied by a sheriff, whose mission was supposed to be to execute
the laws. The citizens of that province do not appear to have been
in sympathy with the lessees of the Proprietaries. If they had been,
it would have been easy to have crushed the Connecticut colony. This
settlement was not at the outset recognized as a part of Connecticut.
Permission had been given the company to apply to his majesty for
a separate charter. The expectation that an independent government
might perhaps be formed, and the opposition to the movement already
expressed at London, explain the supineness of the mother colony.
The Susquehanna settlement depended for its life upon the efforts
of the company. Five townships were laid out, and liberal offers of
shares in the lands were made to the first settlers in each of them.
Three more townships were subsequently settled on the same plan.
These inducements had attracted settlers in such numbers that the
Pennsylvanian lessees could not dispossess them. In the autumn of
1771 the Pennsylvanians withdrew, leaving the Connecticut colonists,
for the time, in undisturbed possession. Some correspondence followed
between the authorities of the colonies, in which the government of
Pennsylvania sought to ascertain how far the colony of Connecticut
backed up the emigrants; and the governor of that colony in reply
denied having authorized any hostile demonstration, but carefully
avoided saying anything which could be interpreted as a relinquishment
on the part of the colony of its rights under the charter to the land.
During the next two years the settlement, although looked upon by
Pennsylvania as an invasion and not as yet acknowledged by Connecticut,
increased in numbers and prospered. Meetings of the Proprietors were
occasionally held, at which the affairs of the towns were adjusted in
a general way, authority being delegated to a committee of settlers to
act in the intervals between the meetings. In June, 1773, the company
adopted at Hartford a form of government for the settlers, stating
in the preamble that "we have as yet no established civil authority
residing among us in the settlement." In October the Connecticut
Assembly resolved that the colony would "make their claim to these
lands, and in a legal manner support the same." Commissioners were
appointed, and fruitless negotiations were opened with Pennsylvania. In
January, 1774, the territory of Susquehanna Company was incorporated
into the town of Westmoreland, and became temporarily a part of the
county of Litchfield, Connecticut. Almost simultaneously, proclamations
were issued by the governors of the two colonies, each prohibiting
settlements on the disputed territory except under authority of the
colony which he represented. Meantime the settlements in the valley
increased. In September, 1775, about eighty settlers, who had just
arrived on the west branch of the Susquehanna, were attacked by the
Pennsylvania militia. One man was killed; several were wounded; and
the men of the Connecticut party were taken prisoners to Sunbury.
Upon receipt of this news the Continental Congress, in November,
passed resolutions urging the two colonies to take steps to avoid open
hostilities. This was, however, of no effect. Boats from Wyoming,
loaded with the property of settlers, were seized and confiscated at
Fort Augusta. During the fall, extensive preparations were made by
the Pennsylvanians for an invasion of Wyoming, under authority from
Governor Penn, for the purpose of enforcing the laws of Pennsylvania.
In December, Congress expressed the opinion that all appearance of
force ought to stop until the dispute could be decided by law; but
at the time that the resolution expressing this opinion was under
consideration, an army of Pennsylvanians, accompanied by a sheriff,
was already invading the valley. The Connecticut people, having been
forewarned, successfully resisted this military posse. Several lives
were lost in this attempt of the Pennsylvanians to dispossess the
colonists. With this failure the attempts of Pennsylvania to expel the
Connecticut settlers by force ended. The Revolutionary War was now
in progress. Connecticut needed her able-bodied men. She now forbade
further settlement on the disputed territory unless licensed by her
Assembly.

The Trumbull MSS. in possession of the Mass. Hist. Soc. contain copies
of the papers connected with the discussion of the title of the colony
to its settlement in the Susquehanna Valley. There is probably no
single collection of papers so rich in this direction.

=E.= JOURNALS AND DIARIES OF THE SULLIVAN EXPEDITION.

A list of the journals of Sullivan's expedition was prepared by the
writer of this chapter for publication in the _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, Oct., 1886, and this list in an extended and revised form
was to be appended here; but the repetition is rendered unnecessary
by the publication of an elaborate volume by the State of New York,
_Journals of the military expedition of Major-General John Sullivan
against the Six Nations of Indians in 1779, with records of Centennial
Celebrations_,—compiled by George S. Conover, under the direction
of Frederick Cook, Secretary of State. It reprints, and in some
cases gives for the first time in type, the journals of twenty-six
participants, pertaining either to the main expedition or to that
against the Onondagas. An enumeration is also given of the journals
known to have existed, but no longer to be found.

Appended to the journals are the reports of Sullivan, Brodhead, and a
roster of the expeditionary army. The main historical narrative is an
elaborate account, compacted from four centennial addresses, given by
the Rev. David Craft in 1879, and revised from the original publication
in the _Centennial Proceedings_ of the Waterloo (N. Y.) Library and
Historical Society. In a note it is shown that a collation of all the
journals supports Sullivan's statements in his official report, making
his total loss in the campaign 41 men, while 41 Indian settlements or
towns were destroyed.

The portraits of the book are those of Sullivan (with the spear),
General Clinton (profile), Gansevoort (by Stuart), and Philip Van
Cortlandt. The rest of the volume describes the various centennial
celebrations in 1879, at Elmira, Waterloo, Geneseo, and Aurora, with
the addresses, principal among which is one by Erastus Brooks on
"Indian History and Wars", and another by Major Douglass Campbell on
"The Iroquois and New York's Indian policy."

The maps include one by Gen. John S. Clark of the battlefield of
Newtown (not far from Elmira) and the Chemung Ambuscade; another, by
the same, of the Groveland Ambuscade, near Conesus Lake, and the route
thence to the Genessee; five maps of as many sections of Sullivan's
route, surveyed by Lieutenant Benjamin Lodge, the originals of which
make a part of the collection of maps made by Robert Erskine, the
topographical engineer of the Continental army, and by his successor,
Simeon De Witt, and now in the cabinet of the N. Y. Hist. Society. Gen.
J. S. Clark, in describing these maps, says that the route of Dearborn
on the west side of Cayuga Lake, and General Clinton's descent of the
N. E. branch of the Susquehanna, do not appear to have been surveyed,
but that Clinton's route is well illustrated in a sketch of Col.
William Butler's march (Oct.-Nov., 1778) made by Capt. William Gray,
which is also included in the volume. The five maps above referred to
are reproductions from the originals, with some names added from the
rough preliminary sketches, also preserved in the same collection. A
rough plan of Tioga, in fac-simile of a drawing in the journal of Capt.
Charles Nukerck, is also given.—ED.

=F.= BOUNTIES FOR SCALPS.

It has been stated in the narrative that the colonies themselves were
partially responsible for the low estimate in which Indians were held
by the inhabitants of the frontiers. Bounties had been so frequently
offered for the destruction of wild animals and of Indians that the
border settlers might well infer that the law drew no distinction
between the savage and the brute. Mrs. Jackson, in her _Century of
Dishonor_ (App. p. 406), quotes from Gale's _Upper Mississippi_ (p.
112) a vigorous denunciation of the acts of the governments in granting
bounties for scalps: "In the history of the Indian tribes in the
Northwest, the reader will at once perceive that there was a constant
rivalry between the governments of Great Britain, France, and the
United States as to which of them should secure the services of the
barbarians to scalp their white enemies, while each in turn was the
loudest to denounce the shocking barbarities of such tribes as they
failed to secure in their own service. And the civilized world, aghast
at these horrid recitals, ignores the fact that nearly every important
massacre in the history of North America was organized and directed by
agents of some one of these governments." One or two instances, taken
from the records by way of illustration, will suffice to show how
the settlers along the frontier and legislators reciprocally viewed
this subject. In November, 1724, John Lovewell, Josiah Farwell, and
Jonathan Robbins, presented a "Humble Memorial" to the General Court
of Massachusetts Bay, in which they set forth that they, with forty
or fifty others, were "inclinable to range and keep out in the woods
for several months together, in order to kill and destroy their Indian
enemy, provided they could meet with incouragement suitable." For five
shillings a day, and such other reward as the government should see
cause to give them, they would "employ themselves in Indian hunting
one whole year." On the 17th of November, the General Court by vote
authorized the formation of the company, the men to receive "two
shillings and sixpence per diem, the sum of one hundred pounds for each
male scalp, and the other premiums established by law to volunteers
without pay or subsistence" (Kidder's _Captain John Lovewell_, pp. 11,
12). Col. Johnson, in 1747, was "quite pestered every day with parties
returning with prisoners and scalps, and without a penny to pay them
with" (Stone's _Sir William Johnson_, i. 255, 342). For the outlay made
in this behalf Col. Johnson was ultimately reimbursed by the province
of New York. In the memorial or representation of their case, submitted
by the rioters who murdered the Conestega Indians to the authorities
at Philadelphia, it is written: "Sixthly. In the late Indian war, this
Province, with others of his Majesty's colonies, gave rewards for
Indian scalps, to encourage the seeking them in their own country, as
the most likely means of destroying or reducing them to reason; but no
such encouragement has been given in this war, which has damped the
spirits of many brave men, who are willing to venture their lives in
parties against the enemy. We therefore pray that public rewards may
be proposed for Indian scalps, which may be adequate to the dangers
attending enterprises of this nature." On the 12th of June, 1764, the
authorities of Pennsylvania offered bounties for scalps, presumably in
response to this petition (_Penna. Col. Rec._, ix. 141, 189).

On the 27th of September, 1776, a committee reported to the South
Carolina Assembly, that it was "not advisable to hold Captive Indians
as Slaves, but as an encouragement to those who shall distinguish
themselves in the war against the Cherokees, they recommended
the following rewards, to wit: For every Indian man killed, upon
certificate thereupon given by the Commanding Officer, and the scalp
produced as evidence thereof in Charlestown by the forces in the pay of
the State, seventy-five pounds currency; For every Indian man prisoner
one hundred pounds like money" (_American Archives_, 5th ser., iii. 32).

It is true that bounties had previously been offered in New York for
scalps taken from the "enemy", but at the time of the Revolution
New York and Massachusetts had apparently abandoned the policy of
offering bounties for scalps. Abundant records show that they had been
committed to this policy in earlier times. The Act of Assembly in South
Carolina, the previous legislation in New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Maryland, and Virginia, and the subsequent legislation in
Pennsylvania and Illinois, were directed exclusively against Indians.
_Penna. Colonial Records_ (xii. 311; xii. 632; xiii. 201). _Laws of
the Colonial and State Governments relating to Indians and Indian
Affairs from 1633 to 1831 inclusive, with an appendix containing the
proceedings of the Congress of the Confederation and the laws of
Congress from 1800 to 1830 on the Same Subject_ (Washington city,
1832), p. 239. In the _Pennsylvania Archives_ (iii. p. 199) there
is a curious letter from the superintendent of Indian affairs in
the Southern Department to the governor of Maryland, dated June 30,
1757, in which he says that several of the colonies are becoming fond
of giving large rewards for scalps. If these rewards were confined
to their own people he should consider it laudable, but as they are
offered chiefly to Indians the case is very different. He says the
Indians make several scalps out of one. The Cherokees in particular
make four scalps out of one man killed. "Here are now", he adds,
"twenty scalps hanging out to publick view which are well known to
have been made out of five Frenchmen killed. What a sum (at £50 each)
would they produce if carried to Maryland, where the artifice would not
probably be discovered!" In early times in Maryland, the proof required
from persons who had killed Indians, in order that the reward might
be claimed, was the production of the right ear of the dead Indian.
There was less opportunity to subdivide the ears, and thus multiply
the bounties. The charge that the English paid bounties for scalps
thus found its way naturally into the histories, and the officers who
had been disciplined in the previous wars were probably ready to make
such offers. Doddridge (_Notes_, 274) expresses the belief current on
the frontier when he says, "The English government made allies of as
many of the Indian nations as they could, and they imposed no restraint
on their savage mode of warfare. On the contrary, the commandants at
their posts along our Western frontiers received and paid the Indians
for scalps and prisoners, thus, the skin of a white man's or even a
woman's head served in the hands of the Indian as current coin, which
he exchanged for arms and ammunition, for the further prosecution of
his barbarous warfare." This belief found expression at the time, and
worked its way into print. The _Remembrancer_ gives a letter from
Capt. Joseph Bowman "at a place called Illinois Kaskaskias, upon the
Mississippi", dated July 30, 1778, in which we read: "The Indians
meeting with daily supplies from the British officers, who offer them
large bounties for our scalps" (_Remembrancer_, viii. p. 83). There
is, however, better authority than rumors of this class to justify
those authors who repeat this statement. When Governor Hamilton was
captured at Vincennes, he was sent to Williamsburg, and his conduct was
investigated by the Council of Virginia. In their report the Council
say, "The board find that Governor Hamilton gave standing rewards for
scalps, but offered none for prisoners, which induced the Indians,
after making the captives carry their baggage into the neighborhood
of the fort, there to put them to death, and carry in their scalps to
the governor, who welcomed their return and success by a discharge of
cannon" (_Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of
Thomas Jefferson_, ed. by Thomas Jefferson Randolph, Boston, 1830; 2d
ed., vol. i. p. 456). Thus the official sanction of a board composed of
prominent men of good reputation has been given to the statement. In
weighing the value of this decision we must not forget that Hamilton
was the special object of hatred to the Virginians. Col. George Rogers
Clarke, in an official communication to the governor of Virginia, from
Kaskaskia, Feb. 3, 1779, speaks of "A late meneuv^r of the Famous Hair
Buyer General Henry Hamilton, Esqr., Lieut.-Governour of De Troit",
etc., etc. (_Calendar of the State Papers of Virginia_, p. 315). C.
W. Butterfield edited a reprint of _A Short Biography of John Leith_
(Lancaster, Ohio, 1831) as _Leith's Narrative_ (Cincinnati, 1883), and
in this new edition (p. 39) we find an account of a brutal murder,
by Indians, of a prisoner at Sandusky: "They knocked him down with
tomahawks, cut off his head, and fixed it on a pole erected for the
purpose; when commenced a scene of yelling, dancing, singing, and
rioting." To this part of Leith's narrative the annotator attaches
a note, in which he states that a part of the "importance of this
recital is in a historical sense;" "that captives were brought to the
points contiguous to Detroit, and then tomahawked and scalped, the
direct result of Hamilton's barbarous policy of offering rewards for
scalps, but paying none for prisoners." The language of the note is
ambiguous, but a natural interpretation of its purpose would be that
the statement in the text was relied upon to prove the charges against
Hamilton. I presume this prisoner was scalped,—it would probably have
been recorded by Leith as a remarkable event if he had escaped being
scalped,—but a statement which omits mention of the fact can hardly be
cited as evidence against Hamilton.

The Virginia Council, while they published no evidence bearing upon the
question of Hamilton's buying scalps, were more explicit when it came
to his inciting Indians to acts of war:—

"Williamsburgh, Va. In Council, June 16, 1779. Case of Hamilton,
Dejaine La Mothe." "They find that Hamilton has executed the task
of inciting the Indians to perpetrate their accustomed cruelties on
the citizens of these States, without distinction of age, sex, or
condition, with an eagerness and activity which evince that the general
nature of his charge harmonized with his particular disposition; they
should have been satisfied, from the other testimony adduced, that
these enormities were committed by savages acting under his commission,
but the number of his Proclamations, which at different times were
left in houses, the inhabitants of which were killed or Carried away
by Indians, one of which Proclamations, under the hand and seal of
Governor Hamilton, is in possession of the Board, puts the fact beyond
doubt", etc. (_Remembrancer_, viii. p. 337). "The narrative of the
Capture and treatment of John Dodge by the English at Detroit" was made
public about the same time (_Remembrancer_, viii. p. 73). The portion
of Dodge's story which relates to the reception by Hamilton of Indians
returning with scalps and prisoners, bears a striking resemblance to
the report of the Council. Dodge states that Hamilton become so enraged
at him that the governor "offered £100 for his scalp or his body." In
another place he says: "These sons of Britain offered no reward for
prisoners, but they gave the Indians twenty dollars a scalp", etc.,
etc.; and again: "One of these parties returning with a number of
women and children's scalps and their prisoners, they were met by the
commandant of the fort, and after the usual demonstrations of joy,
delivered their scalps, for which they were paid."

Some correspondence passed between Jefferson and the governor of
Detroit on the question of Hamilton's treatment as a prisoner, in which
Jefferson dwells at length upon Hamilton's responsibility for the acts
of the Indians, but it is to be remarked that no charge is made against
Hamilton of paying bounties for scalps (_Calendar of State Papers
of Virginia_, i. p. 321). Before the British government is finally
convicted of having offered bounties for scalps, it is just that other
evidence should be adduced than such affidavits as that of Moses
Younglove (Campbell, _Tryon County_, 2d ed., p. 116), who swears that
he "was informed by several sergeants-orderly for General St. Leger
that twenty dollars were offered in general orders for every American
scalp." The mere showing of scalps at headquarters does not necessarily
imply that the Indians were to be paid for them (_Ibid._ p. 307).
According to Campbell (_Ibid._ p. 117), Col. Gansevoort, in a letter,
confirms the statement that twenty dollars were offered by St. Leger
for every American scalp. Col. Gansevoort, besieged in Fort Stanwix,
relied of course upon some other person for this statement. It is
probably the Younglove story in another shape. It must not be forgotten
that St. Leger ordered Lt. Bird "not to accept a capitulation, because
the force of whites under Bird's command was not large enough to
restrain the Indians from barbarity and carnage."

It adds little force to the evidence that we find similar allegations
against the British in the class of books represented by Seaver's
_Life of Mary Jemison_ (p. 114), (various editions,—see Field's
_Indian Bibliography_, nos. 1,380-81). In a similar manner, Simms
(_Frontiersmen_, i. p. 10) cites a letter-writer as saying that the
price per scalp was eight dollars; and Jenkins (_Wyoming Memorial_,
p. 151) charges Burgoyne with opening a market for scalps at ten
dollars each. Simms (_Schoharie County_, p. 578) says that a
certificate, signed by John Butler, concerning certain scalps taken by
"Kayingwaarto, the Sanakee chief", was found upon the body of an Indian
killed during the Sullivan campaign. The details of the descriptions
easily enable us to identify the scalps referred to in the certificate.
An excellent local authority (Ketchum's _Buffalo_, i. 327, 329)
analyzes the story thus "Gi-en-gwah-toh in Seneca is identical with
Say-en-qua-ragh-ta in Mohawk, and is another spelling of the name in
the certificate.... It is historically certain that the age, if nothing
else, would preclude the possibility of Sayenquaraghta's being the
person who wounded and scalped Capt. Greg and his corporal near Fort
Stanwix in 1778. And it is equally certain that Sayenquaraghta was not
killed by a scouting party of Sullivan's army in 1779, but was alive
and well at Niagara in 1780, and came to reside at Buffalo Creek in
1781." The incident sought to be identified with this receipt was not
only one of the most striking among the events of the border war, but
the Indian actor appears to have been equally prominent. Butler makes
especial mention of Brant and Kiangarachta—probably the same name
as Gi-en-gwah-toh or Sayenquaraghta—in his account of the battle of
Newtown (_Sparks MSS._).

If we are forced to such evidence as this against the British
government, we unfortunately find ourselves confronted with testimony
of a like character against the Americans. Guy Johnson writes to
Germain (_N. Y. Col. Docs._, viii. 740): "Some of the American
colonies went further by fixing a price for scalps." Again it is said
(_Amer. Archives_, 4th, v. 1102): "Seneca sachems assert that Oneidas
want Butler's scalp, and that General Schuyler offered $250 for his
person or scalp." Thomas Gummersall declared at Staten Island, Aug.
6, 1776 (_Amer. Archives_, 5th, i. 866), that "Mr. Schuyler, a rebel
general, invited Sir John Johnson down, promising him protection, and
at the same time employed the Indian messenger, in case he refused,
to bring his scalp, for which he was to have a reward of one hundred
dollars." It might, perhaps, be claimed that the bounties offered by
South Carolina justified the first of these counter-assertions by the
English, but I presume there would be no hesitation in classing these
statements, as a whole, among those which were especially prepared for
the purpose of influencing public opinion.

Before leaving this subject, the reader may need to be warned against
a fabrication of Franklin, which has deceived many. Sparks speaks of
Franklin "occasionally amusing himself in composing and printing, by
means of a small set of types and a press he had in his house, several
of his light essays, _bagatelles_, or _jeux d'esprit_, written chiefly
for the amusement of his friends. Among these were the following,
printed on a half-sheet of coarse paper, so as to imitate as much as
possible a portion of a Boston newspaper", which he gave out as a
_Supplement to the Boston Independent Chronicle_ of March 12, 1782.
This pretended newspaper contained what purported to be an extract
from a letter from Captain Gerrish, of the New England militia, dated
Albany, March 7, 1782, which reads as follows: "The peltry taken in
the expedition will, you see, amount to a good deal of money. The
possession of this booty at first gave us pleasure; but we were struck
with horror to find among the packages eight large ones, containing
scalps of our unhappy country-folks, taken prisoners in the three last
years by the Seneka Indians from the inhabitants of the frontiers of
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and sent by them as a
present to Colonel Haldimand, governor of Canada, in order to be by him
transmitted to England. They were accompanied by the following curious
letter to that gentleman;" which is given under the signature of James
Crawfurd, and affords a detailed account of the contents of each
package. This fictitious Supplement was reprinted as genuine in Almon's
_Remembrancer_. In the first edition of Campbell's _Annals of Tryon
County_ it was printed in the Appendix as genuine, and copied from a
newspaper published in Dutchess County during the Revolution (_Ibid._,
2d ed., 307). It was also reprinted in _Rhode Island Historical Tracts_
(no. 7, p. 94, note I). It was exposed by Sparks, by Parton in his
_Life of Franklin_ (ii. p. 437), by Campbell in his second edition of
the _Annals of Tryon County_, and by Col. Stone in the Introduction
to his _Brant_ (i. p. xvi.). In a note Col. Stone spoke of the document
as "long believed and recently revived and included in several works
of authentic history." There are copies of the original fabrication in
the Stevens Collection of Frankliniana (Dept. of State at Washington;
Stevens's _Hist. Coll._, i. p. 168); and in the Boston Public Library
(_Franklin Collection_, p. 12).

CHAPTER IX.

THE WEST,

FROM THE TREATY OF PEACE WITH FRANCE, 1763, TO THE TREATY OF PEACE WITH
ENGLAND, 1783.

BY WILLIAM FREDERICK POOLE, LL.D.

_Librarian of the Newberry Library, Chicago._

THE treaty of peace signed at Paris, February 10, 1763, marks perhaps
the most important epoch in the political and social history of North
America.[1422] It settled forever a question which had been in doubt
for a century,—whether the rule and civilization of France or of
Great Britain were to shape the destinies of the western continent.
It was the culmination of a seven years' war, in which the vigorous
administration of William Pitt had crushed the allied forces of France
and Spain. The capture of Quebec by Wolfe, and the surrender of the
French army to Amherst at Montreal, were but incidents in the general
humiliation which France and Spain had experienced on the continent
of Europe, in India, in the West Indies, and on the ocean. They could
fight no longer, and were glad to accept any terms of peace which Great
Britain might dictate.[1423]

The Treaty of Paris made a strange transformation of the political map
of North America, and for the first time brought under British sway the
territory which now comprises the Western States of the American Union.
Great Britain in the preceding century had granted in the charters of
her American colonies boundaries extending from ocean to ocean; but
her actual possessions until 1763 were a fringe of country along the
Atlantic coast, and extending west to the crests of the Alleghanies.
Spain was in possession of Florida and Mexico, and the remainder of the
continent was in the real or nominal possession of France. Her imperial
domain extended from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Ocean, and from
the Alleghanies to undetermined limits beyond the Rocky Mountains. By
the Treaty of Paris, Canada and that portion of Louisiana between the
Alleghanies and the Mississippi came to Great Britain. In a secret
treaty with his Bourbon ally, Carlos III. of Spain, made November 3,
1762, the day when the preliminary articles of peace were signed,[1424]
Louis XV. ceded to Spain that part of Louisiana which lay west of the
Mississippi, with the island on which New Orleans is situated. France
therefore, in this desperate crisis, parted with all her American
possessions on the main land, and her name nearly disappeared from the
map of North America.[1425] Spain in the war had lost Havana, and in
order to recover this key to her other West India possessions she gave
up to Great Britain Florida in exchange for Havana.

Severer terms than these would have been exacted by Great Britain from
both the allies, except for the recent accession of George III. to the
throne, and the changes he made in his cabinet and policy. In the midst
of the negotiations of the treaty, Pitt resigned in disgust, and they
were concluded by his successor, the Earl of Bute, and by the Duke of
Bedford. The transfers of the immense territories ceded by the treaty
were not immediate, and several years elapsed before they came into
possession of their new rulers.

In the discussions by the new cabinet as to the terms of the treaty,
a question arose which was alarming to the American colonies. Should
Canada or the Island of Guadaloupe be restored to France? The sugar
trade of the latter, it was claimed, was more important to Great
Britain than the Canadian for trade. It was further claimed that,
if the colonies were relieved from the menace of the French and
their savage allies, they would cover the continent, become a great
nation, manufacture their own goods, and eventually declare themselves
independent.[1426] Many pamphlets appeared in England advocating and
opposing the restoration of Canada to France, but there was no abler
advocate of the retention of Canada than Dr. Franklin, who was then in
London.[1427]

On the 7th of October, 1763, George III. issued a proclamation,[1428]
providing for four new governments or colonies, namely: Quebec, East
Florida, West Florida, and Grenada, and defining their boundaries. The
limits of Quebec did not vary materially from those of the present
province of that name, and those of East and West Florida comprised the
present State of Florida and the country north of the Gulf of Mexico to
the parallel of 31° latitude.

It will be seen that no provision was made for the government of nine
tenths of the new territory acquired by the Treaty of Paris, and the
omission was not an oversight, but was intentional. The purpose was
to reserve as crown lands the Northwest territory, the region north
of the great lakes, and the country between the Alleghanies and the
Mississippi, and to exclude them from settlement by the American
colonies. They were left, for the time being, to the undisputed
possession of the savage tribes.[1429] The king's "loving subjects"
were forbidden making purchases of land from the Indians, or forming
any settlements "westward of the sources of the rivers which fall
into the sea from the West and Northwest", "and all persons who have
wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any lands" west of
this limit were warned "forthwith to remove themselves from such
settlements." Certain reasons for this policy were assigned in the
proclamation, such as "preventing irregularities in the future, and
that the Indians may be convinced of our justice", etc.; but the real
explanation appears in the Report of the Lords Commissioners for
Trade and Plantations, in 1772, on the petition of Thomas Walpole and
others for a grant of land on the Ohio. The report was drawn by Lord
Hillsborough, the president of the board. The report states:—

"We take leave to remind your Lordships of that principle which was
adopted by this Board, and approved and confirmed by his Majesty,
immediately after the Treaty of Paris, viz.: the confining the western
extent of settlements to such a distance from the seacoast as that
those settlements should lie within reach of the trade and commerce
of this kingdom, ... and also of the exercise of that authority and
jurisdiction which was conceived to be necessary for the preservation
of the Colonies in a due subordination to, and dependence upon, the
mother country. And these we apprehend to have been the two capital
objects of his Majesty's proclamation of the 7th of October, 1763....
The great object of colonizing upon the continent of North America has
been to improve and extend the commerce, navigation, and manufactures
of this kingdom.... It does appear to us that the extension of the
fur trade depends entirely upon the Indians being undisturbed in the
possession of their hunting-grounds, and that all colonizing does in
its nature, and must in its consequences, operate to the prejudice
of that branch of commerce.... Let the savages enjoy their deserts
in quiet. Were they driven from their forests the peltry-trade would
decrease; and it is not impossible that worse savages would take
refuge in them."[1430]

Such in clear and specific terms was the cold and selfish policy which
the British crown and its ministers habitually pursued towards the
American colonies; and in a few years it changed loyalty into hate, and
brought on the American Revolution.[1431]

* * * * *

Before the royal proclamation of 1763 had been issued, or even
drafted, a new and fierce Indian war, which is known in history as
the Pontiac War, was raging on the frontier settlements. With the
conquest of Canada and the expulsion of France as a military power
from the continent, the English colonists were abounding in loyalty
to the mother country, were exultant in the expectation of peace, and
in the assurance of immunity from Indian wars in the future; for it
did not seem possible that, with the loose system of organization and
government common to the Indians, they could plan and execute a general
campaign without the co-operation of the French as leaders.

This feeling of security among the English settlements was of short
duration. A general discontent pervaded all the Indian tribes from the
frontier settlements to the Mississippi, and from the great lakes to
the Gulf of Mexico. The extent of this disquietude was not suspected,
and hence no attempt was made to gain the good-will of the Indians.
There were many real causes for this discontent. The French had been
politic and sagacious in their intercourse with the Indian. They gained
his friendship by treating him with respect and justice. They came to
him with presents, and, as a rule, dealt with him fairly in trade. They
came with missionaries, unarmed, heroic, self-denying men, who labored
without pay for what they deemed the highest welfare of their dusky
brethren. Many Frenchmen married Indian wives, dwelt with the native
tribes, and adopted their customs. To the average Englishman, on the
other hand, Indians were disgusting objects; he would show them no
respect, nor treat them with justice except under compulsion. To him
the only good Indians were dead Indians, and hence he shot savages as
he would wild beasts.[1432] So long as the English had the French as
competitors for the good-will of the Indian, they treated him with some
measure of tact and justice; but when this competition was withdrawn,
it was a sad day for both races. The fur trade, by which the Indians
obtained their necessary supplies, had been mainly in the hands of the
French; and when it was cut off, the Northern and Western Indians,
as they had lost the use of bows and arrows, and needed firearms and
ammunition in order to take their game, were often in distress for want
of food. When the military posts in the West were in possession of the
French, the Indians were habitual visitors, and they loitered about the
forts. The French tolerated the custom, and treated the intruders with
kindness, although their indolent and filthy habits greatly taxed the
patience of the garrisons. When these posts came into possession of
the English, the visitors were insulted and driven away, and they were
fortunate if they were not clubbed.[1433]

The French had shown little disposition to make permanent settlements;
but the English, when they appeared, came to stay, and they occupied
large tracts of the best land for agricultural purposes. The French
hunters and traders, who were widely dispersed among the native tribes,
kept the Indians in a state of disquietude by misrepresenting the
English, exaggerating their faults, and making the prediction that
the French would soon recapture Canada and expel the English from the
Western territories.

Pontiac, the chief of the Ottawas, was the Indian who had the motive,
the ambition, and capacity for organization which enabled him to
concentrate and use all these elements of discontent for his own
malignant and selfish purposes. After the defeat of the French, he
professed for a time to be friendly with the English, expecting
that, under the acknowledged supremacy of Great Britain, he would be
recognized as a mighty Indian prince, and be assigned to rule over his
own, and perhaps a confederacy of other tribes.[1434] Finding that the
English government had no use for him, he was indignant, and he devoted
all the energies of his vigorous mind to a secret conspiracy of uniting
the tribes west of the Alleghanies to engage in a general war against
the English settlements. In the autumn of 1762 he sent messengers with
war-belts to the tribes living north of the great lakes, to those in
the Ohio and Illinois countries, and they went as far south as the
mouth of the Mississippi. His scheme was to make a simultaneous attack
on all the Western posts in the month of May, 1763; and each attack
was assigned to the neighboring tribes. His summer home was on a small
island at the entrance of Lake St. Clair; and being near Detroit, he
was to conduct in person the capture of that fort.[1435]

On the 6th of May, 1763, Major Gladwin,[1436] in command at Detroit,
had warning from an Indian girl that the next day an attempt would be
made to capture the fort by treachery. When Pontiac, on the appointed
morning, accompanied by sixty of his chiefs, with short guns concealed
under their blankets, appeared at the fort, and, as usual, asked for
admission, he was startled at seeing the whole garrison under arms, and
that his scheme of treachery had miscarried. For two months the savages
assailed the fort, and the sleepless garrison gallantly defended it,
when they were relieved by the arrival of a schooner from Fort Niagara,
with sixty men, provisions, and ammunition.

Fort Pitt, on the present site of Pittsburg, Pa.,[1437] was in command
of Captain Ecuyer, another trained soldier, who had been warned of
the Indian conspiracy by Major Gladwin in a letter written May 5th.
Captain Ecuyer, having a garrison of three hundred and thirty soldiers
and backwoodsmen, immediately made every preparation for defence. On
May 27th, a party of Indians appeared at the fort under the pretence of
wishing to trade, and were treated as spies. Active operations against
Fort Pitt were postponed until the smaller forts had been taken.

Fort Sandusky was captured May 16th; Fort St. Joseph (on the St. Joseph
River, Mich.), May 25th; Fort Ouatanon (now Lafayette, Ind.), May 31st;
Fort Michillimackinac (now Mackinaw, Mich.), June 2d; Fort Presqu'
Isle (now Erie, Pa.), June 17th; Fort Le Bœuf (Erie County, Pa.), June
18th; Fort Venango (Venango County, Pa.), June 18th; and the posts at
Carlisle and Bedford, Pa., on the same day. No garrison except that
at Presqu' Isle had warning of danger. The same method of capture was
adopted in each instance. A small party of Indians came to the fort
with the pretence of friendship, and were admitted. Others soon joined
them, when the visitors rose upon the small garrisons, butchered them,
or took them captive. At Presqu' Isle the Indians laid siege to the
fort for two days, when they set it on fire. At Venango no one of the
garrison survived to give an account of the capture.[1438]

On June 22d, a large body of Indians surrounded Fort Pitt and opened
fire on all sides, but were easily repulsed. The next day they informed
Captain Ecuyer[1439] that every other English fort had been taken,
and that all the tribes were coming to take Fort Pitt. If he and his
garrison would then leave, they would assure him a safe conduct to the
English settlements; but otherwise they would be unable to protect him
from the bad Indians who would soon arrive. The commander thanked them
for their kind solicitude in his behalf, and informed them that he had
plenty of men, provisions, and ammunition, and could hold the fort
against all the Indians in the woods. He told them also that an army of
six thousand English would soon arrive at Fort Pitt, and that another
army of three thousand had gone up the lakes to punish the Ottawas and
Ojibwas. "Therefore", he said, "take pity on your women and children,
and get out of the way as soon as possible." The Indians departed the
next day, and did not reappear until July 26th, when they repeated
their old story of "love for the English", and grieved that "the chain
of friendship had been broken." The following night they surrounded
the fort, and with knives dug burrows in the river banks, from which
they threw fire-arrows into the fort and shot bullets whenever they had
sight of a soldier above the parapets. This sort of warfare was more
dangerous to the besiegers than to the besieged. During five days and
nights of ceaseless attack the losses of the Indians were more than
twenty killed and wounded. In the garrison seven were slightly wounded,
and none killed. The Indians then disappeared in order to intercept the
expedition of Colonel Bouquet, which was approaching from the east with
a convoy of provisions for the relief of Fort Pitt.

[Illustration: HENRY BOUQUET.

From an original by Benjamin West, in the gallery of the Penna. Hist.
Society.]

It was fortunate for the country that there was an officer stationed at
Philadelphia who fully understood the meaning of the alarming reports
which were coming in from the Western posts. Colonel Henry Bouquet was
a gallant Swiss officer who had been trained in war from his youth, and
whose personal accomplishments gave an additional charm to his bravery
and heroic energy. He had served seven years in fighting American
Indians, and was more cunning than they in the practice of their own
artifices.[1440] General Amherst, the commander-in-chief, was slow in
appreciating the importance and extent of the Western conspiracy;[1441]
yet he did good service in directing Colonel Bouquet to organize an
expedition for the relief of Fort Pitt.

[Illustration: BUSHY RUN BATTLE, AUG. 5 AND 6, 1763.

Slightly reduced from a plate in the London edition of _An Historical
Account_, as "surveyed by Thos. Hutchins, assistant engineer." KEY: 1,
grenadiers; 2, light infantry; 3, battalion men; 4, rangers; 5, cattle;
6, horses; 7, intrenchment of bags for the wounded; 8, first position
of the troops; X, the enemy. The small squares on the hillock near "the
action of the 5th" mark "graves." The map is also in Jefferys' _Gen.
Topog. of N. Amer., etc._ (London, 1768), and in I. D. Rupp's _Early
Hist of Western Penna._ (Pittsburg, 1847).]

The promptness and energy with which this duty was performed, under
the most embarrassing conditions, make the expedition one of the most
brilliant episodes in American warfare. The only troops available for
the service were about five hundred regulars recently arrived from the
siege of Havana, broken in health, and many of them better fitted for
the hospital than the field.[1442] Orders for collecting supplies and
means of transportation had been sent to Carlisle; but when the colonel
arrived with the troops, nothing had been done towards their execution.
Such, however, was his energy and sagacity that in eighteen days the
horses, oxen, wagons, and provisions needed had been collected, and he
was ready to march. As the long train moved out of Carlisle towards the
west, where lay the bleaching bones of Braddock's army, the inhabitants
looked on in anxious silence. The sight of sixty invalid soldiers
conveyed in wagons did not add to the cheerfulness of the scene.
Bouquet's most efficient soldiers were the 42d regiment of Highlanders,
whom he used as flankers.[1443]

On the 25th of July he reached Fort Bedford, where he left his
invalids to recuperate, and engaged thirty backwoodsmen as guides. All
communication with Fort Pitt, one hundred and five miles distant, was
cut off, and the woods were filled with prowling savages. On August
2d he reached Fort Ligonier, fifty miles from Bedford, where he left
his draught-oxen and wagons, and went on with three hundred and fifty
pack-horses. About a day's march further west lay the defiles of
Turtle Creek, where he expected the Indians would lay an ambuscade.
He therefore determined to proceed as far as a small stream called
Bushy Run, rest till night, and pass Turtle Creek under cover of
darkness. At one o'clock in the afternoon of August 5th, when the train
was half a mile from Bushy Run, a report of rifles was heard at the
front, indicating that the advanced guard was engaged. Two companies
were ordered forward to support it. The woods were quickly cleared,
when firing was heard in the rear, and the troops were ordered back
to protect the baggage train. Forming a circle around the convoy, the
troops kept up the fight gallantly until night. As they were exposed
in the open field, while the Indians were under cover in the woods,
their loss was heavy compared with that of the enemy. Several officers
and about sixty soldiers were killed or wounded, and the situation
had become desperate. They had no choice but to camp on the hill
where the engagement had taken place, and without a drop of water.
Sentinels and outposts were stationed to guard against a night attack,
and the morrow was awaited with anxious solicitude. During the night
Colonel Bouquet wrote to General Amherst: "Whatever our fate may be,
I thought it necessary to give your excellency this information.... I
fear insurmountable difficulties in protecting and transporting our
provisions, being already so much weakened by the losses of this day in
men and horses."

[Illustration: BOUQUET'S COUNCIL WITH THE INDIANS.

This follows in fac-simile a plate in the London edition of the
_Historical Account_ (1766), drawn by Benjamin West; and as that artist
painted the portrait of Bouquet given on another page, the sitting
figure in the left of the plate may safely be considered not unlike
that soldier. This plate was reëngraved by Paul Revere, in the _Royal
Amer. Mag._, Dec., 1774.]

With the early morning light the woods rang with the exultant war-cries
of the Indians. The battle was renewed, and the savages, seeing the
distress of the troops, pressed closer and closer, expecting an easy
victory. Colonel Bouquet, with a quick perception of the situation
and full knowledge of the Indian character, saw that his only hope of
escaping the fate of Braddock's army was to draw the enemy from their
cover and bring them into close engagement with his regulars. This
he did by a stratagem. He ordered his most advanced troops, when in
action, to fall back suddenly, as if in retreat, behind a second line
lying in ambush. The Indians he expected would follow, eager to seize
the train.

[Illustration: BOUQUET'S CAMPAIGN.

Reduced from Smith's _Historical Account of the Expedition against the
Ohio Indians_, London, 1766. It is also included in Jefferys' _Gen.
Topog. of N. Amer., etc._ (London, 1768). It is reproduced in full size
fac-simile, in the Cincinnati edition, 1868, and is reëngraved in the
Amsterdam edition and in Parkman's _Pontiac_, vol. ii.]

The line in ambush would then open fire, and in the surprise and
confusion of the savages the remaining troops would charge upon them.
The stratagem was a complete success. As the advanced line retreated,
the Indians rushed out of the woods, supposing they were victors. When
the line in ambush had delivered its fire and stopped the progress of
the Indians, the retreating line had changed direction and were ready
to make a charge upon the flank. The ambuscading line then rose and
fell upon the enemy in front, who fled, leaving sixty of their number
on the field, and among them several prominent chiefs. The pursuit
was continued, and the victory was complete.[1444] The next day the
expedition, carrying their wounded on litters, moved on towards Fort
Pitt, twenty-five miles distant, and arriving four days after the
fight, to the great joy of the beleaguered garrison.

The battle of Bushy Run, both for its military conduct and its
political results, deserves a place among the memorable battles in
America. The Indians fought with a courage and desperation rarely seen
in Indian warfare, and the English troops with a steadiness and valor
which was due to their training as regulars and the direction of so
able a commander. The tidings of this victory broke the spirit of the
Indian conspiracy, and the reports were received with rejoicing in all
the English colonies.[1445]

The ultimate purpose of Colonel Bouquet's expedition, after relieving
Fort Pitt, was to invade the Ohio country, punish the Shawanese,
Delawares, and other tribes, extort from them treaties of peace, and
recover the English captives in their possession. On account of his
losses of men, horses, and supplies at Bushy Run, he was unable to
carry out this design until he was reinforced, and it was now too late
in the season to expect that his wants could be supplied from the East.
His Ohio expedition was therefore postponed until the next year.

* * * * *

On the 29th of July Detroit was reinforced by two hundred and eighty
men under Captain Dalzell, who in June had left Fort Niagara in
twenty-two barges, with several cannon and a supply of provisions and
ammunition. The day after his arrival, Captain Dalzell proposed, with
two hundred and fifty men, to make a night attack on Pontiac's camp
and capture him. Major Gladwin discouraged the attempt, but finally,
against his judgment, consented. Some Canadians obtained the secret and
carried it to Pontiac, who waylaid the party in an ambuscade. Twenty
of the English were killed and thirty-nine wounded. Among the killed
was Captain Dalzell himself.[1446] Pontiac could make no use of this
success, as the fort was strongly garrisoned and well supplied with
provisions and ammunition. Elsewhere there was nothing to encourage
him. The battle of Bushy Run and the arrival of Colonel Bouquet at Fort
Pitt alarmed the Western tribes and ruptured the Pontiac confederation.
In October some of the chiefs who beleaguered the fort at Detroit
sued for peace, and in November the siege was raised. All hope of
capturing Fort Pitt had vanished, and the warriors returned to their
hunting-grounds. There was quietness on the frontiers during the winter
of 1763-64.

In the spring of 1764 scattered war parties were again ravaging the
borders. Colonel Bouquet was recruiting in Pennsylvania, and preparing
an outfit for his march into the valley of the Ohio. In June, Colonel
Bradstreet, with a force of twelve hundred men, was sent up the great
lakes. On arriving at Fort Niagara he found assembled a large body
of Indians whom Sir William Johnson had summoned into council, using
threats when they did not readily respond to his summons. It was
apparent that the haughty spirit of the tribes was broken. Treaties of
peace were concluded, and a strip of land between the lakes Erie and
Ontario, four miles wide on each side of the river Niagara, was ceded
to the British government.[1447]

Bradstreet proceeded up Lake Erie, and near Presqu' Isle made, on his
own authority, an absurd treaty of peace with some alleged deputies of
the Ohio Indians who had made the Western settlements so much trouble;
and he added to his folly by writing to his superior officer, Colonel
Bouquet, that the Colonel need not march into the Ohio country, as
the business of pacifying the Western Indians had been attended to.
Bradstreet went on to Sandusky; and instead of punishing the Wyandots,
Ottawas, and Miamis, as he was instructed to do, accepted their promise
to follow him to Detroit and there make treaties. He arrived in Detroit
on the 26th of August. Pontiac had departed, and sent messages of
defiance from the banks of the Maumee.[1448]

Colonel Bouquet met with every obstacle in raising troops and
collecting supplies for his Ohio expedition, from the stubborn Quakers
in the Assembly of Pennsylvania. It was not until September 17th that
his convoy arrived at Fort Pitt. Early in October he marched with
fifteen hundred men and a long train of pack-horses into the valley
of the Muskingum. Wherever he appeared with his strong force the
Indian tribes were ready, after much talk, to make treaties of peace
and deliver up their white captives, two hundred of whom, and some
with reluctance, were taken back to the settlements.[1449] Colonel
Bouquet marched to the forks of the Muskingum,[1450] meeting with
no opposition, and, having accomplished his purposes, retraced his
march, and arrived at Fort Pitt on the 28th of November. The success
of the expedition and the return of the captives to their homes were
the occasion of joy through the whole country. The assemblies of
Pennsylvania and Virginia passed votes of thanks to Colonel Bouquet,
and the king conferred on him the rank of brigadier-general. Early in
the summer of 1765 he was put in command of the Southern district,
and died of fever at Pensacola, September 2, ten days after his
arrival.[1451] Had he lived he would have made a brilliant record in
the war of the Revolution.[1452]

[Illustration: VICINITY OF FORT CHARTRES.

Reproduced from Thomas Hutchins's _Historical narrative and
topographical description of Louisiana and West Florida, comprehending
the river Mississippi with its branches_ (Philad., 1784). The same
map is in his _Topographical description of Virginia, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, and North Carolina, comprehending the rivers Ohio, Kenhawa,
&c., the climate, soil; the mountains, latitudes, &c., and of every
part, laid down in the annexed map. Published by Thomas Hutchins.
With a plan of the rapids of the Ohio, a plan of the several villages
in the Illinois country, a table of the distances between Fort Pitt
and the mouth of the Ohio. And an appendix, containing Mr. Patrick
Kennedy's Journal up the Illinois river_ (Boston, 1787). From this
edition Parkman reproduced the map in his _Pontiac_, vol. ii. The map
was reëngraved in the French edition, _Description topographique de la
Virginie_, etc., Paris, 1781. The original edition was published in
London in 1778. It is reprinted in Imlay's _Western Territories_, 3d
ed., p. 485. Cf. Thomson's _Bibliography of Ohio_, no. 625.—ED.]

The Pontiac War, so far as battles and campaigns were concerned, was
ended; but Pontiac was still at large and as untamed as ever. His last
hope was the Illinois country, where the foot of an English soldier
had never trod. Thither he went, and applying to M. Neyon, in command
of Fort Chartres, for aid, was refused. He returned to his camp on the
Maumee, and collecting four hundred of his own warriors, and as many
of other tribes as would join him, reappeared at Fort Chartres. M.
Neyon had left the country in disgust, with many French residents of
the Illinois country, and M. Saint Ange de Bellerive was his successor
in command of the fort. His visitors, with a mob of Illinois Indians,
clamored for weapons and ammunition to fight the English. St. Ange's
position was embarrassing, if not dangerous; but he acted with prudence
and sagacity. He was under orders to deliver up the fort whenever a
British force arrived. He refused to comply with the demands of the
Indians, but pacified them with pleasant words and a few presents. The
most agreeable sight to this worthy Frenchman, at that time, would have
been the arrival of a regiment of British infantry.

Pontiac, again baffled, sent an embassy of warriors down the
Mississippi, with an immense war-belt, and with instructions to show it
at every Indian village on the river, and to procure from the French
commandant at New Orleans the aid he could not get at Fort Chartres.
The warriors reached New Orleans soon after the distressing news had
come that Western Louisiana had been ceded to Spain by the secret
treaty of November 3, 1762. The health of the governor, D'Abbadie, had
given way under the intelligence that a Spanish governor and garrison
might arrive any day. The governor gave the Indians one hearing, and
postponed the interview until the next day. Before the hour named
had arrived he was dead.[1453] M. Aubry, his successor, received
the warriors, and said he could do nothing for them. Sullen and
disappointed, they paddled their canoes northward, and the last hope of
the conspiracy expired.[1454]

An attempt was made early in 1764 to take possession of the Illinois
country by sending English troops up the Mississippi River. Major
Arthur Loftus, with four hundred regulars, ascended two hundred and
forty miles above New Orleans, where Indians in ambuscade fired on
them, killed six men, and wounded six others.[1455] The expedition
turned back, and returned to Pensacola. Captain Philip Pittman[1456]
arrived at New Orleans a few months later with the same design, and
ascertaining the temper of the Western Indians, did not make the
attempt.[1457]

General Gage, who in November, 1763, succeeded General Amherst as
commander-in-chief, saw that there would be no permanent peace with
the Western Indians until Fort Chartres and the Illinois country were
occupied by British troops, and he resolved to send a force by way of
Fort Pitt and the Ohio River. Before executing the plan he thought it
advisable to send a messenger in advance, who would visit the tribes,
ascertain their dispositions, and allay their enmities if he could not
secure their friendship. George Croghan was the person selected for
this responsible and dangerous mission. He was deputy-superintendent
of Indian affairs under Sir William Johnson. As a fur-trader he
had been on friendly relations with the Western tribes, and spoke
their language. Lieutenant Alexander Fraser, who spoke French, was
to accompany him. They arrived at Fort Pitt in February, 1765,
where Croghan was delayed for three months, holding councils with
Indians.[1458]

Croghan left Fort Pitt on the 14th of May, in two bateaux, with a few
soldiers and fourteen[1459] Indian deputies, Shawanese, Mingos, and
Delawares, as evidence and pledge that there was peace between the
English and the Western tribes.

[Illustration: RUINS OF MAGAZINE AT FORT CHARTRES.

After a photograph. The magazine is now used by a farmer for the
storage of vegetables, etc.

Description at the time of the surrender to the English in 1765: "Four
toises [25.6 feet] in front, with its gate in cut stone, furnished with
two doors, one of sheet iron and the other of wood, furnished with
their iron-work; five toises and a half [35.2 feet] wide, six toises
[38.4 feet] long; one building, two toises [12.8 feet] high; one window
above, in cut stone, furnished with its shutters in wood, and one of
iron" (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, x. 1164).]

On the 23d he arrived at the mouth of the Scioto, where the Shawanese
delivered to him seven French traders. On the 6th of June he came to
the mouth of the Wabash, where there were indications of the presence
of hostile Indians. He dropped down the Ohio six miles further and
encamped. On the morning of the 8th his party was fired into by
eighty Kickapoos and Mascoutins, and two white men and three of the
Shawanese deputies were killed. Croghan himself, and all the rest of
the party except two white men and one Indian, were wounded. They were
robbed of their outfit, and carried as prisoners to Vincennes.[1460]
Here Croghan found Indian acquaintances and friends who treated him
and his party with kindness, and rebuked their assailants.[1461] At
Post Ouatanon[1462] Croghan found more of his Indian acquaintances;
and his captivity being ended, he resumed his official character of
ambassador, received deputations from the neighboring tribes, held
councils, heard and made speeches, and smoked the pipe of peace. He
here received a message from St. Ange, requesting him to visit Fort
Chartres, and arrange matters there, which had become exceedingly
annoying. He started for the Illinois country on the 18th of July,
accompanied by the chiefs of the neighboring tribes. He soon met
Pontiac and the deputies from the Illinois tribes on their way to visit
him. Both parties returned to the fort and held a council. Pontiac and
the Illinois tribes agreed to make peace with the English, as the other
nations had done.[1463]

The object of his visit being accomplished, Croghan turned his face
homeward, and reached Detroit on the 17th of August. Here he called
the Ottawas and the other neighboring tribes into a council, which
continued for several days. The Indians acknowledged that they now
saw that the French were indeed conquered; that henceforth they would
listen no more to the whistling of evil birds, but would lay down the
hatchet, and sit quiet on their mats. Pontiac was present, and said:
"Father, I declare to all nations that I had made my peace with you
before I came here; and I now deliver my pipe to Sir William Johnson,
that he may know that I have made peace, and taken the King of England
to be my father in the presence of all the nations now assembled."[1464]

From Detroit, Croghan communicated to the commander at Fort Pitt
tidings of the complete success of his Western mission; and a
company of the 42d regiment of Highlanders, the veterans of Quebec,
Ticonderoga, and Bushy Run, under the command of Captain Thomas
Stirling, was dispatched in boats for Fort Chartres. Captain Stirling
arrived early in October,[1465] and on the 10th relieved St. Ange from
his embarrassing command.[1466] These were the first English troops who
ever set foot in the Illinois country.[1467]

Croghan left Detroit on the 26th of November, visited Fort Niagara,
and arrived at Fort Stanwix, October 21, where he prepared his report
to Sir William Johnson, which Sir William transmitted to the Lords of
Trade, November 16, 1765.[1468]

For the next decade, the discreet management of the native tribes
by Sir William Johnson secured the Western settlements from Indian
depredations. During this period there was a constant emigration
from Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania into the country between
the mountains and the Ohio River, and explorations were begun in
Kentucky. The treaty of Fort Stanwix, made with the Six Nations and
their dependants in the autumn of 1768, transferred to the British
crown the Indian title to what is now the State of Kentucky east of
the Tennessee (then Cherokee) River, and a large part of Western
Virginia. To the province of Pennsylvania it ceded an extensive tract
on its western borders, and defined the boundaries between the English
settlements and the Indian territory.[1469] In making this important
treaty, Sir William was acting under instructions from the crown, and
was furnished with a map[1470] indicating the boundaries desired, for
which concessions the crown would give money and presents. He summoned
the deputies of the Six Nations and their dependent tribes to meet him
in council at Fort Stanwix (now Rome, N. Y.), on the 20th of September,
1768. By the 22d, 2,200 Indians had arrived,[1471] and when the council
opened on the 24th, 3,102[1472] deputies were present. For seven weeks
Sir William fed[1473] and hospitably entertained this immense concourse
of savages, conducting their deliberations, making speeches in their
own languages, humoring and repressing their wayward dispositions, and
bringing them reluctantly to accept his terms.[1474]

[Illustration: DANIEL BOONE.

From a picture by Chester Harding, in the Mass. Hist. Society's
gallery. Cf. _Proc._, v. 197.]

Open hostilities between the Indians and settlers on the Western
frontier, which had been suspended since 1765, broke out anew in the
spring of 1774,[1475] and raged for a few months in what has been
called "Cresap's War", but is now more properly known as the "Dunmore
War." Lord Dunmore was then governor of Virginia, and commander of
the English forces engaged in the brief campaign. As to the specific
cause of the Dunmore War there has been much controversy. The killing
of Logan's family, wrongly charged upon Captain Michael Cresap, was one
of the causes assigned. Another was the conduct of Dr. John Connolly,
the agent of Lord Dunmore in West Virginia, who was charged with being
concerned in a plot to bring on a conflict between the settlers and the
Indians, in order to serve British interests in the Revolutionary War
which was then coming on.[1476] Lord Dunmore was suspected at the time
of being in the plot,[1477] and the charge was probably as groundless
as that made against Captain Cresap. The occasion of the outbreak lay
upon the surface of events,—the growing disquietude and jealousy of
the Indians in view of the advancing settlements of the whites, which
had reached the eastern bank of the Ohio and was moving farther west.
The Shawanese and Delawares had been robbing traders and scalping
settlers, whenever an opportunity occurred, ever since they had made
a treaty of peace with Colonel Bouquet in 1764. Sir William Johnson's
letters to the home government during these nine years are full of
narratives of these outrages, and forebodings that another Indian war
might break out at any time. More white persons were killed by these
Indians during this period of nominal peace than in the whole campaign
of the Dunmore War.

A bitter controversy between Virginia and Pennsylvania for possession
of the country between the mountains and the Ohio added to the
complications arising from the Indian troubles.[1478] Virginia held
Fort Pitt and was in possession of the country. In 1774 the tide
of emigration was setting strongly towards Kentucky, which had been
explored by Daniel Boone in 1769, and later by other parties.[1479] In
April, a party of eighty or ninety Virginians made a rendezvous at the
mouth of the Little Kanawha, with the intention of descending the Ohio
and making a settlement in Kentucky. George Rogers Clark, whose name is
to appear later in more important transactions, then twenty-one years
of age, was one of the party. In a letter,[1480] written some years
later, to Dr. Samuel Brown, professor in Transylvania University, he
gives a clear account of the manner in which the Dunmore War began.
While camping at the rendezvous, "reports", says Clark, "from the
Indian towns were alarming, which caused many to decline meeting. A
small party of hunters below us had been fired on by the Indians,
which led us to believe that the Indians were determined to make war."
They resolved to surprise an Indian town on the Scioto, but had no
competent leader. "We knew of Captain Cresap being on the river, about
fifteen miles above us, with some hands, settling a plantation, and
intending to follow us to Kentucky as soon as he had fixed his people.
We also knew he had experience in a former war.[1481] It was proposed,
and unanimously agreed on, to send for him to command the party."
The messenger met Cresap on his way to Clark's camp. "A council was
called, and to our astonishment our intended general was the person
who dissuaded us from the enterprise, alleging that appearances were
suspicious, but there was no certainty of a war; that if we made the
attempt proposed, he had no doubt of success, but that a war would be
the result, and that we should be blamed for it, and perhaps justly. He
was asked what measure he would recommend to us. His answer was that
we should return to Wheeling to obtain intelligence of what was going
forward; that a few weeks would determine the matter; and if we should
find the Indians not hostilely disposed, we should have full time
to prosecute the intended settlements in Kentucky. This measure was
adopted, and in two hours we were under weigh."

On arriving at Wheeling, the people, being in a state of alarm,
flocked into their camp from every direction. All the hunters and men
without families joined them, and they became a formidable party. From
Pittsburg they received a message from Dr. Connolly requesting them to
keep their position until the messengers returned who had been sent to
the Indian towns. Before an answer could be received, a second message,
addressed to Captain Cresap, arrived by express from Pittsburg, stating
that war was inevitable. Cresap was entreated to use his influence
with the party to cover the country until the inhabitants could fortify
themselves. "The time of the reception of this letter", says Clark,
"was the epoch of open hostilities with the Indians. The war-post was
planted, a council called, the letter read, the ceremonies used by
the Indians on so important an occasion acted, and war was formally
declared. The same evening two scalps were brought into camp. The
following day some canoes of Indians were discovered descending the
river, taking advantage of an island to cover themselves from our view.
They were chased by our men fifteen miles down the river. They were
forced ashore, and a battle ensued. A few were wounded on both sides,
and we got one scalp only."

The more important charge brought against Cresap, of killing Logan's
family, George Rogers Clark disposed of in the same letter, as
follows:—

"On our return to camp [from Grave Creek] a resolution was formed
to march next day and attack Logan's camp on the Ohio [at Baker's
Bottom, opposite the mouth of Yellow Creek], about thirty miles above
Wheeling. We actually marched about five miles, and halted to take
refreshment. Here the impropriety of executing the proposed enterprise
was argued; the conversation was brought on by Cresap himself. It was
generally agreed that those Indians had no hostile intentions, as it
was a hunting party, composed of men, women, and children, with all
their stuff with them.... In short, every person present, particularly
Cresap, upon reflection, was opposed to the projected measure. We
returned, and on the same evening decamped and took the road to
Redstone. It was two days after this that Logan's family was killed;
and from the manner in which it was done, it was viewed as a horrid
murder by the whole country."

The killing of Logan's family was done by a party of whites living in
the vicinity, under the lead of one Greathouse, who was not a member of
the party of Cresap, nor, so far as appears, had he any acquaintance
with Cresap.[1482] The "Speech of Logan", which Jefferson printed
in his _Notes on Virginia_ (1787, p. 105), and accompanied with the
comment that Cresap was "a man infamous for his many murders he had
committed on these injured people",[1483] has perpetuated an unmerited
stigma upon the memory of an innocent and patriotic man. The speech for
a century has been regarded as a choice specimen of Indian eloquence,
and the youth of the land have worn it threadbare as a declamation
exercise.[1484]

The savagery and miseries of a border war now burst upon the Western
frontier. The settlers left their homes and took refuge in the forts,
and many new stockades were constructed. Roving bands of Indians swept
over the country, pillaging the farms and murdering every white person
they found. The Virginia government took prompt action in raising two
armies to invade the Indian country. One assembled at Lewisburg, in
Greenbriar County, under General Andrew Lewis; and the other at Fort
Pitt, under Lord Dunmore. General Lewis had orders to march to the
mouth of the Great Kanawha; and Lord Dunmore, descending the Ohio,
promised to meet him there. Early in June, while these forces were
collecting, Colonel Angus McDonald, with four hundred men, dropped down
the Ohio from Wheeling, and landing at Grave Creek, marched against
the Indians on the Muskingum, and found their village deserted. The
Indians, expecting the whites would cross the river in pursuit, were
prepared to receive them in an ambuscade; but finding that the whites
were now as well skilled in woodcraft as they, came in and proposed
terms of peace. Five chiefs were required of them as hostages. One of
these was liberated under the promise that he would bring in the chiefs
of other tribes to make peace. A second was sent out to find the first,
and neither returning, Colonel McDonald burnt their town, destroyed the
crops, and went back to Wheeling with the three hostage chiefs, whom he
sent to Williamsburg as prisoners.[1485]

General Lewis took up his march with eleven hundred men on the 11th
of September, and arriving at Point Pleasant, near the mouth of the
Great Kanawha, on the 6th of October, found that Lord Dunmore was not
there. On the 9th a despatch was received from his lordship, stating
that he had changed his plans, and should land at the mouth of the
Big Hockhocking. Lewis was ordered to cross the Ohio and meet him
near the Indian towns. The Indians had this information, doubtless,
before it was received by General Lewis, and resolved to attack his
camp forthwith before a junction of the two armies was made. The
battle came on the next morning while General Lewis was preparing to
cross the river, and was fought with the highest courage and skill on
both sides until evening, when the Indians were surprised by a flank
movement which they supposed was a reinforcement. They gave way and
retreated across the river. The Indians were commanded by the noted
chief Cornstalk.[1486] The battle of Point Pleasant ranks with Bushy
Run as one of the most plucky and evenly contested battles ever fought
between Indians and white soldiers. The losses of the Virginians were
seventy-five killed and one hundred and forty wounded. The losses of
the Indians, who fought under cover, were probably about the same, but
were not ascertained, as they threw their dead into the river.[1487]

Reinforced by several companies under Colonel Christian, General Lewis
crossed the river, with the intention of joining Lord Dunmore near
Chillicothe. At Salt Licks (now Jackson, Ohio) he had orders to halt
his troops. Suspecting the motives of Lord Dunmore, he disregarded the
orders and pressed on. Near Chillicothe Dunmore made a treaty with the
Ohio Indians, who promised not to hunt south of the Ohio, and not to
molest voyagers on the river. Lord Dunmore's conduct in changing the
plan of the campaign, which left General Lewis exposed to a separate
attack, and his subsequent conduct in making peace with the Indians
before he had punished them for their breach of former treaties, were
regarded by the soldiers engaged as premeditated treachery. This
impression was confirmed by the plot he later made with Indians to
ravage the settlements of Virginia, and by his hasty departure from the
colony. His real motives will never be known. The initial scenes in
the drama of the Revolutionary War were in progress. His position as a
Tory governor was embarrassing, and naturally inspired suspicion in the
minds of the colonists.[1488]

While the Dunmore War was in progress, the "Quebec Bill" was discussed
and enacted by the British Parliament. The bill so enlarged the
boundaries of the province of Quebec that it made the Ohio and
Mississippi rivers its southern and western limits, and the whole
Northwest territory a part of Canada. The bill in its passage did
not escape the protest of Lord Chatham, Edmund Burke, Charles James
Fox, Colonel Barré, and the corporation of the city of London.[1489]
The colonies, at the time of the enactment of the Quebec Bill, made
complaint concerning it "for establishing the Roman Catholic religion
in the province of Quebec, abolishing the equitable system of English
laws, and erecting a tyranny there, to the great danger (from so total
a dissimilarity of religion, law, and government) of the neighboring
colonies."[1490] Its real purpose and effect, however, of robbing
the American colonies of 240,000 square miles of territory which had
already been ceded to them in their charters, and establishing the
Mississippi and the Ohio rivers as Canadian boundaries, in case of war
and a separation of the Eastern colonies from the mother country, were
not mentioned, and seem not to have been considered. The colonies then
had little interest in, and scarcely a thought of, the country beyond
the Alleghanies. During the war, however, they learned something of the
value of the West; and in the negotiations for peace, in 1782-3, the
Quebec Bill was often recurred to as one of the principal causes of the
Revolution.[1491]

* * * * *

For several years after the close of the Dunmore War the Western
Indians were again quiet. They heard with satisfaction of the opening
battles of the Revolution, and were not in haste to take the war-path
for either side. Except at the British post of Detroit, the sentiments
of the settlers west of the mountains were intensely anti-English. The
Eastern colonies were too much occupied in their own defence to give
any attention to what was happening at the West. The hardy pioneers,
left to themselves, conducted their own campaigns. They were not
enrolled in the Continental army, and they knew little of, and cared
less for, the Continental Congress and the great commander-in-chief
of the army. They recognized only the authority of Virginia; and,
as voluntary and patriotic rangers, they achieved some of the most
important and brilliant victories of the war, concerning which the
official proceedings of Congress, and the voluminous correspondence of
Washington and of other prominent actors in the war, make scarcely a
mention.

The northeastern portion of Kentucky was explored by Dr. Walker in
1747, the central portion by Daniel Boone and others in 1769, and the
northwestern portion in 1773. The first log cabin in Kentucky was built
by James Harrod at Harrodsburg, Mercer County, in 1774, and the first
fort by Boone, at Boonesborough, Madison County, in June, 1775.[1492]
About this time George Rogers Clark made an exploring tour in
Kentucky, and in the autumn returned to his home in Albemarle County,
Virginia.[1493] In the following spring he went back to Kentucky; and,
in view of the depredations which the Ohio Indians were committing on
the settlements, called a meeting of the pioneers at Harrodsburg to
devise a plan of defence. His plan was to appoint delegates who should
proceed to Williamsburg and petition the Assembly that Kentucky be
made a county of Virginia. The meeting, however, acting before his
arrival and against his judgment, elected him and Gabriel Jones to be
members of the Virginia Assembly. Their journey through the trackless
wilderness and across the mountains was attended with great suffering,
and they arrived after the legislature had adjourned. Patrick Henry
was the governor. Before him and the Council, Clark laid the claim
of Kentuckians to be regarded as citizens of Virginia, and asked for
five hundred pounds of powder as a gift for their protection. He was
heard with attention and respect, but was told that the Council had
no authority to furnish the gunpowder as a gift. It could be loaned
to the Kentuckians as friends, but not as citizens. Clark refused to
accept it on such conditions, and left, saying, "A country which is
not worth defending is not worth claiming." He was called back, and an
order on the commandant at Fort Pitt was given to him for the powder.
At the autumn session of the legislature Kentucky was made a county of
Virginia.[1494]

On returning to Kentucky Clark found the country more disturbed than
ever. The Ohio Indians were invading it with larger parties; they
lay in ambush about every fort,[1495] and murdered the luckless
soldier of the garrison who ventured outside the stockade. Clark
seriously pondered over this alarming state of affairs, and came to
the conclusion that the strategic points for defending Kentucky were
on the north side of the Ohio River. He had probably never heard
of Scipio Africanus and of his policy of fighting the enemy in the
enemy's country. Without disclosing his thoughts to any one, he sent,
during the summer of 1777, two young hunters as spies to Kaskaskia
and Vincennes, and, having received favorable reports, started in
October[1496] for Williamsburg. There, on December 10th, he laid before
Governor Henry his plan for the conquest of the Northwest territory
from the British, whom he regarded as the instigators of the Indian
raids upon Kentucky. He also consulted confidentially with George
Mason, George Wythe, and Thomas Jefferson. They, with the governor,
were enthusiastic for the execution of his scheme and took immediate
steps to furnish him with ammunition and supplies.

[Illustration: A PLAN OF CASCASKIES (_Kaskaskia_).

Reduced from a plate in Philip Pittman's _Present State of the European
Settlements on the Mississippi_ (London, 1770). KEY: A, The fort. B,
The Jesuits. C, Formerly commanding officer's house. D, The church. The
river is about 450 feet wide, which will afford a scale to the rest of
the plan.—ED.]

The recent surrender of Burgoyne at Saratoga had inspired a new energy
in the conduct of the war. The necessary legislation was obtained under
the pretext that the supplies were for the defence of Kentucky. Twelve
hundred pounds, in the depreciated currency of Virginia, was voted him
for expenses in the enemy's country. In January, 1778, Clark received
from Governor Henry the rank of colonel, and two sets of instructions:
one, which was public, for the defence of Kentucky; and the other,
which was secret, for an "attack on the British post at Kaskaskia."
He was empowered to raise seven companies, of fifty men each, in any
county of the commonwealth, to act as militia under his orders.[1497]
He began recruiting, under his public orders, at Fort Pitt, but with
little success, owing to quarrels between Virginia and Pennsylvania,
and the opposition to the policy of sending soldiers, who were needed
there, to defend Kentucky.[1498] After much tribulation he raised
three companies, and took them down the river to Corn Island, at the
Falls of the Ohio, opposite Louisville. Several companies that had
been recruited elsewhere were promised him, but they did not arrive.
Some of his men deserted, but enough Kentuckians joined him to make
up four companies, or nearly two hundred men.[1499] Here he divulged
the secret of their destination, and read to the men his confidential
instructions. They willingly accepted the situation, and the next day
the expedition started. As their boats shot the falls, the sun was
in total eclipse, which fixes the date as June 24, 1778. He had just
received from Fort Pitt the news of the treaty of alliance between
France and the United States, which he could use to advantage with the
French settlers at Kaskaskia. With two relays at the oars, he ran the
boats day and night, and on the 28th landed on an island at the mouth
of the Cherokee (Tennessee) River. Here a party of white hunters, who
had been at Kaskaskia eight days before, was brought in, and they
volunteered to accompany him. Nine miles below the island, and one
mile above old Fort Massac, they ran into a small creek, concealed
their boats, and without a cannon,[1500] a horse, or any means of
transporting baggage or supplies, took up their march of more than a
hundred miles across the prairies.[1501]

On the afternoon of July 4th they arrived within three miles of
Kaskaskia, the river of that name lying between them and the town.
There they remained concealed until dark, when they marched to a
farm-house on the east bank of the river, about a mile north of the
town, captured boats, crossed the river, and found that the people
of the town, who a few days before had been under arms expecting an
attack, were not aware of their approach. "I immediately", writes
Clark, "divided my little army into two divisions: ordered one to
surround the town; with the other I broke into the fort,[1502] secured
the governor, Mr. Rocheblave, [and] in fifteen minutes had every
street secured; sent runners through the town, ordering the people on
pain of death to keep close to their houses, which they observed; and
before daylight had the whole town disarmed."[1503]

[Illustration: A SECTION OF LIEUT. ROSS'S MAP OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.]

Clark had been informed by the hunters who accompanied him that the
French residents of Kaskaskia regarded the Kentuckians, whom they
called _Big-Knives_, as more savage than Indians; and resolving to
make use of this impression, he gave them a shock which would enable
them later to appreciate his lenity. The troops, therefore, kept up
during the night the most hideous noises; and the residents, believing
they had indeed fallen into the hands of savages, gave themselves up as
lost. In the morning Clark had for them another surprise. M. Gibault,
the priest, with some aged citizens, came to him and begged that the
people might once more assemble in their church, hold a service, and
take leave of each other, which request was readily granted. When the
service was over a deputation came and said the people would submit to
the fate of war and the loss of their property, but asked that they
might not be separated from their wives and children. "Do you mistake
us for savages?" said Clark. "My countrymen disdain to make war upon
women and children. It was to prevent the horrors of Indian butchery
upon our wives and children that we have taken up arms and appear in
this stronghold of British and Indian barbarity. Now please inform
your fellow-citizens that they are at liberty to conduct themselves as
usual without the least apprehension." They were told of the treaty
of alliance with France, and that if he could have surety of their
attachment to the American cause they could enjoy all the privileges
of its government, and their property would be secure to them. The
people were transported with joy, and took the oath of allegiance to
the State of Virginia. They also raised a company of volunteers, who
accompanied Major Bowman to Cahokia, a French settlement sixty miles
north of Kaskaskia. That town readily gave its adhesion to the American
cause. Clark also put himself in friendly relations with the Spanish
commandant at St. Louis.[1504]

Clark next turned his attention to the British post of Vincennes.
M. Gibault, the friendly priest, in view of what had taken place
at Kaskaskia and Cahokia, thought that it was unnecessary to send
troops to Vincennes. The post was in his spiritual jurisdiction, and
he offered to undertake the mission himself, with several persons
accompanying him. The result was the same as at Cahokia. The few
British soldiers at the post could make no resistance to the popular
sentiment, and withdrew to Detroit. Clark, having no troops to spare,
allowed the residents, after taking the oath, to garrison and to be
responsible for the safety of the fort, which he put in charge of one
of his own officers, Captain Leonard Helm, who retained one of his own
privates. M. Gibault returned to Kaskaskia about the 1st of August;
and Clark, in less than one month after his arrival, was in possession
of every British post in the Illinois country, without a battle or the
loss of a life.[1505]

A problem now demanded solution which was of so difficult a nature that
it would challenge the sagacity and resources of a veteran commander,
and Clark was not a veteran. He was twenty-five years of age, and his
only military experience had been as a ranger in Kentucky, and as a
captain in the short and bloodless campaign of Lord Dunmore. How was he
to hold this immense territory with less than two hundred three-months
militiamen, whose term of enlistment had already expired, and with
no hope of receiving recruits from Kentucky or Virginia? The British
commander could send down a force which would outnumber his ten to one.
The savage tribes which had ravaged Kentucky could by concerted action
overwhelm his scanty force. The Virginia currency which he brought to
pay for supplies he found would buy nothing in the Illinois country. It
was fortunate for the nation and the Western States that George Rogers
Clark was equal to the emergency, and that he had the self-reliance and
sagacity to solve the problem successfully.

By his personal entreaties and promises to pay his men, about one
hundred of them reënlisted. The others he sent home, with despatches,
and with M. Rocheblave, the late commander at Kaskaskia, as a prisoner,
to Governor Henry at Williamsburg.[1506] His four companies he soon
filled up with resident French recruits, and pretended that he could
get all the American soldiers he wanted at the Falls of the Ohio.

He next undertook the pacification and control of the Indian tribes.
His sudden appearance in the Illinois country and rapid capture of the
Western posts was the occasion of astonishment to the Western tribes;
and their chiefs from a range of five hundred miles flocked to Cahokia
to see the strange warrior of the "Big Knives." Clark met them there
in council with a stern and haughty dignity. Soft speeches to Indians
before they were under control he regarded as bad policy. He showed no
fear in their presence, and no anxiety for their friendship. He laid
before them a war-belt and a peace-belt, and told them to take their
choice. If they did not want to have their own women and children
killed, they must stop killing the women and children of the Americans.
One chief after another rose and made submissive speeches. He refused
to smoke the peace-pipe with any until he had heard from every tribe
represented, and treaties were concluded. All the tribes gave in their
allegiance to the American cause, and he had no further trouble with
the Illinois Indians. The councils at Cahokia lasted five weeks, and
their influence extended to all the nations around the great lakes.
Captain Helm, under Clark's instructions, made similar treaties with
the Wabash Indians.

The training and discipline of his little army now received his
attention, and in order to conceal his weakness in numbers he allowed
no parade except of the guards. About Christmas, 1778, he heard from
his spies that Governor Hamilton was preparing to send an army into the
Illinois country; and later, that Hamilton with eight hundred men had
descended the Wabash and recaptured Vincennes.[1507] Early in January
Hamilton sent a scouting party to Kaskaskia to waylay and capture
Clark, and it came near succeeding while Clark was returning from a
visit to Cahokia. This party was supposed to be an advanced guard of
Hamilton's army, and every preparation was made to defend the town.
On the 29th of January, 1779, Colonel François Vigo,[1508] a Spanish
merchant of St. Louis, arrived from Vincennes, and reported that
Hamilton had sent away his Indians and most of his troops, leaving
only eighty in the garrison; and that he was intending to collect them
in the spring, and with five hundred Southern Indians make a campaign
against Kaskaskia.

Clark now conceived the project of capturing Vincennes with his small
force before Hamilton could reassemble his troops, and its execution
forms one of the most daring and brilliant expeditions in American
warfare. On the 4th of February he sent off a large boat called "The
Willing", mounting two four-pounders and six swivels, under command of
Lieutenant John Rogers, who had forty-six men and orders to sail for
the Wabash, and, ten leagues below Vincennes, await further orders. On
the next day Clark crossed the Kaskaskia River with one hundred and
seventy men, marched three miles, and encamped. On the 7th he began
his painful march across the Illinois prairies, a distance as a bird
flies of one hundred and forty miles, but as he marched, of more than
two hundred. The winter was breaking up, the rivers were swollen, the
prairies were covered with water and ice, and the mud was such as can
only be found in that rich alluvial country. On the 13th they reached
the banks of the Little Wabash. Before them lay a stretch of water
three miles wide and from three to four feet deep. They made a canoe,
and on the 15th ferried the ammunition across and took the men over the
channel, marching them the remaining distance through the water. On the
16th their provisions ran short. Major Bowman's journal says: "17th,
marched early; crossed several runs very deep; came to the Embarrass
River; tried to cross; found it impossible; travelled till 8 o'clock
in mud and water, but could find no place to encamp on. 18th, came in
sight of the swollen banks of the Wabash; made rafts for four men to
cross and go up to the town and steal boats; but they spend day and
night in the water to no purpose, for there is not one foot of dry land
to be found. 19th, Colonel Clark sent two men in the canoe down the
river to meet the bateau 'The Willing,' with orders to come on day and
night, that being our last hope, and we starving; no provisions of any
sort now two days." On the 20th they found some canoes and killed a
deer. On the 21st the little army plunged into the water and waded for
more than a league,—Clark says "breast high", Bowman says "sometimes
to the neck", the boats picking up such as were likely to drown. On
the 22d, says Bowman, "Clark encourages his men, which gave them great
spirits; marched on in the waters; those that were weak and famished
went in the canoes; no provisions yet; Lord help us." On the 23d they
crossed the Wabash, wading four miles through water breast-high. "We
plunged into it with courage, Colonel Clark being first, taking care
to have the boats take those that were weak and numbed with the cold."
Having crossed, they captured an Indian canoe with some buffalo meat,
tallow and corn, which were made into a broth and fed to the famishing
men, who soon recovered their strength.[1509] No tidings had come from
"The Willing", for she had not yet arrived.[1510]

The town was but a few miles distant, and was unaware of his approach.
Clark resolved not to delay the attack until the boat had arrived with
his artillery and ammunition, but to capture the fort immediately
with the men and means he had. Before moving on the town he wrote a
proclamation, addressed to the inhabitants, worded in his peculiar
style, and advising all "friends of the king to instantly repair to
the fort, join their _hair-buying_[1511] general, and fight like men.
True friends of liberty may depend on being well treated; but they must
keep out of the streets, for every one I find in arms on my arrival I
shall treat as an enemy." The same evening he marched, took possession
of the town, and threw up earthworks in front of the fort. The firing
began immediately, and was kept up all night. His men lay in rifle-pits
within thirty yards of the walls, the cannon of the fort being so
mounted that they could not be trained upon them. Whenever port-holes
of the fort were opened to fire, the besiegers poured in a volley of
musket-balls, and severely wounded seven of the garrison. Two pieces of
cannon were silenced in fifteen minutes. In the morning, Clark summoned
Hamilton to surrender, stating that if he were obliged to storm the
fort, Hamilton would receive the treatment due to a murderer. "Beware",
he added, "of destroying stores of any kind, or any papers or letters
that are in your possession; for, by heavens, if you do, there will
be no mercy shown you."[1512] While these negotiations were pending,
Clark's men took the first full meal they had had for eight days. The
summons to surrender was refused, and the firing went on.

[Illustration: CLARK'S SUMMONS.

From a manuscript kindly furnished by Lyman C. Draper, Esq., of
Madison, Wis., who owns a large number of Clark's papers. Cf. R. G.
Thwaites on Draper, in the _Mag. Western Hist._, Jan., 1887. The above
letter was addressed thus:—

[Illustration]]

Later in the day, Governor Hamilton asked for a truce of three days,
and for a conference as to terms. Clark replied that he would consider
no other terms than surrender at discretion; but that he, with Captain
Helm, would meet "Mr. Hamilton at the church." At this time a party of
Indians came in whom Hamilton had sent to the Ohio for scalps. Clark's
men tomahawked them in front of the fort, and threw their bodies
into the river.[1513] Clark's terms of capitulation were accepted;
and at ten o'clock the next day (the 25th) the fort and its stores
were delivered up, and the garrison of seventy-nine officers and men
surrendered as prisoners of war.[1514] The only casualty to Clark's
soldiers was one man slightly wounded.

Hearing that a convoy with provisions, clothing, and ammunition was on
its way to Vincennes from Detroit, Clark sent fifty-three men in boats
up the Wabash to intercept it.[1515] They met the convoy one hundred
and twenty miles up the river, and captured it, with forty prisoners
and despatches for Hamilton.[1516] The value of the goods captured
was £10,000, and Clark's men, who had been suffering for clothing and
supplies, were bountifully provided for. Clothing to the value of
£800 was laid aside for the troops which Clark expected would soon
join him in an expedition, which he was planning, for the capture of
Detroit.[1517] This project had been on his mind ever since he came
into the Illinois country, and all his energies were now directed to
its execution. Not being able with his few troops to guard so many
prisoners, he sent Governor Hamilton, his principal officers, and a few
other persons who had made themselves especially obnoxious by being out
with Indian parties, as prisoners of war to Virginia, and paroled the
remainder.[1518]

Having met and established friendly relations with the chiefs of the
neighboring tribes, he placed Captain Helm in charge of the civil
affairs of Vincennes, Lieutenant Brashear in command of the fort with a
garrison of forty men, and embarked, on March 20, 1779, for Kaskaskia,
on board "The Willing" and seven other boats. They made the trip of
three hundred and fifty miles without casualty, and on arriving at
Kaskaskia, after an absence of seven weeks, were welcomed by Captain
Robert George, who, with his company of forty-one men, had come up from
New Orleans, and was in command of the post.

The military conquest of the Illinois country now being complete, a
civil government was forthwith established. The Assembly of Virginia
was prompt to act as soon as the capture of Kaskaskia was known. In
October, 1778, the territory northwest of the Ohio was constituted a
county of Virginia, and was named the county of Illinois.[1519] On
December 12th, Colonel John Todd was appointed county lieutenant.
The governor in his letter of instructions directed Colonel Todd to
coöperate with Colonel Clark in his military operations, to have care
for the happiness, increase, and prosperity of the county, and to see
that justice was duly administered. Colonel Todd's appointment was
especially pleasing to Colonel Clark, who said, in writing to George
Mason: "The civil department in the Illinois had heretofore robbed me
of too much of my time that ought to be spent in military reflection.
I was now likely to be relieved by Colonel John Todd. I was anxious
for his arrival and happy in his appointment, as the greatest intimacy
and friendship had subsisted between us. I now saw myself rid of a
piece of trouble that I had no delight in."[1520] Colonel Todd arrived
in Kaskaskia in May, 1779. Courts of justice and militia companies
were immediately organized in Kaskaskia, Cahokia, and Vincennes,[1521]
and, from the lack of American citizens who were qualified, nearly
all the official positions were filled by French residents.[1522] A
complete civil government was organized and regularly administered
in the Northwest territory until the treaty of peace with Great
Britain in 1783. This local government became an important factor in
the negotiations for that treaty, with reference to the question of
boundaries.

Colonel Clark had promises of troops from Virginia and Kentucky for
his Detroit expedition, and he was to meet them at Vincennes. Arriving
there in July, 1779, he found only thirty from Kentucky of the three
hundred promised him. There were no tidings of recruits from Virginia;
and Major Bowman, his trusty companion in former campaigns, was
fighting the Shawanese on the Ohio at a disadvantage.[1523] Clark,
being very impatient, sent out officers to recruit in the settlements,
and for this purpose went himself to the Falls of the Ohio. Here he
received a letter from Jefferson, now the governor of Virginia, giving
him new assurances of Virginia troops for the Detroit expedition, and
stating that it was his intention to build a fort on the Mississippi,
below the mouth of the Ohio, in order to strengthen the claim of the
United States to the Mississippi as its western boundary. The duty of
building this fort was later committed to and performed by Colonel
Clark. The fort was completed in June, 1780, and was called Fort
Jefferson.[1524]

At this time twelve hundred Indians and Canadians from Detroit,
with artillery, under Captain Byrd, were coming silently down the
Big Miami river to invade Kentucky and help carry out a scheme of
conquest soon to be explained. They went up the Licking river,
captured two stockades, which were defenceless against cannon,
committed the customary British and Indian barbarities, and, although
meeting with no opposition, retreated as rapidly as they came. In
explanation of the sudden retreat it has been said that the British
commander was shocked at the brutal conduct of his Indians, and
would proceed no further.[1525] In view of the habitual practice of
the British commanders at Detroit of paying the Indians for American
scalps,[1526]—a practice Clark alludes to in the term "hair-buying
general", which he applied to Governor Hamilton,—this explanation
is charitable, but it seems hardly probable. It is more likely that
Captain Byrd and his Indians heard the report that Colonel Clark had
suddenly returned from his defence of St. Louis and the Illinois
country against Sinclair's Indians, and was likely to make it a
busy summer for the invaders in Kentucky. Clark with two companions
proceeded to Harrodsburg to enlist troops. He there closed the land
office, and soon had a thousand men with artillery at the mouth of the
Licking, ready for an expedition across the Ohio. He moved rapidly
upon Chilicothe and other Indian towns, which he destroyed, with their
crops, and also a British trading-post where the Indians had been
supplied with arms and ammunition.

Clark's favorite scheme of organizing an expedition for the capture of
Detroit was delayed, and his spirit chafed under the disappointment.
Jefferson was deeply interested in the project, and, Sept. 26, 1780,
wrote an earnest letter to General Washington, urging him to furnish
the means. "We have long meditated the attempt, under the direction of
Colonel Clark, but the expense has obliged us to decline it. We could
furnish the men, provisions, and every[thing] necessary, except powder,
had we the money. When I speak of furnishing the men, I mean they
should be militia, for such is the popularity of Colonel Clark, and
the confidence of the Western people in him, that he could raise the
requisite number at any time."[1527] On Dec. 15th he writes again, in
more urgent terms, and says: "The regular force Colonel Clark already
has, with a proper draft from the militia beyond the Alleghany, and
that of three or four of our northern counties, will be adequate for
the reduction of Fort Detroit, in the opinion of Colonel Clark.... I am
the more urgent for an immediate order, because Colonel Clark awaits
here your Excellency's answer by the express."[1528] Washington was
also impressed with the military importance of Clark's expedition,
and, Dec. 29th, instructed Colonel Brodhead, in command at Fort Pitt,
to furnish Clark with the artillery and stores he required, and
such a detachment of Brodhead's and Gibson's regiments as could be
spared.[1529]

Colonel Brodhead did not acknowledge General Washington's instructions,
which were placed in Colonel Clark's hands to deliver, until the 25th
of February, and they did not reach him until the 21st.[1530] During
this interval of nearly two months, Benedict Arnold, with fifteen
hundred British troops, sailed up the James River, and was ravaging
Virginia, which, from the absence of its Continental soldiers, was
almost defenceless.[1531] In this emergency, Colonel Clark tendered
his services to Baron Steuben in her defence, and with a small body of
militia received the enemy in Indian and Western fashion. Jefferson,
writing, Jan. 18, 1781, to the Virginia delegates in Congress, says:
"Baron Steuben had not reached Hood's by eight or ten miles, when they
[the enemy] arrived there. They landed their whole army in the night,
Arnold attending in person. Captain Clark (of Kaskaskias) had been sent
forward with two hundred and forty men by Baron Steuben; and, having
properly disposed of them in ambuscade, gave them a deliberate fire,
which killed seventeen on the spot and wounded thirteen."[1532]

Colonel Clark's outfit at Fort Pitt went on very slowly and with
many embarrassments. Writing, with the rank of brigadier-general,
to Washington, on the 26th of May, 1781, he says: "The invasion of
Virginia put it out of the power of the governor to furnish me with the
number of men proposed for the enterprise to the West."[1533] Colonel
Brodhead did not feel that he could spare the troops at the fort
which were promised. Clark's only hope was now in getting Continental
troops. "But I have not yet lost sight of Detroit", he says, and
wishes to set out on the expedition early in June. He was doomed to
disappointment. The summer and autumn wore away, and the obstacles in
his path increased. The troops he expected were employed elsewhere;
the Western Indians again became hostile, and there was a general
apprehension among the settlements of incursions upon them from Detroit
by the British and their Indian allies. The opportunity of capturing
Detroit had passed. General Irvine, in command at Fort Pitt, writing
to Washington, Dec. 2, 1781, says: "I presume your Excellency has
been informed by the governor of Virginia, or General Clark, of the
failure of his expedition." He reports General Clark at the Rapids of
the Ohio with only seven hundred and fifty men, and "the buffalo meat
all rotten." "The general is apprehensive of a visit from Detroit, and
is not without fears the settlement will be obliged to break up unless
reinforcements soon arrive from Virginia."[1534]

At this point, George Rogers Clark, at the age of twenty-nine years,
ceased to be a factor in Western history. His favorite scheme had
failed under circumstances which he could not control. No command
was offered him in the Continental army. With a feeling that he was
neglected, that his eminent services were not appreciated, and with a
sense of wrong that his private property had been sacrificed to pay
public debts,[1535] his mind became depressed, and he fell into social
habits which tended to increase his despondency. In November, 1782, he
conducted a force of ten hundred and fifty men against the Indians on
the Miami, took ten scalps and seven prisoners, burned their towns,
destroyed their crops and the outfit of a British trading-post;[1536]
but he displayed none of the brilliancy shown in his earlier
campaigns. He was discharged from the service of Virginia July 2,
1783, with a letter of thanks for his services from the governor. The
financial distress of the State was assigned as the motive for his
discharge.[1537]

In March, 1782, the frontier settlers, without provocation and in
cold blood, butchered nearly a hundred "Christian Indians" in the
Moravian mission settlements on the Muskingum. These Indians, under
the instruction of their teachers, had adopted the habits and pursuits
of civilized life, and were non-resistant in their principles. Their
villages, Schönbrun, Gnadenhütten, and Salem, were regularly laid out,
with houses and chapels built of squared logs and having shingled
roofs. They had farms yielding abundant crops, and schools where the
children were educated. Visitors from Western tribes far and near
came to look upon the strange sight, and verify the reports which
had reached them of the happiness and prosperity of the "Christian
Indians." The number of converts had increased so rapidly that good
Father David Zeisberger and his assistant, John Heckewelder, the
missionaries, believed that the whole Delaware tribe would soon come
under their influence.[1538]

With the outbreak of the American Revolution the troubles of these
gentle missionaries and their converts began. They were between two
raging fires. Their peace principles forbade their engaging in the
conflict or favoring either side, although their sympathies, which they
could not express, were with the Americans. As a natural consequence
of their neutrality, they fell under the suspicion and hatred of both
parties. The British at Detroit were eager to secure all the Ohio
tribes in their interest, and the missionaries made the Delawares
pledge themselves to remain neutral. It was also suspected, and it was
doubtless true, that the Moravians gave information to the Americans
as to the movements of hostile tribes. The British, therefore, were
of the opinion that the Moravian settlements were in secret alliance
with the enemy, and they resolved to break up the settlements and
remove the inhabitants to Sandusky.[1539] On the other hand, the
settlers on the frontiers of Pennsylvania and Virginia hated the
"Christian Indians", first, and chiefly, because they were Indians;
and secondly, because they allowed the Wyandots to come among them,
and had fed and hospitably treated other hostile tribes which had made
raids on the white settlements. In the autumn of 1781 Colonel David
Williamson raised a company of volunteers in western Pennsylvania to
visit the Moravian towns and remove the inhabitants to Fort Pitt; but
in the execution of the scheme he was anticipated by the British and
their Indian allies, the Shawanese,[1540] Wyandots, and Hurons, who
were there before him. On August 10, 1781, one Matthew Elliott, in
the service of the governor of Detroit, and Half-King, a chief of the
Hurons, appeared at Gnadenhütten with three hundred whites and Indians
flying the British flag. Without offering personal violence, they urged
the missionaries and converts to abandon the Muskingum country, and
place themselves under the protection of the British at Sandusky, on
the ground that they were in constant peril from the white settlers
on the border. Having declined the offer of British protection, their
fears were appealed to, their cattle were shot, and their houses
ravaged by the Indians. Worn out by fear and persecution, on September
11th they turned their unwilling steps from the valley of the Muskingum
towards Sandusky, under the charge of their uninvited escorts.[1541]
Having reached their destination, the missionaries were sent to Detroit
to answer before the governor to charges made against them, and were
acquitted.[1542]

During the winter the captives at Sandusky suffered from want of proper
shelter and food, and a party of a hundred went back to the deserted
villages to gather corn which had been left standing in the fields.
A report of their return reached the white settlements, and Colonel
Williamson, without any civil or military authority, again picked up
a company of volunteers and started for the Muskingum country. On his
former expedition he brought back several Indians whom the British
party had overlooked, and after the form of a trial at Fort Pitt they
were released. The colonel was blamed by the people that he had not
shot the Indians at sight. Arriving at the deserted towns, he found the
"Christian Indians" harvesting their corn and suspecting no danger. He
told them that he had come to remove them to Fort Pitt, and ordered
them to a building, where they were confined. A vote was then taken by
his men, whether the prisoners should be taken to Fort Pitt or put to
death. Only eighteen voted to spare their lives. The captives were
informed of their fate, and were told that, "inasmuch as they were
Christians, they would be given one night to prepare for death in a
Christian manner." In the morning they were tomahawked and butchered
in the most shocking manner. "Thus", said Loskei, the Moravian bishop,
"ninety-six persons magnified the name of the Lord by patiently meeting
a cruel death."[1543]

* * * * *

Another expedition, known as the "Crawford Campaign", was forthwith
organized, the purpose of which was to exterminate the Wyandots and
the Moravian Delawares on the Sandusky, and to give no quarter to
any Indian. Colonel Williamson was again the chief organizer, and
probably the same men were enlisted who had disgraced themselves on the
Muskingum. Colonel William Crawford,[1544] who had seen much service
in the Continental army, was put in command, much against his wishes,
and Williamson was second in rank. On May 25, 1782, four hundred well
equipped and mounted backwoodsmen, breathing vengeance against the
red men, started out from Mingo Bottom, on the Ohio, for the Sandusky
country, a journey of one hundred and fifty miles. Nineteen days later
a remnant of them returned to the same spot, a defeated and demoralized
rabble, with a loss of seventy killed, wounded, and missing. The
Indians knew their plans, and had time to summon the neighboring
tribes and to procure British soldiers and artillery from Detroit. Two
battles were fought, in which they were outnumbered and outgeneralled,
and it was fortunate that any of them escaped. Stragglers came in
daily, reporting the sufferings and cruel tortures they had undergone,
but none of them could report the fate of Colonel Crawford. He was
captured, and the barbarity of the Indian mind exhausted itself in the
ingenuity of the tortures with which he was put to death.[1545]

On May 26, 1780, a raid was made on the Spanish post of St. Louis by
a party of fifteen hundred Indians and a hundred and forty English
and Canadian traders, fitted out by Lieutenant-Governor Sinclair, of
Michilimacinac, and led by a Sioux chief named Wabasha. The affair
lasted only a few hours, and no assault was made on the fortified
enclosure; but a considerable number of persons found on their farms
or intercepted outside of the palisades were shot or captured. A
portion of the party crossed the Mississippi and made a similar raid
on Cahokia. They all then left for their northern homes as rapidly as
they came,—some by way of the Wisconsin and Fox rivers, and others by
way of the Illinois River to Chicago, where Sinclair had two vessels
awaiting them.

This affair has been the occasion of many conflicting statements[1546]
as to the time it occurred, the number of persons killed and captured,
and how it happened that so large a body of Indians in the British
service came so far and did so little which was warlike. It has been
often asserted, and as often denied, that George Rogers Clark, at the
request of the Spanish commandant, was at St. Louis at the time of
the incursion, or so near as to render efficient service. The purpose
and character of this expedition, and the causes of its failure, are
explained by contemporary documents[1547] recently published, which
were not accessible to earlier writers. It was a part of a much larger
scheme ordered, and perhaps devised, by the cabinet in London, to
capture New Orleans and all the Spanish posts west of the Mississippi
and the Illinois country.[1548]

On May 8, 1779, Spain declared war against Great Britain, and on
July 8 authorized her American subjects to make war upon Natchez and
other English posts on the east bank of the Mississippi.[1549] On
June 17, Lord George Germain, secretary for the colonies, wrote to
General Haldimand, informing him that Spain had declared war, and
that hostilities were to begin at once; and he was ordered to attack
New Orleans and reduce the Spanish posts on the Mississippi.[1550]
These orders were issued in a circular letter sent to all the Western
governors. Sinclair acknowledged the circular February 17, 1780, and
informed the general that he had taken steps to engage the Sioux and
other tribes west of the Mississippi for the expedition.[1551] De
Peyster at Detroit wrote to Haldimand, March 8, that he had taken
measures "to facilitate Sinclair's movements on the Mississippi, and
be of use to Brigadier Campbell, if he has not already taken New
Orleans. The Wabash Indians will amuse Clark at the Falls of the
Ohio."[1552] The general scheme here touched upon was, that General
Campbell, stationed at Pensacola, should, with a British fleet and
army, come up the Mississippi to Natchez, and there meet the Indian
expedition sent by Sinclair down the western bank of the river, which
was under instructions to capture and destroy the Spanish posts on its
way. The united forces were then to expel the Spaniards from all their
settlements on the lower Mississippi. The scheme miscarried. Governor
Galvez, of New Orleans, a person of great ability and energy, no sooner
heard of the declaration of war against Great Britain than he raised
a fleet and army to capture the British posts on the Mississippi; and
in September, 1779, the forts at Manchac, Baton Rouge, and Natchez,
with their garrisons, surrendered to him. He took also eight English
vessels employed in transport service, and in carrying the supply of
provisions to Pensacola.[1553] Galvez next turned his attention to
Mobile, which he captured March 14, 1780; and then to Pensacola, which
surrendered May 9, 1781. Brigadier Campbell, therefore, in May, 1780,
was otherwise engaged than in executing the splendid scheme which had
been assigned to him by the British cabinet and his superior officer,
General Haldimand.[1554]

It does not appear that, at the time of the attack on St. Louis,
Sinclair, or the party of Indians and traders engaged in the
expedition, had heard of the successes of the Spaniards on the lower
Mississippi, and of the collapse of the main scheme.[1555] Haldimand
furnished Sinclair with the latter information in a letter written at
Quebec, June 19th, twenty-four days after the fiasco at St. Louis, and
supposing, apparently, that the expedition had not moved from Prairie
du Chien. "I have received", he said, "your letters of the 15th and
17th of February, and much approve of the measures they advise me you
have taken in the arrangement of the war parties intended to favor
the operation of Brig. General Campbell, agreeably to the circular
letter forwarded to you.... It is very unfortunate that the [Campbell]
expedition should have been either abandoned or not undertaken so early
as was intended, owing probably to the fleet having been dispersed,
which, from what has happened upon the Mississippi, would appear has
been the case. The intermediate attacks you have proposed the Indians
should make will, however, answer a good end."[1556]

That Colonel George Rogers Clark was present on the opposite bank
of the river at the time of the St. Louis attack, and was there by
request of the Spanish commandant, Leyba, and for the defence of the
Illinois country, can no longer be doubted.[1557] The proof is in a
report of Col. John Montgomery, printed in the _Calendar of Virginia
State Papers_ (iii. 443). Montgomery was one of Clark's four captains
in his Kaskaskia campaign, and at the period of which he speaks was
in command, under Clark, of the post of Kaskaskia. In his report he
states: "In the spring of 1780 we [at Kaskaskia] were threatened with
an invasion. Colonel Clark, being informed of it, hurried with a small
body of troops from the Falls to the mouth of the Ohio, where he
received other expresses from the Spanish commandant and myself, and
luckily joined me at Cohos [Cahokia] in time enough to save the country
from impending ruin, as the enemy appeared in great force within
twenty-four hours after his arrival. Finding they were likely to be
disappointed in their design, they retired after doing some mischief on
the Spanish shore, which would have been prevented if unfortunately
the high wind had not prevented the signals being heard." It is
evident from this statement that the defence of his own territory was
Clark's chief motive for being present on this occasion, and that the
invitation of and friendship for the Spanish commandant at St. Louis
were mere incidents in the transaction. "Prisoners and deserters from
the enemy confirmed the report", says Montgomery, "that a body of a
thousand English and Indian troops were on their march to the Kentucky
country with a train of artillery;[1558] and the colonel, knowing the
situation of that country, appeared to be alarmed, and resolved to
get there previous to their arrival.... After giving me instructions,
he left Cohos on the 4th of June, with a small escort, for the mouth
of the Ohio, on his route to Kentucky." The orders he left with Col.
Montgomery were to pursue the Indians retreating up the Illinois
River and attack their towns about the time they were disbanding, and
to proceed as far as Rock River. "I immediately", says Montgomery,
"proceeded to the business I was ordered to do, and marched three
hundred and fifty men to the lakeopen [?] on the Illinois River;[1559]
and from thence to the Rock River, destroying the towns and crops, the
enemy not daring to fight me."[1560]

How much the presence of Clark near the scene of action contributed to
the demoralization of the Indian forces is not mentioned by any of the
contemporary writers. It is known, however, that his name was a terror
to the savage tribes; and Sinclair, in organizing his expedition,
found this dread of Clark among the Sioux and other nations west of
the Mississippi. He wrote to Captain Brehm, Haldimand's aide-de-camp,
February 15, 1780, that there was nothing in Hamilton's disaster which
ought to alarm the Sioux, and that "many of them never heard of it. The
short-sighted harpies, which necessity has thrown into the service,
dwell upon the stories they hear from fretful bands of Delawares,
Mascoutins, and Kickapoos near where the event happened. Admit that
the disaster has all the supposed consequent misfortunes, it is still
more necessary for us to engage the Indians to take a part, which
will at once declare their enmity to the party they are engaged to
act against."[1561] "The party" Sinclair had in mind was evidently
Clark himself; and with him the chief object of the expedition was to
recapture the Illinois country.

The general scheme devised by Lord George Germain for the complete
conquest of the West,—of bringing down a large party of northwestern
Indians upon St. Louis and Ste. Geneviève; of sending an expedition
from Detroit to invade Kentucky and keep Colonel Clark busy; of
bringing up the Mississippi to Natchez, under General Campbell, a
fleet and army, there to unite with the northern expeditions, and from
thence to capture the Illinois country and all the Spanish settlements
on the river—was an excellent one, and had every promise of success.
St. Louis was in no condition to resist an assault, and rank cowardice
marked the conduct of the governor and the few soldiers stationed at
the post when the Indian raiders appeared.[1562] The Illinois country
was very feebly garrisoned, and not a soldier or a shilling had ever
been contributed by the Continental Congress for its conquest or
defence. The scheme failed because of the promptness and exceptional
activity of the Spaniards under Governor Galvez, and the watchfulness
and energy of Colonel Clark. It was the last concerted effort of
Great Britain to regain possession of the West; as the campaign of
Clinton and Cornwallis, with its result one year later at Yorktown,
was her expiring effort on the Atlantic coast.[1563] If the Western
scheme had been successful, the country north of the Ohio River would
have been a part of the province of Quebec, and might have remained
Canadian territory to this day. In negotiating two and three years
later the treaty of peace with Great Britain under such conditions,
it is difficult to conceive what boundaries the United States could
have secured. Spain therefore rendered an invaluable service to the
United States by enabling George Rogers Clark to hold with his Virginia
troops the country he had conquered from the British, until the treaty
of peace confirmed to the nation the Mississippi River as its western
boundary.

Notwithstanding this important service, there was nothing friendly and
disinterested, at this time, in the relations of Spain to the United
States. She was looking solely to her own interests, and refused to
acknowledge the independence of the United States, or enter into
a treaty of alliance except on the most degrading conditions. She
must be allowed the exclusive right to navigate the Mississippi,
the undisturbed possession of the Floridas and of the east bank of
the Mississippi, which she had captured from the British. Spain
asserted that the United States had no territorial rights west of the
Alleghanies, and that their western boundaries were defined by the
royal proclamation of October 7, 1763.[1564] The captures of Manchac,
Baton Rouge, Natchez, and Mobile had awakened her military zeal, and
nothing less than the possession of the entire Mississippi Valley would
then satisfy her territorial ambition. French diplomacy favored some of
these extraordinary claims of Spain.[1565]

For the purpose of strengthening the Spanish claim to territory east of
the Mississippi, the governor of St. Louis, Don Francisco Cruvat, sent
out on the 2d of January, 1781, an expedition to capture St. Joseph,
an English fort situated near the present site of Niles, Michigan.
Although two hundred and twenty leagues distant, this was the nearest
post to St. Louis which raised the British flag. The expedition was in
command of Captain Eugenio Pourré, and comprised sixty-five militiamen
(of whom thirty were Spaniards) and sixty Indians. The journey, made
in the depth of winter across a trackless country, each man on foot
carrying his provisions and equipments, was a daring exploit, and it
was successful in accomplishing its immediate purpose. They took the
fort in the name of his most Catholic Majesty, made prisoners of the
few English soldiers found in it, divided the provisions and stores
among their own Indians and those living near, and returned to St.
Louis early in March, with the English flag, which Captain Pourré
delivered with due ceremony to Governor Cruvat.[1566] The treaty of
peace, which it is not the purpose of this chapter to discuss, brought
this and other shallow pretensions on the part of the Spaniards to
territorial rights east of the Mississippi River to an end.[1567]

[Illustration]

THE CLOSING SCENES OF THE WAR.

BY THE EDITOR.

THE campaign of Yorktown over, Rochambeau made his headquarters at
Williamsburg (Parton's _Jefferson_, ch. 29), while Washington, having
dispatched two thousand men south under St. Clair (instructions in
Sparks's _Washington_, viii. 198) to reinforce Greene, moved with the
rest of the army, by land and water, to the neighborhood of the Hudson
(Sparks's _Washington_, viii. 199, 200; Irving's _Washington_, iv.
ch. 29, 30; Kapp's _Steuben_, ch. 23; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. ch.
5). Washington at once acted in conjunction with Congress to prevent
the country lapsing into a neglect of the war establishment through
over-confidence in the effects of the capture of Cornwallis. In April,
1782, Washington left Philadelphia and joined the army, establishing
his headquarters at Newburgh, in a house which is still standing.
(Views of it are in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, 1883, p. 357 (taken in
1834); Irving's _Washington_, quarto ed., iv. 434; W. H. Bartlett's
_Hist. of U. S._; with a paper by C. D. Deshler on "A Glimpse of
Seventy-Six", in _Harper's Mag._, xlix. 231; with Lossing's "Romance
of the Hudson", in _Ibid._, liii. p. 32; also in his _Field-Book_, ii.
99, his _Hudson_, 199, and his _Mary and Martha Washington_, 215; Gay's
_Pop. Hist. of U. S._, iv. 84.)

There are several special accounts of this latest camp of the army.
(Cf. Asa Bird Gardiner on "The Last Cantonment of the Main Continental
Army" _Mag. Amer. Hist._, 1883, vol. x. 355), which is accompanied
by a plan of the camp near New Windsor. Simeon De Witt's maps of the
locality and the camp are in the N. Y. Hist. Soc. library. De Witt
was the geographer of the American army, succeeding Erskine, who had
died in 1780. Various orderly-books of this time are in the American
Antiquarian Society library. Other papers on the camp are in _Mag.
Amer. Hist._, Jan., 1884, p. 81; by J. T. Headley in _Harper's Mag._,
lxiv. 651, and _Galaxy_, xxii. 7. Cf. also Ruttenber's _Newburgh_
(1859) and the account of the first annual meeting of the Hist. Soc. of
Newburgh Bay and the Highlands, Feb. 22, 1884,—Newburgh, 1884.

Washington and Congress were soon perplexed with the case of Capt.
Joshua Huddy, and with a project of retaliation for that officer's
execution. Huddy, an officer of the New Jersey line, commanded a
block-house at Tom's River, New Jersey, and was there captured with
his men by a band of refugee loyalists (W. S. Stryker's _Capture of
the Block-House at Tom's River_). Huddy was taken by Capt. Richard
Lippincott, a New Jersey loyalist, to Sandy Hook, where he was hanged
on the pretence that he had been engaged in causing the death of Philip
White, a Tory, who had been killed while endeavoring to escape from
his guard. Congress ordered retaliation, and a young British officer,
then a prisoner, Capt. Charles Asgill, was drawn by lot to suffer
death unless Clinton should surrender Lippincott. Clinton condemned
the action of Lippincott, who was, however, acquitted on trial, on
the ground that his action was in accordance with instructions from
the board of Associated Loyalists (Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._,
vol. ii. note xxix. p. 481). The execution of Asgill was postponed
by Washington in the hope of some compensating arrangement, and at
the instance of Lady Asgill, the young man's mother, the French
monarch interceded with such effect that Congress, in November, 1782,
ordered Washington to set Asgill at liberty. (References: Sparks's
_Washington_, i. 378; viii. 262, 265, 301-310, 336, 361; ix. 197;
_Sparks MSS._, vols. lxxii., xlviii., lviii.; Niles's _Principles and
Acts_ 1876 ed.), p. 509; _Remembrancer_, xiv. 144, 155; xv. 127, 191;
_Political Mag._, iii. 468, 472; Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, ii.
232, 483, and Johnston's _Observations on Jones, 77_; Thomas Paine's
_American Crisis, and a Letter to Sir Guy Carleton on the Murder of
Captain Huddy, and the Intended Retaliation on Captain Asgill, of the
Guards_ (London, 1788); _Memoir of Gen. Samuel Graham, edited by his
son, Col. J. J Graham_ (Edinburgh, privately printed, 1862,—extract in
_Hist. Mag._, ix. 329). Washington caused all the papers on the subject
to be printed in the _Columbian Mag._, Jan. and Feb., 1787. This young
officer of twenty died as Gen. Sir Charles Asgill in July, 1823. Cf.
_Diplomatic Corresp._, xi. 105, 128, 140; Irving's _Washington_, iv.
ch. 29; Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._, iii.; Heath's _Memoirs_, 335;
Sparks's _Franklin_, ix. 376; Hamilton's _Republic_, ii. 282. The
English view is given in Adolphus's _England_, iii. ch. 46.

Early in May the news from England made it evident that the war was
approaching an end, and the promised release from further campaigning
left the public mind in a better condition to comprehend how weak
a stay Congress had proved itself, and how insufficient was the
power lodged in that body to compel the States to do any and all
acts necessary for the common good. The natural distrust which was
created of the form of government, whose success in carrying on the
war had been largely fortuitous, was still more increased by the
difficulties yet to be encountered in disbanding an army, in satisfying
its well-earned demands, and in organizing a stable control for the
future (Bancroft, final revision, vi. 59, etc.) It was not, then,
surprising that notions of counteraction should in any minds take
the form of a monarchical solution of the problem, and this sentiment
found expression in a letter, written by Col. Nicola, of the army, to
Washington, in which it was somewhat adroitly suggested that Washington
should consent to be the head of a royal government. Washington met the
suggestion with an indignant and stern reply, and we hear nothing more
of the subject (Sparks, viii. 300, etc.; Irving, iv. 370).

Sir Guy Carleton was sent to relieve Sir Henry Clinton in New York,
and he arrived early in May. His instructions (April 4, 1782,—_Sparks
MSS._, lviii.; cf. Sparks's _Washington_, viii. 294-298) were to avoid
hostilities except for defence. He failed to open communication with
Congress to treat for peace (Madison's _Debates_, vol. i.; Rives's
_Madison_, i. 331, 333). An account of the cantonments of the British
about New York just before this (Feb., 1782) is in the _Sparks MSS._
(xlix. vol. iii.). Clinton's account of his being relieved is in
Mahon, vii. App., p. xvii. It was not till August that Carleton's
communications to Washington rendered it certain that the concession
of independence was a preliminary of the negotiations then going
on for peace. Active hostilities accordingly ceased on both sides,
though a posture of caution and vigilance was still maintained by
each commander. The French, who had remained in Virginia, now joined
(September) the Americans on the Hudson. There is among the Rochambeau
maps an excellent colored plan (no. 33), measuring twenty inches wide
by thirty high, showing the country from White Plains north, and called
_Position des Armées Amer. et Française à King's Ferry, Peak's Hill, et
Hunt's Taverne, 17 Sept. et 20 Oct., 1782_. In October the French under
the Baron de Viomenil marched to Boston and embarked, while Rochambeau
and Chastellux sailed from Baltimore. On the final departure of the
French see a paper by J. A. Stevens in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._, vii. p.
1. The report on their departure, made to Congress, is dated Jan. 1,
1783,—_Secret Journals_, iii. 267.

[Illustration: CAPTAIN ASGILL.

(From Andrews's _Hist. of the War_, London, 1785, vol. iv. Cf. Harper's
_Cyclo. of U. S. Hist._, ii. 653.)]

In Dec., 1782, the army had set forth in representations to Congress
the sufferings which it had experienced from the want of pay (_Journals
of Congress_, iv. 206; Madison's _Debates_, etc., i. 256; Rives's
_Madison_, i. 383; Morse's _Hamilton_, i. 114). Nothing satisfactory
came of this appeal, and a movement of uncertain extent, but
seemingly having the countenance of officers of high rank, was aimed
at producing action on the part of the army, which might easily,
if allowed to proceed, have passed beyond prudent control, till a
claim for redress of grievances might instigate an act of mutiny.
Its chief manifestations were in two successive anonymous addresses,
circulated through the camp at Newburgh, which were written, as was
later acknowledged, by Major John Armstrong, a member of Gen. Gates's
staff. Washington interposed at a meeting of the officers (March
15, 1783), and by a timely address turned the current. The original
autograph of his address belongs to the Mass. Hist. Society, and that
body issued a fac-simile edition of it (Boston, 1876), with letters of
Col. Pickering, Gov. John Brooks, Judge Dudley A. Tyng, and William
A. Hayes, authenticating the document, and describing the scene when
Washington read it. Copies of the addresses made by Armstrong himself
are in the _Sparks MSS._, xlix. 1, 8, and they are given in Sparks's
_Washington_, viii. 551; and in a _Collection of papers, relative to
half-pay and commutation of half-pay, granted by Congress to officers
of the army. Compiled by the permission of General Washington from the
original papers in his possession_ (Fishkill, 1783). Cf. Sabin, iv.
14, 379. Washington at a later day, Feb. 23, 1797, wrote to Armstrong,
exonerating him from having intended any evil to the country (_Sparks
MSS._, no. xxiv.). The genuineness of this letter having been assailed,
Armstrong (Nov. 27, 1830) wrote a letter asserting its truth, and this
autograph letter is in Harvard College library. More or less extended
accounts of the incidents accompanying this attempt to organize a
coercion of the civil by the military power will be found in the lives
of Washington by Marshall (iv. 587); Sparks (viii. 369, 393); and
Irving (iv. ch. 31); in Pickering's _Pickering_ (i. ch. 29, 30, 31;
including Montgar's, _i. e._ Armstrong's, letter in 1820); Drake's
_Knox_, 77; Rives's _Madison_ (i. 392); J. C. Hamilton's _Republic_
(ii. 365, 385), and _Alexander Hamilton_ (ii. 68); Morse's _Hamilton_,
i. 119; Quincy's _Shaw_ (p. 101); Hildreth's _United States_ (iii. ch.
45); Dunlap's _New York_ (ii. 230); Lossing's _Field-Book_ (ii. 106,
315); _Journals of Congress_ (iv. 213); Bancroft, final rev., vi. 71.

A letter from Lafayette, who had gone to France, shortly afterwards
arrived, announcing the signing of the preliminary articles of peace;
and the news being confirmed by a letter from Carleton, Washington,
on April 19, the eighth anniversary of the day of Lexington, issued a
proclamation announcing cessation of hostilities. Sparks's _Washington_
(viii. 425; App. 13); Heath's _Memoirs_; Madison's _Debates_ (i. 437);
_Diplom. Correspondence_ (ii. 319-329; x. 121; xi. 320); _Secret
Journals of Cong._ (iii. 323, under date of April 11, 1783).

Knox had suggested (Drake's _Knox_), and in April, 1783, the Society
of the Cincinnati had been formed from the officers of the army, with
a plan of transmitting membership to descendants. It was intended as
an organization to perpetuate a brotherhood formed in arms, and to
offer an organization which might conveniently deliberate as occasion
required upon the condition of the country. As a rule the principal
civil leaders of the Revolution looked upon the combination with
disapproval (Wells's _Sam. Adams_, iii. 202; Austin's _Gerry_, ch. 25;
Sparks's _Franklin_, x. 58; Bigelow's _Franklin_, iii. 247; John Adams,
_Works_, ix. 524, called it "the first step taken to deface our temple
of liberty"), and even with dread, lest it might lend itself to the
creation of castes and the furtherance of schemes against the liberties
of the country. There was a widespread dissatisfaction among the people
generally, not always temperately expressed, and years were required
to remove the apprehension so incontinently formed. The society was
organized in the Verplanck house (view in _Appleton's Journal_, xiv.
353); the fac-similes of the signatures to the original subscription
are given in the _Penna. Archives_, vol. xi., and a representation of
a certificate signed by Washington is in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii.
128. The bibliography of the society and its branches, by States, is
given by Lloyd P. Smith in the _Bulletin of the Philadelphia Library_,
July, 1885. Particular reference may he made to the accounts and
expositions given in the _Penna. Hist. Soc. Memoirs_ (1858), vi. pp.
15-55, by Alexander Johnston; _North Amer. Review_, v. lxxvii. 267, by
W. Sargent; _St. Clair Papers_, i. 590; Kapp's _Steuben_, ch. 26; E.
M. Stone's _Our French Allies_, p. xix; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii.
127; J. B. McMaster's _People of the U. S._, i. 167; R. C. Winthrop's
_Speeches, etc._ (1852, etc.), P. 345; and the account of the
centennial of the order in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Sept., 1883, pp. 171,
235, 253.

On the 18th June, 1783, Washington from Newburgh, whither he had
removed his headquarters from Verplanck's after the departure of the
French, issued his last circular letter to the States (Sparks, viii.
439; Irving, iv. 394), full of counsel and warning.[1568]

The troops were in large part dismissed on furlough, and finally,
Congress (Oct. 18) by proclamation, directed the disbandment of the
army, to take effect Nov. 2 (_Secret Journals_, iii. 406). A small body
was, however, still kept together under Knox, to await the definitive
form of the treaty. Washington now occupied a brief space in making a
journey with Gov. Clinton over the battlefields of Burgoyne's campaign.
He then, at the request of Congress, proceeded to Princeton, and
was domiciled for a while at Rocky Hill, in order to be at hand for
conferences with that body. From this place, Nov. 2, 1783, he issued
a farewell address to the army. (Sparks, viii. 491; Irving, iv. 402;
Pickering's _Pickering_, i. 488.)

The last surviving pensioner of the Revolution is called one Lemuel
Cook in the _Amer. Hist. Record_, ii. 357. In 1864, what purported to
be the record of the latest survivors of the war appeared in Elias B.
Hillard's _Last Men of the Revolution_ (Hartford, 1864). An account
of John Gray as the last soldier of the Revolution, by J. M. Dalzell,
was printed at Washington in 1868. B. P. Poore's _Descriptive Catal.
of Gov't Publications_ will enable one to trace many of those soldiers
whose claims came before Congress.

Carleton giving notice of his readiness to evacuate New York,
Washington now returned to West Point, and prepared to enter the city
with Gov. Clinton on the appointed day. The general and the governor
entered the upper end of the town on Nov. 25, while the British
embarked at the lower end. Valentine's _N. Y. City Manual_ for 1861
gives various documentary records, some in fac-simile. On Dec. 1 there
were fireworks, a broadside programme of which is in the cabinet of
the Mass. Hist. Society. Trumbull painted a picture of the scene of
the evacuation, which is given in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._, 1883, p.
387. The histories of New York city commemorate the event, and there
are illustrated papers on it in _Harper's Mag._, Nov., 1883 (vol.
lxvii. 609), and _Manhattan Mag._, Dec., 1883. Cf. _Hist. Mag._, xi.
42; Lieut.-Col. Smith's letter in _N. Y. City during the Rev._ (N. Y.,
1861); Irving's _Washington_, iv. ch. 33; Jones's _N. Y. during the
Rev._ (ii. 504). Some days after the British had gone, Washington met
his principal officers (Dec. 4) in Fraunce's Tavern, and bade them
farewell.

[Illustration: FRAUNCE'S TAVERN IN NEW YORK.]

This building stood on the corner of Pearl and Broad streets, N. Y.,
and was occupied by Washington as headquarters when he entered the
city after the British evacuated in 1783. The cut follows a view given
in Valentine's _N. Y. City Manual_, 1854, p. 547, accompanied by a
paper by W. J. Davis. Cf. _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, iii. 144, 151, 152;
Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 839; Gay's _Pict. Hist. U. S._, iv. 90;
Dawson's _Westchester_. The opening chapter of McMaster's _History
of the People of the United States_, (N. Y., 1883) describes the
appearance of New York city at this time, and indeed of the other
principal American towns, and the habits of living through the country.
An account of New York at this time is also in the _Manhattan Mag._,
ii. 561.

Immediately leaving New York, Washington journeyed to Annapolis,
where Congress was then assembled. Here, on Dec. 23, he met Congress
in the State House (view in _Columbian Mag._, Jan., 1789; Lossing's
_Field-Book_, ii. 402), where he resigned his commission in an address.
(Sparks, viii. 504, and App., xiv.; Marshall, iv. 622. A fac-simile of
the manuscript is given in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._, 1881, vol. vii. 106.
Cf. _Journals of Congress_, iv. 318; Ridgeley's _Hist. of Annapolis_.)
On Christmas Eve, Washington reached Mount Vernon, once more a private
gentleman.

Congress on the 14th Jan., 1784, sitting at Philadelphia, finally
ratified the definitive treaty of peace.

INDEX.

[Reference is commonly made but once to a book, if repeatedly mentioned
in the text; but other references are made when additional information
about the book is conveyed.]

Abercrombie, Lt.-Col., at Yorktown, 504.

Acland, Lady, 357;
portrait, 358.

Acland, Major, 294, 308, 357, 358.

Acton, Mass., men at Concord, 184.

Acts of trade, 2, 6, 63;
evaded, 10;
enforced, 11.

Adams, Abigail, 205;
on Bunker Hill, 187.

Adams, Brooks, _Emancipation of Mass._, 255.

Adams, C. F., on John Hancock, 271.

Adams, H. B., _Maryland's influence upon land cessions_, 708.

Adams, John, on Acts of Trade, 7, 9;
on Otis's argument on Writs of Assistance, 11;
report of Otis's argument, 13;
demands reopening of courts, closed by want of stamps, 32;
his political philosophy, 35;
on _Canon and Feudal Law_, 35, 83;
likeness, 36;
Dutch edition of his acc. of the troubles with Great Britain, 36;
his personal appearance, 36;
painted by Copley, 36;
by Stuart, 36;
by Trumbull, 36;
by Winstanley, 36;
engravings of, 36;
of his wife, 36;
his homestead, 36;
his writing in fac-simile, 37;
his part against Great Britain, 37;
defends Capt. Preston, 49;
autog., 51;
leads in impeachment of Oliver, 57;
in Congress (1774), 59;
presides at Port Act meeting, 60;
and the navigation laws, 64;
in the Congress of 1765, 74;
brief at trial of Preston, 86;
helps Sam. Adams in the replies to Hutchinson (1773), 90;
on the tea-ship commotions, 91;
controversy with Brattle on the payment of judges, 95;
_Familiar letters_, 95;
in the Congress of 1774, 99;
notes of debates in Congress of 1774, 100;
drafts part of the Declaration of Rights, 100;
notes on debates in Congress of 1775, 107;
controversy with Daniel Leonard, 108;
as _Novanglus_, 110;
_Hist. of the dispute_, 110;
considered Jonathan Sewall his adversary, 110;
attracts attention (1774), 117;
uneasy over Washington's inaction at Cambridge, 152;
visits Lexington, 180;
on independence, 238;
on com. to draft Declaration of Independence, 239;
in debate, 239;
his intercepted letters, 249;
his belief in independence, 249;
outspoken for independence, 255;
on the growing spirit of independence, 257;
owned portrait of Jefferson, 258;
leading advocate of the Decl. of Indep., 261;
autog. 263;
life of Hancock, 265;
life by E. Ingersoll, 266;
on Hancock, 271;
on Paine's _Common Sense_, 272;
his _Thoughts on Government_, 272;
preceded by letter to R. H. Lee, 272;
letter to John Penn, 272;
on observing the anniversary of the Decl. of Indep., 274;
drafts the Mass. Constitution, 274;
_Defence of the Constitutions_, 274;
lives in New York, 276;
weary of Washington's Fabian policy, 392;
proposes to elect generals annually, 446;
his interest in naval matters, 567;
goes to France with Com. Tucker, 567;
on employing Indians, 673.

Adams, Josiah, _Address_, 184.

Adams, Samuel, portraits, 40, 41;
autograph, 40;
painted by Copley, 40;
by John Johnson, 41;
statue, 41;
in the Mass. legislature, 42;
his political writings, 42, 83;
compared with Lord Mansfield's speeches, 43;
demands that the troops in Boston be removed to the Castle (1770),
49;
moves for a com. of correspondence, 54;
in Congress (1774), 59;
would prevent reconciliation, 60;
wrote the answers of the legislature to Gov. Hutchinson, 67, 90;
_Vindication of the Town of Boston_, 67;
first mover against taxation, 68;
wrote the replies to Bernard, 73;
_Appeal to the World_, 84;
_Letter to Hillsborough_, 84;
on "Vindex", 86;
writes Hancock's massacre oration, 88;
and com. of correspondence, 89;
_Rights of the Colonies_, 90;
proposes Congress, 99;
proposes Duché for chaplain of Congress (1774), 99;
in the Congress of 1774, 99;
had a hand in the Declaration of Rights (1774), 100;
the tribune of the Mass. yeomanry, 113;
returns from the Congress of 1774, 116;
repute in London, 117;
at Lexington (1775), 122, 179;
excepted from pardon, 132;
urges independence, 231, 257;
in the Cont. Congress, 236;
his character, 236;
alienated from Hancock, 238;
the earliest to avow independence, 248;
Galloway on, 254, 255;
autog., 263;
life by H. D. Gilpin, 266;
a spurious _Oration_, 274;
and the Conway cabal, 446.

Admiralty courts, 4, 6, 10;
first held in N. E., 65;
instituted, 567.

Adolphus, _England_, 112.

Agnew, Daniel, _Region of Penna. north of the Ohio_, 709.

Agnew, General, 427;
killed, 386.

Agnew, J. L., _Savannah_, 519.

Ainslee, Capt. Thomas, _Journal_, 222.

Aitkins, _Plan of Boston_, 207.

Aix-la-Chapelle, treaty, 14.

Alamance, battle of, 81.

Albach, James R., _Annals of the West_, 648.

Albany, 609;
Indian treaty at (Aug., 1775), 623;
plan of (1770), 298.

Alden, Col. Ichabod, at Cherry Valley, 636;
killed, 638.

Alden, Fort (Cherry Valley), 666.

Alexander, Capt. James, 534.

Allaire, Anthony, diary, 525, 535.

Allan, Col. John, 657;
correspondence with Haldimand, 657.

Alleghany River, 609.

Allen, _Battles of the British navy_, 589.

Allen, Ethan, 160;
autog., 128;
would lead an invasion of Canada, 160;
at Ticonderoga, 161, 213;
captured at Montreal, 162;
statue, 214;
_Narrative_, 214;
letters, 214;
lives of, 214;
a price on his head offered in N. Y., 214;
seeks to enlist Canadian Indians, 614;
Indians with, 660.

Allen, Ira, _Ship Olive Branch_, 214;
letters (1776), 227;
on the evacuation of Ticonderoga, 350.

Allen, James, poem on the Boston Massacre, 88.

Allen, James (Philad., 1777), diary, 260, 436.

Allen, Jolley, 205.

Allen, Paul, _Amer. Rev._, 664.

Allen, Wm., _Arnold's Expedition_, 1775, 217.

Allen, William, Jr., 395.

Allenstown, N. J., 410.

"Alliance", ship, 576, 577, 584, 586.

Allyn, Chas., 562.

Almon, _Seat of War in N. Y._, etc., 416.

Almon's _Remembrancer_, important documents in, 653.

Alsop, John, 108.

Amboy, 340, 404, 408;
map of, 342.

_American and British Chronicle of War_, 672.

American Revolution, causes of, 5, 62;
ecclesiasticism as a cause, 62;
authorities on the causes, 62, 255;
earliest outbreaks, 173.
_See_ names of heroes and battles of the war.

Ames, Nathaniel, _Astron. diary_, 82;
_Almanac_, 118.

Amherst, Gen., and the Pontiac conspiracy, 692.

Amory, T. C., _Old and New Cambridge_, 142;
defends Gen. Sullivan, 598;
_Gen. Sullivan_, 666;
papers on Sullivan, 667;
_James Sullivan_, 83.

_Analectic Magazine_, 187.

Anayea, 669.

Anburey, Thomas, _Travels_, 360.

Anderson, Col. Robt., 677.

Anderson, W. J., 216.

André, Maj. John, at Boston, 204;
in Philadelphia, 395;
in the Mischianza, 436;
his letters to Mrs. Arnold, 449;
as "John Anderson", 449;
profile likeness, 452;
autographs, 452, 453;
other portraits, 453, 454;
one by Reynolds, 454;
sketch by himself, 454, 461;
Adj.-General, 453;
his instructions from Clinton, 454;
on the "Vulture", 454;
lands at the Clove, 454;
meets Arnold, 454;
goes to Smith's house, 455;
receives papers from Arnold, 455;
disguises himself, 456;
goes by land towards New York, 456;
captured, 457;
papers found on him, 457;
their history, 457;
carried to Jameson, 458;
writes a letter to Washington, 458;
at West Point, 460;
confined at Tappan, 460;
before a military board, 460;
condemned, 460;
proceedings of the board printed, 460;
various editions, 460;
subject of tragedy, 460, 464;
Clinton endeavors to save him, 461;
requests to be shot, 461;
his conduct, 461;
his sketches, 461;
hanged, 461;
his remains taken to England, 461;
his statement, 461;
his monument, 463;
his mother pensioned, 463;
_Life_ by W. Sargent, 464;
_Papers_ on, ed. by Dawson, 464;
captured at St. John, 464;
a prisoner, 464;
served with Gen. Grey, 464;
his lineage, 464;
his will, 464;
bibliography, 464;
various papers on, 464;
his captors honored, 466;
their patriotism questioned, 466;
his confinement, 466;
justice of his execution, 322, 467;
his character, 467;
his last hours, 467;
_Case of Maj. André_, 467;
was he a spy at Charleston? (1780), 468;
his _Cow Chace_, 560;
tragedy of, 560.

André, _Mémoire de Paul Jones_, 590.

Andrews, John, letters from Boston, 90, 178, 205.

Annapolis, Md., Washington at, 747.

_Annual Register_, 516.

Antell, E., his plan of siege of Quebec, 226;
express from Quebec, 222.

Anthony, H. B., on Ternay's tomb, 499;
address on Greene, 510.

Anthony's Nose (Hudson River), 324.

Appleton, W. S., 110.

Appletown, N. Y., 669.

Appoquinimink Creek, 421.

Apthorpe, _Considerations on the conduct_, etc., 70;
_Review_, 70.

Arbuthnot, Admiral Mariot, attacks Charlestown, S. C., 472, 526, 527;
blockades Newport, 560;
controversy with Clinton, 517;
succeeded Graves, 517.

Armand, Col., 533;
with Gates, 477.

Armstrong, Gen., on Burgoyne's campaign, 358;
on Germantown, 421;
Newburgh addresses, 745.

Armstrong, J., _Richard Montgomery_, 216.

Armstrong, John, _Life of Wayne_, 514.

Armstrong, M., 209.

Armstrong commands the Penna. militia, 381.

Arnell, Dr., _Address_, 662.

Arnold, Benedict, in Cambridge (1775), 128;
shares command with Allen at Ticonderoga, 129;
surprised St. John's (1775), 130;
trouble with Ethan Allen, 130;
at Ticonderoga, 161;
commences Kennebec expedition, 162;
before Quebec, 163;
wounded, 165;
his post at Cedar Rapids attacked, 166;
interest in Gen. Warren's children, 194;
commissioned by Mass. to take Ticonderoga, 213;
Dawson's view of his connection with Ticonderoga, 214;
his regimental book, 214;
letters, 214;
part in the Canada expedition, 216;
instructions for the Kennebec route, 217 (_see_ Kennebec
expedition);
his journal, 218;
his letters, 218, 219, 220;
intercepted, 222;
portraits, 223;
autog., 223;
letters during the retreat, 226;
in command on Lake Champlain, 292, 346;
at Valcour's Island, 292;
escapes, 293;
joins Schuyler, 298;
advances toward Fort Stanwix, 300, 350, 632;
under Gates, 304;
at Freeman's Farm, 305;
quarrel with Gates, 306;
in fight of Oct. 7, 1777, 308;
was he at Freeman's Farm? 315, 357;
wounded (Oct. 7, 1777), 357;
at Trenton, 379;
marries, 402;
did he suggest the attack on Trenton? 407;
his treason, 447;
portraits, 447, 448, 449;
the beginning of his treasonable correspondence, 447, 448;
his birthplace, 448;
his house, 448;
his marriage, 449;
as "Gustavus", 449;
gives Clinton information, 449;
not trusted by Congress, 450;
at Danbury, 450;
made major-general, 450;
fac-simile of his commission, 450;
his wife at Robinson house, 458;
in command in Philad., 367, 400, 402, 450, 451;
charges against him by the Council of Penna., 450;
court-martial, 402, 450, 451;
his accounts of the Canada expedition questioned, 450;
reprimanded by Washington, 403, 451;
at the Robinson house, 452;
his treasonable letters preserved, 452;
efforts to meet André, 453;
his passes, 453;
his price, 454, 463;
meets André, 454;
receives Jameson's letter, 458;
his flight, 458;
his aides grow suspicious, 460;
attempts to intercept him, 460;
sends letter to Washington, 460;
his aides, 460;
has plans of West Point, 460;
threats if André is executed, 461;
his life in England, 463;
in New Brunswick, 463;
his descendants, 463;
his address of exculpation, 463;
his proclamation to induce desertion, 463;
his vindication in _Remarks on Travels of Chastellux_, 463;
authorities on his treason, 463;
_Life_ by Sparks, 464;
_Life_ by I. N. Arnold, 464;
his own telling of the story, 466;
attempt to seize him, 468;
in Virginia, 495, 546, 732;
distrusted by Clinton, 546;
invades Connecticut, 562;
had Indians with him on the Kennebec exped., 614;
his treason and the northern invasions, 672;
his capture attempted, 732.

Arnold, S. G., in the Rhode Island campaign, 595.

Arnold, Isaac N., on Benedict Arnold at Freeman's Farm, 357;
"Arnold at the court of George III", 463;
_Life of Benedict Arnold_, 464;
his family, 464;
controverted by J. A. Stevens, 464;
his death, 464.

Asgill, Capt. Chas., case of, 744;
portrait, 745.

Ashe, Gen., 470;
at Briar Creek, 520;
his career, 520.

Ashley, John, 63.

Assanpink Creek, 375.

Atkinson, _Newark,_ 560.

_Atlas Amériquaine_, 341.

Atlee, Col. S. J., 327.

Attenbocum, Capt., 411.

Attucks, Crispus, 85.

Atwill, Winthrop, _Treason of Arnold_, 466.

Aubry, Gov., at N. Orleans, 701.

Auchmuty, Judge, 119.

Auckland MSS., 467.

"Augusta", frigate, blown up, 387, 428;
picture of, 388.

Augusta, Georgia, its defences, 490;
siege of, 535, 544.

Austin, Jonathan Loring, carries news of Burgoyne's surrender to
Europe, 364, 571;
journals of his trip, 586.

Austin, Jona. W., 88.

Avery, Joseph, 521.

Avery, Rufus, 562.

Avery, Samuel, 662.

Babson, _Gloucester_, 568.

Bacon, Leonard W., on the invasion of Conn., 557;
address on Groton Heights, 562.

Badeaux, J. B., _Invasion du Canada_, 223.

Bailey, J. T., _Brooklyn_, 329.

Baker, W. S., _American Engravers_, 81, 185;
_William Sharp_, 492.

Balcarras, Earl, 366;
with Burgoyne, 294.

Balch, Thomas, 101;
_Maryland Line_, 202;
edits Blanchard's Journal, 554;
_Les français en Amérique_, 560.

Baldwin, C. C., on Vigo and G. R. Clark, 725.

Baldwin, Loammi, 187.

Baldwin, Samuel, _Diary_, 525.

Balfour, Capt., 118.

Balfour, Col., commands in Charleston, 517, 538, 541.

Ballston, N. Y., destroyed, 645.

Baltimore, Lord, 673.

Bancroft, Col. E., 189.

Bancroft, Geo., on the navigation acts, 64;
on the siege of Boston, 173;
his account of the Long Island battle criticised, 330;
on Arnold's treason, 464;
on Oriskany, 665;
on Wyoming, 665.

Bangs, Lieut., 326.

Banker, Gerard, 409.

Banks, James, _Hist. Address_, 676.

Barber, Col. Francis, 668;
order-book, 670.

Barber, Geo. C., 670.

Barber, J. W., _Hist Coll. N. Y._, 666.

Barber, _New Haven_, 185.

Barclay, S., _Personal Recollections_, 329.

Barlow, Aaron, 216.

Barlow, Joel, on Thomas Paine, 253;
life by Burr, 253.

Barlow, S. L. M., owns Arnold's journal, 218.

Barnard, _Hist. England_, 461.

Barney, Joshua, Com. Acc. of, 575;
autog., 575.

Barney, Mary, _Com. Joshua Barney_, 575.

Barras, autog., 500;
succeeds Ternay, 499.

Barré, Isaac, accounts of, 72;
his speeches on the Stamp Act, 29, 72;
originates the phrase "Sons of Liberty", 72;
his portrait ordered by Boston, 74;
predicts loss of colonies, 85.

Barren Hill, Lafayette at, 396, 442;
map, 443.

Barrett, Col., 124.

Barrette, Lieut., 545.

Barretts, Samuel, 109.

Barrow, Sir John, _Lord Howe_, 594.

Barry, Henry, _Strictures Examined_, 106.

Barry, Com. John, his autog., 581;
on the "Raleigh", 581;
accounts of, 581;
in the "America", 583.

Bartlet, W. S., _Frontier Missionary_, 657.

Bartlett, Josiah, 186; on Bunker Hill, 194;
autog., 263;
life of, 265;
on privateering, 591.

Bartlett, J. R., _Hist. of destruction of the Gaspee_, 90;
dies, 90;
account of, by Gammell, 90.

Bartlett, S. C., on Bennington, 356.

Barton, Col., place of capturing Gen. Prescott, 602;
the capture, 403;
accounts of, 404;
his diary, 643.

Baton Rouge, 739.

Battle, K. P., 519.

Baum, Colonel, at Bennington, 300, 354;
death of, 356;
his instructions, 366.

Bauman, Sebastian, map of Yorktown, 551.

Baurmeister, Major, 333.

Bayley, Col., and the Indians, 614.

Bayley, Col. J., at Lake George, 346.

Beach, Allen C., _Centennial Celebrations_, 308.

Beach, W. W., _Indian Miscellany_, 657.

Beaman on Ticonderoga, 214.

Bean, T. W., _Washington at Valley Forge_, 416, 439.

Beardsley, _Life of W. S. Johnson_, 85.

Bears, Isaac, 178.

Beatson, Robert, _Naval and Mil. Memoirs_, 518, 589.

Beatty, Erkuries, 667;
his journal, 671.

Beatty, Capt. William, 418.

Beaulieu, Georgia, 470.

Beaurain, _Carte de la Guerre_, 416;
map of Boston and harbor, 213.

Becket, publishes _Authentic Papers from America_, 100.

Beckford, Alderman, 83.

Beckwith, H. W., _Historic Notes_, 718;
on Vigo, 725.

Bedell, Col. Timothy, 216;
at the Cedars, 616.

Bedford, Col. Gunning, 327.

Bedford, Duke of, 21.

Bedford (Long Island), 328.

Bedford (Mass.) men at Lexington, 184;
their flag, 184.

Bedford, Pa., taken, 691.

Beers, Nathan, 464.

Belisle, _Independence Hall_, 259.

Belknap, Dr. Jeremy, note-books, 189;
diary, 202;
life, 202.

Belknap, Jeremy, uncle of historian, 85.

Belknap, Jos., 85.

Bell, Andrew, 445.

Bell, Charles H., on the privateer "Gen. Sullivan", 591.

Bell, Robt., publishes Paine's _Common Sense_, 269.

Bellefeuille, Mr., 729.

Bellomont, Lord, 564.

Bellows, Col., 350.

Bemis Heights, Gates occupies, 304;
battle, 356.
_See_ Saratoga.

Benedict, E. C., _Battle of Harlem_, 334.

Bennett, C. P., 545.

Bennington, Vt., authorities on the battle, 354;
loss at, 354;
Indians at, 627;
fight at, 300;
maps of the fight, 356.

Benson, Egbert, _Vindication of the Captors of André_, 466.

Bentalou, Paul, _Pulaski Vindicated_, 522, 524;
_Reply to Johnson_, 522.

Benton, N. S., _Herkimer County_, 351, 657.

Bergen Point, 343, 404.

Berkeley, Bishop, his house in Rhode Island, 602.

Bernard, Edward, view of Bunker Hill, 198;
_Hist. of England_, 273.

Bernard, Francis, Gov. of Mass., 12, 22;
his letters sent back to Boston, 83;
_Causes of the present distractions_, 106;
_Select letters_, 106;
his rebukes of the legislature, 34;
on the seizure of the "Liberty", 43;
and the Stamp Act, 73;
replies to him by the legislature, 73;
leaves Mass., 47, 84;
made baronet, 49;
his _Letters_, 67;
_Letters to Hillsborough_, etc., 84;
_Letters to the Ministry_, 84;
instructed to enforce the navigation laws, 32;
_Third extraordinary Budget of epistles_, 84;
_Copies of letters_, 84;
enforces laws of trade, 84;
his character, 84.

Bernard, John, _Retrospections of America_, 407.

Berniere. _See_ Bernière.

Bernière, Henry de, 182;
plan of Bunker Hill battle, 199, 202;
criticised, 202.

Berthelot, Amable, 216.

Besom, Capt. Philip, narrative, 592.

Bethlehem, Pa., Moravian Sisters, 524.

Bickerstaff's _Boston Almanac_, 86.

Bickham, George, 372.

Bicknell, _Barrington, R. I._, 203.

Biddle, Chas. J., defends the execution of André, 468.

Biddle, James, 74.

Biddle, Capt. Nicholas, in the "Andrea Doria", 570;
portrait, 570;
in the "Randolph", 571;
engages the "Yarmouth", 571.

Bigelow, Col. Timothy, orderly-books (1779, 1780), 359.

Big-Knives (Kentuckians), 722.

Bilbao, prizes taken to, 592.

Billingsport, N. J., 386, 425;
attacked, 387.

Billon, _Annals of St. Louis_, 737.

Bishop, _Hist. Amer. Manufactures_, 108.

Bishops, their introduction opposed in N. E., 243.

Bisset, _George III_, 223.

Bixby, Samuel, 203.

Blackbird, Pa., 421.

Blackstocks, affair at, 480, 536.

Blanchard, Claude, _Journal_, 554.

Blanchard, Col., _Map of N. Hampshire_, 217.

Bland, Col. Theodoric, commands Convention troops in Virginia, 321;
his papers, 321;
_Bland Papers_, 321.

Bland, Richard, _Enquiry_, 85.

Blaskowitz, Charles, plan of Frog's Neck, 337;
chart of Narragansett Bay, 593, 601;
map of Newport, 597.

Bleecker, Capt. Leonard, order-book, 670.

Bliss, E. F., 736.

Blood, Thaddeus, 178.

Bloodgood, _Sexagenary_, 358.

Blowers, Sampson S., autog., 51.

Blue Licks, battle at, 730.

Board of War, 392, 437.

Boardman, S. W., _Privateer Cromwell_, 592.

Boardman, Timothy, _Log-book_, 591.

Bollan, William, _Coloniæ Anglicanæ illustratæ_, 70;
transmits Gage's letters to Boston, 83.

Bolton, Dr. Thomas, 120.

Bond, Col., 227.

Bonner, map of Boston, 207.

Bonneville, picture of D'Estaing, 594.

Boone, Daniel, portrait, 707;
his adventures, 708;
his biographers, 708;
in Kentucky, 710, 715;
defends his fort (1778), 716.

Boonesborough, Ky., 715.

Bordenton, 408, 410.

Border life, literature of, 248.

Border warfare, 605;
literature of, 248;
in the South, scant material for accounts of, 678.

Boston inflamed by the Grenville Act, 27;
arrival of troops (1766), 38;
threats to take her patriots to England for trial, 46;
troops sent to (1768), 43, 45;
(1769), 47;
Brazen Head, sign of, 47;
non-importation agreements, 49, 78;
Col. Dalrymple gets key of the Castle, 53;
tea-ships at, 57, 91;
Port Act meeting, 60;
affected by navigation laws, 64;
_Observations of the merchants upon several Acts of Parliament_, 64,
83;
_Records_, 67;
(1768) Revere's picture, 81;
convention to consider the coming of troops, 81;
agitation over the quartering of troops in Boston, 82;
_Appeal to the world_, 84;
petition to the king (1772), 89;
_The American Alarm_, 90;
the "Mohawks" and the tea-party, 91;
_Votes and Proceedings_ respecting the tea-ships, 91;
warning broadside, 92;
accounts reach London, 92;
condition during the Port Bill, 95;
title of Port Bill Act, 95;
news arrives, 97;
broadside, 97;
records of this time in Boston City Hall, 95;
gifts to, 95;
effect of Port Bill, references, 96;
newspapers of 1775, 110;
blockade of, 113;
Gage shut up in, 114;
fortifies the Neck, 115;
Gage's force (Jan., 1775), 118;
meetings at the Green Dragon, 120;
maps of roads about, 120, 121;
after Lexington, families leaving the town, 125;
conditions of leaving, 128;
country Tories enter Boston, 128;
army besieging, 134;
British in, 134;
reinforcements under Burgoyne, Clinton, and Howe, 134;
Gates advises against an assault, 142;
want of provisions during the siege, 144;
contemporary views from Beacon Hill, 148-151;
British encampments on the Common, 149;
Howe advised by the ministry to abandon the town, 152;
the siege pressed, 152;
to be destroyed if necessary, 153;
plays acted, 153;
_Boston Blockade_, 153;
songs from, 154;
_Tragedy of Zara_, 155;
view of (1776), 157;
view of the Castle, 157;
the town evacuated, 158;
population, 158;
authorities on the siege, 172;
Washington proposed boat attack, 172;
_Antique views_, 185;
plan by Norman, 201;
siege of, 202;
account of the American camps, 202;
diaries, 202;
letters, 203;
orderly-books, 204;
the British camp, 204;
_Newsletter printed_, 204;
Liberty-tree cut down, 204;
houses occupied by British generals, 204;
British works, 204;
selectmen correspond with Gen. Thomas, 204;
diaries, letters, etc., during the siege, 204;
American prisoners in the town, 204;
evacuated, 205, 568;
_Evacuation Memorial_, 205;
property destroyed, 205;
Ward left in command, 205;
the Quakers of Philadelphia help the poor, 205;
fears of an attack, 205;
medal given to Washington to commemorate the siege, 206, 207;
maps of the siege, 207;
from Marshall's _Washington_, 206;
maps of the town of the Rev. period, 207, 209;
landmarks of the siege, 207;
English plans, 207;
that in _Almon's Remembrancer_, 208;
one in the library of Congress, 209, 210;
Pelham's map, 209;
Rawdon map, 209;
surveys of Wm. Page, 210;
map of lines on the Neck, 211;
Brown's house, 211;
Trumbull's plan of the Neck lines, 211;
plan indorsed by Mifflin, 212;
other plans, 212;
British plan of American lines, 212;
plan of Boston and vicinity, 212;
French maps of the siege, 212;
Latin map, 213;
German maps, 213;
feared Howe in 1777 was coming there, 416;
congress at, in 1780, 560;
_Proceedings_ ed. by F. B. Hough, 560;
her privateers, 587;
fleets of Howe and Byron off the harbor (1778), 603;
D'Estaing in, 603;
riot in, 603;
fear of British advancing from Rhode Island, 603;
siege of, Indians employed, 613;
killing of sentries, 657;
"Boston", frigate, given to Captain Tucker, 566;
lost at Charleston, 583.

_Boston Gazette_, 110.

Boston harbor, forays in (1775), 131;
plans of, 202, 207, 209, 212, 213.

Boston massacre, 49, 85;
plan of the ground, 47, 48;
picture of, 47;
news of, in England, 52;
causes, 85;
authorities, 85;
_Short Narrative_, 85;
sent to England, 85;
_Additional Observations_, 85;
_Letter to C. Lucas_, 85;
other accounts, 85;
Kidder's _Boston Massacre_, 86;
Preston's trial, 86;
trial of soldiers, 49, 86;
printed _Report_, 86;
_Fair Account_, 86;
did the soldiers fire before being assaulted? 88;
its effect in producing the Rev., 88;
its anniversary observed, 88;
ovations, 88;
commemorated (1775), 119;
burlesqued, 120.

Boston Neck (R. I.), 600.

_Boston Newsletter_, 110, 204.

Boston Port Bill, 58.
_See_ Boston.

Botetourt, Gov., 46.

Boucher, Jona., _Views of the Amer. Rev._, 98.

Boudinot, Elias, _Star in the West_, 652.

Bound Brook, 408, 409.

Bounties offered to Indians, 674;
for scalps, 681.

Bouquet, Col. Henry, his portrait, 692;
his character, 692;
account of, 692, 693;
_Hist. Acc. of Expedition_, 651, 699;
marches to relieve Fort Pitt, 694;
fight at Bushy Run, 696;
map of his campaign, 696;
at Fort Pitt, 697;
marches into the Ohio Valley, 698;
returns, 699;
dies, 699;
captives retaken by him, 699;
West's picture of them, 699;
West's picture of his Council with the Indians, 694;
Papers, 690, 693.

Bourgoin, _Thèâtre de la Guerre_, 416.

Bowdoin, James, 128;
in Congress (1774), 59;
taking the lead, 83;
his autog., 83;
his character, 83;
_Letter to Hillsborough_, 84;
on the desire for independence, 255.

Bowen, Ephraim, on the destruction of the "Gaspee", 90.

Bowen, Francis, his _Otis_, 70;
_Benj. Lincoln_, 513;
_Steuben_, 515.

Bowen, J. S., on Brandywine, 419.

Bowen, Nathan, 318.

Bowman, Capt. Joseph, 718.

Bowman, Capt. Josiah, 682.

Bowman, Major, fighting the Shawanese, 730.

Bowring, _Jeremy Bentham_, 95.

Bowyer, Adj., on Waxhaws, 527.

Boyd, Lieut. Thomas, 640, 671.

Boyle, _Marylanders_, 227.

Boylston, E. D., _Hillsborough County Congress_, 108.

Boynton, Edw. C., _West Point_, 464.

Boynton, Thomas, 188.

Brackenborough, Judge, life of Braxton, 265.

Brackenridge, H. H., drama on Bunker Hill, 198;
_Death of Montgomery_, 216;
on the Monmouth field, 446.

Brackenridge, H. M., _Views of Louisiana_, 652.

Brackinridge, H., on the Indians, 736.

Bradford, Alden, _Jonathan Mayhew_, 71;
edits _Mass. State Papers_, 73;
_Bunker Hill_, 191;
life of R. T. Paine, 265.

Bradford, Job, 187.

Bradford Club, 219.

Bradford's _Collection_, 73.

Bradstreet, Col., goes up the lakes (1764), 698;
at Detroit, 698;
orderly-book, 698.

Brainerd, W. F., 562.

Brandywine, battle of, 381;
map of battle, 414;
view of the field, 419;
Galloway's plan of, 415;
sources, 418;
Washington's map of the campaign, 420, 421;
Hessian map, 422;
other plans, 422, 423.

Brant, Joseph, at Montreal, 619;
made Guy Johnson's secretary, 623;
portraits, 623, 625;
autograph, 625;
at the Cedars, 625, 626;
his early life, 625;
invades New York (1777), 626;
at siege of Fort Stanwix, 299, 628, 661;
to operate in New York (1778), 633;
his ravages, 633;
burns Andrustown, 636;
attacks German Flats, 636;
at Cherry Valley, 636, 665;
denied responsibility for massacre at Cherry Valley, 638;
accounts of, 657;
descendants, 657;
letters, 657;
meets Herkimer, 627;
attacks the Minisink settlements, 639;
his report, 672;
at Canajoharie, 644;
not at Wyoming, 663.

Brashear, Lieut., 729.

Brassier, Wm., surveyed Lake Champlain, 347.

Brattle, Gen., his letter to Gage in fac-simile, 98.

Braxton, Carter, life, 265;
autog., 266;
_Address to the Convention_, 272.

Breechloaders used at Brandywine, 419.

Brehm, Capt., 738.

Brent, _Archbishop Carroll_, 229.

Brevoort, J. C., has some of Paul Jones's papers, 590.

Breyman, Col., at Bennington, 300, 354.

Briar Creek, 520.

Bridgdens, of Boston, 47.

Bridgetown, Pa., 421.

Briggs, C. A., _American Presbyterianism_, 244.

Bristol (Pa.), 409, 410.

Bristol (R. I.), 600.

British army, brutality of, 372.

British Constitution, spirit of, 5.

British regiments, historical records of, 198.

Brock, R. A., on the Nelson house, 506.

Brodhead, Col., attacks the Indians of the Alleghany, 642, 671;
his route, 642;
at Fort Pitt, 731;
acc. of his exped., 653.

Bromfield, John, 187.

Bronson, J., 464.

Bronx River, 337.

Brookline, Mass., fort at, 206, 210;
view of, 150.

Brooklyn, maps of, 329;
battle of, 277;
risks of the British, 290;
maps, 344, 404;
accounts of, 344;
roads of approach, 277;
British plans, 278.
_See_ Long Island.

Brooklyn Heights, 275;
defences of, 275.

Brooks, Chas., _Medford_, ed. by Usher, 202.

Brooks, Erastus, 665;
on Indian history, 681.

Brooks, Col. John, at Bemis's Heights, 357;
on Valley Forge, 436;
on Monmouth, 446;
autog., 136;
portrait, 202;
on Bunker Hill plans, 202.

Brooks, N. C., on the Burgoyne campaign, 361.

Broom, J., surveyor, 421.

Brotherhead, _Signers_, 259.

Brougham, Henry, 9, 10, 63.

Broughton, Capt. Nicholas, 565.

Brown, Capt. Abraham, 130.

Brown, Dr. Buckminster, 194.

Brown, Dr. Geo., 187.

Brown, H. A., _Oration on the Congress of 1774_, 99;
_Mem. and Orations_, 439;
on Monmouth, 446.

Brown, H. K., statue of Gen. Greene, 510.

Brown, Col. John, and Ticonderoga, 213;
killed at Stone Arabia, 644;
in Canada, 161, 613, 615, 674;
his letters from Canada, 215.

Brown, Mrs. J. B., _Stories of Warren_, 194.

Brown, J. M., _Schoharie County_, 660.

Brown, Peter, 187.

Brown, Dr. Samuel, 710.

Brown, Thomas, 203.

Brunswick (N. C.), 542.

Brush, Crean, 205.

Bryan, Alexander, Gates's scout (1777), 358.

Bryan, Geo., 401.

Bryd, Col., 730, 731.

Brymner, Douglas, 693;
edits Haldimand calendar, 653;
Report on Canadian Archives, 733.

Buchanan, James, _No. American Indians_, 651;
on removing André's remains, 461.

Buck, W. J., _Washington on the Neshaminy_, 418.

Buck Island, 661.

Buckingham, J. T., _Specimens of newspaper lit._, 110.

Buffalo, N. Y., history of, 648.

Buffenton's Ford, 418.

Buford, Col., defeated at Waxhaws, 475, 527.

Bugbee, J. M., _Centennial of Bunker Hill_, 172.

Bull, Col., 679.

Bull, Gen., 519.

Bull, surveys of Georgia, 538.

Bullard, E. F., address, 366.

Bullock, Alex. H., on the Constitution of Mass., 274.

Bull's Ferry, affair at, 560.

Bunker Hill, occupied, 135;
order for it, 135;
battle of, 136;
forces engaged, 140;
Howe criticised, 140;
losses, 140;
news of it spread, 140;
authorities, 184;
earliest accounts, 186;
contemporary letters, diaries, and orderly-books, 187, 188;
losses of property at Charlestown, 187;
depositions of survivors, 189;
early historians, 189;
who commanded? 190;
officers engaged, 191;
monument, 194;
anniversary discourses, 194;
British accounts, 194;
letters, 194;
fac-simile of the Tory broadside account, 196;
Rawdon drawing of the battle, 197;
other pictures, 197;
general histories, 198;
ballads, 198;
dramas, 198;
British plan of the battle, 199;
_America invincible_, 200;
novels and poems, 200;
plans, 200, 202;
plan from the _Impartial History_, 201;
plan of the redoubt, 212;
of the works built by the British, 212.

Burch, 39.

Burdge, Franklin, 270.

Burgoyne, Gen. John, writes Gage's proclamations, 131;
correspondence with Chas. Lee, 144;
his opinion, 1775, on subduing the colonies, 145;
feared the occupation of Dorchester Heights, 156;
reaches Quebec (1776), 167, 225;
follows Sullivan, 167;
on Bunker Hill, 195;
life by Fonblanque, 195;
portraits of, 292, 293;
autog., 292;
suggests the use of mercenaries, 293;
his army, 294;
his character, 294;
orders from Germain, 295;
at St. Johns, 295;
his bombastic proclamation, 295;
at Crown Point, 296;
at Ticonderoga, 299;
refused troops by Carleton, 299;
at Fort Edward, 299;
losses at Stanwix and Bennington, 301;
moved towards Saratoga, 304;
at Freeman's Farm, 305;
awaits succor from Clinton, 307;
makes reconnoissance (Oct. 7), 307;
his losses, 309;
retreats to Saratoga, 309;
surrounded, 309;
sends flag of truce, 309;
terms gained, 309, 317;
fac-simile of letter to Gates about the British wounded, 310;
at Gates's headquarters, 310;
his losses in the campaign, 311;
his army marched to Boston, 311, 318;
the plan of his campaign criticised, 312;
his difficulties of supply, 313;
his slow movements, 313;
authorities on his campaign, 315;
charges against Henley, 318;
examination of the observance of the convention, 318;
breaks the provisions of the convention, 318;
neither side scrupulous, 319;
flags concealed, 319;
plan for the campaign of 1777, 348;
preparations, 348;
issues a proclamation, 349;
reprints, 349;
burlesqued, 349;
maps of the entire campaign, 349;
captures Ticonderoga, 349;
Hubbardton, 350;
proclamation, 350;
_Campaign of_, by W. L. Stone, 351;
worsted at Bennington, 354;
instructions to Baum, 354;
his report to Germain, 354;
discouraged, 356;
Freeman's Farm, 356;
battle of Oct. 7, 357;
surrenders, 358;
view of field, 358;
view of camp, 358;
his letter to Germain, 358;
strength of his army, 358;
authorities on the campaign in general, 358, 360, 361;
orderly-books and journals, 359, 360;
his own orders, 359;
life by De Fonblanque, 361;
maps of the final battles, 361;
fac-simile of map in _Analectic Mag._, 362;
view of the field of surrender, 361;
signatures of the convention, 361;
Gates's headquarters, 361;
landmarks of the campaign, 361;
effects of the surrender in Europe, 364;
sails for England, 364;
in Parliament, 364;
his birth, 364;
satires upon, 364;
his defences in Parliament, 365;
_Substance of Speeches_, 365;
John Wilkes' comments, 365;
resigns his commission, 365;
_Letter to his Constituents_, 365;
_Reply_, 365;
_Letter to Burgoyne_, 366;
_A brief examination_, 366;
_Enquiry into the conduct of Burgoyne_, 366;
_Supplement to the State of the Expedition_, 366;
attacked in _Remarks_, 366;
_Letter to Lieut.-Gen. Burgoyne_, 366;
reply by Rev. Sam. Peters, 366;
_Essay on modern martyrs_, 366;
his _State of the Expedition_, 366;
his documents laid before Parliament, 366;
documents in the War Office, 366;
his speech to the Indians, 366;
his letter from Albany, 366;
councils of war, 366;
exchanged, 366;
news of his surrender sent to Europe by Massachusetts, 571, 586;
his opinion of the use of Indians, 621, 627;
charged with buying scalps, 683;
Washington visits the scene of his campaign, 746.

Burk, John, _Virginia,_ 515.

Burke, Ardanus, _Address_, 527.

Burke, Edmund, 31;
his first speech, 32;
in Parliament (1770), 52;
_European Settlements_, 64;
on the debates of 1765, 72;
_Observations_ on Tickle's tract, 85;
_Thoughts on the Causes of the present Discontents_, 88;
on the Quebec Bill, 102;
on American taxation, 112;
his _Works_, 112;
speeches on conciliation, 112;
conversation with North, 112;
his character, 112;
lives of, 112;
as a speaker, 112;
on Bunker Hill, 195;
ridicules Burgoyne's proclamations, 295;
in the _Annual Register_, 687.

Burke, J. W., 258.

Burr, Aaron, on the Kennebec exped., 162;
as a soldier, 163;
in the assault on Quebec, 165;
his house in N. York, 276.

Burton, Jonathan, 202, 227;
his diary, 346.

Bury, Viscount, _Exodus of the Western Nations_, 232.

Bushnell, C. I., _Crumbs for Antiquarians_, 202, 219.

Bushnell, David, invents the "American Turtle", 567.

Bushy Run, battle of, 694;
losses, 669;
plan, 692;
described by Burke, 697;
by Wm. Smith, 697.

Bute, Earl of, 21;
his ministry, 23.

Butler, James D., on Bennington, 356.

Butler, Col. John, at Niagara (Sept., 1776), 626;
to invade the Susquehanna country (1778), 633;
at Wyoming, 634, 636, 663;
his report, 664.

Butler, Mann, 718.

Butler, Col. Richard, at Monmouth, 446;
_Diary of Yorktown_, 554.

Butler, Walter N., at Cherry Valley, 636, 665;
on the Mohawk (1781), 646;
killed, 646.

Butler, Col. Wm., 346;
burns Oquaga, 636;
route of, in 1778, 681.

Butler, Zebulon, report on Wyoming, 634, 664;
acc. of, 664;
and the Tuscaroras, 619;
escapes, 635.

Butler's Rangers, 661;
their badge, 631.

Butterfield, C. W., edits Leith's _Narrative_, 682;
_Washington-Crawford letters_, 714;
_Exped. against Sandusky_, 737;
_Washington-Irvine Corresp._, 737.

Butt's Hill (R. I.), 602.

Byrd, Capt., 739, 741.

Byron, Admiral, on the American coast, 580;
off Boston harbor, 603.

Cadwalader, Col. Lambert, 288, 341;
at Fort Washington, 338;
and Gen. Prescott, 403.

Cahokia, 730;
Indian council at, 719;
surrenders, 722;
raid upon, 737, 739.

Caldwell, Charles, _Life of Gen. Greene_, 510.

Caldwell, David, his life, 514.

Caldwell, Col. Henry, 222.

Caldwell on Ticonderoga, 214.

Calef, John, _Siege of Penobscot_, 604.

Callendar, George, 209.

Calvé, 739.

Calvert, Geo. H., play on André, 464.

Cambell, David, 535.

Cambridge (Mass.) fortified (1775), 130;
Holmes House, 135;
Tory Row, 142;
Vassall or Craigie House, 142;
Brattle House, 142;
Riedesel House, 142;
Oliver House, 142;
Bishop's Palace, 142;
Christ Church, 142;
_Centennial Memorial_, 142;
Washington Elm, 142;
councils of war in, 142;
accounts of the camp, 202, 203;
letters from the camp, 203;
orderly-books, 204; works at, 206;
legislature at (1769), 47;
men at Lexington, 184;
roads near, 121, 122.

Camden, Lord, on the Decl. of Indep., 269;
speeches, 112, 529.

Camden (Carolina), campaign of, 514;
battle of (Gates), 477, 478, 529;
and the militia, 478;
number of forces, 529;
losses, 530;
Faden's plan, 531;
other plans, 531;
Senff's plan, 533.
For the second battle at, _see_ Hobkirk's Hill.

Campbell, Archibald, map of Georgia, 675;
at Savannah, 469.

Campbell, Brigadier, at Pensacola, 739, 740.

Campbell, Col. Arthur, of Virginia, 677;
raid on the Indians, 680.

Campbell, C., edits Lewis's _Order-book_, 168;
edits _Bland Papers_, 321.

Campbell, C. A., on the Robinson House, 452;
on the Odell House, 561.

Campbell, Donald, succeeds to the command before Quebec, 165;
despatch about the siege of Quebec, 221.

Campbell, Douglass, on Cherry Valley, 666;
on the Iroquois and N. Y.'s Indian policy, 681.

Campbell, J. W., _Biog. Sketches_, 219.

Campbell, Robert, on King's Mountain, 535.

Campbell, Thomas, his letter to Brant, 663;
_Gertrude of Wyoming_, 665.

Campbell, Col. Wm., 478;
on King's Mountain, 535.

Campbell, W. W., on Gen. James Clinton, 659, 670;
_Tryon County or Border Warfare_, 351, 659;
_Border Warfare_, 655;
on Indians in the Rev. War, 655;
on Cherry Valley, 666.

Campbell, _Life of Loughborough_, 112.

Campfield, Jabez, diary, 668.

Canada, campaign in (1775-1776), 162;
authorities, 174, 215;
Schuyler in command, 215;
address of Congress to the inhabitants, 215;
maps of the campaign, 215;
maps of the region, 216;
Arnold's share in it (_see_ Kennebec expedition, Quebec);
retreat from Canada, 226;
local aspects, 227;
commissioners of Congress in, 227;
their instructions, 227;
new commissioners sent, 227;
their letters, 227, 229;
D'Estaing's proclamation to the inhabitants, 603;
Franklin's advocacy of its retention by England (1763), 686;
Indians of, visited by Maj. Brown, 613;
sought by Ethan Allen, 614;
invasion from, threatened, 615;
messengers sent to, by Adams and Warren, 119.

Canadea, N. Y., 669.

Canajoharie Castle, 608;
destroyed, 644.

Canandaigua, 669.

Caner, Henry, _Candid Examination_, 70.

Canot, P., 331.

Cantwell's Bridge, 421.

Cape Fear River, 485;
map, 542.

Cardinal, Nic., 726.

Carleton, General Guy, refuses troops to Burgoyne, 299;
opposes the use of Indians, 613, 618, 655;
thought to be intending an invasion, 615;
charged with coercing the Indians to take sides, 615;
uses them for defence, 618, 621;
instructed by Germain (1777), 348;
disappointed in not conducting the campaign (1777), 348;
his commissions, 653, 654, 673;
his orders (1776-1777), 359;
correspondence from Quebec, 222;
at Crown Point, 293;
reaches Quebec (1776), 164;
portrait, 164;
autog., 164;
arrives in N. Y. (1782), 745.

Carlisle, Pa., taken, 691.

Carmichael-Smyth, Sir James, _Précis of the War in Canada_, 223.

Carolinas, map of, by Henry Monson, 675.

Carpenter, J. C., 227.

Carr, Dabney, 56.

Carr, Lucien, on women's rights among the Indians, 607.

Carrington, Gen. H. B., _Boston and New York_, 173;
plan of Bunker Hill, 189, 202;
_Strategic relations of New Jersey_, 413;
on Lafayette in Virginia, 547.

Carroll, Chas., autog., 227, 265;
letters from Canada, 229;
in Canada, 166, 227;
last survivor of the signers of the Decl. of Indep., 264;
his _Journal_, 227;
references, 227;
his wealth, 227;
his house, 227;
medal, 227;
portrait, 227;
life, 266.

Carroll, John, in Canada, 166, 227.

Carter, William, _Genuine Detail_, 195.

Carter's Valley, 678.

Cartwright, John, 244.

Caruthers, E. W., _Interesting Rev. Incidents_, 514, 539;
_Life of David Caldwell_, 81, 514.

Carver, Jonathan, map of province of Quebec, 226.

Cary, Archibald, 259.

_Case of Great Britain and America_, 85.

Castiglione, _Viaggio_, 529.

Castine, 604;
British at (1779), 603.

Castle William (Boston), view, 157;
blown up, 158.

Castleton, Vt., 297;
Burgoyne's orders to people of, 359.

Caswell and the North Carolina militia, 476.

Catawba Indians, 611;
in the war, 525, 677;
friendly to the Americans, 620.

Catawba River, 475.

Catharine's town, N. Y., 669.

Caughnawagas, 613, 655;
at Montreal, 624;
offer aid, 673.

Caulkins, F. M., _New London_, 591.

Cavendish, Lady Georgiana, _Admiral Gambier_, 230, 326, 436.

_Cavendish Debates_, 102.

Caverley, A. M., _Pittsford, Vt._, 355.

Cayugas, their country, 609.

Caziare, Lieut., his surveys of Yorktown, 553.

Cedars, affair at, 166, 225, 616;
_Authentic Narrative_, 225.

Ceracchi, bust of Hamilton, 384.

Chad's Ford, 381, 421.

Chadwick, J. W., 331.

Chalmers, Geo., _Polit. Annals_, 64;
_Revolt of the Colonies_, 64, 232, 255;
_Opinions of Eminent Lawyers_, 255;
_Plain Truth_, 270;
on the growth of Amer. independence, 232.

Chamberlain, Mellen, "The Revolution impending", 1;
edits Dearborn's journal, 219, 360;
his _John Adams_, 261;
_Authentication of the Decl. of Indep._, 269.

Chambers, Col., _Chambersburg_, 327.

Chambers, John, 219.

Chamblée on the Sorel, 215;
Sullivan at, 167;
fort captured, 162;
its colors in Philad., 162.

Champe, Sergeant, and Arnold, 468;
_Champe's Adventures_, 468.

Champlain, Lake, armed vessels on (1776), 346;
Arnold on, 346;
surveyed by Brassier, 347;
maps, 348.

Champney, L. W., "Memories of New London", 562.

Chandler Ford, Pa., 421.

Chandler, P. W., _Amer. Criminal Trials_, 86, 463.

Chandler, Thomas B., his controversy with Chauncey, 71;
_What think ye of Congress now?_ 101;
_Strictures examined_, 106.

Channing, Edw., "War in the Southern Dept.", 469.

Channing, Wm. H., edits J. H. Perkins' _Memoirs_, 648.

Chapin, C. W. E., 650.

Chapman, Isaac A., 199, 362;
_Wyoming,_ 664.

Chapman, T. J., on the siege of Fort Pitt, 697;
on C. F. Post, 736.

Charleston, S. C., view, 171;
(1776), 229;
(1777), 471;
defences (1776), 169;
map of its harbor, 170, 471;
news of Lexington in, 178;
capitulation at, 322;
evacuated, 507;
Lincoln at, 474, 513;
attacked by Prevost, 520;
_Address to Clinton_, 527;
tea-ships at, 57;
siege (1780), 471, 524;
forces engaged, 525;
losses, 525;
plans of the siege, 526, 528;
American prisoners at, 534;
plan of, 538;
repossessed, 546;
ships taken at (1780), 582, 583.

Charlestown, Mass., views of, 197;
plan of, 198, 201, 202, 206, 210;
survey of, 200;
works made by the British (1775-1776), 202;
deserted, 138;
burned, 138.

Charters amended or revoked by the crown, 3;
Franklin's opinion, 3.

Chartres, Fort, surrendered, 705;
acc. of, 706;
abandoned, 720.
_See_ Fort.

Chase, Samuel, in Canada, 166, 227;
autog., 265;
life, 266;
letters, 341.

Chase, Thomas, _Sketches of Paul Jones_, 590.

Chastellux, autog., 500;
on Cowpens, 538;
_Remarks on his Travels,_ 463, 560;
sails from Baltimore, 745.

Chatham resigned, 46;
_Appeal_, 109 (_see_ Pitt);
common popular portrait, 109;
portrait for R. H. Lee, 110;
Hoare's picture of, 110;
bust by Wilton, 110;
statue at Charleston, 110;
medals, 110;
lives of, 112;
his speeches, 112;
his speeches against using Indians, 617, 621.

Chatterton's Hill, 286.

Chaudiere River, 224.

Chauncey, Chas., his autog., 71;
controversy with Chandler, 71;
_Discourse on Mayhew_, 71;
sermon, the Stamp Act repeal, 74;
on the Penobscot exped., 603;
_Letter to a friend_, 76, 95.

Chauvignerie, report on the Indians, 652.

Cheever, David, 187.

Chemung, 669;
ambuscade at, 681;
destroyed, 639.

Cheney, J. V., 138.

Cheraws, camp at, 483.

Cherokees, 611;
in the war, 523, 675;
their territory, 610;
ready to fight, 620;
map of campaign against, 675;
country invaded, 676;
treaties with, 677, 679;
their houses, 678.

Cherry Valley, 609;
accounts of massacre, 665;
attacked, 636, 638;
fortified (1778), 636.

Chesapeake Bay, charts of, 548;
French map, 553;
map of entrance, 550.

Chesney, Alex., acc. of war in So. Carolina, 535.

Chesney, Col., _Essays in modern military biography_, 536.

Chester, John, 187.

Chester, J. L., on André's lineage, 464.

Chester (Pa.), 429;
Washington at, 382, 415.

Chestnut Hill (Pa.), 425, 428;
skirmish at, 389.

Chevalier, M., _La Marine Française_, 598.

Chew, Benj., his house, 385, 426.

Chew, Joseph, 658.

Chickamaugas, 678.

Child, D. L., _Inquiry into conduct of Gen. Putnam_, 191.

Child, Sir Josiah, 63.

Chilicothe destroyed, 731.

Chipman, _Life of Warner_, 356.

Chittenden, L. E., _Address_, 214.

Choctaws, 611.

Choiseul, Duc de, 686;
sends a messenger to the English colonies, 244;
understood American affairs, 60;
watching the colonies, 16.

Choisy, autog., 500.

Chotteau, Léon, _Les Français en Amérique_, 463, 560.

Chouteau, Col. P., 705.

Christian, Col. Wm., 676, 679, 714.

Christiana Bridge (Pa.), 421;
creek, 381;
river, 421.

Church, Dr. Benj., his traitorous correspondence, 118, 145;
confined in Cambridge, 142;
_Elegy on Dr. Mayhew_, 71;
_The Times_, 73;
oration on Boston Massacre, 88.

Churchill, Amos, _Hubbardton_, 350.

Cincinnati Society, 746.

Circular letter of Mass., 42;
in England, 44, 46;
responses, 44.

Cist, Lewis J., 264.

Clap, Ensign, 203.

Clapham, Mrs., 47.

Clapp, _Dorchester_, 173.

Clarence, C. W., _Ralph Farnham_, 192.

Clark, Abraham, 407;
autog., 264;
life, 265.

Clark, Geo. Rogers, on the origin of the Dunmore war, 710;
on Cresap, 712;
his tour in Kentucky, 716;
sent to Va. Assembly, 716;
plans the conquest of the Northwest, 716;
made a colonel, 717;
raises troops, 717;
his own accounts of his Illinois campaign, 718;
his papers owned by L. C. Draper, 718;
his journal at Vincennes, 718;
his despatches captured, 718;
captures Kaskaskia, 719;
captures Vincennes, 718, 722;
his youth, 723;
holds council with the Indians, 724;
marches to retake Vincennes, 725;
transactions with Vigo, 725;
summons Hamilton, 726, 727;
on Hamilton, 682;
fac-simile of autog., 727;
captures stores, 728;
plans of capturing Detroit, 728;
builds Fort Jefferson, 730;
intercepted letters 730, 733;
estimate of him by Washington, 731;
fights Arnold in Va., 732;
made brig.-general, 732;
urged to capture B. Arnold in Va., 732;
disappears from Western history, 733;
on the Miami, 733;
discharged, 733;
social habits, 733;
in French service (1793), 733;
references, 734;
death, 734;
portrait, 734;
at St. Louis, 737, 740.

Clark, Henry, on Hubbardton, 350.

Clark, John, _Battle fought 17th June_, 195.

Clark, John, diary, 436, 446.

Clark, Rev. Jonas, 122, 180.

Clark, Joseph, 445.

Clark, Gen. J. S., map of the Newtown battle, 681;
on the Sullivan campaign (1779), 671.

Clark, Major, spy of Washington, 439.

Clark, Peter, on Bennington, 354.

Clark, Thomas, _Naval Hist. of U. S._, 589.

Claus, Col. Daniel, 247, 351, 661;
has charge of St. Leger's Indians, 628;
manuscript anecdotes of Brant, 663:

Cleveland, Col., and North Carolinians, 478.

Clinch Valley, 676.

Clinton, De Witt, life of Philip Livingston, 265.

Clinton, George, house in N. Y., 276;
portraits, 197, 308;
memoir by W. L. Stone, 308;
opposes evacuation of N. Y., 333;
autog., 364.

Clinton, Sir Henry, at Bunker Hill, 138;
proclamations in S. Carolina, 229, 322, 513, 526;
attacks Fort Moultrie, 153, 170, 230;
in the battle of Brooklyn, 279;
attack on Forts Clinton and Montgomery, 306;
plan, 363;
despatches, 364;
in Philadelphia, 396;
succeeds Howe, 443;
on Monmouth, 446;
on the Southern campaign (1778), 520;
endeavors to save André, 461;
his MS. _Hist. of the War_, 467;
his accounts of Arnold and André, 467;
in the South, 469;
attacks Charlestown, S. C., 471, 526;
captures it, 474;
his report, 525;
deceived by Washington's seeming intention of attacking New York,
498, 501, 561;
_Narrative_, 516;
_Observations on Cornwallis's Answer_, 516;
his notes on the correspondence, 156;
controversy with Arbuthnot, 517;
_Letter to Com. on Public Accounts_, 517;
_Observations on Stedman_, 517;
_Memorandum on plundering_, 517;
forged despatch about siege of Charleston, 527;
his controversy with Cornwallis, 547;
orders him to occupy Old Point Comfort, 548;
ordered by Germain to continue the war in the South, 548;
seeks to succor Cornwallis, 549;
in New Jersey, 559;
on the revolt of the Penn. line, 561;
in Rhode Island (1776), 593;
(1778), 603;
sends naval force to Penobscot (1779), 603;
portraits, 306, 307;
relieved by Carleton, 745.

Clinton, Gen. James, his expedition against the Indians, 638;
acc. of, 659;
in the Sullivan exped. (1779), 667, 670;
portraits, 670, 681;
_Revolutionary Relics_, 457.

Clunes, John, 360.

Cluny, Alex., _Amer. Traveller_, 85.

Clymer, Geo., autog., 265;
life, 265.

Cobb, David, diary at Yorktown, 554.

Cobbett, Wm., 359.

Cobleskill, Brant at, 633;
confused accounts of, 633;
destroyed, 660.

Coburn, F. W., _Bennington_, 356.

Cockings, Geo., _The American War_, 197, 200.

Coffin, Chas., _Bunker Hill_, 189;
_Mem. of Gen. Thomas_, 167.

Coffin, C. C., _Boscawen_, 355;
on Bunker Hill, 190.

Coffin, Shubael, 33.

Cohoes, 609.

Colden, lieut.-gov. of New York, 30.

Coleman, C. W., on Greene, 537.

Coleman, E. C., on Simon Kenton, 708.

Colerain, Lord, 517 (_see_ Hanger, Geo.), _Life of Hanger_, 517.

Coles, Edward, 258.

Collet, O. W., 730, 740.

Collet, surveys of No. Carolina, 538.

Colleville, Vicomte de, _Les missions secretes du Baron de Kalb_, 244.

Collier, Sir Geo., 326;
in N. Y. harbor, 330;
relieves Penobscot, 582;
in the "Rainbow", 589.

Colman, R. F., 734.

Colonies, English, their independence of England, 232;
their relations to the crown, 3, 5.

Colonization, English idea of, 687.

Colucci, Giuseppe, _Guerra per l'Independenza_, 523.

_Columbian Magazine_, 510.

Combahee Ferry, 507.

Committees of correspondence, origin of, 89;
of correspondence, inspection, and safety, 90.

Conanicut Island, map of, 596, 600, 602.

Concord (Mass.), fight at, 124;
roads about, 121;
visited by Brown and Bernière, 119;
authorities on the fight, 175;
depositions, 175;
fac-simile of Col. James Barrett's, 177;
plan of, 180;
centennial celebration, 184;
histories, 184;
view of, 185 (_see_ Lexington);
military stores at, 123;
Prov. Congress at, 120.

Cone, Mary, 729;
_Rufus Putnam_, 158.

Conestogoes, massacred by Paxton Boys, 606, 682;
their lands, 606.

"Confederacy", captured, 584.

Confederation of the United States (1776), 240, 274;
articles, 174;
debates on, 274;
Franklin's proposed plan, 654.

Congaree River, 475.

Congress of 1754, 63, 65;
various plans at, 66;
Rhode Island and, 66, 67.

Congress of 1774, proposed, 59, 60;
who originated?, 98;
sessions, 99;
legal aspects of, 99;
the delegates, how chosen 99;
feelings in N. Y. towards, 99;
Delaware members, 99;
Virginia members, 99;
tracts about, 99;
New England in, 99;
Sunday sessions opposed, 99;
Middle States in, 99;
Virginia in, 99;
Carolina in, 99;
its _Journal_, 100;
its device, 100;
copy owned by Thomas Cushing, 100;
_The whole proceedings_, 100;
_Extracts from its Journal_, 100;
documents in Force, 100;
notes of the debates, 100;
_Declaration of Rights_, 100;
_Petition to the King_, 100;
MS. copies in existence, 100;
printed copies, 100;
_Address to the people of Great Britain_, 100;
a _Letter_ in response, 100;
_Memorial to the Colonies_, 100;
_Suffolk Resolves_, read, 100;
the approval of them drove out the loyalists, 101;
effect in England, 101;
Galloway's plan of adjustment, 101;
relations of loyalists, 101;
_Articles of Association,_ 101;
fac-similes of signatures, 102;
address to inhabitants of Quebec, 104;
every step known in London, 104;
its views challenged in New York, 104;
the Seabury-Wilkins tracts on, 104;
letter to the king, 237;
declaration, 237.

Congress of 1775, 107;
_Journal_, 107;
different eds., 107;
debates, 107;
its _Declaration_, 108;
_Address to the inhabitants of Great Britain_, 108;
_Address to Ireland_, 108;
_Address to New England_, 108;
_Petition to the King_, 108, 255;
chooses Washington commander-in-chief, 108;
articles of confederation, 108;
approves the form of government adopted in Mass., 108;
articles for the government of the troops, 108;
plan for organizing militia, 108;
proceedings, secret, 108;
com. of secret correspondence, 108;
general references, 108;
lives of members, 108;
effect in England, 109;
Dr. Samuel Johnson's _Taxation no Tyranny_, 109;
tender of Canada, 160;
parties in, 255.

Congress, Continental, sends a commission to Canada, 166;
Declaration of Independence, 228 (_see_ Declaration);
and independence, 231;
its character, 233;
New Hampshire in, 234;
Massachusetts in, 234;
Connecticut in, 234;
Pennsylvania in, 234;
journals, 252, 261, 268;
leaves Philadelphia (1776), 373, 383;
its lessening character, 391;
distrust of Washington in, 391;
inefficiency of, 556, 744;
creates inspector-general, 556;
seeks to regulate prices, 556;
naval committee, 567;
appoints Hopkins commander-in-chief of navy, 568;
arranges the rank of captains, 570;
gives commissioners in Europe power to commission naval officers,
573;
authorizes privateers, 591;
_Extracts from Journals on prizes and privateers_, 591;
prize claims, 591;
and the use of Indians, 615, 616, 622, 632, 654;
creates Indian departments, 616;
addresses the Six Nations, 616;
plan of confederation, 616;
address to Ireland, 617.

Connecticut claims the credit of capturing Ticonderoga (1775), 160,
213;
claim to land in Pennsylvania, 605, 665, 680;
creates a navy, 565;
equips troops (1775), 122;
her seamen, 587;
invaded by Tryon, 557;
men at Bunker Hill, 189;
naval officers, 568;
organizes a militia, 116;
issues paper money, 116;
privateers, 591;
whale-boat warfare, 591;
_Queries and Answers_ as to her commerce, 64;
retains her original charter, 274;
sends a message to Gage (1775), 128;
Mass. delegates in, 128;
Stamp Act in, 73;
troops in Long Island battle, 329;
trouble with the Mohawks, 605.

Connecticut Valley invaded (1780), 645.

Conner, Timothy, journal, 575.

Connolly, Dr. John, 709.

Connolly's arrest, 653.

Conover, Geo. S., edits journals of Sullivan expedition, 681;
_Sayengueraghta_, 663.

Conrad, R. T., edited Sanderson's _Signers_, 266.

Constitution Island in the Hudson, 323, 462, 465;
plan, 325.

Constitutional Society in London, 175.

Constitutions of the several United States, 268, 272.

Continental army reorganized, 437;
distresses of, 560;
number of men in, year by year, 588;
including militia, 588;
not paid, 745;
disbanded, 746.

Continental Congress. _See_ Congress.

Continental navy, general accounts of, 589;
forming of, 567;
naval committee, 567;
names of first-built ships, 567;
officers commissioned in Europe, 573;
its captures, 576, 589;
losses, 576;
force in 1780, 583;
total number engaged in service, 584, 587;
compared with land forces, 588;
vessels sunk in the Delaware, 428;
raised, 445.
_See_ Navy.

Convention troops (Burgoyne's army), 317;
at Rutland, 321;
in Virginia, 321.

Conway Cabal, 392;
who shared in it?, 446;
references, 446, 447.

Conway, Gen. H. S., 31, 238;
his portrait ordered by Boston, 74;
likenesses, 74.

Conway, Gen. Thomas, at Brandywine, 382;
and the Conway Cabal, 392.

Conyngham, Gustavus, commands the "Surprise", 573;
takes prizes into Dunkirk, 573;
imprisoned in France, 573;
demanded of France by England, 574;
in the "Revenge", 574.

Cook, Frederick, 681.

Cook, James, map of So. Carolina, 537.

Cook, Col. John, 668.

Cook, Lemuel, 746.

Cook, Col. Thaddeus, orderly-book (1777), 359.

Cooke, Geo. W., _Hist. of Party_, 112.

Cooke, J. E., on Chas. Lee, Gates, etc., 144;
on Jefferson, 259;
on the Virginia Declaration of Independence, 259;
on the Virginia Constitution, 272;
"Historic houses in the Shenandoah", 407;
on the British in Virginia, 546.

Cooke, Samuel, _The Violent destroyed_, 180.

Cooke, W. D., _Rev. Hist. of N. Carolina_, 256.

Coolidge, G. A., _Brochure of Bunker Hill_, 132.

Coolidge, T. Jefferson, 258.

Cooper, J. F., _Lionel Lincoln_, 185, 200;
_Travelling Bachelor_, 466;
_Naval Hist. U. S._, 589;
editions, 589;
_Lives of Distinguished Naval Officers_, 589;
_Pilot_, 590.

Cooper, Dr. Myles, _Friendly Address_, 106;
drew out other tracts, 106;
_American Querist_, 106;
_What think ye of Congress now?_ 101.

Cooper, Dr. Samuel, defends D'Estaing, 580, 601;
corresponding with Wm. Livingston, 83;
on Preston's trial, 86;
letters, 203.

Cooper, Samuel (Penna.), 436.

Cooper, Wm., 84;
town clerk of Boston, autog., 87, 115.

Copley, J. S., paints Hancock, 270;
John Adams, 36;
Sam. Adams, 40;
Chief Justice Oliver, 95.

Copp, J. J., 562.

Cornplanter, chief of the Senecas, 644.

Cornstalk, at battle of Point Pleasant, 714;
accounts of, 714.

Cornwallis, Lord, attacks Fort Washington, 289;
crosses the Hudson (1776), and occupies Fort Lee, 338, 367;
in New Jersey, 376;
at Brandywine, 381, 422;
in Philadelphia, 384;
at Germantown, 427;
at Gloucester, 430;
headquarters in Savannah, 471;
at Charlestown, S. C. (1780), 473;
portraits, 474, 475;
contemp. acc. of, 474;
in command in the South, 475;
attacks Gates at Camden, 477;
weakened by the loss at King's Mountain, 480;
destroys his train, 483;
pursues Greene, 484;
at Hillsborough, 484;
at Guilford, 485;
pursued, 487;
at Wilmington, N. C., 494;
moves to Virginia, 495;
in command, 496;
tries to intercept Lafayette, 497;
at Portsmouth, Va., 498;
ordered to fortify a post, 498;
seizes Yorktown, 498;
surrenders, 504;
autog., 505;
his headquarters in Yorktown, 506;
his cave, 506;
his headquarters at Williamsburg, 506;
_Correspondence_, 516;
controversy with Clinton, 516;
_Reply to Clinton_, 516;
_Answer to Clinton's Narrative_, 516;
and Arbuthnot, 517;
on Tarleton, 518;
at siege of Charleston (1780), 526;
at Camden, 529;
his proclamation, 532;
his opinion of rebels, 534;
affected by Ferguson's defeat, 536;
maps of his Southern campaigns, 537, 538;
map of his campaign with Lafayette, 538;
on the Cowpens 538;
his order-book, 539;
pursuit of Greene to the Dan, 539;
at Guilford, 539, 541;
his order-book, 541;
at Wilmington, N. C., 547;
disagrees with Clinton about moving into Virginia, 547;
Germain approved, 548;
fortifies Yorktown, 549.

Correspondence, committees of, 54, 56.
_See_ Committees.

Cortelyou House, 329.

Cortland Manor, 340.

Cortlandt, Col. Philip, autobiography, 360;
portrait, 681.

Coryell's Ferry, 369.

Courts of vice-admiralty, 71.

Coventry Forge, 415.

Cowan's Ford, 539.

Cowboys, 456.

Cowley, R., _Harbor of Charleston_, 529.

Cowpens, battle of, 481, 482, 538;
its importance, 482;
forces at, 539;
losses, 539;
plan of fight, 539;
medals given, 539.

Cox, Daniel, 372.

Cox, S. S., 366.

Craft, Rev. David, on Sullivan's campaign, 670, 681.

Crafts, Wm., 230.

Craigie, Andrew, 142.

Cramahé commands in Quebec, 163.

Cranberry, N. J., 408, 410.

Crawford, Col. Wm., killed, 736.

Crawford, James, 684.

Creasy, _Decisive Battles_, 357.

Creek Indians, 611, 679.

Cresap, Capt. Michael, advises against a war with the Indians, 710;
acc. of, 710;
unjustly charged with killing Logan's family, 711, 712;
accounts of, 712;
dies, 713;
grave, 713.

Cresap, Col. Thomas, 710, 712;
treaty with the Indians, 607.

Cresap's War, 707.

Criminals enlisted by the British, 112, 705.

Croghan, Geo., on the Indian lands, 650;
his estimate of Indian population, 650;
sent among the Western Indians (1765), 702;
at Vincennes, 703;
meets Pontiac, 704;
journals of his Western journey, 704.

Croghan, Major William, journal at Charleston, 525.

Cromot-Dubourg, _Journal_, 553, 554.

Crooked Billet (Pa.), 442.

Cross, Ralph, journal, 360.

Crosscup, B. S., _Heart of the Alleghanies_, 536.

Crosswicks, 408, 410.

Crown's right to unoccupied lands, 2, 6, 15;
can administer justice, 4.

Crufts, Benj., 188.

Cruger, J. H., 522.

Cruger, Lewis, 74.

Cruvat, Don Francisco, 743.

Cullum, General G. W., on Richard Montgomery, 216;
"The Struggle for the Hudson", 275;
_Defences of Narragansett Bay_, 593.

Currietown, N. Y., destroyed, 645.

Curry, J. L. M., address on Yorktown, 555.

Curtis, G. W., _Concord Oration_, 184;
on Burgoyne's surrender, 361.

Cushing, Caleb, on Brant at Wyoming, 663.

Cushing, John, autog., 50.

Cushing, Thomas, in Congress (1774), 59, 93;
autog., 99;
report on building of armed ships, 591.

Custis, G. W. P., on John Laurens, 545.

Cutler, Manasseh, diary in R. I. (1778), 601.

D'Abbadie, gov. at N. Orleans, 701.

Daggett, John, Jr., 85.

Dale, Richard, on the "Bon Homme Richard", 590;
revised the acc. in Cooper's _Naval Hist._, 590.

Dallas, A. J., _Laws of Penna._, 649.

Dalrymple, Sir John, _Reply to Burgoyne_, 365;
_Rights of Great Britain asserted_, 109, 269;
_Address_, 109.

Dalton, Capt., 652.

Dalzell, Capt., at Detroit, 697;
killed, 697.

Dalzell, J. M., 746.

Damer, G., his letters, 549.

Dana, Francis, 437;
on independence, 256.

Dana, Richard, autog., 87.

Dana, R. H., Jr., edits diary of a British officer in Boston, 204;
address at Lexington, 184.

Danbury (Conn.), 340, 348.

Danvers (Mass.) men at Lexington, 184.

Darke, Gen., 144.

Dartmouth, Earl of, autog., 111;
orders the employment of Indians, 620;
on the ministry, 53;
_Dartmouth Papers_, 106.

Daughters of Liberty, 79, 80.

Davenant, Chas., 63.

Davie, Col., at Hobkirk's Hill, 543.

Davie, W. R., accounts of, 537.

Davis, A. McF., edits McKendry's journal, 666;
"The Indians and the Border Warfare", 605.

Davis, Capt., of Acton, 184.

Davis, Capt. John (Penna.), journal, 546, 554.

Davis, Nathan, 668.

Davis, Thomas W., 202.

Davis, Wm., 439.

Davis, W. J., 219, 747.

Davis, W. W. H., _John Lacey_, 442;
"Washington on the west bank of the Delaware", 407.

Dawes, Thomas, 88.

Dawes, Wm., sent to Concord, 123.

Dawson, H. B., "_Sons of Liberty in N. Y._", 72;
on Golden Hill, 172;
_Bunker Hill_, 185, 189;
controversy with "Selah", 191;
_Gleanings_, 191;
_Major-Gen. Putnam_, 191;
edits How's journal, 202;
on Ticonderoga (1775), 214;
_Decl. of Indep. by Mass._, 257;
_Westchester County_, 325;
edits _N. Y. City during the Rev._, 346;
edits _Trial of J. H. Smith_, 463;
edits _Yonkers Gazette_, 464;
_Gazette Series_, 464;
_Papers Concerning Major John André_, 464;
edits _Conduct of Graves_, 549;
_Assault on Stony Point_, 558;
on Jones's fight in the "Bon Homme Richard", 590.

Dawson, S. E., 225.

Dayton, Col., at Fort Stanwix, 626.

Dayton, _Siege of Yorktown_, 554.

De Berdt, Dennis, agent of Mass., 45;
dies, 53;
portrait, 88.

De Brahm, _Journal of Siege of Charleston_, 525.

De Costa, B. F., on Ethan Allen, 214;
_Fort George_, 214;
on Diamond Island, 357;
_Lake George_, 129.

D'Estaing. _See_ Estaing.

De Kalb, Baron, in America (1768), 244;
joins the army, 380;
in the South, 475;
commands regulars, 476;
killed, 477;
lives, 530;
monument, 530.

De Lancey, E. F., on Bennington, 354;
on Demont's treason, 287, 341.

De la Touche, 500.

De Leyba, 730.

De Peyster, Col. A. S., _Miscellanies_, 733.

De Peyster, Gen. J. Watts, on Burgoyne's campaign, 313, 315;
on Monmouth, 446;
on Wayne, 385.

De Peyster, Major, 720.

Deane, Charles, on history of slave trade in Mass., 9;
on John Russell Bartlett, 90;
on R. Frothingham, 186;
owns a MS. map of the siege of Boston, 209;
on the _Report of a Constitution_ (Mass.), 274;
on the convention of Burgoyne and Gates, 319;
owns Vaughan's journal, 506.

Deane, James, acc. of, 674.

Deane, Silas, letters, 99, 108;
his instructions, 256;
fits out the "Surprise", 573;
and privateers, 592.

Dearborn, Gen. Henry, on plans of Bunker Hill, 202;
his MS. journal, 467;
on the Bunker Hill controversy, 190;
journal of Quebec expedition (1775-1776), 219;
journal of Saratoga campaign, 360;
his journal, edited by Chamberlain, 360;
diary at Valley Forge, 436;
at Monmouth, 446;
diary at Yorktown, 554;
journal of Sullivan campaign (1779), 671.

Dearborn, H. A., 437.

Dearborn, Nath., _Boston Notions_, 200.

_Debrett's Debates_, 516.

Debt of Great Britain, 16.

Declaration of Amer. Independence, who drafted it, 239 (_see_ Congress
of 1776);
its character, 239;
fac-simile of original draft, 260;
debates on, 261;
paragraphs omitted from the paper as passed, 261;
changes made in the wording, 261;
early drafts, 261;
essence in earlier tracts of Otis and Sam. Adams, 261;
its literary character, 261;
the original text, 261;
Trumbull's picture, 261;
medals, 261;
autographs of signers, 263-266;
sets of the autographs, 264;
birthplaces of the signers, 264;
their occupations, 264;
college graduates, 264;
their ages at death, 264;
average age at signing, 264;
their lives, 265;
fac-similes of, 266;
fac-simile of an early broadside edition, 267;
other broadside editions, 268;
contemporary reprints, 268;
earliest authorized edition, 268;
when signed by the members, 268;
the authentication, 269;
effect of, 269;
comments on, at the time, 269;
an _Answer_, 240, 269;
read in Philadelphia, 273;
in New York, 273;
in Boston, 273;
the day to be commemorated, 274;
_Strictures_ on, 240;
relations to religious sects, 241;
separated the patriots and the loyal, 247.
_See_ Independence.

Declaratory Act, 32;
(1766), 74.

Dejean, 728, 729.

Delaplaine's _Repository_, 40.

Delaware, Stamp Act in, 73;
effect of Boston Port Bill in, 96;
non-importation, 79;
northern bounds, 421;
militia, 380;
troops, 545.

Delaware Bay, map, 437.

"Delaware" frigate taken, 384.

Delaware Indians, 610, 674, 709;
make treaty, 703;
neutral, 734.

Delaware River, the struggle for, 367;
its defences, 386;
operations on (1777), 429;
map by Faden, 429;
maps, 437;
obstructed (1777), 437;
first naval conflict on, 565.

Deming, H. C., 191.

Demont, Wm., his treachery at Fort Washington, 287, 341.

Denison, J., 602.

Deniston, Col., surrenders to Major John Butler, 635;
his report, 635.

Dennie, _Portfolio_, 222.

Dennison, Col., 664.

Denny, Major Ebenezer, _Diary_, 546, 554.

Depew, Chauncey M., on André's captors, 466.

Derby, E. H., 190;
fits out privateers, 591.

Derby, Capt. John, carries news of Lexington to England, 175.

Des Barres, _Siege of Charleston_, 528;
charts of Boston harbor, 209;
_Atlantic Neptune_, 212, 315;
_Coasts and harbors of N. England_, 212;
map of the campaign around New York, 342;
_Port Royal in South Carolina_, 519;
_Map of coasts of Georgia_, 521;
_map of Narragansett Bay_, 601.

Desaussure, W. G., 527;
on General Moultrie, 172.

Deshler, C. D., 744.

Deshon, John, autog., 566.

Destouche's fleet beaten, 496.

Detroit, council at (1764), 698;
its fort, 690;
besieged, 690;
headquarters of the British northwestern government, 690;
Indians near, 610;
reinforced, 697;
raising of siege, 698;
siege of, references, 701;
G. R. Clark's scheme for capturing, 730, 731;
papers about, 733;
plan of the river, 733.

_Deutsch-Amerikanisches Magazin_, 360.

Deux-Ponts, Count, 504;
his _Campaign_, 554.

Devens, Chas., _Bunker Hill Oration_, 191, 194.

Devens, Richard, 136;
letters, 203;
on Lexington, 174.

Dewitt, Simon, 744.

Dewitt's Corner, treaty at, 679.

Dexter, Dr. A., 202.

Dexter, George, 123.

Dexter, Henry, 194.

Dexter, Samuel, on com. on the Stamp Act, 73;
his portrait, 73.

Diamond Island, fight at, 357.

Dickinson, John, 68, 238;
_Late Regulations respecting. Brit. Colonies_, 64, 75;
his _Speech_ (1764), 68;
_Reply to Galloway_, 68;
_Denunciation of the Stamp Act_, 75;
portrait, 268;
rude portrait and autog., 82;
Peale's portrait, 82;
his character, 82;
references, 82;
_Farmers' letters_, 39, 67, 83;
bibliog. of, 83;
_Polit. writings_, 83;
controverted in the _Controversy between Great Britain and her
Colonies_, 83;
on the Boston massacre, 85;
_Liberty Song_, 86;
wrote petition of Congress of 1774 to the king, 100;
_Essay on the constitutional power_, 106;
on Lexington, 178;
and independence, 249, 257;
Galloway on, 255;
speech against the Declar. of Independence, 261;
plan of confederation, 274;
and the Penna. militia, 398.

Dickinson, John D., 464.

Dickson, Col., 739.

Digby, Lieut., 360.

Dillon, _Indiana_, 729.

Diman, Prof., on Prescott's capture, 404.

Dobbs Ferry, 336, 337.

Dodd, Robt., picture of the fight of the "Bon Homme Richard", 590.

Dodd, Stephen, _Revolutionary Memorials_, 627.

Doddridge, Jos., on Cresap, 712;
Logan, _Chief of the Cayuga Nation_, 712;
_Notes on Settlements_, etc., 248.

Dodge, John, captured, 683.

Döhla, J. K., 360.

Donkin's _Military Collections_, 183.

Donop, Count, 427;
at Fort Mercer, 428, 430;
killed at Red Bank, 387;
at Bordentown, 374;
at Brooklyn, 279;
at Long Island, 329.

Doolittle, Amos, engraver, 185.

Doolittle, Eph., 204.

Dorchester Heights (near Boston), 148, 206, 210;
occupied, 156.

Douglas, Col. Wm., 326.

Dowdswell, 21.

Downer, Silas, _Discourse on dedicating Liberty Tree_, 72.

Downing, Sir George, 7.

Downman, Col., 435.

Drake, F. S., _Roxbury_, 173;
_Tea-leaves_, 91.

Drake, S. A., _Bunker Hill,_ 194;
_Gen. Putnam_, 191;
_Middlesex County_, 175;
_Hist. Fields of Middlesex_, 175;
_Old Landmarks of Middlesex_, 175;
_New England Coast_, 560.

Drake, S. G., _Book of the Indians_, 648;
on Brant, 657.

Draper, L. C., acc. of, 535, 727;
on battle of Point Pleasant, 714;
his collections on Brant, 657;
has the Geo. R. Clark papers, 718;
_King's Mountain_, 535;
on Montgomery's exped. (1780), 741.

Drayton, Judge W. H., 79;
his famous charge, 119;
_Memoirs_, 678.

Dreer, Ferdinand J., 217.

Drewe, Edw., _Case_, 198.

Drisko, G. W., _Hannah Weston_, 564, 657.

Drowne, H. T., 592.

Drowne, Solomon, _Journal_, 592.

Du Buysson, 530.

Ducharme, J. M., 739.

Du Chesnoy, _Théâtre de la Guerre_, 416.

Du Portail, autog., 500;
on Brandywine, 419;
on the siege of Charleston, 525.

Du Simitière, his portrait of Arnold, 447;
_Thirteen Portraits_, 268, 405.

Duane, Wm., 554;
_Canada and the Continental Congress_, 227;
edits Marshall's diary, 273.

Duché, Jacob, his letter to Washington, 437;
in Congress of 1774, 99.

Dufey, P. J. S., _Histoire des Rev. de l'Amérique_, 520.

Dufresne, M. M., 723.

Dulaney, Daniel, _Considerations on the propriety of imposing taxes_,
65, 75;
_The Right to the Tonnage_, 65.

Dumas, Alex., _Capitaine Paul_, 590.

Dumas, C. G. F., acc. of Bouquet, 692, 699.

Dumas, C. W. F., letters, 108.

Dumas, autog., 500.

Dummer, _Defence of the N. E. Charters_, 255.

Duncan, E., _Royal Artillery_, 183, 198, 559.

Dunkirk, American cruisers at, 573;
privateers at, 592.

Dunlap, John, printer, 372.

Dunlap, Wm., _Tragedy of André_, 460, 560.

Dunmore, Lord, 238;
negotiates a peace, 611;
incites the Indians, 618;
leads exped. against Indians, 713;
makes treaty with Ohio Indians, 714;
his seal, 167;
in Virginia (1776), 122, 167;
his proclamation, 168;
organizes an Indian regiment, 168.

Dunmore War, 708;
causes of, 709;
references, 714.

Dupuy, _Ethan Allen_, 214.

Durand, A. B., 227.

Durnford, Lieut., 356.

Durrett, R. T., _John Filson,_ 708.

Dwight, Theodore, _Connecticut_, 663.

Dwight, T. F., on Washington's journal, 553.

Dwight, Timothy, 189;
on fights near Fort Stanwix, 351.

Dyer, Eliphalet, 215.

Eager, Samuel W., _Orange County_, 662.

Earl, pictures of Lexington fight, 185.

Earle, J. E., _English Premiers_, 75.

East India Co. send tea to America, 57.

Eastburn, map of Philad., 442.

Eastern Indians, addressed by Washington 674;
visit Cambridge, 674.
_See_ Indians.

Eaton, Amos, 679.

Ebeling on Steuben, 515.

Ebenezer (Georgia), 523.

Ecuyer, Simeon, 690, 691.

Eddy, Samuel, 464.

Edes, Peter, 204.

Edes and Gill, _No. Amer. Almanac_, 81.

Edisto inlet, 526.

Edson, Obed., on Brodhead's exped., 671.

Edwards, N. W., _Illinois_, 729.

Eelking, Max von, _Die Deutschen Hülfstruppen_, 361;
_Leben von Riedesel_, 361;
_Generalin von Riedesel_, 361.

Egle, _Notes and Queries_, 554.

Eld, Lieut., 517;
his journal, 559.

Eliot, Andrew, 205;
on Bunker Hill, 187.

Elizabethtown, N. J., 404.

Elk Ferry, 379, 414.

Ellery, Wm., 265;
autog., 263;
life, 266.

Ellet, Mrs. E. F., _Domest. Hist. Am. Rev._, 527, 665;
_Women of the Rev._, 665.

Ellicott, Andrew, _Map of the Mississippi River_, 702.

Elliot, H. F., 72.

Elliott, Andrew, on Arnold's treason, 467.

Elliott, Matthew, 735.

Ellis, Arthur B., _American patriotism on the sea_, 591.

Ellis, E. S., _Daniel Boone_, 708.

Ellis, Geo. E., Address on siege of Boston, 173;
on Bunker Hill, 189, 191, 194;
on Burgoyne, 204;
"Chronicles of the siege of Boston", 204;
the Prescott statue, 194;
"The sentiment of independence", 231.

Elmer, Eben, 221

Elmer, L. Q. C., _Constitution of N. Jersey_, 272.

Elmira, N. Y., 640.

Elonis, Henry, 385.

Elwyn, Alfred, on Brandywine, 418.

Emerson, Ralph Waldo, _Hist. Discourse on Concord_, 180.

Emerson, Rev. Wm., at Lexington, 180;
fac-simile of his diary, 181.

Emmet, Dr. T. A., 197, 264, 467, 532;
owns memorials of the siege of Boston, 212.

Emmons, G. F., _Navy of the U. S._, 589.

Endicott, C. M., _Leslie's expedition_, 172.

England, its constitution effected by the Amer. Revolution, 1;
rights of the crown to lands, 2;
parties in, on the American question, 112;
her naval losses, 589;
_Rept. from Com. on the disturbances in Mass._, 67;
her trade with the colonies, 64;
proceedings in Parliament (1774), 106;
Hutchinson's diary, 106;
war with Spain, 19.

English, T. D., 230;
on Oriskany, 351.

Englishtown, N. J., 445.

Engraving, earliest, by a native artist in British America, 198, 199.

Enlistments, long, 333.

Enos, Col. Roger, deserts Arnold, 163, 217;
court martial, 217.

Episcopacy for America urged on the ministry, 19, 38.

Episcopalians and the Declar. of Independence, 241.

Erskine, Robert, map of N. Y. harbor, 326;
map of the Hudson, 459;
topographical engineer of the Amer. army, 459;
map of Newport, 560;
map of country round N. Y., 561;
his map of the New Jersey campaign, 409.

Escomaligo, 507.

Esopus burned, 307.

_Essex Gazette_, 110.

Estaing, Comte d', sails from France, 579;
off New York harbor, 580;
at Newport, 580;
engages the English fleet, 580;
sails for Boston, 580;
off N. Y. harbor, 593;
goes to Newport, 593;
confronts Howe's fleet, 594;
portraits, 594, 595;
sails for Boston, 595;
autog., 595;
the French view of his conduct, 598;
his journal, 598;
defended by Dr. Cooper, 601;
causes the destruction of English ships in Narragansett Bay, 601;
in Boston (1778), 603;
issues proclamation to Canadians, 603;
sails to the West Indies, 603;
at Savannah (1779), 470, 471, 524;
on the siege of Savannah, 522.

Ethier, Marcel, 225.

Etting, Col. F. M., books on Independence Hall, 259.

Euchee Indians, 679.

Eustis, Dr. Wm., on Arnold's flight, 458.

Eutaw Springs, battle at, 493, 545;
plans, 545.

Evans, A. W. W., on Kosciusko, 492, 557.

Evans, Chaplain, 554.

Evans, S., 734.

Everett, A. H., _Bunker Hill address_, 194;
_Jos. Warren_, 194.

Everett, Edw., _Bunker Hill oration_, 194;
_Concord Oration_, 184;
on Lexington, 184;
life of Roger Sherman, 265.

Ewald, _Beyspiele grosser Helden_, 419.

Ewing, Dr. John, 329;
on the Lancaster massacre, 606.

Exmouth, Viscount, life by Osler, 347.

Faden, Wm., map of New Jersey, 409;
_Bay of Narragansett_, 601;
map of the campaigns of Cornwallis, 537;
of So. Carolina, 538;
map of Delaware River, 429;
_Map of Guildford_, 540;
_Map of Newport_, 547;
map of the N. Y. Campaign (1776), 337, 338;
his maps of N. Y. province, 349;
of Philad., 442;
_of Quebec_, 226;
of Trenton and Princeton, 410;
_Northern Frontiers of Georgia_, 519.

Fairfax County resolutions, 98.

Fairfield, Conn., burned, 557.

Falmouth (Portland) burned, 237;
Norman's engraving, 146.

Family Compact, 19.

Fanning, Col. David, _Narrative_, 541.

Fanning, Capt. Nath., _Memoir_, 590.

Fantinekill, 639.

Farlow, R. L., 91.

Farmar, Major, at Mobile, 704.

Farmer, Robert, 705.

Farmer, Silas, _Detroit_, 733.

Farnham, Ralph, 192.

Farrier, Geo. H., _Cent. Paulus Hook_, 559.

Farwell, Josiah, 681.

Fassoux, Dr. P., 533.

Featherstonhaugh, G. W., 704;
_Monthly Amer. Journ. of Geology_, 704.

Febiger, Col. Christian, 547;
acc. of, 220;
at Stony Point, 558.

Fellows, John, _Veil Removed_, 191.

Feltman, Lieut. Wm., _Journal_, 554.

Fergus, Henry, _United States_, 665.

Fergusson, Adam, _Memoir of Patrick Fergusson_, 535.

Fergusson, Col. Patrick, 473;
defeated at King's Mountain, 478;
killed, 479, 535;
his headquarters at King's Mountain, 535;
sketch of, 535.

Fermois, Gen. de, 297, 326.

Fersen, Count, letters, 554;
at Newport, 560.

Few, James, 81.

Field, T. W., _Battle of Long Island_, 329.

Filson, John, _Kentucky_, 708.

Filson Club, 708.

Finch on the remains of the Boston lines, 207.

Finlay, Hugh, 222.

Finotti, J. M., 227.

Fish, Capt. J., journal, 591.

Fish, Nicholas, 333, 346.

Fishdam Ford, 518, 532, 536.

Fisher, George H., on Bouquet, 693.

Fisher, J. B., 85.

Fisher, Joshua, 437.

Fisheries, as a school for the navy, 568, 587;
value to Massachusetts, 25.

Fishkill, 340.

Fiske, John, on the political consequences of Yorktown, 549.

Fitch, Asa, 203, 627.

Fitch, gov. of Conn., 73.

Fitzpatrick, Gen., on Brandywine, 419.

Flag, the federal flag (1776), 153;
with Liberty Tree, 570;
with serpent, "Don't Tread on Me", 570;
that displayed by Paul Jones, 571;
by Johnston, 575;
pine-tree, 213;
of the United States, first fought under at Fort Stanwix, 300.

Flanders, _Life of Rutledge_, 73.

Flatbush, 328.

Flathe, Theodor, _Geschichte der neuesten Zeit_, 492.

Flatland, 328.

Flaxman, his statue of Lord Howe, 380.

_Fleet's Evening Post_, 110.

Fletcher, Ebenezer, _Narrative_, 350.

Fleury, Major Louis, at Germantown, 385;
his diary, 431;
his plan of Fort Mifflin, 433;
his plan of the attack, 435;
wounded at Fort Mifflin, 389.

Flint, _West. Mo. Review_, 92.

Florida, acquired by Great Britain (1763), 686;
bounds of (1763), 687.

Floyd, Augustus, life of Wm. Floyd, 265.

Floyd, Wm., autog., 264;
life, 265.

Flucker, Thomas, 59.

Flying Camp in New Jersey, 326, 403.

Fogg, Jeremiah, 204.

Folsom, Gen. M., 187.

Fonblanque, E. B. de, _Burgoyne_, 204, 361.

Fontleroy in America, 244.

Foote, W. H., 714.

Forbes, Major (1777), 366.

Force, Col. Peter, _Amer. Archives_, 653;
their bad indexes, 567;
on the signing of the Decl. of Indep., 269.

Ford, Paul L., _Hamiltoniana_, 104.

Forman and the Penna. militia, 398.

Forrest, Capt. Thomas, 375.

Fort Anne burned, 297.

Fort Arnold (West Point), 462, 463.

Fort Bedford, 694.

Fort Box (Brooklyn), 329.

Fort Brewerton, 609.

Fort Chartres, map of its vicinity, 700;
ruins of magazine, 703.
_See_ Chartres.

Fort Clark, 720.

Fort Clinton, 324;
attached plan, 363.
_See_ Forts.

Fort Clinton (West Point), 465.

Fort Constitution (Hudson River), 455.

Fort Cornwallis (Augusta), 490.

Fort Dayton (German Flats), 630.

Fort Defiance (Long Island), 328.

Fort Edward, 609;
Burgoyne at, 299;
Schuyler at, 297, 298.

Fort Erie, 609.

Fort Frederick, Convention troops at, 321.

Fort Gage, 719.

Fort Galphin, 544.

Fort George (N. Y.), 333, 609.

Fort Granby, 490, 544.

Fort Grierson, 490.

Fort Griswold (Conn.), 562.

Fort Hardy, ruins of, 362.

Fort Henry (Wheeling, Va.), 716.

Fort Hunter, 609.

Fort Independence (Hudson River), 456.

Fort Independence (N. Y.), 287.

Fort Jefferson (Mississippi River), 730.

Fort Johnson, 609.

Fort Johnson (James Island), 528.

Fort Johnson (N. C.), 542.

Fort Knyphausen, formerly Fort Washington, 338.

Fort Le Bœuf, 691.

Fort Lee, 288, 339;
evacuated, 338, 341, 367.

Fort Ligonier, 694.

Fort Logan attacked (1777), 716.

Fort Massac, 718.

Fort Mercer, 429;
(Red Bank), 386;
attacked, 387.

Fort Michillimackinac, 691.

Fort Mifflin, 386, 429;
attacked, 388;
Plans, 431, 432, 435.

Fort Miller, 298.

Fort Montgomery, 323;
attacked, 363;
plan, 324;
chain, 324.
_See_ Forts.

Fort Motte, 489, 544;
captured, 490.

Fort Moultrie surrendered (1780), 526.

Fort Niagara, 609.

Fort Ontario, 609.

Fort Ouatanon taken, 691.

Fort Pitt, 690, 733;
attacked, 691;
Bouquet at, 697.

Fort Presqu' Isle taken, 691.

Fort Putnam (West Point), 462, 465.

Fort Rutledge, 675, 676.

Fort Sandusky taken, 691.

Fort Schlosser, 609.

Fort St. Joseph taken, 691.

Fort Stanwix (Schuyler) built, 299;
under Gansevoort, 299, 628;
attacked by St. Leger, 299, 628;
siege raised, 632;
conference at, for establishing bounds, 605, 610;
maps of bounds, 608, 609;
abandoned, 645;
map by Fleury, 351, 354, 355;
other maps, 351;
occupied (1775), 624;
its site, 626;
called Fort Schuyler, 626.

Fort Stirling (Long Island), 328, 335.

Fort Sullivan (Tioga River), 641.

Fort Trumbull (Conn.), 562.

Fort Tryon, 287.

Fort Venango, 691.

Fort Washington, attacked, 287;
commanded by Magaw, 287;
plans of it carried to Percy, 287;
its position, 287;
its armament, 287;
discretionary orders to Greene, 288;
surrendered, 289;
map of, 339;
fall of, 338;
named Fort Knyphausen, 338;
garrisoned, 285;
treachery of Demont, 341.

Fort Watson, 544.

Fort. _See_ names of forts.

Forts Clinton and Montgomery, 455, 456, 465;
plan of attack, 365;
captured by Gen. H. Clinton, 306.
_See_ Fort.

Forton, prison at, 575.

Foster, W. E., _Stephen Hopkins_, 70, 567.

Foucher, Antoine, _Fort St. Jean_, 223.

Fowler, R. L., 91.

Fox, C. J., on the battle of Guilford, 487;
on the side of the opposition, 112;
lives of, 112.

Fox, Ebenezer, _Revolutionary Adventures_, 582.

France driven from North America, 686;
her No. American possessions before 1763, 685;
her treaty obligations with England, 272.

Francis, J. W., _Old New York_, 269.

Frankland, Lady, 128.

Frankland, Sir Henry, 12.

Franklin, B., "Rules for reducing a Great Empire", 11;
examination as to the Stamp Act, 32, 74;
agent of Massachusetts, 53, 89;
agent of Penna., 74;
on the Stamp Act, 74;
correspondence with Dean Tucker, 74;
_Familiar Letters_, 85;
defamed for his connection with the Hutchinson letters, 56, 93;
blamed by Mahon, 93;
vindicates himself, 93;
acknowledged his agency in the Hutchinson letters to prevent a duel,
93;
attacked by Wedderburn, 95;
_Franklin before the Privy Council_, 93, 95;
his clothes then worn, 95;
_Appeal_, 109;
in Canada, 166, 227;
on com. to draft Decla. of Indep., 239;
and the Revolution, 252;
views of independence, 255;
autog., 264;
the oldest signer of the Decl. of Independence, 264;
proposes a confederation, 274, 654;
_Narrative of Massacre in Lancaster County_, 606;
proposes an alliance with the Six Nations, 616;
his interest in Western lands, 649;
_Political Pieces_, etc., 653;
and the Vandalia Company, 708;
goes to Europe with Lambert Wickes, 571;
replies to Hillsborough's report, 688;
and the Wilkes turmoils, 28;
removed as postmaster of the colonies, 56;
on the union of the colonies, 65;
his plan of union (1754), 65;
_Proceedings in Mass._, 67;
_Some special Transactions in London_, 68;
letters on the feelings in England during the Stamp Act times, 75;
his annotations on pamphlets (1769), 84;
in London (1769), 85;
correspondence with Wm. Strahan, 85;
writes preface to Sam. Adams's _Rights of the Colonies_, 90;
corresponds with Cushing about a congress (1773), 99;
in London watched by Quincy, 105;
_A true State of the Proceedings_, 106;
his conferences with Chatham, 112;
with the Howes, 112;
writing in the _Public Advertiser_ (London), 112;
returns (1775) from England, 122;
in Cambridge (1775), 146;
urging a resort to bows and arrows, 156;
and Paul Jones, 590;
and privateers, 592;
his _Supplement to the Boston Independent Chronicle_ a hoax, 659,
684;
advocates the retention of Canada (1763), 686.

Franklin, Gov. W., seized, 325;
on Galloway's plan, 101.

Franklin, Wm., letter, 73.

Franklin Club, 219.

Franks, Maj. D. S., aide to Arnold, 460.

Fraser, Gen., with Burgoyne, 294;
wounded, 308;
at Hubbardton, 350;
death, 357;
removal of remains, 357.

Fraser, Lt. Andrew, 702;
at Fort Chartres, 702;
escapes, 702.

Frazer, Capt., at Fort Chartres, 706.

Frazer, Persifer, 325;
on Monmouth, 446;
his papers, 346, 417.

Frederic, H., on the Mohawk Valley 672.

Free trade, 6.

Freehold, N. J., 400, 408.

Freeland's Fort, 639.

Freeman's Farm, battle, 305, 336.

Fremont, J. C., _Memoirs_, 258.

French, their treatment of the Indian, 688;
their army moves from Va., 745;
near King's Ferry, 745;
march to Boston, 745.

Friedenshütten, 734.

Frisbie and Ruggles, _Poultney, Vt._, 355.

Frog's Neck (N. Y.), 337;
English works at, 561.

Frontiers, 248;
literature of, 248;
lawlessness on the, 608, 611;
bands of rangers, 608.
_See_ Border life and warfare.

Frost, John, _Pict.-book of the Commodores_, 592.

Frothingham, R., _Rise of the Republic_, 3, 252;
"Sam. Adams' Regiments", 78;
_Alarm on the night of Apr. 18, 1775_, 174;
_Siege of Boston_, 184;
_Joseph Warren_, 184, 194;
_Battlefield of Bunker Hill_, 184;
_The Centennial_, 184;
portrait, 186;
notices of, 186;
on Bunker Hill, 189;
on the command at Bunker Hill, 191.

Fry and Jefferson, map of Virginia, 538.

Fuller, O. P., _Warwick, R. I._, 90.

Funerals, use of gloves, 77.

Fur trade disturbed by colonization, 687.

Futhey, J. S., on Brandywine, 419;
on Paoli, 419.

Futhey and Cope, _Chester County_, 385.

Gadsden, Christopher, 79, 238, 269;
in the Congress of 1774, 99;
favors the Articles of Association, 101.

Gage, Gen. Thomas, his letters sent back to Boston, 83;
_Letters to the ministry_, 84;
in Boston, 95, 113;
removes from Danvers, 114;
his wife, 123;
his report of Lexington, etc., 178;
instructions to Brown and Bernière, 182;
on Bunker Hill, 195;
his papers stolen, 204;
his letters, 204;
sends troops to Philad. to protect Indians, 606;
proclamation against intrusions on the Indian lands, 611;
complains of the Indians in the rebel army, 656;
succeeds Amherst in command in America, 702;
commands in N. Y., 30;
succeeds Hutchinson, 57;
caricature of, 59;
portrait, 114;
his spies make plans of the roads around Boston, 120;
autog., 145;
obstructed by Com. of Correspondence, 115;
awake to the magnitude of the revolt, 116;
his military reputation ruined at Bunker Hill, 136;
goes to England, 146;
loyalists address him, 146;
dissatisfied with Boston as a military post, 152.

Gaine, _N. Y. Pocket Almanac_, 331.

Gale, George, _Upper Mississippi_, 648.

Gallatin, Albert, _Synopsis of Indian tribes_, 651.

Galloway, Jos., 68; his plan of adjustment, 101;
_Candid Examination_, etc., 101;
a reply in an _Address_, 101;
and in response, _A Reply_, 101;
_Hist. and Polit. Reflections_, 101;
_Examination before the House of Commons_, 101;
Lecky's opinion of him, 101;
his character, 235;
in Cont. Congress, 235;
and the patriot leaders, 247;
_Hist. and Polit. Reflections_, 254;
joins the British, 370;
made superintendent of police in Philad., 395;
on Indian lands, 650;
his _Speech in answer to Dickinson_, 68;
conveyed information to Dartmouth through W. Franklin, 101, 104,
111;
_Arguments on both sides_, 101;
his map of the 1777 campaign, 415;
_Letters to a Nobleman_, 415;
and the campaign of 1777, 416.

Galvez, Gov., at New Orleans, 739;
captures British posts on the Mississippi, 739;
takes Mobile, 739.

Gambier, Admiral, 436;
life by Cavendish, 326.

Gambrall, _Church life in Colonial Maryland_, 71.

Gammell, Wm., on John Russell Bartlett, 90;
_Samuel Ward_, 565.

Gansevoort, Col., holds Fort Stanwix, 299, 628;
portrait, 629, 681;
refuses to surrender, 632;
in Sullivan's expedition, 641;
papers, 350, 670.

Gardiner, Asa Bird, 156, 744.

Gardiner, D., engraving of Cornwallis, 474.

Gardiner and Mullinger, _Eng. Hist. for Students_, 75.

Garth on the Stamp Act debates, 74.

"Gaspee" burned, 46, 53, 90;
references, 90.

Gates, Gen. Horatio, advises against an assault on Boston, 142;
paper on, by J. E. Cooke, 144;
letters from Cambridge, 203;
his character, 291;
at Ticonderoga, 291;
portraits, 302, 303, 310, 476;
autog., 303;
supersedes Schuyler, 303;
his estate in the Shenandoah Valley, 303;
in N. Y., 303;
headquarters at Saratoga, 303, 356, 361;
on the surrender of Burgoyne, 358;
medal given to him, 358;
strength of his army, 358;
joins Washington in the Jerseys, 378;
refuses to reinforce Washington (1777), 447;
sent South, 476;
deceived as to the size of his army, 476;
defeated at Camden, 477, 529;
at Charlotte, 477;
at Hillsborough, 477;
superseded by Greene, 480;
never tried, 480;
his papers, 532;
letters after Camden, 532;
defended by Greene and others, 532;
map of his Southern campaign, 537;
declines command of exped. against the Indians, 638;
commands in Canada (1776), 346;
differences with Schuyler, 346;
remonstrates at Schuyler's being confirmed, 349;
supersedes Schuyler, 356;
adj.-general at Cambridge, 655;
and the Board of War, 392;
quarrels with Arnold, 306, 315;
not on the field in the battles about Saratoga, 309;
agrees to Burgoyne's terms, 309;
aspires to supplant Washington, 312;
his military character, 314.

Gates, Capt. Wm., orderly-book (1777), 359.

Gay, S. H., on Cornwallis in Virginia, 549.

Gee, Joshua, 63.

Gee, Thomas, order-book, 670.

General officers, first of the war, 143.

_General View of the Amer. navy_, 589.

General warrants, 11.

Genet and the Western exped., 733.

George II. died, 12.

George III., portrait, 20, 76;
by Walpole, 75;
supported by his people, 111;
his determination to crush the revolt, 111;
his proclamation, 111;
his responsibility for the Amer. Rev., 244, 245;
justification by Mahon, 244;
his hatred of Chatham, 246;
his statue in N. Y., 325;
his proclamation of 1763, 687.

George, Capt. Robert, 729.

George, Fort (N. Y.), 275.
_See_ Fort.

George, Lake, surveys of, 348.

George's _Cambridge Almanac_, 178.

Georgia, address to the king (1769), 83;
not represented in the Congress of 1774, 99;
movements (1775), 131;
in the Cont. Congress, 238;
Constitution of, 274;
occupied by the British (1779), 470;
war in, 513;
map of northern frontiers, 519;
map of A. Campbell, 675;
Indian war in, 676.

Gérard in Philadelphia, 101.

Gerlach, P., 350.

Germain, Lord Geo., his orders to Burgoyne, 295;
portrait, 295;
fails to instruct Howe, 295;
and Gen. Howe, 329;
_Reply to Burgoyne_, 365;
_Correspondance avec Clinton_, etc., 516;
his instructions to reduce South Carolina, 526, 527;
family papers, 719;
to Clinton on Arnold and André, 467;
_The Rights of Great Britain_, 269;
scheme to conquer the West, 742.

German Flats, 350.

Germantown, battle of, sources, 385, 421;
map of approaches, 424;
Montresor's map, 426, 427;
other maps, 414, 426, 428;
Chew House, 426;
British camp at, 442.

Gerry, Elbridge, 238;
on Washington as commander-in-chief, 131;
book of contracts, 203;
autog., 263;
life, 266;
draws law for admiralty cases in Mass., 591.

Getty, Gen. G. W., his plan of Yorktown, 553.

Gibault, a priest, 722.

Gibbes, W. R., _Doc. Hist. Amer. Rev._, 512.

Gibbs, Major, diary, 601.

Gibson, Gen. John, 711, 712.

Gibson, Thomas, 421.

Gillett, E. H., 71.

Gilman, Arthur, _Cambridge of 1776_, 142.

Gilman, Caroline, edits _Wilkinson Letters_, 520.

Gilmor Papers, 73.

Gilmore, Jas. R., on the Cherokee wars, 679;
_Rear Guard of the Revolution_, 536.

Gilpin, H. D., life of Jefferson, 265;
of Thomas Nelson, 266;
of Elbridge Gerry, 266;
of Cæsar Rodney, 266;
of Benj. Harrison, 266;
of Geo. Ross, 266;
life of Geo. Taylor, 266;
of William Ellery, 266;
of Sam. Adams, 266.

Gilpin, Rev. Wm., _Memoirs of Josias Rogers_, 527.

Giradin, L. H., _Virginia_, 515.

Gist, Gen. Mordecai, 477, 533, 534.

Gist, Col. Nath., and Indian recruits, 633, 677.

Gladwin, Maj. Henry, at Detroit, 690;
acc. of, 690.

Gleig, G. R., _British Commanders_, 516;
on Burgoyne's surrender, 358.

Glick, on Bennington, 354.

Gloucester, N. J., 425;
British at, 442;
map of Lafayette's victory at, 430.

Glover, C. _Appeal_, 109.

Glover, John, orderly-books, 204, 601;
conducts Convention troops to Boston, 317;
life, by Upham, 325;
his letters, etc., on the Saratoga campaign 356.

Gnadenhütten, 606, 734, 736.

Goddard, D. A., on Mass. men in Bennington fight, 355.

Goddard, May Katharine, 268.

Godefroy, Fr., _Recueil_, 185.

Golden Hill, N. Y. city, 172.

Goldsborough, Chas. W., _U. S. Naval Chronicle_, 589.

Gooch, John, on Harlem, 334.

_Good Literature_, 218.

Goodell, A. C., Jr., 96, 108.

Goodhue, _Shoreham, l't._, 214.

Goodrich, Chas. A., _Lives of the Signers_, 266.

Goodrich, Chauncy, 557.

Goodrich, Capt. Wm., 613.

Goodwin, Daniel, Jr., on Dearborn, 190;
_Provincial Pictures_, 73.

Goodwin, H. C., _Cortland County_, 351, 666.

Gookin, Daniel, 668.

Goold, Wm., _Portland in the Past_, 146, 603.

Gordon, Col Cosmo, his court-martial, 560.

Gordon, Capt. Harry, 709.

Gordon, Wm., _Acc. of the Commencement of Hostilities_, 178;
_Amer. Rev._, 518;
map of siege of Boston, 207, 212;
on battle of Camden, 532;
his maps of the Southern campaigns, 547;
on Sullivan's exped., 666.

Goshen, Pa., skirmish, 416.

Goss, E. H., on Revere, 47, 175.

Gould, E. T., 175.

Gould, Jay, _Delaware County_, 670.

Goussencourt, Chev. de, 502.

Gowanus Creek, 328.

Grafton, Duke of, 21;
ministry, 46.

Graham, James, Life of Morgan, 511, 539.

Graham, Gen. Joseph, 514, 529;
on King's Mountain, 535;
on the Carolina campaign, 539.

Graham, J. J., on Gen. Graham, 518.

Graham, Gen. Samuel, _Memoir_, 518, 744.

Graham, W. A., _British Invasion of N. Carolina_, 514, 539;
_Mecklenburg Centennial_, 257.

Grant, Col., attacked by the Cherokees (1761), 675.

Grant, Gen., 153, 427;
in command in New Jersey (1776), 374;
at Barren Hill, 443.

Grant, George, 668;
his journal, 671.

Grant, Thomas, his journal, 671.

Grant, _Picturesque Canada_, 216.

Grantham, Lord, 592.

Grape Island, 131.

Grasse, Comte de, sails for America, 499;
on the Chesapeake, 501;
engages Graves, 501;
plans of fight, 548;
portraits, 502, 503;
autog., 502;
accounts of, 502.

Grasshoppers, so called, 482.

Graves, Adm. Samuel, relieved by Shuldham, 114, 152;
engages De Grasse near the Chesapeake, 501, 548;
succeeds Arbuthnot, 517;
autog., 114.

Graves, Wm., _Two letters_, 549.

Gravesend, 326, 327.

Gray, Horace, on the writs of assistance question, 13.

Gray, John, 746.

Gray, Col. Robt., 514.

Gray, Samuel, 187.

Gray, Capt. Wm., map of Butler's route (1778), 681.

Greathouse, murderer of Logan's family, 711.

Greely, Mary W., 142.

Green, Ashbel, life of Witherspoon, 265.

Green, Dr. Ezra, _Journal_, 119, 590.

Green, S. A., prints the records of the Tea-ships Meeting, 91;
owns map of the siege of Savannah, 521;
edits Deuxpont's journal, 554;
on Paulus Hook, 559.

Green Mountain Boys, 161.

Greene, Colonel Christopher, defends Fort Mercer, 387.

Greene, Gardiner, 205.

Greene, G. W., _Life of N. Greene_, 511;
_Biog. Discourse_, 511;
_German Element_, 530;
on battle of Long Island, 330.

Greene, Gen. Nathanael, at Roxbury, 134;
on Bunker Hill, 187;
in Brooklyn, 275;
too ill to command, 278;
builds the Brooklyn lines, 326;
his conduct at Brooklyn criticised, 330;
his mistake at Fort Washington, 341;
evacuates Fort Lee, 367;
at Trenton, 375;
at Brandywine, 381, 419;
at Germantown, 385;
quartermaster of the army, 391, 436;
at Monmouth, 400, 444;
interview with Gen. Robertson about André, 461;
supersedes Gates in the South, 480;
as a soldier, 481;
confronts Cornwallis, 483;
crosses the Dan, 484;
at Guilford, 485;
at Ramsey's Mill, 487;
on Hobkirk's Hill, 487;
at Rugeley's Mill, 488;
relations with Sumter and Marion, 490;
besieges Ninety-Six, 491;
at High Hills of Santee, 493;
at Eutaw Springs, 493;
at Round O, 506;
engraved portraits, 508, 509, 512, 513;
accounts of them, 509;
notice of his life, 510;
lives of, 510, 511;
his statue, 510;
medal, 510;
his monument, 510, 511;
dies, 510;
lives of, by Geo. W. Greene, 511;
eulogy by Hamilton, 511;
grant for his services, 511;
burial-place, 511;
autog., 514;
on Gates's defeat at Camden, 532;
defends Gates, 532;
and the case of Isaac Hayne, 534;
his Southern campaign, 537;
his influence over his officers, 537;
letters, 537;
instructions, 537;
maps of his campaigns, 537, 538;
corrects maps for Gordon, 537;
at Cowpens, 538;
his letters, 538;
acc. of his retreat to the Dan, 539;
at Guilford, 539;
at Hobkirk's Hill, 541;
at Ninety-Six, 544;
his medal for Eutaw, 545;
at Morristown, 559;
at Springfield, 559;
under Sullivan in Rhode Island, 593;
makes treaty with Cherokees, 677.

Greene, Jos., 178.

Greenleaf, B., 156.

Greenleaf, Moses, MSS., 437;
in the Northern campaign (1776), 346;
orderly-book, 557.

Greg, Percy, _United States_, 456.

Gregg, Alexander, _Old Cheraws_, 676.

Greive, George, 560.

Grenadier Guards at Cowan's Ford, 539.

Grenell, John, 323.

Grenville, George, in power, 21, 23, 49;
and the Hutchinson letters, 56;
_Regulations lately made_, 75;
_Controversy between Great Britain and her Colonies_, 83;
speech on the Tea-ship's commotions, 92;
Stamp Act, 29.

Grenville Act (1764), 7, 27, 63;
characterized by Bancroft, 27;
in Boston, 27.

Grey, Gen., 426, 427;
at Fairhaven, 603;
at Paoli, 383, 423;
portrait, 383.

Gridlestone, Thomas, on Chas. Lee as Junius, 406.

Gridley, A. D., _Town of Kirkland_, 659.

Gridley, Jeremy, 13, 83.

Gridley, Richard, made chief engineer (1775), 134;
marks out redoubt on Bunker Hill, 135;
Washington's opinion of, 159;
letters, 203.

Grierson, Col., shot, 534.

Griffin, Col., 374.

Grigsby, H. B., _Virginia Convention of 1776_, 107, 257.

Grimke, Cpl., 520.

Grindall's Ford, 481.

Griswold, A. C., 191.

Grosvenor, L., 191.

Groton, Conn., attacked (1781), 562.

Grout, Lieut. David, orderly-book (1779), 359.

Groveland, ambuscade at, 642, 681;
map of ambuscade, 671.

Guadaloupe, 686.

Guernsey, A. H., 665.

Guess, Col. Nath., 677.

Guild, R. A., _Chaplin Smith and the Baptists_, 354, 357.

Guilford, battle of, 485, 540;
losses, 487;
Faden's map, 540.

Gummersall, Thomas, 683.

Gunby, at Hobkirk's Hill, 488.

Gunpowder, making of, 108, 118.

Gwinnett, Button, 264;
life of, 265;
autog., 266.

Habersham, Major John, 677.

Hackensack, 340, 343, 367.

Hadden, James Murray, _Journal_, 359.

Haddonfield, 430, 442.

Hageman, J. F., _Princeton_, 412.

Haldane, Lieut., 545.

Haldimand, Gen., deceived as to Sullivan's purpose (1779), 642, 667;
his relations with the Indians, 653;
Papers, calendar of, 653, 690;
ordered to attack New Orleans, 738.

Hale, Benj., 326.

Hale, E. E., on siege of Boston, 173;
_Hundred years ago_, 173;
on Bunker Hill, 189;
_Faden maps_, 210;
edits _Howe's Orderly Book_, 415;
on Cornwallis, 516;
on Yorktown, 555;
"Naval History of the American Revolution", 563;
on Paul Jones, 590;
_Franklin in France_, 591.

Hale, J. P., _Trans-Alleghany Pioneers_, 714.

Hale, Capt. Nathan, hanged, 333.

Half-King, a Huron, 735.

Halifax, refugees from Boston at, 206.

Hall, Capt., _Civil war in America_, 342.

Hall, Hiland, _Ticonderoga_, 214;
on Bennington, 356;
on Warner at Bennington, 356.

Hall, Lyman, 264;
life by H. McCall, 265;
autog., 266.

Hall, _The Dutch and the Iroquois_, 689.

Hallet,. Capt. J. A., 582;
in the "Tyrannicide", 582;
his log, 582.

Hallowell, Robt., 80.

Halsey, E. D., _Morris County_, 407.

Hamilton, Alex. his appeal (1774), 98;
_A full vindication_, 104;
_The Farmer refuted_, 104;
at Chatterton Hill, 286;
his house, 331, 384;
portraits of, 384;
bust of, 384;
aid to Washington, 416;
at Monmouth, 445;
his letters about Arnold and André, 466;
receives the news of Arnold's treason, 459;
at Yorktown, 504, 555;
_Eulogy on Gen. Greene_, 511;
his plan of operations with Rochambeau, 561.

Hamilton, E., _Reynolds_, 517.

Hamilton, F. W., _Grenadier Guards_, 518.

Hamilton, Gov., his case, 653;
charged with paying for scalps, 682, 726;
his report on the capture of Vincennes, 719;
defends his character, 719;
invades the Illinois country, 724;
recaptures Vincennes, 724;
letters from Detroit, 733;
his report of his surrender to Clark, 726;
sent to Virginia, 728;
sent to N. Y., 729.

Hamilton, Jas., _Life of Thomas Heyward_, 265;
_Thomas Lynch_, 265.

Hamilton, _Engraved Works of Reynolds_, 474.

Hammond, Col. Samuel, portrait, 535;
on Blackstocks, 536;
on Cowpens, 538;
his plan, 539.

Hancock, John, his brig "Harrison", 33;
and S. Adams' portrait, 40;
in the legislature, 42;
his sloop "Liberty" seized, 43, 80;
his "Rising Liberty", 80;
his letters, 107;
presides over Provincial Congress, 116;
at Lexington (1775), 122, 179;
excepted from pardon, 132;
letter to Ward, in fac-simile, 143;
his house, 207;
in Congress, 236;
autog., 263, 450;
life by John Adams, 265;
portraits, 270, 271;
his character, 107, 271;
estimate of him by John Adams, 271;
sketch by C. F. Adams, 271;
by G. Mountfort, 271;
other accounts, 271;
naval instructions, 565;
commands Mass. militia in R. I., 603;
entertains D'Estaing in Boston, 603;
oration on Boston Massacre, 88;
suggests a Congress (1774), 99;
President of Congress, 107;
on his way to Congress, received with enthusiasm in N. Y., 125;
his house, 149;
abused, 204.

Hancock's Bridge (Pa.), 442.

Hand, Col., 278.

Hanger, Geo., _Address to the Army_, 517 (_see_ Colerain).

Hanging Rock, 475.

Harcourt, Lt.-Col., 369.

Hardenburgh, John L., in Sullivan's campaign (1779), 671.

Harding, Chester, 227, 707.

Harding, Seth, 568;
in the "Confederacy", 583.

Harlem Heights, 335;
Americans occupy, 284;
Washington's headquarters, 284;
fight at, 285;
evacuated, 285;
lines at, 334, 339;
Washington at, 334;
maps of, 334;
references, 334;
view, 334.

Harpersfield, N. Y., 643.

Harriman, Walter, 129.

Harrington, Daniel, 179.

Harrington, Jona., 179, 185.

Harris, Capt. (Lord), 183;
wounded at Bunker Hill, 195.

Harris, Moses, the spy of Schuyler, 356.

Harris, Samuel, Jr., journal of Saratoga campaign, 360.

Harris, W. W., _Groton Heights_, 562.

Harris and Allyn, _Groton Heights_, 448.

Harrison, Benj., 259;
his house, 259;
autog., 266;
life, 266.

Harrison, R. H., aide to Washington, 327, 390, 418.

Harrod, James, in Kentucky, 715.

Harrodsburg, Ky., 715.

Hart, John, autog., 264.

Hart, Thomas, 570.

Hartford, convention at (1780), 560;
Washington meets Rochambeau at, 561.

Hartley, Cecil B., _Heroes and patriots_, 680.

Hartley, Col., attacks Tioga, 636.

Hartley, Thomas, 346.

Hartley, _Heroes of the South_, 508.

Haskell, Caleb, 203;
diary, 219.

Hass, Wells de, _Indian Wars_, 649.

Hastings, Marquis of, 197.

Haswell, Anthony, _Memoirs and Adventures_, 709.

Hatfield, _Hist. of Elizabeth_, 407, 560.

Hathorn, Col., defeated by Brant, 639.

Hatton, Lieut., 534, 544.

Hawthorne, Nath., his "Old Manse" house, 180;
_Septimius Felton_, 185.

Haven, C. C., _Washington in N. Jersey_, 407;
_Thirty days in N. Jersey_, 407;
_Annals of Trenton_, 407;
_Hist. Manual_, 407.

Haw River, 485.

Hawkins, Benj., 651.

Hawks, F. L., on the Regulators, 81.

Hawley, James, 42.

Hawley, Gen. Jos., on Stony Point, 558.

Hawley, Joseph, 34;
urges fighting, 117;
"Broken Hints", 118;
autog., 118;
tries to assuage passions, 118;
on independence, 258.

Hay, Major, 728.

Hay, P. D., _The Swamp Fox_, 512.

Hayden, H. E., bibliog. of Wyoming, 665;
_General Enos_, 217.

Hayes, W. A., 746.

Hayne, Isaac, his career and execution, 534.

Hayne, Paul H., poem on King's Mountain, 536.

Hayward, E. L., 522.

Haywood, John, _Hist. Tennessee_, 676, 678.

Hazard, Eben, on the Penobscot exped., 604.

Hazard, Samuel, _Penna. Register_, 650.

Hazlewood, Com. John, 386;
on the Delaware, 430, 431.

Head of Elk, 379.

Headley, J. T., on Burgoyne's campaign, 359;
on the camp at Newburgh, 744;
_Miscellanies_, 590;
on Bouquet, 693.

Heath, Gen., account of the fight at Menotomy, 126;
portraits, 127, 128;
autog., 127;
his service, 128;
his papers, 128;
at Lexington, 125, 180;
_Memoirs_, 180;
commands Eastern department, 318;
at Peekskill, 403;
on the Hudson, 500, 557;
plan of Stony Point, 557;
in Boston (1778), 603;
made general, 119;
autog., 203.

Heckewelder, John, the missionary, 651, 734.

Heister, Gen. de, 277, 345;
at Brooklyn, 279, 327.

Hele, Lieut., 449.

Hellwald, Von, _America_, 129.

Helm, Capt., at Vincennes, 723, 728, 729.

Hempstead, Stephen, 562.

Hendricks, Capt. Wm., 219.

Henley, Capt. David, 318.

Hennequin, _Biographie Maritime_, 595.

Henry, Capt. John, 520, 522.

Henry, J. J., _Campaign against Quebec_, 219.

Henry, Moses, 724.

Henry, Patrick, 238;
questions the prerogative, 24;
and the Stamp Act, 29, 73;
supports com. of corresp., 56;
character, 107;
memoir by W. W. Henry, 107;
by M. C. Tyler, 107, 723;
portraits, 107, 259;
prepared (1774) to fight, 117;
"We must fight", 121;
commands Virginia militia, 167;
on independence, 257;
his house, 259;
and Western lands, 649;
gov. of Va., 716;
corresponds with Spanish governor of New Orleans, 738;
his letter on Clark's conquests, 723.

Henry, W. W., memoir on Patrick Henry, 107;
on G. R. Clark, 734.

Henshaw, Joshua, 73.

Henshaw, Col. Wm., 204.

Herbert, Chas., _Relics of Amer. Prisoners_, 575;
_The Prisoners of 1776_, 575.

Hering, J. H., 348.

Herkimer, Gen. Nicholas, at Oriskany, 299, 630;
goes to Unadilla, 626;
conference with Brant, 627;
his force, 630;
wounded, 631;
dies, 300, 632;
suspicious portrait, 351;
view of house, 351;
his name, 351.

Herrick, H. W., on Stark and Bennington, 354.

_Hesperian, The_, 710.

Hesse, Mr., 738.

Hesse-Cassel, Prince of, his letter to Baron Hohendorf a forgery, 411.

Hessians in the Long Island battle, 329;
their maps, 327, 345, 409;
at Oriskany, 351;
their jealousy of the English, 354;
taken at Trenton, marched through Philadelphia, 376;
at Brandywine, 419;
in the South, 482;
at Savannah (1779), 524;
at Guilford, 541;
in the R. I. campaign (1778), 595, 601.

Heth, Lieut. Wm., 219, 421.

Hewes, G. R. T., _Traits of the Tea Party_, 91;
_Retrospect of the Tea Party_, 91.

Hewes, Joseph, life and autog., 266.

Heyward, Thomas, life, 265;
autog., 266.

Hichborn, Benj., 88.

Hickey, Thomas, 326.

Hickey Plot, 326.

Hide, Elijah, 186.

Higginson, T. W., on Paul Revere, 175;
on Salem privateers, 591.

Hildreth, S. P., _Pioneer Settlers of Ohio_, 219, 567, 708.

Hill, Geo. C., _Arnold_, 461;
_Daniel Boone,_ 708.

Hill, J. B., _Old Dunstable_, 189.

Hill, John, his plan of N. York, 331;
map of Philad., 442.

Hill, N. N., Jr., 736.

Hillard, E. B., _Last Men of the Rev._, 746.

Hills, John, 426; _Map of Springfield_, N. J., 560;
map of Stony Point, 558;
plan of attack on Forts Clinton and Montgomery, 363.

Hillsborough, Earl of, 21, 43;
leaves the ministry, 53;
requires Massachusetts to rescind its circular letter, 44;
she refuses, 45.

Hinman, _Connecticut during the Rev._, 663.

Hite, Col. John, 718.

Hobkirk's Hill (second battle of Camden), battle of, 488, 541;
plans of battle, 543, 544;
forces and losses, 544.

Hodge, Wm., 573, 574, 575.

Hodgkin, Col. Joseph, 325.

Hodgkinson, Samuel, 222, 225.

Hodgson, John, 86.

Hoffman, F. S., 451.

Holden, _Queensbury_, 214.

Holland, E. G., "Highland Treason", 466.

Holland, Sam., chart of Boston harbor, 209;
his plan of N. Y., 333;
his maps of the English colonies, 341;
surveys of Fort Clinton, etc., 364.

Hollis, Thomas, 68;
prints _The True Sentiments of America_, 83.

Hollister, H., _Lackawanna Valley_, 665.

Holmes, O. W., _Grandmother's Story_, 200.

Holmes, _Missions_, 736.

Holyoke, Dr., 187.

Home, John, 269.

Hood, Admiral, 83;
_Letters_, 84;
on the American coast, 501.

Hooper, Archibald M., acc. of Robert Howe, 519.

Hooper, J. C., life of Wm. Hooper, 265.

Hooper, "King", 114.

Hooper, Wm., life, 265;
autog., 266.

Hopkins, Esek, made chief naval officer, 568;
portraits, 569;
attacks New Providence, 570;
attacks the "Glasgow", 570;
court-martial, 570;
accounts of, 570;
retires, 570.

Hopkins, John B., capt. in the navy, 570.

Hopkins, Stephen, 53;
answered in a _Letter from a gentleman at Halifax_, 70;
and in _Defence of a Letter_, 70;
and _Brief Remarks_, 70;
_Rights of the Colonies_, 70;
_Grievances of the American Colonies_, 70;
autog., 263;
life, 265;
and the Congress of 1754, 66.

Hopkinson, Francis, autog., 264;
life, by R. P. Smith, 265;
letter to Duché, 438;
_Battle of the Kegs_, 442.

Hoppin, J. M., 439;
edits H. A. Brown's _Orations_, 446.

Hoppin, Nicholas, 142.

Horry, P., _Life of Marion_, 512.

Horry, quarrels with Mahem, 545.

Hosack, David, 464.

Hosmer, Rufus, 189.

Hotham, Com., 364.

Houdon, his bust of Paul Jones, 592.

Hough, F. B., _Order-book of Captain Bleecker_, 670;
edits the _Cow-Chace_, 560;
_Proc. of Congress at Boston_, 560;
_Northern Invasions_, 452, 672;
_Savannah_, 522;
_Siege of Charleston_, 525;
edits _Siege of Detroit_, 701.

Houghton, G. F., on Colonel Warner, 356.

How, David, 202.

How, Henry K., _Trenton_, 407.

Howard, Col. J. E., 421, 481.

Howe, Henry, _Hist. Coll. N. Y._, 666.

Howe, John, _Journal_, 119.

Howe, Richard, Admiral Lord, 380;
portrait, 277, 380;
confronts D'Estaing off Newport, 594;
_Candid and Impartial Narrative_, 594;
arrives at New York, 326;
statue, 380;
attempts to force the Delaware defences, 387;
cruised off Boston to lure out D'Estaing, 603.

Howe, Gen. Robt., on defences of Charleston, 230;
at West Point, 456;
at Savannah, 469;
his _Court-Martial Proceedings_, 519;
acc. of, 519.

Howe, Gen. Wm., autog., 136;
his army on Staten Island (1776), 275;
lands on Long Island, 276;
his portrait, 197, 278, 383, 417, 418;
his blunders in the N. Y. campaign (1776), 291;
his lineage, 291, 415;
in Philadelphia, 384;
his army attacked at Germantown, 385;
criticised in _Letters to a nobleman_, 415;
his Observations, 415;
Reply to Observations, 415;
Letters from Agricolas, 415;
generally criticised, 415;
connection with Mrs. Loring, 415;
leaves Philadelphia, 396;
Mischianza, 396;
attacks Lafayette at Barren Hill, 396;
his reputation ruined by the campaign of 1777, 414;
tracts on his incompetency, 414;
his _Narrative_, 329, 414;
his _Orderly-book, 1775-1776_, 194, 415;
his H. Q. at Brandywine, 415;
sails from N. Y., 417;
at Head of Elk, 418;
his character, 418;
enters Philad., 419;
his proclamations, 419;
his acc. of Germantown, 426;
tries to lure Washington to battle, 439;
H. Q. at Stenton, 429;
orders in Philadelphia, 436;
H. Q. in Philad., 436;
relieved by Clinton, 443;
hopes to use the Indians, 621;
criticised for his attack at Bunker Hill, 140;
his fleet, 158;
evacuates Boston, 158, 205;
his conduct of the siege criticised in _A View of the Evidence_,
etc., 205;
knighted, 281;
occupies N. Y., 283;
dallies at Mrs. Murray's, 284;
attacks to outflank Washington by way of Throg's Neck, 285;
at White Plains, 286;
at Dobbs's Ferry, 287;
attacks Fort Washington, 287, 288;
crosses into Jersey, 290;
his letters during the Long Island campaign, 329;
criticised by Mauduit, 329, 337;
his quarters in N. Y., 331;
his movements above New York (1776), 337;
going to Philadelphia, defeated Germain's plans, 348;
sends expedition to Danbury, 348;
takes Philadelphia, 367;
invades the Jerseys, 368;
evacuates New Jersey, 379;
sails south, and lands at Head of Elk, 379;
at Brandywine, 381;
criticised (1776), 331.

Howells, W. D., _Three Villages_, 184;
on Gnadenhütten, 736.

Howland, John, of Rhode Island, 405.

Hoyt, A. H., 95.

Hoyt, Epaphras, 627.

Hoyt, Gen., on the Saratoga battlefield, 357.

Hubbard, Frances M., _Wm. Richardson Davie_, 537.

Hubbard, John, _Maj. Moses Van Campen_, 669.

Hubbard, J. N., _Sa-go-ye-wat-ha_, 625, 662;
_Red Jacket_, 351, 625;
_Life of Van Campen_, 665.

Hubbardton, affair at, 297, 350;
map, 350.

Huberton. _See_ Hubbardton.

Hubley, Col. Adam, 668;
_American Revolution_, 650.

Huddy, Capt. Joshua, case of, 744.

Hudson, Chas., 184;
_Lexington_, 180;
on Pitcairn, 183;
_Doubts concerning Bunker Hill_, 189.

Hudson, C., and Porter, E. E., _Centennial of Lexington_, 184.

Hudson, F., _Amer. Journalism_, 110;
on Lexington, 184.

Hudson River, the campaigns about, 275;
maps of, 323, 340, 364, 455, 456, 465, 556, 557;
the British to secure its line, 323;
British ships in (1776), 326;
obstructions in, 364;
frozen at New York, 559;
highlands of, 340.

Huger, Gen., 483;
the Virginia brigade, 485.

Hughes, Major, aide to Gen. Gates, 360.

Hull, Capt. Wm., on Trenton, 407.

Hulton, Henry, 39, 194.

Humphreys, _Life of Putnam_, 190.

Hunnewell, J. F., _Bibliog. of Charlestown_, 185.

Hunt, Louise L., on Gen. Montgomery, 216.

Hunter, C. L., _Western No. Carolina_, 256, 536, 678.

Huntington, Jed., letters during siege of Boston, 203;
on Valley Forge, 436.

Huntington, Samuel, autog., 263;
life, 265.

Hurd, John, 227.

Husband, Herman, 81;
_A Fan for Fanning_, 81;
_Impartial Relation_, 82.

Huske, _Present State_, etc., 650.

Husted, N. C., _Centennial Souvenir_, 466.

Hutcheson, Maj. Francis, his diary, 205, 346.

Hutchins, Thomas, 693, 699;
_Louisiana_, 651;
his maps of Bouquet's exped., 699;
map of Illinois country, 700;
_Louisiana and West Florida_, 700;
_Virginia_, etc., 700.

Hutchinson, Col. Israel, 204.

Hutchinson, Gov. Thomas, 89;
on Boston Massacre, 85;
his _Strictures on the Declaration of Congress_, 240;
chief justice of Mass., 12;
his house sacked, 19, 30, 72;
lieut.-gov. of Mass., 22;
on feelings in England, 111;
his coach used by Washington, 146;
his character, 26;
draws up petition to the Commons, 28;
succeeds Bernard (1769), 49;
made gov. of Mass. (1771), 53;
his letters returned to Boston by Franklin, 56, 93;
sails for England, 57;
death, 58;
plan of union in 1754, 66;
disapproval of the Stamp Act, 72;
his speech after the mob, 73;
his controversy with his Assembly, 88;
threatened, 88;
_Copies of letters_, etc., 93;
_Letters of Gov. Hutchinson_, etc., 93;
_The Representations of Gov. Hutchinson_, 93;
R. C. Winthrop's views of the return of his letters, 93;
George Bancroft's, 93;
Grenville's connection, 94;
interview with the king (1774), 97;
opposes the Boston Port Bill, 97;
addressed on leaving Boston, 113.

Hyrne, W. A., 169.

Hyslop, Robt., has Paul Jones's papers, 589.

ILLINOIS, county of Va., 729.

Illinois country, 708;
map of, by Hutchins, 700;
Clark's campaign in, 718;
to be invaded by the British (1780), 737;
attacked, 739, 741.

Illman, Thomas, 194.

Imlay, Gilbert, _Western Territory_, 652, 708.

Importers in Boston proscribed, 79, 80;
list of them, 79.

Indeberg (N. Y. city), 284.

Independence, of the United States, growth of the sentiment, 231, 256.

Indians, taken prisoners and made slaves, 676;
threaten the Southern colonies (1763), 17;
_Indian Treaties_, etc., 247;
their part in the Rev. War, 605;
their grants of lands, 607;
rights of their women, 607;
private persons forbidden to buy their lands, 608;
spare woman's chastity, 610, 652;
their numbers, 610, 611, 650;
proportion of warriors, 611;
names of tribes, 699;
enlisted as minute-men at Cambridge, 612;
of more use to the British, 612;
counter-movements to employ them, 613, 614, 615, 616, 618;
in battle of Long Island, 613;
used as scouts, 613;
at White Plains, 613;
on the Kennebec exped., 614;
commissions given to them, 617;
and the British ministry, 617;
the British government announce their intention of using them, 621;
entice them by gifts, 621;
books about, 648;
as allies in war, 649;
their lands encroached upon, 649;
number in the British service, 652;
with St. Leger, 661;
commissioned by Congress, 672;
employment of, in war, opinions as regards, 673;
counter-statements of English and French, 688, 689;
bounties offered to engage in the war, 674;
enlisted, 677;
join the Americans in the South, 679;
_Laws relating to Indians_, 682;
civilized by the Moravians, 736.

Ingersoll, E., life of L. Morris, 266;
of Thomas Stone, 266;
of Samuel Chase, 266;
of James Smith, 266;
of Jos. Hewes, 266;
of Wm. Paca, 266;
of John Adams, 266.

Ingersoll, Jared., to be stamp distributor, 72;
his _Letters_, 73.

Inglis, Chas., _Plain Truth_, 270;
on the Iroquois, 608.

Inman, George, on Princeton, 412.

Innes, Col. Jas., 718.

Insurance, maritime, rates of, during the Rev. War, 563, 573.

Ipswich dreads a raid from Boston (1775), 128.

Iredell, James, 532.

Ireland, address of Congress to, 617.

Irenæus, Father, 710.

Iroquois, histories of, 247;
Inglis' memorial about, 608.

Irvine, Col., attack at Three Rivers, 225.

Irvine, Gen., diary, 222.

Irvine, Gen. James, wounded at Chestnut Hill, 389.

Irvine, William, at Monmouth, 446;
at Fort Pitt, 732;
letters and papers, 737.

JACK, MAJOR, in Georgia, 676, 678, 679.

Jackson, Helen Hunt, _Century of Dishonor_, 681,

Jackson, Wm., 80, 268.

Jackson, survey of Lake George, 348.

Jacob, John J., _Life of Cresap_, 712.

Jacobs, Francis, 419.

Jamaica Bay, 327.

James, John, _Life of Marion_, 512.

James, Thomas, 170, 228.

James, Wm. D., _Life of Marion_, 512.

James Island (near Charleston, S. C.), 526.

Jameson, Col., receives André, 458.

Jameson, _Constitutional Conventions_, 72.

Jarvis, J. W., 734.

Jasper, Sergeant William, 172, 230;
killed, 524.

Jay, John, address to the people of Great Britain, 100;
an Episcopalian, 241;
on Harlem fight, 334;
on the desire for independence, 255.

Jefferson, Thomas, _Summary View_, 98, 99;
the Decl. of Indep., 239;
Stuart's profile likeness of, 258;
portraits of, 258;
his house, Monticello, 259;
fac-simile of his orig. draft of the Decl. of Independence, 260;
why at the head of the com. for drafting the Decl. of Indep., 261;
his autog., 261, 266;
the house where he wrote the Decl. of Indep. 261;
the desk, 261;
life of George Wythe, 265;
life by Gilpin, 265;
escapes from Tarleton, 497;
during the invasion of Va., 515, 547;
controversy with H. Lee, 515;
_Notes on Virginia_, 650, 711, 712;
on Cresap, 711.

Jefferys, _Gen. Topog. of No. Amer._, 696;
plan of Boston, 209;
_Province of Quebec_, 215;
charts of the St. Lawrence, river and gulf, 215.

Jeffries, Dr. John, on Gen. Warren's death, 194.

Jemison, Mary, 648, 662.

Jening, Levi, 47.

Jenkins, Howard, _Gwynedd_, 436.

Jenkins, H. M., on Brandywine, 419.

Jenkins, Steuben, on Wyoming, 665.

Jenkinson, C., 76.

Jennings, Edmund, 109.

Jennings, Isaac, _Memorials of a Century_, 355.

Jennys, Richard, 71.

Jenyns, Soame, his _Objections to Taxation_, 75.

Jephson, Mrs., 276.

Jesse, _Etonians_, 516.

Jesuits in Kaskaskia, 717, 720.

Johnson, Crisfield, _Erie County_, 670.

Johnson, Col. Guy, 142;
succeeds Sir Wm. Johnson, 612;
favors use of Indians, 613;
the object of suspicion, 618;
fortified his house, 619;
confers with the Indians at Fort Stanwix and Oswego, 619;
at Ontario, 619;
at Montreal, 619, 624;
instructed to have the Indians prepared for service, 620;
his war-belt, 624;
goes to Connecticut, 605;
his map of the country of the Six Nations (1771), 609;
correspondence with Haldimand, 654;
persuading Indians to join the British, 655.

Johnson, Jeremiah, 329.

Johnson, Sir John, urging the Indians to take sides, 615;
his position, 624;
arrested, 625;
flies to Canada, 625;
_Life of_, 625;
_Orderly-book_, 351, 625, 660;
at Oriskany, 630;
raids in the Mohawk Valley, 634, 644;
in the Schoharie Valley, 644;
exped. into N. Y. 672;
in St. Leger's campaign, 299;
life of, by J. W. de Peyster, 351.

Johnson, Jos., _Traditions of Amer. Rev._, 514.

Johnson, R. M., 707.

Johnson, Dr. Samuel, his appearance, 109;
_Taxation no Tyranny_, 109;
_Hypocrisy unmasked_, 102.

Johnson, Stephen, 203.

Johnson, Wesley, 665.

Johnson, Sir Wm., life by Stone, 247;
his tact, 605;
labors to prevent outbreaks, 607, 608;
dies, 612;
acc. of, 648;
his estimate of Indian warriors, 651;
makes a treaty (1764) at Niagara, 698;
letters to Lords of Trade, 704;
the Western Indians, 706, 707.

Johnson, Wm., _Sketches of life of Gen. Greene_, 510, 511;
reviews of, 511.

Johnson, W. S., and the Wilkes turmoils, 28;
in the Congress of 1765, 74;
on feelings in England during the Stamp Act times, 75;
describes debates in Parliament, 85;
predicts independence, 85;
a patriot, 241.

Johnston, Alexander, _Representative Amer. Orations_, 107;
on the Cincinnati, 746.

Johnston, Capt., in the navy, 575;
in the "Lexington", 575;
surrenders to the "Alert", 575.

Johnston, Henry P., "Yale in the Revolution", 189;
on R. J. Meigs, 219;
his map of Long Island, 328;
_Campaign of 1776_, 331;
plan of New York Island, 331, 335;
on Nathan Hale, 334;
on Col. Varick, 460;
on De Kalb, 530;
his plan of battle of Camden, 531;
on De Kalb, Gates, and the Camden campaign, 532;
_Yorktown Campaign_, 555;
on Stony Point, 558.

Johnston, _Bristol and Bremen_, 567.

Johnstown, Gen. Schuyler at, 624;
fight at, 646.

Jones, Brig.-Gen., 194.

Jones, C. C., _Georgia_, 679;
_Last Days of Lee_, 509, 510;
_Serg. Wm. Jasper_, 230, 524;
_Sepulture of Greene and Pulaski_, 510, 524;
_Siege of Savannah in 1779_, 522.

Jones, Ch. H., _Campaign for the Conquest of Canada_, 174.

Jones, Dr., of Boston, 47.

Jones, Gabriel, 716.

Jones, J. S., _Defence of No. Carolina_, 257.

Jones, John Paul, made lieutenant, 568;
cruising in the "Providence", 570;
made captain, 570, 571;
in the "Alfred", 571;
captures the "Mellish", 571;
in the "Ranger", 571, 576;
displays the national flag, 571;
acc. of him, 576;
takes the "Drake", 577;
descent on the Scotch coast, 577;
his letter-books, 577;
in the "Bon Homme Richard", 577, 590;
her log-book, 590;
her flag, 590;
engages the "Serapis", 578, 590;
goes into the Texel, 578;
effect in England, 590;
seeks the French service, 579;
in the "Alliance", 583;
life by J. F. Cooper, 589;
other lives, 589;
his papers, 589, 590;
life purporting to be by himself, issued in French, 590;
figures in Cooper's _Pilot_ and Dumas' _Capitaine Paul_, 590;
in the "Ranger", 590;
her log, 590;
his letters, 590;
claims on the U. S., 591;
causes diplomatic embarrassments, 591;
portraits, 592;
medals, 592;
Houdon's bust, 592.

Jones, Lieut., 627.

Jones, M. M., on Cornstalk, 714.

Jones, Pearson, 146.

Jones, Pomroy, _Oneida County_, 351.

Jones, Skelton, _Virginia_, 515.

Jones, Thomas, the loyalist, his cynical character, 467.

Jordan, S., 227.

Joy, Arad, of Ovid, N. Y., 467.

Judges paid by the king, 54;
tenure of office in England, 4;
in America, 4.

Judson, L. C., on the signers of Decl. of Indep., 266.

Jumel, Madam, 284.

Kalb. _See_ De Kalb.

Kalm predicts the Amer. revolt, 686.

Kanadalauga, 669.

Kapp, Frederick, _Die Deutschen im Staate New York_, 351;
_Life of John Kalb_, 530;
_Leben des Generals Kalb_, 530;
_Life of Steuben_, 515.

Kaskaskia 730, 738;
Jesuits at, 720;
captured, 720;
references, 722;
maps, 700, 702, 717.

Kaye, G. W., _Indian Officers_, 516.

Kearney, Maj., surveys of Yorktown, 553.

Kemble, Peter, 123.

Kennebec expedition (1775), led by Arnold, 217;
used surveys by Montresor, 217;
Indians join, 655;
maps of the route, 217;
references, 217;
letters, 218;
Arnold's journal, 218;
other journals, 219;
orderly-books, 220;
list of officers, 220;
lists of men and of the losses, 220.
_See_ Quebec, siege of (1755).

Kennedy, Patrick, _Journal_, 701.

Kennedy, Samuel, surgeon, 325, 359.

Kennett Square, Pa., 381, 415.

Kent, Benj., 47.

Kenton, Simon, 708.

Kentucky, explored, 710, 715;
first log cabin, 715;
made a county of Virginia, 716;
forts in, 739.

Ketchum, Silas, edits Mrs. Walker's _Events in Canada_, 222.

Ketchum, Wm., _Buffalo_, 648.

Kettell, John, at Bunker Hill, 202.

Kettle Creek, 520.

Kickapoos, 703,

Kidder, Frederick, _Military operations in Eastern Maine_, 564, 657;
acc. of him, 657.

Kimball, James, orderly-book (1777-1778), 360.

King, C., on Monmouth, 446.

King, David, 219.

King, D. P., 184.

King, Gen. Joshua, on André's captors, 466.

King's Bridge, 336, 337;
affair at (1781), 561.

King's Ferry (Hudson River), 456.

King's Mountain, battle, 479, 535, 536, 677;
forces and losses, 535;
no good plan, 536;
view, 536;
diagrams, 536.

Kingsley, J. L., _Hist. address_, 93;
on Ezra Stiles, 187.

Kingston, Duchess of, 112.

Kingston, Fort, 664.

Kingston, Lt. Col. (1777), 366.

Kingston, N. Y., senate house, 274;
burned (1777), 364.

Kingstown, N. J., 408, 410.

Kinnison, David, 91.

Kip's Bay, 283, 333, 335.

Kirke, Edmund, _pseud._ for J. R. Gilmore.

Kirkland, J. T., 672;
sketch of Gen. Lincoln, 513.

Kirkland, Samuel, 612, 659;
acc. of, 674;
life by S. K. Lothrop, 274, 659;
his account of siege of Fort Stanwix, 351.

Kirkwood, Capt., his journal, 545.

Kitanning, 609.

Kitchin, Thomas, map of N. Y., 333, 349;
map of Philad., 442.

Kloster-Zeven, convention of, 322.

Knight, Dr. (with Slover), _Narrative_, 736.

Knight, Lieut. John, 364.

Knower, Daniel, 466.

Knowlton, Col., 135, 191;
attacks at Harlem, 285;
his scouts in Charlestown Mass. (1776), 153.

Knox, Gen. Henry, his acc. of Brandywine, 419;
his report on the Continental army, 588;
misconceived later, 588;
brings cannon from Ticonderoga, 156;
his letters, 156;
autog., 156;
on Germantown, 421;
headquarters in N. Y., 276;
last general officer of the army, 746;
suggests the Cincinnati Soc., 746.

Knox, Wm., _Claim of the Colonies_, 75;
_Controversy between Great Britain and her Colonies_, 83;
_The justice and policy of the late act_, 104.

Knyphausen, Gen., at Fort Washington, 289, 338, 345;
autog., 289;
at Brandywine, 381;
in command in N. Y., 559;
at Germantown, 385, 428;
on the Delaware, 430;
at Haddenfield, 442;
at New Rochelle, 286;
at King's Bridge, 286;
his quarters in N. Y., 331;
at Trenton, 411.

Kosciusko, Thaddeus, fortifies Bemis Heights, 304;
at Ninety-six, 491;
portraits, 492;
memoir by Evans, 492;
his claims, 492.

_Kriegstheater in Amerika_, 341.

Kulp, Geo. B., _Families of the Wyoming Valley_, 664.

L'Amoreaux, J. S., address, 366.

La Chesnais, edits Blanchard's journal, 554.

La Corne, St. Luc, with Burgoyne, 294.

La Mothe, Capt., 729.

La Tour, Brionde, _Théâtre de la Guerre_, 416.

Lacy, Gen. John, 393;
Papers, 216;
at Valley Forge, 436.

Lafayette, his view of the English observance of the Saratoga
convention, 321;
joins the army, 380;
wounded at Brandywine, 382, 418;
headquarters, 419;
his attack at Gloucester, N. Jersey 389, 430;
proposed for command of an expedition to Canada, 392, 447;
at Barren Hill, 396, 442;
first sits at council of war, 417;
at Monmouth, 444, 445;
account of Arnold and André, 466;
marches south, 496;
in Richmond, 496;
map of his fight with Cornwallis, 538;
in Virginia, 547;
his _Mèmoires_, 547;
at Yorktown, 555;
plans an invasion of England, 577;
in R. I. campaign (1778), 593, 601;
his letters, 593;
visits Boston, 595;
his plan of Narragansett Bay, 600;
his plan of Rhode Island, 602.

Lake Pontchartrain, map, 702.

Lake. _See_ names of lakes.

Lally, Thomas, 227.

Lamb, Col. John, 670;
at West Point, 460;
his artillery company at Quebec, 220.

Lamb, Roger, _Journal of Occurrences_, 198, 360, 518, 532;
_Memoirs_, 360.

Lambdin, A. C., 423.

Lamoth, Capt., 728. _See_ La Mothe.

Lancaster, Pa., Congress at, 383.

Lancaster County, Pa., massacre in, 606.

Land companies, 649, 650.

Land grants, fraudulently obtained from the Indians, 607, 608.

Landaff, Bishop, his sermon (1767), 76;
answered by Livingston, 76;
a _Vindication_, 76.

Landais, Capt., in the "Alliance", 577, 578;
insane, 579;
his _Memorial_, 590;
_Charges and Proofs_, 591;
acc. by E. E. Hale, 591;
his claims, 591.

Lane, Capt. John, 614.

Lane, S. E., 714.

Langdon, John, in Canada, 227.

Langdon, Rev. John, sermon on Lexington, 180.

Langdon, Samuel, election sermon, 131;
_Map of N. Hampshire_, 217.

Langworthy, Edward, _Chas. Lee_, 407.

Lanman, James, 464, 597.

Lareau, _Litt. Canadienne_, 216.

Larned, Miss, _Windham County_, 193.

Lathrop, John, sermon on Boston Massacre, 88.

Latrobe, H. B., life of Chas. Carroll, 266.

Laurens, John, Lt.-Col., at Germantown, 385;
on the Delaware, 431;
killed, 507, 545;
at Monmouth, 446;
challenges Lee, 446;
at Charleston (1780), 525.

Lauzun, Duc de, _Mémoires_, 560.

Lawrence, Eugene, 559.

Leach, John, 204.

Learned, Gen., at Bemis Heights, 304;
at Freeman's Farm, 316.

Leboucher, _La Guerre de l'Indépendance_, 560.

Lecky, on Bunker Hill, 198;
on siege of Boston, 173;
_England, etc._, 68.

Ledyard, Col., his career, etc., 562;
killed, 562.

Lee, Andrew, diary, 417.

Lee, Arthur, _A True State of the Proceedings_, 106;
_An Appeal to the People of Great Britain_, 106, 109;
on the news of Lexington, 175;
helps in writing the _Liberty Song_, 86;
_Political Detection_, 88;
trying to secure powder for Virginia, 168.

Lee, Chas., _Strictures on a Friendly Address_, 106;
at Cambridge, 144;
correspondence with Burgoyne, 144;
his headquarters in Medford, 144;
sent to New York (1776), 156;
goes south, 156, 168;
his letters at this time, 156;
in Virginia, 168;
in South Carolina, 168;
letters during siege of Boston, 203;
report on defence of Sullivan's Island, 229;
in New York, 275;
on the fortifications of New York, 325;
refuses to follow Washington into the Jerseys, 368, 403;
captured, 369, 403;
likenesses, 369, 406;
autograph, 370;
following Clinton, 398;
at Monmouth, 399, 444;
court-martial of, 400, 446;
dismissed from the army, 400;
exchanged, 403;
his criticism of Washington, 403, 446;
his conduct suspicious, 403;
as "Junius", 406;
his house in Virginia, 407;
lives of, 407;
_Papers_, 407;
the campaign of 1777, 416;
his treason, 416;
his vindication, 446;
corresponds with Washington, 446;
duel with Col. Laurens, 446.

Lee, C. C., 515.

Lee, F. D., _Hist. Rec. of Savannah_, 519.

Lee, Francis Lightfoot, autog., 266;
life, 266.

Lee, Capt. John, 592.

Lee, Gen. Henry, 222, 509;
and his legion, 484;
on Rawdon's communications, 487;
joins Marion, 487;
at Augusta, 490;
at Ninety-Six, 491;
at the Eutaws, 545;
retires, 545;
_War in the Southern Dept._, 509;
edited by H. Lee, 509;
by R. E. Lee, 509;
called "Legion Harry", and "Light Horse Harry", 509;
portraits, 509;
severe on Jefferson, 515;
controversy, 515;
at Yorktown, 555;
(son of "Legion Harry") his _Campaign of 1781_, 511;
_Observations on Jefferson_, 515;
on the capture of André, 466;
attacks Paulus Hook, 559.

Lee, R. H., 236, 259;
and the Stamp Act, 29;
supports com. of correspondence, 56;
address to people of Great Britain, 100;
drafts address of Congress of 1775, 108;
moves for independence, 238;
not on the committee to draft the Declar. of Independence, 239;
his resolutions of June 7th preserved, 261;
references, 261;
autog., 265;
life, 266;
on Trenton, 407.

Lee, Major Wm., 204;
_Legal adviser_, 729.

Leiste, C., on the British colonies, 341.

Leitch, Col. Thomas, 171, 285.

Leith, John, _Narrative_, 682.

Le Marchant, _Walpole's George III._, 75.

Lemoine, _Maple leaves_, 223;
_Picturesque Quebec_, 223.

Leney, W. S., 107.

Leonard, Daniel, _The present political state_, etc., 110;
_The Origin of the Amer. Contest_, 110;
_Massachusettensis, or a series of letters_, 110;
references, 112.

Leslie, Col., at Salem, 119, 172.

Leslie, Gen., attacks Chatterton Hill, 286;
at Charleston, S. C., 507;
proposes a truce, 545;
marches to the Carolinas, 536;
at Princeton, 378;
in Virginia, 495, 546.

Lesperance, J., _Bastonnais_, 223.

Levasseur, A., _Lafayette en Amérique_, 194.

Levinge, R. G. A., _Monmouthshire Light Infantry_, 198.

Lewis, Gen. Andrew, leads exped. against Indians, 713;
at Point Pleasant, 713;
in Virginia, 168;
his _Order-book_, 168.

Lewis, Col., of Virginia, 679.

Lewis, Francis, autog., 264; life, 265.

Lewis, Morgan, life of Francis Lewis, 265.

Lewis, S., 338.

Lewis, _Chester Co._, 419.

Lexington, Ky., 708; named in commemoration
of the fight in 1775, 178.

Lexington, Mass., march to, 123;
Percy's reinforcements, 123;
effect of the news in England, 125;
authorities, 174;
depositions, 175;
fac-simile of John Parker's, 176;
which fired first? 175, 183;
news of the fight in London, 175;
its effect, 178;
the news sent South, 178;
_Bloody Butchery_, 178;
plan of Lexington, 179;
Clarke house, 179;
British accounts, 180;
_Circumstantial Account_, 180;
losses, 182;
alarm rolls, 182;
loss of property, 182;
disputes with Concord, 183;
depositions of survivors, 184;
_Centennial Souvenir_, 184;
view of Lexington Green, 185;
the fight in fiction, 185;
relics, 185.
_See_ Concord.

"Liberty" sloop seized, 43.

Liberty Song, 86; Tree in Boston, 72;
in other places, 72.

Lincoln, Benjamin, at Charleston (1779), 469;
his order-books, 469, 522, 554;
at Savannah, 470, 519, 522, 523;
withdraws, 471;
autograph, 473;
portrait, 473;
lives, 513;
his papers, 359, 513;
his letters, 513;
coöperates with D'Estaing, 513;
surrenders Charleston, 474, 513;
defends his conduct, 524;
drove off the last ship from Boston, 160;
in Burgoyne's campaign, 299, 359;
acting on Burgoyne's communications, 304;
on New York Island (1781), 499;
account of Bennington, 354;
attack on Stono, 520;
with Gates (1777), 307.

Lincoln, Wm., ed. _Journals of Mass. Prov. Cong._, 180.

Lind, John, _Answer to the Decl. of Indep._, 269.

Lindsay, Lord, on Germantown, 423.

Lindsay, W., _Invasion of Canada_, 223.

Linn, _Buffalo Valley_, 446.

Linquet, 366.

Lippincott, Capt. Richard, 744.

Litchfield, Paul, 203.

Little, Moses, 326.

Livermore, Daniel, 668.

Livermore, Geo., _Hist. Research_, 85.

Liverpool, Eng., 563.

Livesey, R., 575.

Livingston, Col., at Freeman's Farm, 316.

Livingston, Henry B., 359;
orderly-book (1777), 359.

Livingston, Col. James, before Quebec, 165.

Livingston, Philip, _The other side of the question_, 106, 108;
autog., 264;
life of, 265.

Livingston, R. R., intercedes for Arnold, 452;
in Canada, 227;
on com. to draft Declar. of Indep., 239;
on Stamp Act, 73.

Livingston, Gov. Wm., his papers, 359;
_Collection of Tracts_, 83;
corresponding with Sam Cooper, 83;
_Letter to Bishop of Landaff_, 76;
his silhouette, 84.

Lloyd, Charles, 49;
sec. to Grenville, 75;
_Conduct of the late administration examined_, 76.

Locke, Col., 475.

Lockwood, David, 472.

Lockwood, James, 178.

Lodge, Lieut. Benj., map of Sullivan's route (1779), 681.

Lodge, John, 212.

Loftus, Maj. Arthur, on the Mississippi, 701.

Logan, Col., at Blue Licks, 730.

Logan, James, his house, 429.

Logan, J. H. _Upper country of So. Carolina_, 536.

Logan Historical Soc., 713;
_American Pioneer_, 713.

Logan (Indian), his speech, 711, 712.

Logtown, N. C., 543.

_London Gazette_, 516.

Long, J., _Indian interpreter_, 649.

Long, _Voyages_, 741.

Long Island, battle of, 326;
sources, 328, 329;
movements of, 329;
British strength at, 330;
bibliography of, 329;
the British land on, 326;
Hessian map of battle, 327;
other maps, 327, 328, 340.
_See_ Brooklyn.

Long Island Sound, whale boat warfare in, 591.

Longchamps. _Histoire impartiale_, 555.

Longfellow, H. W., occupies Craigie House, 142;
_Paul Revere's Ride_, 173.

Longfellow, Samuel, _Life of H. W. Longfellow_, 142.

Lord, W. W., play on André, 464.

Loring, Geo. B., on Leslie's expedition, 172.

Loring, J. S., _Hundred Boston Orators_, 107.

Lossing, B. J., 197; on Arnold, 220;
on Daniel Boone, 708;
_Field-book of the Rev._, 659;
edits Lyon's _Mil. Journal_, 178;
on the signers of the Decl. of Indep., 266;
on Putnam, 193;
on the Revolutionary navy, 589;
_Two Spies_, 464;
on Arnold's treason, 464;
_United States_, 659;
_Seventeen hundred and seventy-six_, 659;
on Quebec, 223.

Lothrop, Isaac, 187.

Lothrop, S. K., _Samuel Kirkland_, 659, 674.

Louisiana, ceded (1762) to Spain, 686;
Ulloa in, 737;
a republic tried, 737;
French forts in, 699.

Lovell, James, 88;
imprisoned, 204;
on Burgoyne's advance, 348;
the Conway Cabal, 392;
on Howe's movements, 416;
on Washington, 421.

Lovell, Gen. Solomon, in Penobscot expedition, 582;
autog., 603;
quarrels with Saltonstall, 603;
his _Journal_, 603;
life by Nash, 603;
acquitted court of inquiry, 604.

Lovewell, John, 681.

Low, Nath., _Astron. Diary_, 178;
map from, 342.

Lowell, E. J., 411;
introduction to Pausch's journal, 360.

Lowell, Jas. Russell, _Concord Ode_, 184;
his house, 115.

Lowell, John, on the Bunker Hill controversy, 191.

Lowell, Robert, "Burgoyne's last march", 357.

Lownes, C., 207.

Loyalists in Boston, organized into battalions, 153;
leave Boston with Howe, 158;
leave Charleston and Savannah, 546;
discouraged by Trenton, 407;
military organizations in Philad., 395.
_See_ Tories.

Lunt, Paul, 203.

Lushington, S. R., _Lord Harris_, 183.

Lynch, Thomas, 264;
life, 265;
autog., 266.

Lynch's Creek, 476.

Lynde, Judge Benj., portrait, 86;
_Diary_, 86;
autog., 50.

Lyons, L., _Mil. Journals_, 178.

Lyttelton, Lord, _A letter to Chatham_, 104.

M'Gauran, Major Edward, 360.

Macaulay, Catharine, _Observations_, 88;
on Chatham, 685.

Macdonald, Flora, 168.

Machias, Me., affair of the "Margaretta", 564.

Machigwawish, 738.

Machin, Thomas, map of the Hudson River, 455.

Mackay, Capt. Samuel, _Narrative_, 360.

Mackenzie, Alex. S., _Life of Paul Jones_, 590.

Mackenzie, John, 79.

Mackenzie, Roderick, _Strictures on Tarleton_, 517;
answered, 517;
on Cowpens, 538;
wounded at Cowpens, 541.

Macpherson, James, _Rights of Great Britain Asserted_, 109, 269.

Madison, James, 259.

Magaw, Robert, on Fort Washington, 341;
letter (Cambridge), 203.

_Magnolia_, a Georgia periodical, 519.

Mahem, Marion's lieutenant, 545.

Mahem towers, 491.

Mahon, Lord (Earl Stanhope), on Bunker Hill, 198;
condemns André's execution, 467;
on the Decl. of Indep., 269.

Mahoning, 643.

Maidenhead, N. J., 409, 410.

Maine, H. C., _Burgoyne's Campaign_, 366.

Maine created as the province of New Ireland, 604.

Maisonville, Francis, 729.

Maitland, Col., at Savannah, 470, 520;
dies, 524.

Majabigwaduce, 604.

Malcolm, Daniel, his house assailed, 68.

Malmedy, autog., 500;
fortifies Narragansett Bay, 593.

Mamaroneck, 337.

Manchac, 739.

Manchester, N. H., 190.

Manly, Capt. John, captures Crean Brush, 205;
takes prizes, 565;
the first to show a Continental flag, 565;
driven into Plymouth, 565;
second captain in rank, 570;
captures the "Fox", 579;
loses the "Hancock", 579;
cruises in the West Indies in "The Hague", 584.

Mann, Herman, _Female Review_, or _Life of Deborah Sampson_, 191.

Manors in N. Y., 340.

Mansfield, his speeches, 112;
_Plea of the Colonies on the charges of Mansfield and others_, 112.

Manufactures prohibited in the colonies, 6;
encouraged, 77, 78.

Manwaring, Edw., 86.

Marblehead (Mass.), Glover's regiment, 375, 565.

Marbois, _Complot d'Arnold et Clinton_, 463;
translated in _American Register_, 463.

Marbury, Col. Leonard, 676.

Marcus Hook, 415.

"Margaretta", affair of, 564.

Marion, Francis, 511;
lives, 512;
portraits, 512;
his relations with Greene, 490;
at Fort Watson, 544;
discouraged, 544;
pursued by Tarleton, 480.

"Marion's men", 490.

Marsh, Luther R., _Gen. Woodhull_, 330.

Marshall, Christopher, diary, 260, 273, 404, 436, 447;
his acc. of the reading of the Decl. of Indep. in Philad., 273.

Marshall, Col., of Boston, 47.

Marshall, John, at Brandywine, 418;
at Germantown, 422;
his account of Wyoming, 663.

Marshall, O. H., _Niagara Frontier_, 658.

Marshfield, Mass., garrisoned, 118.

Martin, D., engraved the earliest American plan of Bunker Hill, 200.

Martin, gov. of No. Carolina, 168.

Martin, Joseph, 677.

Martin, J. S., _Revolutionary Soldier_, 329.

Martin, Luther, 712.

Martin, _Gazetteer of Va._, 554.

Martin, _No. Carolina_, 678.

Martler's Rock, 323.

Maryland, in the Continental Congress, 234;
effect of Boston Port Bill in, 96;
militia in (1774), 117;
movements (1774), 98;
Stamp Act in, 73; troops, 485;
at Hobkirk's Hill, 488;
at Camden, 533;
at Guildford, 541.

Mascoutins, 703, 741.

Masères, Francis, _Essays_, 90;
_Account of the proceedings_, 104;
_Additional Papers_, 104;
_Canadian Freeholder_, 104.

Mason, Col. David, 119.

Mason, Edw. G., _Todd's Record Book_, 730;
Spaniards in Illinois, 743;
_Kaskaskia_, 723;
on Fort Chartres, 706.

Mason, Geo., 259, 716;
his house, 259;
Virginia Decl. of Rights, 272;
references, 272.

Mason, G. C., on the English fleet in Newport, 593;
on war vessels in Narragansett Bay, 90.

Mason, Jonathan, 88.

Mason, Thaddeus, 187.

Massachusetts, circular letter (1768), 2, 42, 79;
causes of the Revolution in, 18;
character of her governors, 22;
its fisheries, 25;
trade with the West Indies, 26;
the Stamp Act, 29;
refuses to rescind the circular letter, 44;
calls a convention (1768), 45;
protests against the military occupation of Boston (1769), 47;
legislature moved to Cambridge, 47;
adopts intercolonial com. of correspondence, 56;
bill for regulating the government, 58;
legislature at Salem, 58;
_Answer of the major part of the Council_, 67;
_Speeches of the governors, 1765-1775, and the answers of the House
of Rep._, 67;
_Journals of the House_, 67;
_State Papers_, 67, 73;
her letter to Rockingham, 83;
_Song of Liberty_, 86, 87;
_Reply to Hutchinson_ (1773), 90;
petition to the king for the removal of Hutchinson, 95;
Americans in London oppose the Regulating Act, 97;
debate in Parliament, 97;
_Bill for the impartial administration of justice_, 97;
_Solemn League and Covenant_, 97, 98;
action taken for a Congress (1774), 99;
her assembly becomes a provincial congress, 116;
_Journals of the Provincial Congress_, 106;
articles of war, 108;
form of her government (1775) approved by Congress, 108;
ceases to be called province, 108;
provincial congress chooses general officers, 116, 243;
militia, 116;
second provincial congress, 118;
empowers Com. of Safety to gather the militia, 119;
provincial congress, 120;
meets (May, 1775), 131;
warns (June 17, 1775) the militia, 133;
the doings of the provincial congress, approved by the Continental
Congress, 134;
Com. of Safety send acc. of Bunker Hill to England and elsewhere,
187;
in the Cont. Congress, 234;
sets up its autonomy, 237, 257;
_Centennial of the Constitution_, 274;
frames a constitution, 274;
_Report on a Constitution_, 274;
other publications, 274;
sends mast timber to Charles II, 564;
ships owned in, 564;
commissions a naval force (1775), 565;
their captures, 568, 582;
her force in 1779, 579;
sends expedition against Penobscot, 582;
privateers of, 585, 587, 591;
commissioned in France, 587;
her navy, 585, 586;
her losses at Penobscot, 586;
her number of men at sea, 587;
her legislation about privateers, 591;
their captures, 591;
troops in R. I. (1778), 601;
issues bills to defray cost of Penobscot expedition, 603;
military rolls of the exped., 603;
Stockbridge Indians enlisted by, 612;
their plea of justification, 612, 613;
seek to enlist the Nova Scotia Indians, 614;
treaty with them, 614;
_Journals_ of its provincial congresses, 656.

_Massachusetts Gazette_, 110.

_Massachusetts Spy_, 110, 122.

Massey, _England_, 112.

Masts, timber for, 564.

Mathew, Geo., 560.

Matson's Ford, 425.

Matthewman, Luke, 581.

Matthews, David, 326.

Matthews, Gen., invades New Jersey, 559;
in Virginia, 546.

Matthis, Samuel, _Hobkirk's Hill_, 542.

Mattoon, Gen. Ebenezer, on Burgoyne's surrender, 358.

Mauduit, Israel, 83;
_Short View_, etc., 85;
edits the Hutchinson letters, 93;
on Bunker Hill, 195;
on Gen. Howe, 329;
_Howe at White Plains_, 337;
_Three Letters to Howe_, 195, 337, 344;
on the Mischianza, 436;
agent of Mass., 28.

Maverick, Peter, 266.

Mawhood, Col., 378.

Maxwell, Gen., 380; at Morristown, 373;
his brigade, 670.

Maxwell, Major Thompson, 190.

Maxwell, Thomas, 663.

Maxwell on Arnold's fight on Lake Champlain, 346.

May, Thomas E., _Const. Hist. England_, 75.

Mayer, Brantz, edits Carroll's journal, 227;
_Logan and Cresap_, 712;
_Tah-Gah-Jute_, 712.

Mayhew, Jonathan, his controversy with Apthorpe, 70;
his _Unlimited submission to the higher powers_, 70;
_Observations_, in reply to Apthorpe, 70;
_Defence of Observations_, 70;
_Remarks_, 70;
his portraits, 71;
references on his career, 71;
suggests union of colonies, 89;
view of his meeting-house, 151, 197;
controversy with Secker, 243;
sermon on the Stamp Act, 77.

Maynard, Needham, 189.

McAlpine, _Memoirs_, 360.

McBury, Col. Leonard, 676, 678.

McCall, Hugh, lives of Lyman Hall, Button Gwinnett, 265;
George Walton, 265;
_Hist. of Georgia_, 513, 570.

McCall, Capt. James, 679.

McClean, Capt., 443.

McClellan, Capt. Jos., journal, 561.

McClure, diary, 180.

McConkey, Mrs., _Hero of Cowpens_, 511.

McCoy, John F., publishes ed. of proceedings of the André examination,
461.

McCoy, Sergeant, 219.

McCrea, Miss Jane, murder of, 627;
her _Life_, 627.

McCurlin, David, 202.

McDonald, Capt. Angus, goes against the Indians, 713.

McDougall, Gen., at Chatterton Hill, 286;
at Germantown, 385;
at West Point, 557.

McDowell, Col. Chas., 478.

McDowell, Jos., portrait, 535.

McGill, Maj., on Camden, 530.

McGowan's Pass (N. Y.), 338, 339.

McHenry, James, 446.

McKean, Thomas, on the Congress of 1765, 74;
life, 265;
signed the Decl. of Indep., 168;
autog., 265.

McKendry, Wm., _Journal_, 666.

McKenney and Hall, _Indian Tribes_, 625.

McKenzie, Alex., on Cambridge, 142;
on Lexington, 184.

McLane, Capt. Allen, 385, 393, 398.

McNiel, Capt., in the navy, 570.

McNeill, Gen., commands at Penobscot, 603.

McRae, Sherwin, 515.

McRae, _Life of James Iredell_, 532, 537.

McReath, Dr., 729.

McVeagh, Wayne, on Paoli, 419.

Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence, 256;
autographs of the committee, 256;
disputed questions, 256.

Medcalfe, map of Burgoyne's campaign, 349.

Meigs, Return J., _Expedition against Quebec_, 219;
accounts of, 219;
expedition to Sag Harbor, 591;
his character, 591.

Mein, John, Boston, 83;
proscribed, 78;
_State of the importation_, etc., 78.

Mellish and Tanner, _Seat of War_, 416.

Melville, Herman, _Israel Potter_, 590.

Melvin, J., _Expedition to Quebec_, 219.

Mendon (Mass.), resolves of independence, 257.

Ménonville, M. de, journal at Yorktown, 554.

Mercantile system, 5, 7.

Mercer, Charles Fenton, 707.

Mercer, Gen. Hugh, commands Flying Camp, 326, 403;
death of, 378, 412;
action of Congress, 412;
portraits, 412.

Merchants in England, and navigation laws, 64;
monopolies of, 7.

Meredith, Sir Wm., _A letter to Chatham_, 104.

Metcalfe, S. L., _Indian Warfare_, 708.

Meyer, E. L., _Map of Elizabethport_, 560.

Meyrick, Surgeon, 358.

Meyrick, S. J., 227.

Miamis, 610.

Micmacs, 614.

Middle colonies, maps of, 341.

Middlebrook, camp at, 556;
Washington at, 579.

Middleton, Arthur, life, 265;
life of Rutledge, 265;
autog., 266.

Mifflin, Gen. Thomas, 117, 203;
the Conway Cabal, 392;
leads militia into New Jersey, 376;
on the British lines at Boston Neck, 212.

Mifflin, Fort, abandoned, 447.
_See_ Fort.

Miles, Samuel, 327.

Militia, in battle, 541;
organized, 108;
in Mass., 116;
in the Rev. War, 588.

Miller, Thomas, at Bunker Hill, 202.

Miller, W. T., 203.

Miller House, 338.

Mills, W. H., on the Kennebec route, 217.

Mills, _Statistics of So. Carolina_, 527.

Milltown, Pa., 381.

Miner, Charles, _Wyoming_, 664.

Mingo Bottom, 736.

Mingo Indians, 610, 671.

Minisink massacre, 639, 653, 662;
loss, 662.

Minomines, 738.

Minot, Geo. R., 88.

Mischianza, 396, 436.

Misère (Ste. Geneviève), 738.

Mississippi River as western boundary of the U. S., 730;
plan by Pittman, 702.

Mobile, Pittman's plan, 702;
captured, 739.

Moffat, of R. I., on Stamp Act debates, 74.

Mohawk River, 609;
map of the neighborhood, 351;
valley, 610;
Indian incursion, 672;
warfare in, 657.

Mohawks in Canada, 656;
irritated by the Conn. Co., 605;
their lands east of the boundary line, 610;
solicited, 120;
would protect Guy Johnson, 624.

Mohegans, 622.

Molasses Act, 25, 26, 72.

Monckton, Lt.-Col., at Monmouth, 400.

Moncrieff, Col., 521;
at Savannah (1779), 524.

Monette, _Valley of the Mississippi_, 686.

Monk's Corner, 473.

Monmouth, battle, 399;
plans of, 408, 444, 445;
accounts of, 445, 446.

Monotomy, roads about, 121.

Monroe, James, at Trenton, 376.

Monson, Henry, map of Carolina, 675.

Montague, Admiral, 90.

Montague, Lord, letter to Moultrie, 534.

Montgar (Armstrong), 746.

Montgomery, Col. John, attacked by the Cherokees (1760), 675;
at Kaskaskia, 740.

Montgomery, Gen. Richard, urges advance into Canada, 161;
made brigadier, 161;
advances on St. Johns, 161;
before St. Johns, 162;
captures Fort Chamblée, 162;
takes St. Johns, 162;
has Indians, 656;
takes Montreal, 163;
at Pont-aux-Trembles, 164;
attacks Quebec, 165;
in the Canada campaign, authorities, 216;
despatches, 216;
lives, 216;
his sword, 216;
his house, 216;
ancestry, 216;
death and burial, 165, 216, 226;
remains removed to New York, 216;
tributes of Congress, 216;
his monument, 216;
tragedy by H. H. Brackenridge, 216;
autograph note on capitulation of St. Johns, 217;
signatures of his will, 218;
portraits, 220, 221;
Trumbull's "Death of Montgomery", 220.

_Monthly Military Repository_, 510.

Montreal, Guy Johnson's conference at, 624;
position of, 215;
taken by Montgomery, 163, 216.

Montresor, Capt. John, plan of Boston, 210;
maps of the English colonies, 341;
account of, 341;
plan of Charlestown, Mass., 198;
survey of Bunker Hill field, 200;
plans of New York, 326, 331, 333, 561;
map of the northern region of N. Y., 349;
his journal ed. by Scull, 413, 419;
map of defences of Philad. (1777), 441;
accounts of his family, 217;
map of Kennebec route, 217, 224;
journal on the Kennebec, 217;
_Map of N. Y. and Penna._, 416;
map of Newport, 560.

Moore, F., _Diary of the Amer. Rev._, 654.

Moore, Geo. H., _Treason of Chas. Lee_, 407, 416.

Moore, Hugh, _Ethan Allen_, 214.

Moore, Sir Henry, 38.

Moore, Thomas, _Life of Sheridan_, 109.

Moore, T. W., aide to Prevost, 522.

Moore's Creek Bridge, action at, 168;
references, 168.

Moorsom, _Fifty-second Reg._, 198.

Moravian Indians, 606;
sent to New York, 607;
protected by Gen. Gage, 607;
missions among, 734;
attacked by British, 734;
removed to Sandusky, 735;
at Detroit, 735;
lands in Michigan, 735;
general references, 736.
_See_ Indians.

Morgan, Gen. Daniel, on the Kennebec exped., 162;
captured at Quebec, 165;
his account of the attack, 222;
at Freeman's Farm, 305;
headquarters at Saratoga, 358, 360;
threatens Cornwallis' flank in Carolina, 481;
pursued by Tarleton, 481;
at Cowpens, 481, 538;
his differences with Sumter, 537;
his correspondence, 538;
_The Hero of Cowpens_, 360;
medal, 539;
in New Jersey, 398;
his lives, 511;
his grave, 511;
portraits, 511;
statue, 511;
his house, 511.

Morgan, Col. George, 704.

Morgan, Dr. John, 203.

Morgan, L. H., _League of the Iroquois_, 659.

Morgann, _Life of Price_, 110.

Morley, Henry, edits Burke's _Speeches_, 112;
_Edmund Burke_, 269.

Morris, Gouverneur, _Observations on the Amer. Rev._, 556.

Morris, Jacob, 169.

Morris, Lewis, letters from Cambridge, 203;
autog., 264;
life, 266;
on Greene, 537.

Morris, Margaret, diary, 436.

Morris, Robert, autog., 264;
life, 265;
on the campaign of 1776, 344;
(in 1776), 376;
on Charles Lee's capture, 403;
letters, 404;
his privateers, 591.

Morris, Col. Roger, his house, 288, 339.

Morris, Capt. Thomas, sent to Pontiac, 698;
his _Miscellanies_, 698;
his journal, 698.

Morrisania, 344;
English works at, 561.

Morristown, orderly-books, 559;
Washington at, 417.

Morsman, Oliver, _Bunker Hill_, 189.

Mortier House in N. Y., 276, 335.

Morton, John, autog., 264;
life, 265.

Morton, Perez, on Gen. Warren, 194.

Morton, Robt., his diary, 431, 436.

Mott, Edw., journal, 213.

Mott, Samuel, letters, 216.

Moultrie, Gen. Wm., his acc. of the defence of Fort Moultrie, 229;
at Sullivan Island, 168;
portrait, 171, 172;
_Memoirs_, 171;
references, 172;
defends Charleston (1779), 470;
his campaign (1778), 520;
fac-simile of his order to Tucker, 471;
his affair near Beaufort, 519;
his career, 508;
sketches of, 508;
_Memoirs of Amer. Rev._, 508;
on the siege of Charleston, 525;
refused command of a Tory regiment, 534;
correspondence with Lord Montague, 534.

Moultrie, Fort (1776), plans, 169, 170;
abandoned (1780), 472.
_See_ Fort, Sullivan's Island.

Mountfort, G., on John Hancock, 271.

Mouzon, H., map. of Carolinas, 538.

Mowatt, Capt., with British vessels at Penobscot, 603.

Mud Island in the Delaware, 432, 435;
plans, 437, 438.

Mugford, Capt., 567;
killed, 160.

Muhheakunuks, 613.

Muhlenberg, Gen. Peter, 376;
at Brandywine, 382;
his life, 546;
at Yorktown, 555.

Muhlenberg, Rev. Dr., his journal, 404.

Muhlenberg, H. A., _General Muhlenberg_, 546.

Mukerck, Capt. Chas., journal, 681.

Mulgrave, Col., 426.

Mun, Thomas, 63.

Munroe, Nathan, 179.

Munsee towns, 606.

Munsell, Hezekiah, 329.

Munsey Indians, 671.

Mure, Capt. Wm., at Yorktown, 555.

Murray, James, _Impartial History of the present war_, much the same,
in parts as _The Impartial History of the War in America_, 663.

Murray, Lindley, 284.

Murray House (N. Y.), 335.

Musgrave, Col., at Germantown, 385.

Musgrove Mills, 475, 529.

Muskingum, forks of, 699.

Mutiny Act, 20, 38;
practically annulled in Mass., 46.

Muzzey, A. B., _Lexington_, 184;
_Reminiscences_, 173.

Myers, Col. T. B., 264, 538;
on the Tories, 351.

Naaman's Creek, Pa., 421.

Napier, Geo., 590.

Narragansett Bay, fortified, 593, 596;
chart by Blaskowitz, 593;
Lafayette's plan, 600;
English maps, 601.

Nash, Gen., of N. C., killed, 386.

Nash, Gilbert, _Life of Gen. Lovell_, 603.

Nash, Gov., on Camden, 532.

Nash, Samuel, diary of, 346.

Nash, Solomon, 202.

Natchez, captured, 738, 740.

_National Portrait Gallery_, 510.

Naval Hist. of the American Revolution, 563.
_See_ Navy.

Navigation laws, 2, 4, 6, 63;
aimed at the Dutch, 6;
history of, 7;
authorities, 64;
and writs of assistance, 19;
enforced by the Bute ministry, 23;
influence in producing the Revolution, 64;
and the Revolution of 1689 in N. E., 65.

Navy of United States, commissioned by Washington, 152;
vessels destroyed in the Delaware, 389.
_See_ Naval.

Navy of England, men engaged in 1776, 588;
in 1777, 585;
in 1779, 587.

Nazro, John, 47.

_Nederlandsche Mercurius_, 570.

Neilson, Charles, _Burgoyne's Campaign_, 357, 360.

Nelson, Thomas, life, 266;
autog., 266.

Nelson, Thomas, Jr., 259;
_Letters_, 575.

Nelson, gov. of Va., on Yorktown, 544.

Neshaminy, 418.

Neutral Ground (Hudson River), 456.

Neversink, 340.

New Bedford, naval exploits of her people, 564.

New Brunswick, N. J., 408, 409.

New Castle, Del., 421.

_New Dominion Monthly_, 216.

New England, her great staples, 8;
her export trade, 9;
grows rich, 10;
trade with West Indies broken up, 25;
staples, 25;
imports molasses, 25;
jealousy of, in the Congress of 1774, 99;
population (1775), 117;
armed alliance (1775), 122;
Sam. Adams proposed her independence, 231;
Puritanism and the Am. Rev., 242;
opposition to bishop, 243;
a maritime country, 563;
her cruisers, 563;
ship-building, 563;
enriched by privateering, 584;
large numbers in the business, 584.

New Hampshire, Stamp Act in, 73;
change in its government (1775), 108;
people of the Grants aroused, 108, 121;
men at Bunker Hill, 190;
troops in the Canada exped., 220;
in the Continental Congress, 234;
constitution of, 272;
furnishes masts to England, 564;
her seamen, 587;
privateers of, 591;
"General Sullivan", 591;
troops in R. I. (1778), 601.

New Haven attacked, 557.

New Ireland (Maine), 604.

New Jersey, Stamp Act in, 73;
address to king (1769), 83;
her constitution, 272;
invaded (Jan., 1776), 323;
surveys by Sauthier and Ratzer, 341;
invaded and evacuated by Howe, 368, 379;
campaign in (1776), authorities, 405;
maps of, 409;
revolt of her soldiers, 561;
troops in Sullivan's campaign, 670.

New London, Conn., attacked by Arnold, 562;
privateers in, 585.

New Orleans, Pittman's plan, 702;
to be captured, 737;
letters from, 738.

New Providence attacked, 570.

New Rochelle, the British at, 286.

New Salem, N. Y., 458.

New Windsor, N. Y., 556;
camp, 744.

New York _city_, Stamp Act in, 73;
coffee-houses in, 73;
Burn's Coffee-House, 73;
"Sons of Liberty" in, 73;
old City Hall, 74;
com. of correspondence, 90;
effect of Boston Port Bill in, 96;
apathy in (1774), 98;
British navy at (1776), 153;
Lee sent to possess the town, 156;
artillery company formed, 156;
news of Lexington in, 178;
Lee in (1775), 275;
Washington arrives, 275;
Putnam in command, 275;
defences of (1776), 275;
army in, 275;
Washington's headquarters, 276;
spared by Howe, 283;
Americans leave it, 283;
Howe occupies it, 283;
partly burned, 285;
campaign round N. Y. (1776), criticism on, 290;
campaign about, 323;
condition of the town (1775), 323;
plans in the Revolution, 331;
appearance of the town, 331;
Johnston's map, 331, 335;
Randall's, 331;
descriptions of the town, 331;
views, 331;
localities, 331;
Beekman House, 331;
Rutger's mansion, 331;
Ratzer's smaller map, 332;
evacuated by Washington, 333;
occupied by Howe, 333;
various maps, 333;
extent of the armies about (1776), 333;
fire in, 334;
Johnston's map, 335, 338;
Mortier House, 335;
map of city and bay, 342;
maps of the campaign near (1776), 342, 343, 345;
accounts of, 341-346;
_N. Y. City during the Amer. Rev._, 346;
map of campaign about, 404;
Knyphausen in command, 559;
Washington's feint of attacking (1781), 501;
British in, 556;
British cantonments near, 745;
entered by Washington at the close of the war, 746;
evacuated, 746;
Fraunce's Tavern, 747;
its appearance at the end of the war, 747;
commerce of, 747.

New York _harbor_, maps of, in the Revolutionary time, 326.

New York _province_, maps of, 349;
Indians of, 611.

New York _State_, Assembly (1775), 106;
its character, 106;
proceedings, 106;
provincial congress, 106;
its records, 106;
constitutional convention, 272;
debates of, 272;
centennial of its constitution, 274;
_Centennial Addresses_, 366;
privateers of, 591;
_Centennial Celebrations_, 666;
Continental line organized, 220;
documentary publications, 247;
_Journals of Provincial Congress_, 247.

_New York Magazine_, 510.

Newark, Pa., 421.

Newburgh, N. Y., 340, 465;
addresses, 745;
Washington at, 744;
his headquarters, 744.

Newburgh Bay Historical Soc., 744.

Newell, Thomas, 95.

Newell, Timothy, 95.

Newman, Robert, 175.

Newport, R. I., blockaded by the English (1780), 560;
the French in, 560;
maps, 560;
diaries in (1778), 601;
maps of, and surroundings, 596, 597, 598, 600, 602;
memorial to Congress (1775), 108;
occupied by the British (Dec., 1776), 403;
occupied by Sir Henry Clinton (1776), 593;
seamen in the Revolutionary navy, 591.

Newport, Pa., 421.

Newspapers in the Revolution, 110.

Newton, _Panhandle_, 716.

Newtown (Elmira, N. Y.), battle at, 640, 668, 670;
accounts, 653;
Butler's report, 672;
map of battlefield, 642, 671, 681.

Newtown, Pa., 410.

Neyon, M., in Illinois, 700.

Niagara, not to be attacked by Sullivan, 669;
Indians at (1779-80), 643.

Nicholas, P. H., _Royal Marine Forces_, 194.

Nichols, Isaac, 204.

Nicholson, James, capt. in navy, 570;
in the "Trumbull", 583;
surrenders, 584.

Nicholson, Samuel, in the "Deane", 583.

Nicola, Col. Lewis, 440;
his letter to Washington, 745.

Nicoll, Isaac, 323.

Nicollet, J. N., 705.

Ninety-six, 478;
besieged, 491, 544;
plans of, 545.

Ninham, Capt. Daniel, 613.

Noailles, autog., 500.

Noddle's Island, 206, 210;
fight, 131.

Non-importation agreements, 23, 29, 31, 47, 49, 50, 51, 76, 77, 78,
79, 99, 106.

Nook's Hill (near Boston), 158.

Norfolk, Va., destroyed, 168.

Norman, J., engraver, 40, 41;
engraving of Montgomery, 221;
engraving of Gates, 302;
engraving of burning of Falmouth, 146;
engraves Gen. Greene, 509;
Gen. Lincoln, 473;
_Death of Montgomery_, 217;
_Death of Warren_, 198;
plan of Bunker Hill, 201, 202;
plan of Boston, 201.

North, Lord, premier, 21;
portrait, 21, 107;
autog., 21;
Chancellor of the Exchequer, 46;
conversations with Burke, 112.

North, S. W. D., "Story of a Monument", 351;
on Oriskany, 351.

North, Wm., acc. of Steuben, 515.

North, _Augusta, Me._, 217.

_North American Pilot_, 212.

North Carolina, in the Cont. Congress, 235;
defended by Iredell, 537;
effect of Boston Port Bill, 96;
the English fleet on the coast (1776), 168;
maps, 537, 538;
militia at Camden, 533;
militia fled at Guildford, 541;
movements (1774), 98;
(1776), 168;
non-importation, 47;
Stamp Act in, 73;
war of the Regulators, 80;
disputes about, 81.

_North Carolina University Magazine_, 514, 519.

North Castle, N. Y., 458.

Northwest territory reserved as crown lands (1763), 687;
government of, 730.
_See_ Ohio country.

Norton, A. T., _Sullivan's Campaign_, 670.

Norton, J. N., _Pioneer Missionaries_, 657.

Norwalk, Conn., 340;
burnt, 557.

Nova Scotia Indians, 614.

Nunn, Lieut., 175.

O'Brien, Jeremiah, naval officer, 564.

O'Callaghan, E. B., edits _Burgoyne's Order-book_, 358, 359;
on George Croghan, 705;
on Stirling, 706;
on Cresap, 712.

O'Dane, 523.

O'Hara, Gen., follows the march of Greene, 484.

O'Key, Samuel, 40.

O'Reilly, Henry, Sullivan's Campaign, 671.

Ochs, Baron von, _Betrachtungen über die neuere Kriegskunst_, 446.

Ogeechee, attack at, 653.

Ogletown, Pa., 421.

Ohio Company, 707.

Ohio country, effect of the Quebec Bill, 715.
_See_ Northwest Territory.

Ohio Indians, 610;
their towns, 699.

Ohio River, early settlers on, 708;
plan of rapids, 701.

Oliver, Andrew, deposition on Boston Massacre, 88;
his letters, 56;
hanged in effigy, 30, 72;
stamp distributor, 72;
resigns, 73, 115;
makes oath, 73;
portrait, 73.

Oliver, Peter, autog., 50;
letter from Boston, 205;
impeachment, 57, 95;
portrait, 95;
account of, 95;
diary, 205.

Ollier, Edmund, _Cassell's United States_, 665.

Olney, Stephen, 404.

Onderdonk, Henry, Jr., on the battle of Long Island, 330;
_Woodhull's capture_, 330.

Oneidas, their country, 609;
their lands, 610;
at White Plains, 613;
mostly took the American side, 623, 624, 659;
offer to become scouts, 626;
convey warning of St. Leger's coming, 628;
join Herkimer, 630;
their village burnt, 632, 658;
threatened by Haldimand, 639;
at Schenectady, 643;
failed to help Sullivan (1779), 667;
removed from their castles, 672;
proposed attack on, by Sir John Johnson, 672.
_See_ Six Nations, Iroquois.

Onondagas, destruction of their villages, 639, 653;
their country, 609.

Ontario identified with Oswego, 619, 658.

Oquaga burned, 636.

Orangetown, 404.

Orcutt, coll. of newspaper scraps, 522.

_Orion_, a Georgia periodical, 519.

Oriskany, battle of, 631;
authorities, 351;
the first accounts, 660;
view of field, 354;
Indian loss at, 662.

Osborn, Sir Danvers, 673.

Osborn, J. H., 437.

Osgood, Samuel, 191;
address at Fairfield, 55.

Osler, _Life of Exmouth_, 347.

Ossabaw Sound, 470.

Oswego, attempted surprise by Col. Willett, 646;
known sometimes as Ontario, 658.

Otis, James, 84;
on writs of assistance, 9, 13, 68;
John Adams on, 68;
made member of the General Court, 13;
assumed the right to independence, 24;
in Stamp Act Congress, 30;
in the legislature, 42;
praises Oliver Cromwell, 44;
_Vindication of the British Colonies_, 70;
_Considerations on behalf of the Eng. Colonies_, 75;
speaking in the legislature (1768), 83;
at Bunker Hill, 137;
_Rights of the British Colonies_, 28, 68;
his passionate appeals, 35;
probably draws address to Bernard, 43;
presides at meeting (1768), 45;
_Vindication of the conduct of the Ho. of Rep._, 68;
Crawford's statue, 69;
likeness by Blackburn, 70;
his house, 70;
killed by lightning, 70;
Tudor's _Life of Otis_, 70;
Bowen's _Life_, 70;
his character, 70;
assaulted, 70.

Otsego Lake, Clinton at, 639.

Ottawa confederacy, 610.

Ouabache. _See_ Wabash.

Ouatanon, 703.

Paca, Wm., autog., 265;
life, 266.

Packard, G. T., 218.

Page, Capt., journal, 557.

Page, Edw., map of Rhode Island, 601.

Page, Wm., surveys of Boston, 210, 211;
plans of Bunker Hill, 200.

Paige, _Cambridge_, 173.

Paine, Robt. Treat, autog., 51, 263;
in Congress (1774), 59;
in Canada, 227;
life by Alden Bradford, 265.

Paine, Samuel, 187, 205.

Paine, Thomas, 419, _Liberty Tree Ballad_, 72;
_Dialogue with Montgomery_, 217;
_Common Sense_, 252, 269;
_American Crisis_, 744;
Barlow on, 253;
portrait, 269;
bibliog. of, 269;
references on him, 269;
_Writings_, 269;
French ed., 269;
"The times that try men's souls", 367.

Palfrey, J. G., on the navigation acts, 64.

Palfrey, Wm., 85.

"Pallas" takes the "Countess of Scarborough", 578.

Palmer, Wm. P., _Calendar of Va. State Papers_, 515.

Palmer, _Lake Champlain_, 214, 347.

Pamphlet literature of the Revolution, 110.

Paoli, fight at, 383;
sources, 419;
Hessian map of attack, 423;
Faden's map, 424;
other maps, 425;
monument, 425.

Paper money, first, of the war, 116.

Paris, treaty of (1763), 14, 685;
printed, 685.

Parker, Capt. Hyde, his report on Savannah, 519;
portrait, 519.

Parker, Capt. John, at Lexington, 176.

Parker, Com. F. H., 564.

Parker, Francis J., _Col. Wm. Prescott_, 191.

Parker, J. M. _Rochester, N. Y._, 670.

Parker, Sir Peter, 279;
on the coast with a fleet, 168;
attacks Fort Moultrie, 170, 229;
in Narragansett Bay, 593.

Parker, Theodore, 185.

Parkman, Francis, _Conspiracy of Pontiac_, 690;
his MS. collections, 690;
prefaces Smith's _Acc. of Bouquet's exped._, 699.

Parliament, invades the royal prerogative, 15;
colonial representation in, 28;
of 1766, 32.

_Parliamentary Register, or Debates_, 516, 653.

Parsons, Gen. S. H., on the capture of Fort Clinton, etc., 364;
a spy for the British, 460;
on the board examining André, 460;
his letters, 557;
in Long Island battle, 279, 328.

Parsons, Theophilus, life of, by T. Parsons, 274.

Parsons Case, in Virginia, 24.

Parton, James, _Jefferson_, 515.

Partridge, Oliver, 30.

Paterson, Col. John, 613.

Patison, T. H., 106.

Patterson, D. W., 665.

Patterson, W. A., 364.

Pattison, Gen., on N. Y., 557;
on Paulus Hook, 559.

Patton, J. H., _Yorktown_, 555.

Patty, Sir Wm., 63.

Paulding, John, 456;
petitions for increase of pension, 466;
his son defends him, 466;
his portrait, 466.

Paulus Hook, 326, 335, 343, 403;
plans, 559;
attacked, 559;
medal, 559.

Pausch, Capt., _Journal_, 360;
at Valcour Island, 346.

Pawling, Col., 667.

Paxton, Charles, 10, 12.

Paxton, Pa., 606; its "Boys", 606;
_Narrative of the late Massacre_, 606;
threaten the Moravian Indians, 607.

Payson, Philip, 180.

Peabody, Stephen, 350.

Peabody, S. H., _Amer. Patriotism_, 70.

Peabody Museum of Archæology, 607.

Peale, C. W., portrait of Dickinson, 82;
of Thomas Paine, 269;
of St. Clair, 297;
of Gen. Greene, 510;
of Morgan, 511;
of Sumter, 532;
of Paul Jones, 592;
of Chatham, 110;
of Joseph Reed, 405.

Peale, R., painted portrait of Gen. Greene, 510.

Pearce, Stuart, _Luzerne County_, 665.

Pearson, Capt. Richard, his acc. of the loss of the "Serapis", 577,
590;
portrait, 593.

Pearson, _Schenectady Patent_, 608.

Peck, Geo., _Wyoming_, 664.

Peck, J. M., 649;
_Daniel Boone_, 708.

Peck, L. W., 665.

Peekskill, 455, 465.

Peet, S. D., on the Delawares, 708.

Peirce, John, 219.

Pelham, Henry, map of Boston, 209.

Pell, Joshua, Jr., 227, 350.

Pell's Point, 285, 337.

Pellew, Viscount Exmouth, 358.
_See_ Exmouth.

Pencour (St. Louis), 737, 738.

Pendleton, Edmund, 259;
writes resolutions of Va., 261.

Penn, John, life, 265;
autog., 266.

Penn, Richard, 237.

Pennington, N. J., 410.

Pennsylvania, controversy over its form of government, 68;
Stamp Act in, 73;
Muhlenberg's journal, 73;
com. of corresp., 90;
effect of Boston Port Bill in, 96;
feeling in 1774, 98;
Thomas Mifflin advocating non-intercourse, 117;
its share in the Canada campaign (1776), 174;
in the Continental Congress, 234, 235;
her Assembly (1776) still loyal, 245;
records of, 247;
timidity in, respecting independence, 257;
constitutional agitation, 272;
convention of 1776, 272;
anarchical state of, in 1776, 373;
navy of, 386, 565;
new constitution of, 401, 405;
Council of Safety, 405;
_Hist. of First Troop of Cavalry_, 407;
revolt of her troops, 561;
forts in, 643;
prohibits settlements on land not bought of Indians, 649;
_Laws_ (1797), 649;
_Register_, 650;
Connecticut settlers in, 680;
controversies, 680;
embarrass Bouquet, 698;
controversy with Va. over Ohio lands, 709.

_Pennsylvania Evening Post_, 436.

Pennytown, 372.

Penobscot, expedition against (1779), 582, 603, 604;
the troops retreat through the woods, 604;
maps of, 604;
court of inquiry, 604;
Eben Hazard questions its decision, 604.

Penobscot Indians, 617, 656;
enlistment of, 674.

Pensacola captured, 739.

Pensioner, last, of the Rev., 746.

Pequaket Indians, 614, 655.

Percy, Earl, marches out of Boston, 121;
to Lexington, 123;
joins Smith, 124;
his train captured, 124;
his report on Lexington, 178;
reported killed, 178;
portraits, 182, 183;
his family, 182;
papers, 183;
at Brooklyn, 279, 330;
attacks the Harlem lines, 285, 289;
at N. Y., 337, 338;
at Fort Washington, 345.

Perkins' Jas. Handasyd, 657;
_Memoir and Writings_, 648;
"Pioneers of Kentucky", 708.

Perley, _Bedford, Mass._, 184.

Perrault, Abbé, 216.

Perrin du Lac, _Voyage_, 652.

Perry, W. S., _Amer. Episc. Church_, 242.

Perth Amboy, 409.

Peters, Richard, on Steuben, 515;
on the massacre of Conestogoes, 606.

Peters, Rev. Samuel, reply to Burgoyne, 366.

Peyster, J. Watts de, on Sir John Johnson, 351, 660;
on Oriskany, 351;
on Schuyler's campaign (1777), 356;
on the Burgoyne campaign, 361;
on Brandywine, 419;
on Paoli, 419;
on the siege of Savannah, 523;
on King's Mountain, 536;
on Eutaw, 45;
on Stony Point, 558;
on the Penobscot exped., 603;
_Sir John Johnson_, 625;
edits _Johnson's Orderly-book_, 660;
on Sullivan's campaign, 670.

Peyton, J. L., _Adventures of my Grandfather_, 714.

Phelippeaux, his map, 416.

Phelps, Matthew, journal, 709.

Phelps, _Rights of the Colonies_, 85.

Philadelphia, non-importation in, 79;
corresp. of merchants (1769), 83;
feeling in, during the Congress of, 1774, 99;
Carpenters' Hall, 99;
news of Lexington in, 178;
life in, during the American Rev., 259;
Old State House, view of, 259;
Independence Hall, 259;
trepidation in, 370, 380;
Washington's army marches through, 380;
guns of Brandywine heard in, 383;
occupied by Cornwallis and Howe, 384;
fortified by the British, 384;
the British fleet reaches the town, 389;
the winter of 1777-78, 393;
the Quakers, 393;
theatre in, during British occupancy, 394, 395;
Clinton arrives, 396;
"Mischianza", 396, 436;
evacuated, 397, 445;
Arnold in command, 400;
condition of the town, 401;
Congress reassembled, 401;
Tories executed, 401;
Quaker element, 405;
map of the campaign of 1777, 414, 416;
seaward defences, 423;
map of vicinity (1777), 425;
life in, during the British occupation, 436;
map of defences (1777-78), 440, 441;
Hessian map of the vicinity, 442;
maps of, during the Rev., 442;
_Hist. First Troop City Cavalry_, 561.

Philbrook, Thomas, 603.

Philipsbourg Patent, 340.

Phillips, G. C., 47.

Phillips, Gen., with Burgoyne, 294;
in command of convention troops, 318;
at siege of Ticonderoga (1777), 354;
his orders, 359;
in Virginia, 496, 546;
dies, 496, 546.

Phillipse Patent, 340.

Phillopson, Col., 319.
Phinney, Elias, _Battle of Lexington_, 183.

Pickens, Gen. Andrew, 513, 677;
with Carolina militia, 485;
letters, 513;
his raid on the Indians, 680.

Pickering, Col., writes the report of Brandywine, 418;
of Germantown, 421;
charged with dilatoriness on Lexington day, 124;
papers, 467;
_Rules for the militia_, 108.

Pierce, Maj. Wm., at Hobkirk's Hill, 542.

Pigot, Gen., his account of the campaign in Rhode Island, 598;
in Newport, 593;
at Bunker Hill, 137;
autog., 137.

Pinckney, C. C., on Washington's staff, 418;
on Germantown, 421;
deserts Fort Moultrie, 472.

Pinckney, Maj. Thos., _Siege of Savannah_, 522;
on Camden, 530.

Pine, Robt., paints Burgoyne, 293.

Pinto, Isaac, _Lettre_ and _Seconde Lettre_, 109;
_Letters_, 109;
_Nouvelles Observations_, 109;
_Rèponse_, 109.

Pirtle, Henry, on G. R. Clark, 718.

Pitcairn, Maj., at Lexington, 123;
killed at Bunker Hill, 139;
his remains, 139;
on the firing at Lexington, 183;
paper on, 183;
likeness by Trumbull, 197.

Pitcher, Moll, at Monmouth, 446.

Pitt, William, his influence in English affairs, 18, 19;
would seize Spanish bullion ships, 19;
in ministry, 20;
his speeches, 32;
made Earl of Chatham, 35;
in power, 35;
his character, 35;
thanked by Mass. for the repeal of the Stamp Act, 74.

Pittman, Capt. Philip, 702;
_European Settlements_, 702;
_Present State_, 717.

_Plain Truth_, 270.

Plessis, Mauduit du, his battery at Monmouth, 444.

Plumb, J. B., 663.

Point Pleasant, Va., affair at, 611, 714.

Pollock, Oliver, at New Orleans, 738.

Pomeroy, Seth, made general, 116;
at Bunker Hill, 137.

Pontiac, his ability, 689;
besieges Detroit, 690;
still at large, 700;
sends messengers to New Orleans, 701;
meets Croghan, 704;
agrees to a peace, 704;
his submission, 705;
murdered, 705.

Pontiac War, 688;
references, 701.

Poole, Wm. F., "The West", 685.

Poor, Gen. Enoch, 357;
headquarters at Saratoga, 358;
with Gates (1777), 308;
at Newtown, 640.

Porcher, address, 230.

Port Royal, S. C., map, 519.

Porter, E. G., 182;
_Four Drawings_, 185;
_Rambles in Old Boston_, 175.

Porter, L. H., _Outlines Const. Hist. U. S._, 108, 274.

Portraits of Revolutionary characters engraved in England and
Germany, 270.

Portsmouth, N. H., Fort William and Mary taken, 117.

Portsmouth, Va., maps, 553.

Post, C. F., 736.

Post, L. M., _Recol. of Am. Rev._, 418.

Post, Vincent, 703.

Potsgrove, Washington at, 419.

Potter, Col. Asa, 346.

Potter, Israel R., _Adventures_, 189.

Potter, _Manchester_, 190.

Potter, Gen., 393.

Potts Grove, 383.

Pouchet, _War in N. America_, 660.

Poundridge, affair at, 557.

Pourré, Eugenio, 743.

Powder, scarce during siege of Boston, 203;
seized at Bermuda, 567.

Pownall, Gov. Thomas, 22;
in Parliament, 51, 52, 90;
on the union of the colonies, 66;
his _Administration of the Colonies_, 66, 90;
his character, 90;
corresp. with James Bowdoin, 90;
furnishes materials to Holland for his maps, 341;
_Memorials to the Sovereigns of Europe_, 91;
_Memorials to the Sovereigns of America_, 91;
portrait, 91;
talk on the American question, 112.

Poyntz, L., 191.

Prairie du Chien, 738.

Pratt, G. W., 364.

Prattent, T., 474.

Preble, Admiral Geo. H., _American flag_, 80;
"Ships in the 18th Century", 564;
acc. of Hopkins, 570;
on Com. Barry, 581;
on the flag of the "Bon Homme Richard", 590;
edits Ezra Greene's journal, 590;
privateers of Mass., 591.

Preble, Jedediah, autog., 116;
made general, 116.

Prerogative of the king, 2, 3;
opposed, 3, 4;
and the Long Parliament, 4;
detected by Franklin, 4;
a cause of the Revolution, 5;
questioned by Patrick Henry, 24.

Presbyterians and the Amer. Rev., 244.

Prescott, Gen. Richard, captured, 403;
autog., 403.

Prescott, Col. Wm., commands the detachment sent to Bunker Hill, 135;
autog., 135;
letter on Bunker Hill, 186;
at Bunker Hill, 190;
his monument and statue, 191, 194.

Prescott, Judge, 191.

_Present State of Liberty_, 85.

Preston, Capt., trial of, 49, 86;
autographs of court and counsel, 50, 51.

Preston, H. W., _Documents_, etc., 268.

Preston, John C., _Address on King's Mountain_, 535.

"Preston", ship at Boston, 205.

Prevost, Gen. Augustine, 519, 699;
on the siege of Savannah (1779), 469, 522;
attacks Charleston, 520;
dies, 524.

Price, Ezekiel, 188, 203;
diary, 318.

Price, Dr. Richard, _Letter to_, 109;
_Observations, etc._, 110;
portrait and autog., 111.

Price publishes ed. of Bonner's map of Boston, 207.

Prime, Temple, _Temple Family_, 93.

Primm, Wilson, _Hist. Address_, 737.

Prince, Ezekiel, 47.

Princeton, attacked, 377;
maps of the attack, 408, 409, 410, 413.

Pringle, Capt., 292;
on the fight at Valcour Island, 346.

Prisoners of war, the first taken, 123;
treatment of, 145;
disputes over those taken at the Cedars, 225;
captured at sea, 568;
naval, in England, 575;
exchanged, 575.

Privateers, before the Revolution, 19;
commissioned, 567, 579;
the service preferred by seamen, 568;
under the Treaty of Utrecht, 572;
their captures, 581, 584;
history of, 583, 584;
enrich New England, 584;
of Salem, 585;
in New London, 585;
commissioned in Massachusetts, 585, 586, 591;
total number in all the States, 585;
of Salem, 586, 587, 591;
of Boston, 587;
commissioned in France, 587;
their prize crews, 587;
bibliography, 591;
legislation on, in Mass., 591;
captures by those of Mass., 591;
of New Hampshire, 591;
of Rhode Island, 591;
of Connecticut, 591;
of New York, 591;
great losses inflicted on the British, 591;
narratives of their cruises, 591;
diplomatic complications, 592.

Proctor, Gen., at Brandywine, 382.

Property-line, so called, 650.

Prospect Hill, 206;
camp near Boston, 203.

Protective system, 5, 7.

"Protector", a Massachusetts frigate, 586.

Providence, R. I., _Providence Plantations_, 90;
tea burned at, 121;
defences, 593.

Province Island, Pa., 438.

Provoost, Bishop, 242.

Pulaski joins the army, 380;
his monument, 510;
defended by Bentalou, 522;
killed, 524;
acc. of, 524;
burial, 524;
his banner, 524;
portrait, 524;
recompense of the government, 524.

Pulling, John, 175.

Puplopens Kill, 324.

Pulsifer, David, 195.

Puritanism and the Declaration of Indep., 241, 242.

Purkitt, Henry, 91.

Putnam, Col. Daniel, in the Bunker Hill controversy, 190.

Putnam, Gen. Israel, 271;
at Bunker Hill, 137, 190;
lives of, 190, 193;
his sword, 191;
portraits, 192, 193;
autog., 192;
in New York, 275, 325;
in command on Long Island, 278;
a bad general, 314;
accused of treachery, 314;
opposes Clinton on the Hudson (1777), 361, 362;
drives sheep into Boston, 114;
reaches Cambridge, 134;
likeness by Trumbull, 197.

Putnam, Col. Rufus, builds Fort Washington, 287;
in campaign of 1776, 346;
plans of the Saratoga battles, 361;
diary on the Mississippi, 709.

Putnam, Lt.-Col., 601.

Quaker Hill (R. I.), 596, 602;
view of the fight, 600.

Quakers, arming in Philadelphia, 131;
in Philadelphia during the Revolutionary War, 393;
implicated in hostile movements, 417.

Quebec, besieged (1775-76), 163;
plan by Jefferys, 215;
_Lit. and Hist. Soc. bibliography_, 222;
siege of (1775-1776), authorities, 220;
diaries, etc., 221;
American contemporary accounts, 221;
general accounts, 222;
accounts as received in Cambridge and N. Y., 222;
British official accounts, 222;
journals, etc., 222;
Wooster in command before the town, 222;
local associations, 223;
French accounts, 223;
_Centenaire de l'Assault de Québec_, 223;
Arnold's map of the siege, 226;
engraved maps of the town, 226;
views of, 226;
plains of Abraham, 226.

Quebec, _province_, maps of (1776), 226.

Quebec Bill, 58, 101, 714, 715;
debates in Parliament, 102;
"virtual representation", 103;
_Doctor Marriot_, 102;
_Hypocrisy Unmasked_, 102;
_Letter to Lord Chatham_, 102;
other tracts, 104.

Queen's Rangers, 395, 518.

Quibbletown, 379.

Quincy, Dorothy, 123.

Quincy, Eliza Susan, 96.

Quincy, Edmund, on the evacuation of Boston, 205.

Quincy, Josiah (_senior_, 1775), 152.

Quincy, Josiah (_junior_), his report of Otis's argument, 13;
defends Capt. Preston, 49;
dies, 125;
portrait, 96, 126;
autog., 51;
speech on the tea ships, 57, 91;
_Reports of Cases_, 68;
drafts instructions (1770), 87;
_Observations on the Boston Port Bill_, 67, 94;
fac-simile of his dedication, 94;
autog., 94;
fac-simile of diary in London, 105;
interview with Lord North, 105;
goes to Europe, 105;
his report, 106;
his notes of debates in Parliament, 112.

Quincy, Josiah (_President_), _Life of Josiah Quincy, Jr._, 94.

Quincy, Samuel, autog., 51.

Quincy, Samuel M., edits _Reports of Cases, by Josiah Quincy, Jr._,
68.

Quincy mansion at Quincy, Mass., 96.

Quinton's Bridge, 442.

Rahl, Col., at Trenton, 374;
killed, 375;
attacks Fort Washington, 289, 338.

Rainer, G. S., 330.

"Raleigh", Continental vessel, 576.

Rall. _See_ Rahl.

Ramapo, 379.

Ramsay, Allen, _Hist. Essay on the English Constitution_, 89;
_Thoughts on the Origin of Government_, 85.

Ramsay, David, a prisoner, 533;
map of Southern campaigns, 537;
_Revolution in South Carolina_, 507;
his career, 508;
_Amer. Revolution_, 67;
his acc. of Wyoming, 663.

Ramsey, J. G. M., _Annals of Tennessee_, 536, 678, 708.

Ramsour's Mill, fight at, 475, 510, 529.

Randall, O. E., _Chesterfield, N. H._, 355.

Randolph, Edmund, 259.

Randolph, Col. T. J., 258.

"Randolph", blown up, 571.

Randon, John, 194.

"Ranger." _See_ Jones, Paul.

Rangers on the frontiers, 608.

Rankin, E. E., address at Fairfield, 557.

Rantoul, Robt., Jr., oration at Concord, 184.

Rariton Bay, 327.

Rathbourne, I., in the "Queen of France", 583.

Rathbun, Jonathan, _Narrative_, 562.

Ratzer, Bernard, his different maps of N. Y., 328, 332, 333;
surveys of New Jersey, 409;
his surveys, 341.

Raum, _Trenton_, 407.

Ravenal, Daniel, 528.

Rawdon, Lord, drawing of Bunker Hill battle made for him, 197;
in the South, 476;
at Hobkirk's Hill, 488, 541;
captured, 534;
case of Hayne, 534;
retreats to Monk's Corner, 489;
portraits, 489;
made Marquis of Hastings, 489;
at Camden, 530;
his letters to Rugely, 532;
relieves Ninety-six, 493, 544.

Rawle, W. H., on Lambert Cadwalader, 341.

Rawlings, Col., 288.

Raymond, H. J., address at Tarrytown, 466.

Read, Geo., autog., 265;
life of, 265.

Read, Thos., assigned to the "Bourbon", 583.

Read, W. T., 416.

Read, Dr. Wm., _Reminiscences_, 537.

Reading, Pa., 383.

Red Bank, 386, 425, 435, 437.

Red Clay Creek, Pa., 381, 421.

Red Jacket, 662.

Red Lion, Pa., 421.

Redman, Rebecca, 452.

Reed, Esther, life of, 436.

Reed, Col. James, at Bunker Hill, 190.

Reed, John, _City and Liberties of Philad._, 442.

Reed, Joseph, writes to Dartmouth during the Congress of 1774, 90,
104;
letters to Josiah Quincy, 106;
autog., 141;
letter on the siege of Boston, 173;
on Washington's indecision, 403;
portrait, 405;
on the campaign of 1776 in Jersey, 405.

Reed, W. B., on Thomas Paine, 269;
on the retreat from Long Island, 330;
oration on reinterment of Mercer, 412;
on Brandywine, 418;
_Esther Reed_, 436.

Reed-Cadwalader controversy, 407.

Regulators, war of, 80.
_See_ North Carolina.

Renault, J. F., map of Yorktown, 553.

Renwick, _Benj. Thompson_, 546.

Revenue to be obtained from the colonies, 15, 24;
cases tried, 23;
seizures, 28.

Revere, Paul, engraves likeness of Sam. Adams, 40;
makes plan of State Street, 47;
engraves view of massacre, 47;
his views of Boston, 81;
as an engraver, 81;
at Portsmouth, 117;
his signal, 123;
his ride, 123, 173, 174;
where were his lanterns shown? 174;
paper by E. H. Goss, 47, 175;
portraits, 175;
commands artillery in the Penobscot expedition, 603;
re-engraves West picture of Bouquet's Indian council, 695.

Reynolds, Gov., _My own Times_, 721.

Reynolds, Grindall, 184.

Reynolds, John, 729, 734;
_Illinois_, 708.

Reynolds, Sir Joshua, paints Burgoyne, 293;
paints Cornwallis, 474;
his _Engraved Works_, 474;
portrait of Tarleton, 517;
_Catalogue_ by Hamilton, 517.

Rhode Island, illicit trade in, 26;
com. of correspondence, 90;
cannon concealed (1774), 117;
equips troops (1775), 122;
renounces allegiance to England, 257;
retained her original charter, 274;
creates a navy (1775), 565, 567;
Esek Hopkins, 568;
her seamen, 587;
privateers, 591;
the "Gen. Washington", 591;
English fleet in (1776), 593;
fire-ships proposed, 593;
campaign (1778), 592;
maps of, 596, 598, 600, 602.

Rich, Obadiah, 608.

Rich, _Truro_, 568.

Richards, Thomas, 331;
account of attack on Fort Clinton, etc., 364.

Richardson, Ebenezer, shot Snider, 89.

Richman, Andrew, 153.

Richmond, old Raleigh Tavern, 259.

Rider, S. S., on the R. I. campaign of 1778, 595.

Ridgeley, _Annapolis_, 327.

Riedesel, Baron, in Cambridge, 142;
with Burgoyne, 294;
his comments on Burgoyne, 358;
life by Eelking, 361;
his wife conceals Hessian flags, 319;
on Bennington, 354.

Riley, E. S., Jr., 117.

Rising Sun Tavern, Pa., 421.

Rittenhouse, David, 371.

Ritzema, Rudolphus, 222.

Rivington's _Gazette_, or _Gazetteer_, 98, 110;
his press destroyed, 323.

Robbin, Rev. Ammi R., his journal, 346.

Robbins, Jonathan, 681.

Roberts, Algernon, 326, 403.

Roberts, Dr., of Boston, 47.

Roberts, Ellis H., _Oriskany_, 351.

Roberts, George, 398.

Robertson, Col. Charles, 677.

Robertson, Gen., 461;
in N. Y., 284.

Robin, Abbé, _Travels_, 560.

Robinson, Beverly, his supposed letter to Arnold, 452;
his house, 452, 458, 462, 465;
endeavors to save André, 461.

Robinson, J. DeLancey, 535.

Robinson, M. M., 198.

Rochambeau, Le Comte de, his maps, 345;
_Mèmoires_, 516, 560;
in Soulé's _Troubles_, 516;
portraits, 498;
autog., 498;
sails from Brest, 498;
at Newport, 499;
meets Washington at Weathersfield, 499, 560;
leaves Newport, 499;
reaches the Hudson, 500, 561;
map of route, 561;
marches to Virginia, 500;
his maps of Yorktown, 553;
march of his army to Yorktown, 551;
alleged journal, 554;
corresp. with the R. I. authorities, 560;
arrives in America, 560;
his instructions, 560;
letters, 560;
blockaded in Newport, 560;
maps of his camps, etc., about N. Y. (1781), 561;
at Odell House in Westchester, 561;
meets Washington at New Windsor, 561;
at Williamsburg, 744;
sails for France, 745.

Rocheblave, Gov., at Vincennes, 719;
sent to Williamsburg, 723;
account of him, 723.

Rochefoucault-Liancourt, _Travels_, 658.

Rock River, 741.

Rockingham, ministry, 21, 31, 74;
attacked, 76;
portrait, 31.

Rockwell, E. F., 98, 678.

Rocky Hill, N. J., 408;
Washington at, 746.

Rocky Mount, 475.

Rodney, Admiral Sir George, relations with Sir Henry Clinton, 501;
at N. Y., 454, 458.

Rodney, Cæsar, 405;
autog., 265;
life, 266;
on the battle of Long Island, 327;
commands Delaware militia, 380.

Rodney, Capt. Thomas, 407.

Rogers, Col. David, 738.

Rogers Gen. Horatio, edits _Hadden's Journal_, 359.

Rogers, Lieut. John, 725.

Rogers, Josias, _Memoirs_, 527.

Rogers, J. E. T., edits _Protests of the Lords_, 74;
Franklin's notes on, 74.

Rogers, Maj. Robert, on the Pontiac War, 690, 701;
his MS. diary, 701.

Rogers, T. J., _Departed Heroes_, 508.

Rolfe, J., _Naval Biog._, 589.

Romans, Bernard, at Fort George (Lake George), 129;
acc. of, 129;
plan of siege of Boston, 207;
surveys of Carolina, 538;
lines on Boston Neck, 212.

Rome, N. Y., 351.

Romilly, Sir Samuel, justified the execution of André, 463.

Romney, G., paints Brant, 625;
Thomas Paine, 269.

"Romney", man-of-war, 43.

Rondthaler, _Heckewelder_, 736.

Rosengarten, J. C., on the German soldiers in Newport, 601.

Rosenthal, Louis, 269.

Ross, Chas., his _Cornwallis Correspondence_, 516.

Ross, Geo., autog., 265;
life, 266.

Ross, Lieut., _Map of Mississippi_, 720;
section of, 721.

Rowland, K. M., "Virginia Cavaliers", 407.

Roxbury (Mass.), camp, 203;
lines at, 206, 210;
roads of, 120, 121;
view of lines, 130;
view of, 149.

_Royal American Magazine_, 40, 81, 271.

Royce, C. C., 735.

Rugeley Mills, 476.

Ruggles, Timothy, president of the Congress of 1765, 30, 74;
organized an association of loyalists, 97, 118.

Rum made in New England, 25.

Rumford, Count. _See_ Thompson, Benj.

Rupp, I. D., _Western Penna._, 693.

Rush, Benj., approves John Adams's _Thoughts on Government_, 272;
autog., 264;
and the Conway cabal, 392;
life, 265.

Rush, Richard, _Washington in Domestic Life_, 466.

Rushbrooke, Barham, likeness of Gen. Lee, 406.

Rusoe d'Eres, C. D., 222.

Russell, Major Benj., 467.

Russell, Earl, his books on C. J. Fox, 112;
on the Decl. of Indep., 269.

_Russell's Magazine_, 519.

Rutherford, Gen. Griffeth, 475, 676, 677, 678.

Rutland, Mass., 298, 321.

Rutledge, Edw., 264;
life by Flanders, 73, 520;
life by A. Middleton, 265;
autog., 266;
proposes neutrality for S. C., 470, 520.

Rutledge, H. M., life of Arthur Middleton, 265.

Ruttenber, E. M., _Obstructions in the Hudson River_, 323, 465;
_Orange County_, 662.

Ryerson, _Loyalists of America_, 523, 670.

Sabine, Lorenzo, _Report on Fisheries_, 568.

Sackville Papers, 516.

Saffrel, W. T. R., _Records_, 418.

Sag Harbor, expedition to, 591.

Saint. _See_ St.

Salem (Muskingum Valley), 734.

Salem, Mass., Leslie at, 119, 172;
her privateers, 586.

Saltonstall, Capt. Dudley, in the navy, 570;
commands the fleet sent against Penobscot, 582, 603;
quarrels with Lovell, 603;
blamed by court of inquiry, 604.

Sampson, Deborah, 191.

Sampson, Simeon, in the "Ranger", 583.

Sanderson, John, lives of Franklin and B. Rush, 265;
_Signers of the Decl. of Indep._, 265.

Sands, Robert, edits _Life of Paul Jones_, 590;
annotated copy, 590.

Sandusky, the modern city, 735;
the old site, 735;
missionaries at, 735.

Sandy Hook, 340;
lighthouse, 325.

Sanguinet, Simon, _La Guerre des Bastonnais_, 223.

Santee River, 475;
High Hills of, 493.

Sappington, John, 711.

Saratoga, N. Y., 609;
articles of surrender at, 317, 358;
authorities on the surrender, 358;
prisoners and stores, 358;
strength of the two armies, 358;
monument at, 366.
_See_ Burgoyne, Schuyler, Gates.

Sargent, John, 613.

Sargent, L. M., _Dealings with the Dead_, 72, 461;
on Leonard as Massachusettensis, 110.

Sargent, Winthrop, 106;
_Life and Career of Maj. John André_, 464;
on the Cincinnati Society, 746;
_Stansbury and Odell_, 273.

Sartigan, 655.

Saunderson, H. H., _Charlestown, N. H._, 355.

Saunderson, Lieut., march to Yorktown, 554.

Sauthier, C. J., map of Hudson River and the Canada route, 349;
of Canada, 349;
map of New York province (1774), 340, 341;
map of N. Y. campaign (1776), 336, 338;
plan of Fort Washington, 338.

Savage, S. P., 92.

Savannah, attacked (1778), 469, 519;
D'Estaing at (1779), 470;
assault, 471, 523;
evacuated (1782), 507, 546;
maps, 521;
accounts, 522.

Sawyer, Capt. Samuel, diary, 326.

Scalps, Americans charged with buying, 683;
bounties, 681;
divided, 682;
bought by British generals, 731;
want of evidence as regards the English buying them, 683.

Scammans, Col., court-martial, 189.

Scammell, Alexander, 128, 466;
in Lexington, 178;
letters (Winter Hill), 203;
letters on Canada exped., 216;
killed, 502, 555;
Burgoyne's surrender, 358.

Scharff, _St. Louis_, 740.

Schaukirk, E. G., diary, 325

Scheifflin, Lieut., 729.

Schenectady, 609.

Schoharie Valley ravaged, 644, 658.

Schönbrun, 734.

Schoolcraft, H. R., on Oriskany, 351;
_Indian Tribe_, 652.

Schulenberg on Burgoyne's surrender, 364.

Schuyler, G. W., on the landmarks of Burgoyne's campaign, 361.

Schuyler, Gen. Philip, differences with Wooster, 161;
on Ticonderoga (1775), 214;
in command of the Northern department (1775), 215;
papers, 215;
on the siege of Quebec, 221;
prepares for the campaign of 1777, 293;
autograph, 297;
joined by St. Clair, at Fort Edward, 298;
portrait, 298;
accounts of, 298;
his family, 298;
his Albany house, 298;
his wife, 298;
at Fort Miller, 298;
his headquarters at Saratoga, 356;
orderly-book (1777), 359;
secures Guy Johnson's war-belt, 624;
ordered to arrest Sir John Johnson, 624;
his "Peacock expedition", 625;
on the employment of Indians, 673;
Indian commissioner, 674;
his quarrel with Gates, 346;
correspondence with Gouverneur Morris during the Burgoyne campaign,
358;
_Proc. Court Martial_, 358;
disliked by New Englanders, 161, 358, 359;
in command of the Northern department (1777), 348;
proclamation, 350;
calls out militia, 356;
his spy, 356;
superseded by Gates, 356;
controversy of Bancroft with G. W. Schuyler and others over his
conduct, 316, 356;
intercedes for Arnold, 452;
his expedition to Tryon County, 653;
in N. Y., 1775, watching Tryon, 142;
authorized to advance into Canada, 161;
resigns the command to Montgomery, 162;
relieved of command in Canada, 165;
at Stillwater, 298;
superseded by Gates, 301;
his military character, 316.

Schuyler, Hanyost, 351.

_Scot's Magazine_, 516.

Scott, Capt., sent by Burgoyne to open communication with Clinton,
364.

Scott, Eben G., _Development of Constitutional Liberty_, 64.

Scott, Geo. G., _Saratoga Address_, 366.

Scott, Capt. James, marries Hancock's widow, 270.

Scudder, H. E., "Life in Boston during the Siege", 204;
_Men and Manners_, 204;
on siege of Boston, 173;
on Bunker Hill, 191.

Scull, G. D., _Capt. Evelyn_, 183, 205;
_Evelyns in America_, 183, 364;
edits Montresor's Journal, 419.

Scull and Heap, map of Philad., 442.

Scull, _Map of Penna._, 416.

Seabury, Samuel, arrested, 98;
his tracts, 104.

Sears, Isaac, 98.

Seaver, Jas. E., _Mary Jemison_, 662.

Seaver, _Mary Jemison_, 683.

Secker, Archbp., 243.

Sedgwick, Theo., Jr., 359.

Seeley, J. R., _Expansion of England_, 66, 255.

Ségur, Count, _Mémoires_, 560.

Selman, Capt., 565.

Seneca Lake, Sullivan on, 640.

Senecas, incursions of, 605;
their numbers, 610;
their great Castle, 640;
destroyed, 641;
in St. Leger's army, 661;
on the Alleghany, 671.

Senff, Col., 531;
his plan of Camden, 533.

Senter, Isaac, _Exped. against Quebec_, 219.

Seven Years' War, 14.

Sevier, Col. John, 478;
portrait, 535;
fights the Indians, 677.

Sewall, Jonathan, 108;
autog., 50;
his house in Cambridge, 142.

Sewall, W., _Method of making Saltpetre_, 108.

Seward, Miss, _Monody on André_, 464.

Seward, W. H., on Cherry Valley, 666;
on Sullivan's expedition (1779), 671.

Seymour, Horatio, on Burgoyne's surrender, 361.

Seymour, Wm., _Southern Expedition, 1780-83_, 531.

Shabbakong Creek, 377.

Shallos, Jacob, 227.

Sharp, Granville, _Declaration of the people's natural right_, 106.

Sharp, W. S., reprints Smith's _New Jersey_, 409.

Shattuck, Lemuel, 184;
his _Concord_, 184.

Shaw, Maj. Samuel, 467;
_Journals_, 191.

Shawanese, 610; history of, 735;
make treaty, 702;
their ravages, 709.

Shea, J. G., edits _Operations of the French Fleet_, 502, 548.

Sheffield, Wm. P., _Rhode Island Privateers_, 591.

Sheftall, Capt. Mordecai, _Acc. of his Capture_, 519.

Shelburne, Earl of, 21;
attacks the government for using Indians, 621;
retires (1767), 43.

Shelby, Col. Evan, 677.

Shelby, Col. Isaac, 478, 678;
portrait, 535;
acc. of, 536;
at King's Mountain, 535.

Sheldon, Col., at Poundridge, 557;
receives André, 458.

Shelpot Creek, 421.

Sheppard, J. H., _Com. Tucker_, 567.

Sherburne, Andrew, _Memoirs_, 404, 525, 590.

Sherburne, J. H., _Paul Jones_, 589.

Sherman, Roger, on com. to draft Declar. of Indep., 230;
portrait and autog., 262, 263;
life of, 265;
on Burgoyne's campaign, 358.

Shimmin, Wm., 464.

Shipbuilding, discouraged, 8;
in New England, 563.

Shipley, Bishop, _Speech intended_, etc., 97;
references, 97;
portrait, 97.

Shippack Creek, 423.

Shippen, Edward, 402.

Shippen, Peggy, 402, 449;
corresponds with André, 449;
marries Benedict Arnold, 449;
her knowledge of his treason, 449.

Shippen Papers, 464.

Ships must be English built, 8.

Shirley, Gov. William, his house, 156;
character, 22;
his stamp act (1755), 11;
Writs of Assistance, 12.

Shoes manufactured in Lynn, 39.

Short, W. T. P., 222.

Shreve, John, 419.

Shuldham, Admiral, arrives at Boston, 152.

Silliman, Gen., on Harlem, 334;
on the Saratoga battlefield, 357.

Simcoe, Col. J. G., raiding near Philadelphia, 442;
offered to try to rescue André, 467;
in Virginia, 546;
his maps, 547;
_Journal_, 518;
_Queen's Rangers_, 395, 518;
pursues Steuben in Va., 497;
fight at Spencer's Ordinary, 497.

Simms, Jephtha R., _Schoharie County_, or _The Frontiersmen of N. Y._,
659.

Simms, W. G., _Views and Reviews_, 464;
_Life of Gen. Greene_, 510;
_Life of Marion_, 512;
on King's Mountain, 536;
novels of Revolutionary times, 545.

Simond, T. C., _South Boston_, 156.

Simpson, Thomas, 472.

Simpson, Wm., plan of Stony Point, 558.

Sinclair, Lt.-Gov., 737;
his letters, 738.

Sioux Indians, 738, 741.

Six Nations, boundary line, 605, 609;
map of their country, 607, 608;
their conquered territory, 609;
conflicts with the Cherokee claims, 610;
their numbers, 610;
their allies, 610;
addressed by Congress, 616;
support Guy Johnson, 619;
professions of peace, 619;
the ministry order them to service, 620;
Lord North defends such use, 621;
divided in their councils, 622;
invaded by Sullivan, 640;
their claims of land by conquest, 650;
divided in the Rev. War, 659;
their houses and way of living, 668, 669;
with some exceptions join the British, 623, 627;
Congress attempts to lure them to their side, 633;
their supremacy over other tribes, 706.
_See_ Iroquois.

Skene, Philip, 214.

Skenesborough, fight at, 297.

Skinners (on the Hudson), 456.

Slave-trade, 9.

Slavery and the Declar. of Independence, 239.

Slover, John, _Narrative_, 736.

Small, John, Major, 153;
at Bunker Hill, 138;
likeness by Trumbull, 197.

Smallwood, Gen., 393, 533;
in the South, 477;
his Marylanders, 329.

Smedley, Samuel, 568.

Smibert, his portrait of Mayhew, 71.

Smith, Adam, 63;
_Wealth of Nations_, 7, 9, 253;
controverted by Brougham, 9.

Smith, Aubrey H., 219.

Smith, Chas., _American War_, 189, 200.

Smith, Charles C., on André, 464;
on Cornwallis, 516;
edits Henshaw's orderly-book, 204;
edits Jolley Allen's _Sufferings_, 205;
on making gunpowder, 108.

Smith, Col., sent out by Gage to scour the country, 119;
his report on Lexington, 178.

Smith, E. V., _Newburyport_, 568.

Smith, Goldwin, _Study of History_, 93;
on Yorktown, 555.

Smith, Horace W., edits _Proceedings_ of André's examination, 461;
_Siege of Yorktown_, 553.

Smith, Isaac, 187.

Smith, James, autog., 265;
life, 266.

Smith, Col. James, _Life and Travels_, 248.

Smith, J. A. 184.

Smith, Joshua Hett, brings André ashore, 454;
his house, 454, 455, 456;
his character, 456;
arrested, 460;
his trial, 463;
Dawson's _Record of the Trial_, etc., 463;
escapes to England, 463;
his _Narrative_, 463.

Smith, J. S., _Memoir of De Kalb_, 530.

Smith, Lloyd P., 746.

Smith, Marshall, _Legends_, 708.

Smith, Noah, on Bennington, 355.

Smith, R. P., life of Hopkinson, 265.

Smith, Col. Samuel, wounded at Fort Mifflin, 388;
on the Delaware (1777), 431.

Smith, Seba, 173.

Smith, Thomas, _Mecklenburg Declaration_, 257.

Smith, Wm. _Hist. Acc. of Exped. against Ohio Indians_, 696, 699;
editions, 699;
letter on Stamp Act, 73;
on Montgomery, 216.

Smith, Wm. Henry, _Life of St. Clair_, 349;
on Princeton, 412.

Smith, chaplain at Saratoga, 360.

Smucker, Isaac, 708;
_Ohio Pioneer History_, 736.

Smyth, J. F. D., _Tour in the U. S._, 652.

Snider, the boy, killed, 85, 89.

Snow, a vessel, 572.

Sons of Liberty, 30;
in N. Y., 53;
history of, 72;
their correspondence, 72;
correspond with John Wilkes, 72;
support non-importation, 78;
propose a Congress (1774), 99.

Sorel River, 215.

Soulés, _Troubles_, etc., 560.

South Carolina, agrees to a Stamp Act Congress, 30, 73;
non-importation in, 79;
_Letters of a Freeman_, 79;
movements (1774), 98;
rice-planters in, 117;
in the Cont. Congress, 235;
adopts a constitution, 272;
militia in, 478;
maps, 537, 538;
her naval force, 571.

Spain, her North American possessions, 685;
settlements on the Mississippi to be attacked by England, 738;
at war with Great Britain, 738;
her assistance to G. R. Clark, 742;
her relations to the United States, 742;
would restrict their boundaries, 742;
invades the Illinois country, 743.

Spanish Main, commerce with, 25.

Sparks, Jared, intended history of the Stamp Act, 75;
occupies Craigie House, 142;
_Life of Ethan Allen_, 214;
_Charles Lee_, 407;
on Brandywine, 418;
_Life and Treason of Arnold_, 464;
the documents given in his _Washington_, 464;
reviews Johnson's _Greene_, 511;
on Pulaski, 522, 524;
prompts Mackenzie's life of Paul Jones, 590;
gives a due share of blame to the Americans for the use of Indians,
622.

Speed, Thomas, _Wilderness Road_, 708.

Speier, R. J., 194.

Spencer, Joseph, 134.

Spencer, J. A., _United States_, 665.

Spencer's Ordinary, fight at, 497.

Sprague, Wm. B., 264.

Springfield, N. J., action at, 559.

Springfield, N. Y., burned, 633.

Sproule, Capt. George, _Environs of Charleston_, 528.

Squier, Ephraim, 219;
diary, 360.

St. Ange de Bellerive at Fort Chartres, 701.

St. Augustine, plan of, 538.

St. Clair, Gen. Arthur, commands at Ticonderoga, 296, 348;
evacuates the post, 296;
his trial, 349;
_Life and Public Services_, 349;
his papers, 350;
portrait, 297;
other likenesses, 297;
his house, 297;
at Castleton, 297;
hears of Lexington fight, 178;
sent South, 546, 744;
at West Point, 460.

St. François Indians, 656;
at Cambridge, 655.

St. John Indians, 617.

St. John (Sorel River), island of, fort on, 215, 216;
attacked (1775), 565;
surrenders, 162, 217.

St. Lawrence, gulf, chart, 215;
river, chart, 215.

St. Leger, Col. Barry, his part in Burgoyne's campaign, 296;
authorities, 351;
portrait, 351;
his letter from Oswego, 366;
his expedition, 299, 628;
diagram of his order of march, 628;
attacks Fort Stanwix, 628;
his proclamation, 629;
defeats Herkimer, 631;
retreats, 300, 632;
his opinion of Indians, 632;
number of his troops, 661;
offers for scalps, 683.

St. Louis attacked, 730, 737, 739.

St. Luc, La Corne, 351.

St. Pierre and Miquelon, trade with, prohibited, 27.

St. Simon, Gen., in Virginia, 501.

Ste. Geneviève, 738.

Stamp Act (1755), 11, 72;
(1765), 29, 333;
Franklin's view, 5;
violence, 24;
threatened (1764), 26;
Franklin asks for patronage under it, 29;
arouses indignation, 29;
petitions against, in Parliament, 32;
rejoicing in London, 33;
riots and compensation for them, 34;
origin of, 72;
debates on it languid, 72;
Congress determined on, 72;
title of act, 72;
the stamps, 72;
repealed, 32, 74;
debates on the repeal, 74;
the lords protest, 74, 85;
Congress to consider the act, 29, 30, 74;
_Authentic Account_, 74;
_Journal_, 74;
references, 74;
Tory support of act, 75;
American and British authorities on the turmoil, 75;
Sparks intended a history, 75.

Stanhope, Earl (_see_ Mahon), _Miscellanies_, 464.

Stanley, Dean, _Westminster Abbey_, 461.

Stanwix, Fort, 274;
movements near (1777), 350;
authorities, 351;
bounds of treaty at, 650, 706, 707;
described, 660;
rumors of its capture, 672.
_See_ Fort.

Staples, W. R., _Doc. Hist. of the Destruction of the Gaspee_, 90;
_Annals of Providence_, 565.

Stark, Caleb, _Memoir of Gen. Stark_, 301.

Stark, Gen. John, on Bunker Hill, 137, 187, 190;
at siege of Boston, 134;
autog., 137;
notices, 190;
letters (Winter Hill), 203;
at Bennington, 300;
silhouette, 301;
his monument, 301;
homestead, 301;
portraits, 301;
memoir, 301;
life of, by Caleb Stark, 354;
his letters about Bennington, 354;
his papers, 354.

Staten Island, 340, 404;
British on, 275, 326;
map, 327;
Sullivan's raid on, 417;
expedition to (1780), 561.

Stearns's _North Amer. Almanac_, 178.

Stedman, Charles, _Amer. War_, 518, 659;
under Cornwallis, 517;
his _History_ noticed by Clinton, 517.

Stedman, James, 464.

Stenton, situation of, 425, 429.

Stephen, Gen. Adam, 144, 421;
at Brandywine, 381.

Steuben, Baron, at Valley Forge, 393;
inspector-general, 393, 437;
reorganizes the army, 560;
in Virginia, 496, 515, 546, 732;
pursued by Simcoe, 497;
portraits, 497;
lives of, 515.

Stevens, B. F., 467, 719;
_Howe's Orderly-Book_, 415.

Stevens, Henry, 359.

Stevens, J. A., on Stamp Act times in New York, 73;
on New York in the Continental Congress, 99;
"Birth of the Empire State", 274;
on Harlem fight, 334;
on Benedict _Arnold_, 357;
on Burgoyne's campaign, 366;
on Washington's headquarters at Tappan, 460;
on Arnold's _Arnold_, 464;
on the French in Virginia, 516;
on their departure, 745;
on Camden, 530;
on Gates at Camden, 532;
on Lafayette's expedition against Arnold, 547;
on Rochambeau's march to Virginia and return, 551;
edits Fersen's letters, 554;
on Yorktown, 555;
on the combined movements near N. Y., 561;
on the campaign in R. I. (1778), 601.

Stevens, _History of Georgia_, 522.

Steward, Rev. James, and Trumbull's _Indian Wars_, 651.

Stickney, Chas. E., _Minisink Region_, 662.

Stiles, Ezra, on Bunker Hill, 187;
portrait and autog., 188;
his account of Long Island battle, 329.

Stiles, H. R., _Brooklyn_, 330;
_Fort Chartres_, 705.

Stillman, Wm. J., _Poetic Localities of Cambridge_, 142.

Stillwater, battle, 356;
Schuyler at, 298.

Stirling, Gen. Lord, captured at Brooklyn, 279, 280, 328;
at Monmouth, 400, 444;
portrait, 280;
in N. Y. (1776), 325;
his house, 331;
at Princeton, 368;
at Brandywine, 381;
at Germantown, 385;
on Trenton, 407.

Stirling, Capt. Thomas, 705, 706.

Stockbridge Indians, 655;
enlisted, 120, 612, 674;
visit the Six Nations, 613;
addicted to liquor, 613;
at siege of Boston, 613, 657;
at White Plains, 613;
at King's Bridge, 613;
in Indiana (1819), 613.

Stockton, H., life of R. Stockton, 265.

Stockton, Richard, 108;
autog., 264;
life by H. Stockton, 265.

Stoddard, _Louisiana_, 737.

Stoddard, Frances Mary, 205.

Stoddard, R. H., 193.

Stokes, Chief Justice Anthony, 522;
_View of the British Constitution_, 523.

Stone, Enos, account of Hubbardton fight, 350.

Stone, E. M., _John Howland_, 90, 405;
_Invasion of Canada_, 219;
on Yorktown, 555;
_French Allies_, 560;
on the R. I. campaign (1778), 601.

Stone, F. D., "Philadelphia Society", 260;
"The Struggle for the Delaware", 367.

Stone, Thos., autog., 265;
life, 266.

Stone, W. L. (_Senior_), _Sir Wm. Johnson_, 647;
_Brant_, 247, 351, 657;
_Red Jacket_, 247;
_Border Wars of the Rev._, 247, 657;
_Wyoming_, 247;
_Uncas and Miantonomoh_, 247;
account of, 247;
on New York and the Dec. of Indep., 262;
memoir of George Clinton, 308.

Stone, W. L. (_the younger_), edits Pausch, 347;
on Moses Harris, 356;
_Cent. Cel. of Burgoyne's Surrender_, 357;
on Major Acland, 358;
_Wyoming_, 665;
_Orderly-Book of Sir John Johnson_, 351;
_Campaign of Burgoyne_, 351;
_Saratoga and Ballston_, 360;
"Burgoyne in a New Light", 360;
notes to Pausch's Journal, 360;
_Campaign of Burgoyne_, 361;
_Cent. Cel. of Burgoyne's Surrender_, 361;
translates the Riedesel memoirs, 361;
landmarks of Burgoyne's campaign, 361.

Stone Arabia (N. Y.), 609, 644.

Stone, _Beverley, Mass._, 350.

Stonington, Conn., attacked, 145.

Stono River, 526;
attacked by Lincoln, 520.

Stony Point, 455, 456, 465, 556;
plans of, 557, 558;
attacked, 558;
medals, 559.

Stormont, Lord, his correspondence, 592.

Storrs, Experience, 203.

Storrs, Lt.-Col., 188.

Stow, Edw., 204.

Strahan, Wm., corresp. with Franklin, 85;
on the repeal of the Stamp Act, 74.

Straus, _Origin of Repub. Form of Govt._, 71.

Street, A. B., on Burgoyne's campaign, 357;
on Saratoga, 361.

Strobel, P. A., _Salzburghers_, 523.

Strong, _Flatbush_, 330.

Stryker, W. S., _Maxwell's brigade in Sullivan's Exped._, 670;
_Block House at Tom's River_, 744;
_New Jersey line in Va._, 555;
on Princeton, 412.

Stuart, Gilbert, paints John Brooks, 202;
Gates, 303;
Gansevoort, 629;
John Adams, 36.

Stuart, I. W., _Jona. Trumbull_, 674;
_Nathan Hale_, 334.

Stuart, Capt. John, 714;
_Indian Wars_, 714;
supt. of Southern Indians, 615, 620;
instructed by Gage to stir up the Indians, 620.

Stuart, Lieut.-Col., at Eutaws, 545.

Suffolk, Earl of, justifies use of Indians, 621.

Suffolk Resolves, 100, 236.

Sugar Act (1733), 63, 72;
modified, 25.

Sugar Islands, 7, 686.

Sullivan, James, on the Penobscot exped., 603.

Sullivan, Gen. John, portrait, 68;
sent to Portsmouth (1775), 146;
sent to Canada, 166;
took command, 167;
retreats to Crown Point, 167;
at Winter Hill (1776), 203;
in command on Long Island, 278;
his character, 278;
wished the command at Ticonderoga (1777), 348;
joins Washington (1776), 373;
at Trenton, 375, 407;
at Brandywine, 381, 418;
at Germantown, 385;
his raid on Staten Island, 417;
at Chestnut Hill, 419;
on the Conway Cabal, 446;
in the Rhode Island campaign, 593;
advances, 595;
assails D'Estaing in an order, 595;
retires, 595;
fighting takes place, 595;
his report on the R. I. campaign, 595;
crosses to mainland, 598;
his conduct criticised, 598;
defended by T. C. Amory, 598;
his orders, 598;
letters, 598;
effect on the country, 601;
his proclamation, 653;
journals of his Indian exped., 671, 681;
lists them, 681;
all published by the State of New York, 681;
the army's route, 681;
losses in his campaign (1779), 642;
maps of his marches, 642;
portrait, 637;
autog., 637;
his house, 637;
his family, 637;
commands exped. against the Indians, 638;
exped. against the Indians, 666;
acc. by Gordon, 666;
life, by Amory, 666;
by Peabody, 667, 670;
his force (1779), 667;
not intending to attack Niagara, 669;
brigade book, siege of Boston, 204;
captured at Brooklyn, 279, 280;
in command in Canada, 226;
letters, 226;
the battle of Long Island, 327.

Sullivan's Island (1776), 169, 170;
view of fort, 228;
attack, 229;
authorities, 229;
the news in Philadelphia, 229;
contemp. accounts, 229;
plan of the attack, 229;
general American accounts, 229;
British accounts, 229, 230.

Sulte, B., _Canadiens Français_, 164.

Sumner, Geo., _Oration_ (1859), 592, 738.

Sumner, Wm. H., 123;
on Gen. Warren, 194;
on Hancock, 271.

Sumter, Gen., 475;
in the South, 477;
attacked by Tarleton, 478, 480;
threatens to resign, 490;
harasses Greene, 492;
at Fishdam Ford, 532;
portraits, 532;
on Weemys's attack, 536;
his differences with Morgan, 537.

Sunbury, Georgia, 519.

Susquehanna Company of Connecticut, 680.

Sutherland, Capt. of the "Vulture", 461.

Sutton, Sir Richard, 232.

Sutton (Mass.) men at Lexington, 182.

Swain, D. L., on invasion of N. Carolina, 168;
_Indian War of 1776_, 678.

Sweat, Samuel, letters (Winter Hill), 203.

Swedes' Ford, 425.

Swett, Col. Samuel, papers on Bunker Hill, 189, 191;
plan of Bunker Hill, 202;
acc. of, 191;
autog., 191.

Sylvester, R. B., _Saratoga_, etc., 366.

Sylvester, Richard, 83.

Talbot, Major, wounded at Fort Mifflin, 389.

Talbot, Silas, in Rhode Island, 602;
lives of, 603.

Tallmadge, B., 464;
his letters, etc., on André, 466;
his estimate of the captors of André, 466;
portraits and autog., 457;
_Memoir_, 457;
and André, 458, 460.

Tappan, N. Y., André at, 460;
De Wint House, 460;
Seventy-Six Stone House, 460.

Tarbox, Increase N., his views on the question of the command at
Bunker Hill, 191;
_Life of Putnam_, 191.

Tardieu, P. F., _Carte des Etats Unis_, 675.

Tarleton, Col., at the siege of Charlestown, S. C., 473;
defeats Buford, 475;
at Black-Stocks, 536;
at the Cowpens, 481, 538;
at Poundridge, 557;
raid in Va., 497, 515;
_Campaign of 1780 and 1781_, 517;
his losses, 517;
his career, 517;
portrait, 517;
Mackenzie's _Strictures_, 517;
at Camden, 530;
attacks Sumter, 478;
pursues Marion, 480;
pursues Morgan, 481;
at Guilford, 486;
at the Waxhaws, 527;
at Fishdam Ford, 532.

Tarrytown, N. Y., monument at, 466.

Tate, W., 223.

Taxation of the colonies, ministerial view, 17;
colonial view, 17;
right of, 63;
denied, 24;
internal and external, 50;
first movement against, 68;
_Reasons why the British colonies should not be charged with
internal taxes_, 70;
the government view in the Protest of the Lords against repeal of
Stamp Act, 74;
_History of Amer. Taxation, 1763-1775_, 75;
pro and con arguments in Read's _George Read_, 75;
Soame Jenyns's _Objections_, 75;
James Otis's _Considerations_, 75;
_Regulations lately made_, 75;
tracts on, 75;
_Letter to a Member_, 75;
_Objections to the taxation_, etc., 75;
_Good Humour_, 85;
_Inquiry into the nature of the present disputes_, 85;
_True constitutional way of putting an end to the disputes_, 85;
Johnson's _Taxation no tyranny_, 109;
_Defence of the American Congress_, 109;
_Letter to Dr. Price_, 109.

Taylor, Eldad, 205.

Taylor, Geo., autog., 265;
life, 266.

Taylor, Janette, 590.

Taylor, John, life of John Penn, 265.

Taylor, John, _Inquiry_, etc., 272.

Taylor, J. W., _Ohio_, 708.

Taylor, R., on Geo. Mason, 272.

Tea, destroyed, 46, 91;
duty on, 46;
importation of it arouses Philadelphia, 57;
and the other colonies, 57;
in Boston, 91;
in N. H., 92;
in Connecticut, 93;
in New York, 93;
in Pennsylvania, 93;
fac-simile of broadside, 93;
in N. Carolina, 93;
tax on, to remain, 51.

Teller, _Ridgefield, Conn._, 348.

Temple, John, duel with Whateley, 93.

Tennessee, 708;
Haywood's hist. of, 678.

Ternant, Gen., 513.

Ternay, Chev. de, 499;
at Newport, 499, 560;
dies, 499;
his tomb, 499;
autog., 500.

Tetard Hill (N. Y.), 287, 338, 339.

Thacher, B. B., 91.

Thacher, Dr. James, 464;
_Military Journal_, 189, 202, 660.

Thacher, Oxenbridge, 13;
_Sentiments of a British American_, 70;
dies, 70.

Thacher, Peter, oration on Boston Massacre, 88;
his account of Bunker Hill, 186.

Thaxter, Jos., 178.

Thayendanegea. _See_ Brant, Joseph.

Thayer, Capt. Simeon, _Journal_, 219;
at Fort Mifflin, 388.

Thomas, E. S., _Reminiscences_, 184, 412.

Thomas, Gen. John, 108;
second in command under Ward, 134;
at Roxbury, 134;
at Dorchester Heights, 156;
his headquarters in Roxbury, 156;
at Quebec, 225;
letters, 225;
made general, 119, 165;
in command at Roxbury, 130;
ordered to Canada, 165;
retreats from Quebec, 166;
dies, 167;
portrait, 167;
_Memoir_, 167;
affronted at Congress, 167.

Thomas, Isaiah, 122;
_Narrative of Lexington_, etc., 175;
_Mass. Kalendar_, 47.

Thomas, Lieut. John, on Louisiana, 737.

Thomas, W. H. B., 214.

Thompson, Benj., Count Rumford, 507;
in Boston, 128;
in S. Carolina, 545;
lives of, 546.

Thompson, Eben, _Memoir_, by Mary P. Thompson, 117.

Thompson, Gen., on Canada exped., 225;
acc. of, 225.

Thompson, Wm., 203.

Thomson, Chas., letter on taxation, 75;
letter to Wm. Drayton, 96;
on Bunker Hill, 189;
portrait, 272;
his house, 272;
autog., 450.

Thornton, J. W., _Pulpit of the Rev._, 244;
his sale, 467.

Thornton, Matthew, autog., 263;
life, 265;
signed the Decl. of Indep., 268.

Three County troop in Massachusetts, 184.

Three Rivers (1775), 216;
attack (1776), 167, 225, 227.

Throckmorton, B. W., on Benedict Arnold, 357.

Throg's Neck, 285.

Thwaites, R. G., on L. C. Draper, 727.

Tickle, Robt., _Present state of the Nation_, 85;
_Considerations_ in reply, 85.

Ticonderoga, capture planned, 613;
taken (1775), 129;
view of ruins, 129;
papers on capture, 130;
cannon taken to Cambridge, 156;
authorities on its capture (1775), 213;
disputes over the origination of the expedition, 213;
trophies, 214;
Arnold's report, 214;
current reports, 214;
ruins of, 214;
diary (1775) at, 215;
its condition after capture, 215;
apprehension at, after fall of Quebec, 227;
Gates at, 291;
St. Clair at (1777), 348;
attacked by Burgoyne, 296;
evacuation, 296, 349;
authorities, 349;
effect of it, 350;
works, 314, 353, 354;
maps (1777), 350;
Trumbull's, 350, 352;
that used at St. Clair's trial, 350, 353;
recaptured, 304.

Tiddeman, Mark, map of N. Y. harbor, 326.

Tiffany, Osmond, _Life of O. H. Williams_, 537.

Tilghman, James, 709.

Tilghman, Col. Tench, 334;
_Memoirs_, 407;
_Diary of Yorktown_, 554.

Tilton, James, 337.

Tinicum Island, 429, 437.

Tioga (Tiaoga), 609;
attacked, 636;
plan of, 681.

Tioga Valley, 641.

Tiverton, R. I., 600.

Tobacco trade restricted, 8, 9.

Todd, C. B., _Redding, Conn._, 348;
on Col. Ledyard, 562;
_Joel Barlow_, 467.

Todd, Col. John, 723;
on Kaskaskia, 729;
his _Record Book_, 730.

Tomahawk improvements (squatter rights), 611.

Tom's River, 744.

Tonicas Indians, 702.

Tonyn, Gov., 522.

Topham, John, 219.

Tories, acc. of, by T. B. Myers, 351;
at Wyoming, 635.
_See_ Loyalists.

Totowa, 404.

Towle, N. C., _Constitution of the U. S._, 74, 274.

Town, Ithiel, _Particular Services_, 341, 546, 589.

_Town and County Mag._, 209.

Townshend, Chas., 21, 23, 38;
died, 39;
in the Stamp Act debates, 72.

Townshend, C. H., _Invasion of Conn._, 557.

Townshend, Jos., on Brandywine, 419.

Townshend, M. I., on Burgoyne's exped., 366.

Townshend acts, 20, 38;
resisted, 42;
misunderstood by Bancroft, 64;
attempt to repeal, 51;
repealed (except on tea), 52.

Trade monopolized by English merchants, 5.

Transylvania (Kentucky), 716.

Treaty of Paris (1783), 747.
_See_ Paris.

Trecothic, alderman, 51.

Tremain, Grenville, 466.

Trenton, N. J., surprise at, 374;
authorities, 407;
maps, 408-412;
court-martial of the Hessian officers, 412;
picture by Trumbull, 412;
current verses, 412;
flag captured, 412.

Troup, Col. Robert, on the Conway Cabal, 447.

Trout, Rev. Jacob, 418.

Trowbridge, Edmund, autog., 50.

Trudruffrin. _See_ Paoli, 423.

Trumbull, Henry, _Indian Wars_, bibliog. of, 651;
its various titles, 651;
reprinted by Pritts, 651.

Trumbull, Col. John, painted Moultrie, 172;
his picture of Bunker Hill, 190, 197;
plan of the siege of Boston, 207;
his painting of _Death of Montgomery_, 220;
paints John Adams, 36;
autobiog., 189;
portrait of Putnam, 193;
plan of Boston Neck lines, 211;
paints St. Clair, 297;
Schuyler, 298;
map of Ticonderoga, 350;
paints Col. Tallmadge, 457;
arrested in London, 463;
his picture of Yorktown, 506;
of Trenton, 412;
his portrait of Gen. Greene, 510;
of Morgan, 511;
on the Rhode Island campaign, 597.

Trumbull, Col. Jonathan, diary at Yorktown, 554.

Trumbull, Gov. Jonathan, his letter to Gage, 181.

Trumbull, Jos., 203.

Trumbull, James H., on "Sons of Liberty", 72;
edits Mott's journal, 213;
on the origin of the Ticonderoga expedition (1775), 213;
on the _Indian Wars_ of H. Trumbull, 651.

Trumbull MSS., 681.

Tryon, Gov., seeks safety on a man-of-war, 107;
his seal and autog., 140;
his proclamation (1776), 325;
the Hickey Plot, 326;
orders a map of N. Y. province made, 341;
report on the province, 341;
his address to the people of Conn., 557;
_Address on his late expedition_, 557;
invades Connecticut, 557.

Tryon County, N. Y., 645, 659.

Tucker, Dr. Josiah, Dean of Gloucester, 75;
and Franklin, 74;
on the Amer. Rev., 254;
tracts, 75;
_Letter from a merchant_, 75;
_Series of answers_, 75;
_Humble Address_, 75.

Tucker, Sam., of New Jersey, joins the enemy, 370.

Tucker, Com. Samuel, at siege of Charleston, 524;
orders to command the "Boston" in fac-simile, 566;
his career, 567;
takes John Adams to France, 567;
his log-book, 567;
his papers, 567;
lives of, 567;
in the "Boston", 583;
his parole in fac-simile, 583.

Tucker, St. George, on Guildford, 541.

Tuckerman, H. T., _America and her Commentators_, 560;
_Silas Talbot_, 603;
on Daniel Boone, 708.

Tudor, Wm., letters to, 7, 9, 88, 187;
his _Otis_, 70;
his Massacre oration, 446.

Tugaloo River, 676.

Tupper, Benj., 325.

Turkey Hill (R. I.), 596, 598, 602.

Turner, H. E., _Greenes of Warwick_, 510.

Turner, O., _Phelps and Gorham Purchase_, 670.

Turtle Bay (N. Y.), 333, 335.

Tuscaroras, Col. Butler among the, 619;
their lands, 610;
mostly took the American side, 623.

Tuttle, J. F., _Hibernia Furnace_, 108;
_Morris County_, 407;
_Rev. Forefathers_, 407;
_Washington in Morris County_, 407;
_Washington at Morristown_, 417;
on the camp at Morristown, 559.

Twightwees, 610.

Two-penny Act, 24.

Tyler, Albert, _Bennington_, 301, 356.

Tyler, John, _Address at Jamestown_, 107.

Tyler, Moses Coit, on Patrick Henry, 107;
his _Patrick Henry_, 723.

Tyng, D. A., 746.

"Tyrannicide", her log, 582;
takes the "Revenge", 586.

Uhlhorn, J. F., 712.

Ulloa at New Orleans (1766), 737.

Unadilla destroyed, 636, 653.

Union, growth of, in the colonies, 79;
symbol of disjointed snake, 79.

United States, independence of, growth of the sentiment, 231;
_Public Land Laws_, 247.
_See_ Congress, Independence, etc.

_Universal Asylum_, 207.

_Universal Magazine_, 463.

Upham, W. P., 205;
_Life of Gen. Glover_, 325.

Urquhart, James, 209.

Valcour Island, fight at, 292, 346;
map of, 347.

Valentine, _N. Y. City Manual_, 331.

Vallancey, Capt. C., 543.

Valley Forge, 416;
Committee of Congress at, 393;
Baron Steuben at, 393;
condition of army, 436;
encampment, 389;
French alliance celebrated, 439;
life at, 437;
plan of camp, 439;
Washington's H. Q., 439.

Van Cortlandt, Philip, autobiography, 670.

Van Dyk, Col., 467.

Van Schaick, Col., attacks the Onondagas, 639;
marches to Cherry Valley, 626.

Van Schaick's Island, 298.

Van Wart, Isaac, 456.

Vandalia, 708.

Varick, Col. Richard, at Freeman's Farm, 316;
on the Saratoga campaign, 356;
aide to Arnold, 460;
his papers, 460.

Varnum, Gen., abandons Fort Mercer, 389.

Vaughan, Benj., his ed. of Franklin's _Pieces_, 653.

Vaughan, David, 341.

Vaughan, Samuel, his journal, 506.

Vermont, constitutional movements in, 274;
_Documents relating to the resistance to Burgoyne_, 354;
proclamations issued by Burgoyne and Schuyler, 350;
signs of defection in, 646.

_Vermont Quart. Mag._, 356.

Vernon, Wm., autograph, 566.

Verplanck House, 746.

Verplanck's Point, 455, 465;
plan, 557, 558.

Verreau, _Invasion du Canada_, 216.

Vigo, Col. F., 724.

Villefranche, his maps of the Hudson, 456, 462.

Vincennes (Indiana), 704;
captured, 718, 719;
fort at, 719;
evacuated by the British, 722;
taken by Hamilton, 724;
authorities, 729.

Vinton, J. A., 191.

Viomenil, 504, 745.

Virginia, action for a congress (1774), 99;
address to the king (1769), 83;
_Address to the Convention_, 272;
British in (1779-80), 546;
_Calendar of State Papers_, 515, 649;
commerce of (1671), 64;
(1770, etc.), 64;
com. of correspondence, 90;
Constitution of, written by George Mason and Thomas Jefferson, 261;
adopts a constitution, 272;
Declaration of Rights, 272;
in the Cont. Congress, 234;
Dunmore in (1775), 122;
disputes of bounds with Penna., 248;
over Ohio lands, 709;
influence in the Ohio country, 715;
early naval movements, 565;
effect of Boston Port Bill, 96;
establishes intercolonial com. of corresp., 54, 56;
fight at the Great Bridge, 168;
Norfolk destroyed, 168;
maps of, 538;
militia, 485;
at Camden, 533;
military ardor in (1774), 116;
movements (1774), 98, 117;
(1775), 107;
planting wheat instead of tobacco (1775), 121;
plundering expeditions to, 495;
Arnold in, 495;
and the Stamp Act, 29, 73;
Steuben in, 515;
sympathy for Boston (1769), 46, 113;
non-importation agreement, 47;
Ohio country a county, 729.

Von Holst, _Const. Hist. U. S._, 274.

Von Mirbach, 329.

Von Stern, 329.

Wabash Indians, 739;
treaty with, 724.
_See_ Ouabache.

Wabash Land Company, 650.

Wabasha, a Sioux, 737, 738.

Waddell, A. W., on the Regulators, 80.

Wade, Col. Nath., 460.

Wadsworth, Gen. Peleg, in the Penobscot expedition, 603;
letters, 603.

Wadsworth, Jas., on the Danbury exped., 348.

Wager, D. E., 626.

Wakefield, Ebenezer, 357.

Waldo, J. & D., 47.

Waldo, Sergt., diary at Valley Forge, 436.

Walker, B., _Life of Paul Jones_, 590.

Walker, C. I., _Northwest during the Rev._, 733.

Walker, Dr., in Kentucky, 715.

Walker, James, 421.

Walker, Mrs. Thomas, 222.

Walker, _Statesmen's Manual_, 274.

Wallabout Bay, 328.

Wallace, Sir James, 471.

Waller, Adj., letter, 194;
orderly-book, 205.

Walmscook, 356.

Waln, Robert, life of James Wilson, John Morton, Stephen Hopkins,
Thomas McKean, 265;
Josiah Bartlett, William Williams, Samuel Huntington, Geo. Rymer,
Matthew Thornton, William Whipple, Robert Morris, Abraham Clark,
265;
John Hart, 266;
of Francis L. Lee, 266.

Walpole, Horace, 175;
and the American war, 112;
his _George the Third_, 112;
his _Last Journals_, 112.

Walpole Grant on the Ohio, 687, 708.

Walton, Geo., life, 265;
autog., 266.

Walworth, Mrs. Ellen H., _Burgoyne and the Northern Campaign_, 315;
on Burgoyne's surrender, 358.

Wangenheim, map of movements in Jersey, 409;
surveys of Forts Clinton, etc., 364.

Ward, Andrew H., _Ward family_, 192;
_Shrewsbury_, 192.

Ward, Artemas, made general, 116;
commander-in-chief, 131, 134;
made second to Washington, 142;
commissions Mugford, 567;
on the Penobscot exped., 603, 604;
sluggish, 133;
left in Boston, 159, 205;
his papers, 159;
resigned, 159;
portrait, 159, 192;
supposed to be older than he was, 189;
notices, 191;
autog., 192;
letters from Cambridge, 203.

Ward, Geo. A., finds Paul Jones' papers, 590.

Ward, Col. Jos., 138, 203;
his order on the field at Bunker Hill, 138.

Ward, R. D., _Lafayette's visit to Va._, 555.

Ward, Gov. Samuel, 220, 222, 565;
his journal, 565.

Ward, Samuel, on Long Island battle, 329;
_Battle of Long Island_, 331.

Ward, Townsend, 423.

Ware, Joseph, _Journal_, 219.

Warner, Col. Seth, at Crown Point, 129;
acc. of, 129;
at Bennington, 301;
letters, 350;
notices by G. F. Houghton, 356;
by Highland Hall, 356;
by Chipman, 356.

Warren, Benjamin, at Cherry Valley, 666;
diary, 360.

Warren, Edw., _John Warren_, 194.

Warren, G. W., _Bunker Hill Mt. Asso._, 191.

Warren, Isaac, _Almanac_, 342.

Warren, Gen. James, autog., 566;
committee of correspondence, 89;
on Bunker Hill, 187;
letters, 203.

Warren, Dr. John, 188.

Warren, John C., 193.

Warren, Gen. Jos., 60;
his circular letter (1773), 57;
writes call for the tea-ships meeting in Boston, 91;
his attack on Bernard, 83;
draws up Suffolk Resolves, 100;
quells disturbance at Cambridge, 115;
his address on Boston Massacre, 88, 119;
the MS., 120;
on Lexington day, 125;
his last note, 132;
made general, 133;
Bunker Hill, 137;
portrait, 54;
by Norman, 193;
by Copley, 193, 194;
by Trumbull, 197;
letter on capture of Ticonderoga, 214;
on independence, 258;
purposes of Congress on his death, 194;
memorials of, 194;
statue of, 194;
accounts, 194;
remonstrates with Connecticut for sending messenger to Gage, 128;
killed, 139.

Warren, Mercy, _The parody parodized_, 86;
letters, 203.

_Warren Genealogy_, 194.

Warren (R. I.), 600.

Warwick (R. I.), 600.

Washington, George, in the Congress of 1774, 237;
would march 1,000 men to Boston, 114;
active in Virginia (1775), 131;
made commander-in-chief, 108, 133;
references, 133;
commission and instructions, 133;
his first letter from Cambridge, 141;
fac-simile of its heads, 141;
reaches Cambridge, 142;
assumes command of the army, 142;
holds council of war, 142;
his headquarters in Cambridge, 142;
disappointed in the N. E. troops, 144;
deficient in powder, 145;
commissions a navy, 152, 564;
Proclamation of repossessing Boston, 159;
moves his army to New York, 160;
sends Sullivan to Canada, 166;
letters on the siege of Boston, 173, 203;
their condition and repositories, 173;
entertains Caghnawaga Indians, 203;
medal for the siege of Boston, 206;
instruction for the Kennebec expedition, 217;
in New York, 275, 325;
his army, 275;
headquarters on Richmond Hill, 276;
his other headquarters in N. Y., 276;
retreats from Brooklyn to N. Y., 281;
condition of his army, 281;
urges enlistments for the war, 282;
calls for better officers, 282;
proposes to burn New York, 283, 334;
not wishing independence (1775), 255;
headquarters at Harlem, 284;
his army along the Bronx, 285;
at White Plains, 286;
at New Castle, 286;
rude cut of, 311;
on the battle of Brooklyn, 326;
plot to assassinate, in N. York, 326;
retreats from Long Island, 330;
the question of a fog, 330;
evacuates New York, 333;
at Harlem, 334;
movements above N. Y. (1776), 337;
orders the evacuation of Fort Lee, 367;
retreats through the Jerseys, 368;
given dictatorial powers, 373, 376;
attacks Trenton, 374;
at Princeton, 378;
his letters on the campaign of 1776, near N. York, 344;
in winter-quarters at Morristown, 379;
at Middlebrook, 379;
marches through Philad., 380;
at Brandywine, 381;
retreats to Chester, 382;
to Philadelphia, 382;
at Germantown, 385;
at Whitemarsh, 389;
at Valley Forge, 389;
proclamation about grain, 390;
distrusted in Congress (1777), 391;
the Conway Cabal, 392;
watches Clinton's withdrawal from Philad., 397;
pursues Clinton, 398;
at Monmouth, 399;
authorities on these campaigns, 403;
criticised by Jos. Reed, 403;
as dictator, 407;
in the campaign of 1777, 416;
at Morristown, 417;
at Middlebrook, 417;
marches through Philad., 418;
H. Q. at Brandywine, 419;
falsely informed at Brandywine, 419;
his Brandywine map, 420;
letter from Duché 437;
H. Q. at Stenton, 429;
on the defence of the Delaware, 431;
H. Q. in Philad., 436;
at Whitemarsh, 442;
at Monmouth, 445;
censures Lee, 446;
the Conway Cabal, 446;
his Fabian policy, 446;
reprimands Arnold, 451;
goes to Hartford to confer with Rochambeau, 454, 458;
returned before he was expected, 458;
receives letter from Arnold, 460;
prepares for any emergency, 460;
H. Q. at Tappan, 460;
orders André to be hanged, 460;
his correspondence with Clinton respecting the execution, 461;
his letters on the plot, 461;
H. Q. at Newburgh, 465;
his account of Arnold's conspiracy, 466;
_Domestic Life_, by Richard Rush, 466;
traduced for executing André, 467, 468;
his justification, 467;
later English authorities approve, 468;
countenanced the exchange of André for Arnold, 468;
encouraged Champe to abduct Arnold, 468;
meets Rochambeau at Weathersfield, 499;
attempts to surprise N. Y. forts, 499;
marches to Virginia, 500;
headquarters at Williamsburg, 506;
his opinion of Henry Lee, 510;
papers on the Yorktown campaign, 515;
on the Yorktown campaign, 549;
thanked by Congress, 549;
his epaulettes, 549;
his journals and orderly-books, 553;
Middlebrook, 556;
at Morristown, 559;
his H. Q., 559;
communications with Rochambeau, 560, 561;
at Totowa and Preakness, 561;
proposed attack with the French on New York forts, 561;
marches to Virginia (1781), 561;
at Livingston Mansion, 562;
was he a marshal of France? 562;
steps leading to his naval authority (1775), 565;
ceased supervision (1776), 567;
suggestions as to privateers, 591;
portrait of, 575;
takes command of the army, 612;
his instructions, 612;
authorized to use Indians, 616, 617, 633;
visited by Indians at Cambridge, 622;
his interest in Western lands, 649;
selects land for soldiers of the French war, 649;
on the Sullivan exped. (1779), 667, 669;
on Brodhead's exped., 671;
sends Arnold up the Kennebec, 673;
sends letter to the Eastern Indians, 674;
his journal in the Ohio region, 709;
his opinion of Clark's project for attacking Detroit, 731;
moves his army to the Hudson (1781), 744;
at Newburgh, 744;
Nicola's letter, 745;
Newburgh addresses, 746;
authorizes _Collection of Papers_, 746;
cessation of hostilities, 746;
farewell address, 746;
last circular to the States, 746;
at Rocky Hill, 746;
enters New York at the close of the war, 746;
parts with his officers, 747;
goes to Annapolis, 747;
resigns his commission, 747;
at Mount Vernon, 747;
message against Genet, 734.

Washington, Col. William, 481, 537;
at Trenton, 376;
charges at Cowpens, 482;
medal, 539.

Watauga besieged, 478, 676, 679.

Watauga Association, 678, 708.

Waterbury, Col. David, 325;
on Arnold's fight on Lake Champlain, 346.

Wateree River, 475.

Waterloo, N. Y., _Library and Hist. Soc. Proc._, 681.

Watertown, Mass., Prov. Congress at, 203.

Watrin, Father, _Missions of Louisiana_, 720.

Watson, Benj. Marston, loyalist, 253.

Watson, Elkanah, _Memoirs or Men and Times_, 203, 253.

Watson, H. C., _Old Bell of Independence_ or _Noble Deeds of our
Forefathers_, 259.

Watson, John Lee, _Paul Revere's Signals_, 174.

Watson, W. C., on Arnold's fight at Valcour Island, 377;
_Essex County, N. Y._, 214.

Wawarsing destroyed, 646.

Waxhaw Creek, Buford's defeat at, 475, 527.

Wayne, Anthony, 445;
at Paoli, 383;
court-martialled, 419;
on Germantown, 386, 421;
orderly-book, 437;
at Brandywine, 381;
on Arnold's treason, 466;
on the Northern campaign (1776), 346;
lives of, 514;
portraits, 385;
account of, by De Peyster, 385;
his house, 385;
at Monmouth, 400, 446;
surprised in Georgia by Indians, 677;
in Virginia, 497, 547;
in the Yorktown campaign, 501;
in Georgia, 507;
attacks Stony Point, 558;
at Bull's Ferry, 560;
hero of the _Cow Chace_, 560;
at Morristown, 561.

Weare, Mechech, his papers, 598.

Weathersfield, Conn., Washington and Rochambeau at, 561;
Webb House in, 561.

Webb, S. B., 187, 203.

Webber, C. W., _Hist. and Rev. Incidents_, 708.

Webster, Daniel, his correct estimate of the causes of the Revolution,
63;
_Address to N. Y. Hist. Soc._, 99;
on the Bunker Hill controversy, 190;
orations at Bunker Hill, 194.

Wedderburn, his attack on Franklin, 95.

Weedon, Gen., at Brandywine, 382.

Weems, Mason L., _Life of Marion_, 512.

Welling, J. C., on the _Mecklenburg Resolutions_, 257.

Wells, J. C., 729.

Welsh, Thomas, 88.

Wemms, William, 86.

Wemple, Edw., 366.

Wemys, Maj. James, his opinions of generals, 330;
criticises Howe, 330;
his papers, 518;
attacks Sumter, 480, 536.

Wesley, John, protects against the war, 111.

West, Benjamin, 463;
paints Bouquet's likeness, 692;
his sketches of Bouquet's campaigns, 699.

West Cambridge (Mass.) men at Lexington, 184.

West Point, 325, 455, 456, 556;
Moses Greenleaf plan, 451;
other plans, 459, 462, 465;
views, 463;
history of, by Boynton, 464;
fortified, 557.

Westchester County (N. Y.), history of, 325, 340.

Westchester Farmer (_see_ Seabury, Samuel, and Wilkins, Isaac), 104;
_Free Thoughts_, 104;
_Congress canvassed_, 104;
Hamilton's reply, 104;
_A View of the Controversy_, 104;
authorship in dispute, 104.

Westcott, Henry, _Centennial Sermons_, 184.

Western, Fort (Augusta, Me.), 163.

Westminster (Vt.) massacre, 172.

Westmoreland Papers, 516.

Westmoreland, Pa., 680.

Weston, Hannah, 564.

Weston, Thomas, Jr., _Peter Oliver_, 95.

Weymouth, Earl of, 43.

Whaleboat warfare, 591.

Wharton, Anna H., on Thomas Wharton, 272, 405;
_Wharton Genealogy_, 436.

Wharton, Chas. P., _Poetical Epistle to Washington_, 575.

Wharton, Samuel, 708;
on Indian lands, 650.

Wharton, Gov. Thomas, 272.

Wharton, Thomas, Jr., 405;
death of, 401.

Wharton family, 436;
their house, 436.

Whately, Thomas, 56.

Wheatley, Phillis, 146.

Wheeler, _No. Carolina_, 514, 678.

Wheeling, Va., 716.

Wheelock, Col., in the Northern campaign (1776), 346.

Wheelock, Rev. Eleazer, 655;
instructs Brant, 626.

Wheildon, W. W., _Siege of Boston_, 173;
_Revere's Signal Lanterns_, 175;
_Concord Fight_, 184;
_Bunker Hill_, 191;
_Solomon Willard_, 194.

Whipple, Abraham, cruising, 565;
sails to Bermuda, 567;
acc. of, 567;
portraits, 567;
letters, 567;
in the "Providence", 582, 583;
his captures, 584;
at Charleston (1780), 524;
autograph order, 472.

Whipple, Christopher, 565.

Whipple, Wm., autog., 263;
life, 265;
on Burgoyne's surrender, 358;
on privateering, 591.

White, Joseph, _Battle of Trenton_, 406.

White, Philip, 744.

Whitechurch, Robt., 510.

White Clay Creek, Pa., 421.

Whitemarsh, 416, 442;
Washington at, 389.

White Plains, 340;
Washington at, 286;
lines of corn-stalks, 286;
evacuated, 286;
Howe's blunders at, 291;
American position at, 336, 337;
references, 337;
Col. Hazlett's letter, 337.

Whitney, James L., _Lit. of Nineteenth April_, 185.

Whitney, Josiah, on Putnam's death, 190.

Whitney, Miss, statue of S. Adams, 41.

Whittier, J. G., "Great Ipswich fight", 128.

Whittlesey, Col. Chas., _Expedition of Dunmore_, 714;
_Fugitive Essays_, 649, 714.

Whittlesey, Capt. Ezra, 613.

Whittlesey, E. D., on Marshall's acc. of Danbury exped., 348.

Whyte, Robert, 425.

Wickes, Lambert, capt. in the navy, 370;
carried the first national vessel across the ocean, 571;
takes Franklin over, 571;
cruises around Ireland, 572;
difficulties in French ports, 572;
lost at sea, 573.

Wiederhold, plan of Trenton attack, 511.

Wilbur's Basin, 309.

Wild, Ebenezer, 220.

Wilkes, John, 11;
and the "Sons of Liberty", 72;
his efforts and speeches, 110, 121;
his comments on Burgoyne's speeches, 365;
"Wilkes and Liberty", 28.

Wilkesbarré, 606.

Wilkins, Isaac, his tracts, 104.

Wilkinson, Eliza, _Letters_, 520, 527.

Wilkinson, Gen. James, on Freeman's Farm, 356;
in Canada, 222;
plan of Trenton, 412;
of Princeton, 413;
_Memoirs_, 189;
carries news of Burgoyne's surrender to Congress, 358.

Wilkinson, J. B., _Binghamton_, 670.

Wilkinson, W. C., 361.

Willers, Diedrich, Jr., _Sullivan's Campaign_, 670.

Willet, Col. Marinus, at Fort Stanwix, 299, 350, 628;
attacks St. Leger's camp, 631;
_Narrative_, 350, 631;
in command on the Mohawk, 645;
threatens Oswego, 646.

Willett, W. M., _Marinus Willett_, 350, 670.

William and Mary, their charter for Mass. destroyed, 114.

Williams, Capt., 728.

Williams, Col., 475.

Williams, Mrs. C. R., _Biog. of Rev. Heroes_, 404.

Williams, David, 456, 466.

Williams, J. F., in the "Hazard", 582;
in the "Protector", 582;
engages the "Duff", 582;
her log, 582;
commands the Massachusetts fleet, 582.

Williams, Lieut., 148.

Williams, O. H., under Greene, 484;
at Guildford, 485;
accounts of, 537;
on Hobkirk's Hill, 542;
at Ninety-Six, 544;
at Eutaws, 545;
_Campaign of 1780_, 530;
in the South, 476.

Williams, Richard, plan of American lines round Boston, 212.

Williams, Wm., 187;
autog., 263;
life of, 265.

Williamsburg, Va., Wayne at, 501;
American army at, 501;
Washington's headquarters at, 506;
maps of, 553.

Williamson, Col. Andrew, map of his marches, 675;
invades Indian territory, 676.

Williamson, Col. David, 735, 736;
murders Indians, 736.

Williamson, Hugh, on the tea-ship commotions, 91;
on North Carolina Revolutionary history, 514.

Willing, Anne, 693.

Willing, Thos., 383.

Wilmington, Del., 421.

Wilmington, N. C., occupied by the British, 487;
map, 542.

Wilson, Chas., _Burgoyne's Campaign_, 361.

Wilson, D., _Jane McCrea_, 627.

Wilson, James, _Considerations, etc._, 106;
autog., 265;
life, 265.

Wilson, L., 461.

Wilson, R., 545.

Wilson, Thos., _Biog. of the Principal American Heroes_, 530.

Wilson, _Memoir of Bishop White_, 438.

Winnebagoes, 739.

Winsor, Justin, "Notes on the Causes of the Revolution", 68;
"The Conflict Precipitated", 113;
references on the siege of Boston, 172;
bibliography of Bunker Hill, 185;
edits Ware's journal, 219;
notes on the campaign round N. Y. (1776), 323;
notes on the authorities for the campaigns of 1777-1778, 403;
"The Treason of Arnold", 447;
"Events in the North, 1779-1781", 555;
on the extent of the Continental army, 588.

Winstanley paints John Adams, 36.

Winter Hill (near Boston), 206;
lines at, 207;
camp at, 202, 203, 204.

Winthrop, Hannah, 318.

Winthrop, James, at Bunker Hill, 202.

Winthrop, Prof. John, 187, 205.

Winthrop, Madam, 180.

Winthrop, R. C., on Charles Hudson, 184;
on R. Frothingham, 186;
_Address on unveiling Prescott's Statue_, 194;
_Oration at Yorktown_, 555;
address on Fort Griswold, 562.

Winthrop, Sam., autog., 50.

Wister, Sally, diary, 436.

Withers, Alex. S., _Chronicles of Border Warfare_, 248, 711.

Witherspoon, John, in Congress, 244;
autog., 264;
life, 265.

Withington, L., 219.

Woedtke, Baron de, letters, 225.

Wolcott, Oliver, autog., 263;
life of, 265;
on Bemis's Heights, 357.

Wolcott, Oliver, Jr., life of O. Wolcott, 265.

Wood, Sylvanus, 183.

Wood Creek (N. Y.), 298, 351.

Woodbridge, Col. Ruggles, 346.

Woodbridge, N. J., 372.

Woodbury, James T., 184.

Woodd, Lieut., 148.

Woodford, Gen., at Germantown, 385;
and his Virginians, 525.

Woodhull, Gen., captured, 280;
death of, 330.

Woodruff, Samuel, 357.

Woodstock, N. Y., 639.

Woolsey, Theodore, 464.

Woolson, C. F., "Up the Ashley", 471.

Wooster, Gen. David, killed, 348;
monuments to, 348;
near N. Y. (1776), 153;
differences with Schuyler, 161;
and Montgomery, 162;
in the Canada expedition, 220;
his character, 220;
letters of, 220, 221;
portrait, 225;
autog., 225;
at Montreal, 165;
at Quebec, 166;
recalled from Canada, 167.

Worcester, S. T., _Hollis_, 190.

Wragg, Wm., 79.

Wraxall, _Hist. Memoirs_, 112.

Wright, Aaron, 203.

Wright, Gov. Sir James, of Georgia, 611;
letters to Dartmouth, 90;
on the number of Indians, 651;
correspondence, 675.

Wright, Joshua G., _Address_, 168.

Wright, W. E., translates Rochambeau's _Memoirs_, 516.

Writs of Assistance, 68;
opposed by Otis, 11;
explained, 11;
legalized, 39;
references, 65;
enforced by Bernard, 65.

Wrottesley, Sir John, 330.

Wyandots, 610;
their home, 735.

Wyatt, Thos., _Generals presented with Medals_, 537.

Wyoming, 606;
Moravian Indians at, 606;
attacked, 634;
population of the valley, 634;
fortified, 634;
Forty Fort, 634;
defeat of Col. Butler, and massacre, 635;
losses, 635;
retreat of the invaders, 636;
account of massacre, 653;
early accounts, 662;
general accounts, 665;
bibliog., 665.

Wyoming Valley invaded by Pennsylvanians to dispossess the Connecticut
settlers, 680.

Wythe, Geo., 716;
autog., 265.

Yale Book, 189.

Yonge, C. D., _British Navy_, 589;
_Constitutional Hist. of England_, 75.

York, Pa., Congress at, 391, 419.

Yorke, Sir Joseph, his correspondence, 592.

Yorktown, campaign of, 547;
evidence on the responsibility of Cornwallis of Clinton, 548, 549;
correspondence of the surrender, 549;
news received in London, 549;
prisoners taken, 549;
maps of, 550, 551, 552, 553;
inquiry into the campaign in England, 516;
debates in Parliament, 516;
news received in England, 555;
acc. of centennial of, 555;
responsibility for the surrender, 516;
siege of, 501;
surrendered, 504;
forces engaged, 504;
fac-simile of articles of capitulation, 505;
Nelson House, 506;
Moore House, 506;
view of the capitulation field, 506;
medals, 506;
Trumbull's picture, 506.

Young, Arthur, _Observations_, 709.

Young, J., assigned to the "Saratoga", 583.

Young, Thomas, 88.

Young, Sergeant Wm., 406.

Younglove, Moses, 683;
his captivity, 659.

Zane, Elizabeth, 716.

Zeigler, W. B., _Heart of the Alleghanies_, 536.

Zeisberger, David, 734;
diary edited by Bliss, 736.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The liberal party; for even as late as the Declaration of
Independence, the Tory party were, by estimation, two fifths of the
whole population.

[2] The validity of this title in the crown was recognized by the
congress at Albany in 1754. Proceedings, in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxv.
64.

[3] The exercise of the prerogative, as a cause of the Revolution,
finds its just prominence in Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_,
_passim_.

[4] Franklin thought differently. "The charters are sacred. Violate
them, and then the present bond of union (the kingly power over us)
will be broken." _Works_, iv. 296; Hutchinson, _History_, iii. 172. But
see Chalmers's _Opinions concerning Colonies_, Index, under _King_.

[5] Its most serious invasion was when the Long Parliament, from
the necessity of the case, exercised sovereign powers,—that of the
prerogative among others.

[6] There is a notable instance in the case of the judicial tenure.
By the British Constitution, the king is not only the fountain of
justice, but by a legal fiction he administers it in person, as James
I. once proposed to do; and on this theory of actual presence, he
chooses his representative and removes him at pleasure. It follows
that, when the king dies, the authority of his representative ceases.
And such was the case until the reign of William III., when it was
attempted to limit the king's prerogative, but with only partial
success. By 12 and 13 Will. III. ch. 2 (1701), the judicial tenure was
during good behavior instead of the king's pleasure. But George III.,
a most strenuous asserter of his prerogative, in 1761, soon after his
accession, declared to the two Houses that he regarded the independence
of the judges as one of the best securities of the rights and liberties
of his subjects, and recommended that they should hold office, with
settled and permanent salaries, during good behavior, notwithstanding
the demise of the crown (_House Journal_, vol. xxviii. 1094); and
this became the law by I Geo. III. ch. 23. Constitutionally the king
sat in his provincial courts as well as in British courts, and his
surrender of the prerogative ought to have extended to the former.
That, however, was not the decision in 1763, when the New York Assembly
remonstrated at the appointment of Chief Justice Prat, to hold during
the king's pleasure, by whom his salary was paid. This caused great
dissatisfaction in the colonies, and in Massachusetts especially, in
1773, when the judges were paid by the king. The matter was not free
from practical difficulties. The king had rights to the revenue which
colonial juries would not respect; and consequently in 1698 Parliament
set up admiralty courts without juries. The king was also interested in
the administration of the civil and criminal law; but unless the judges
conducted themselves so as to suit the people, the representatives cut
down their salaries,—that is, starved them into compliance with the
popular will; consequently, the king thought it best not only to retain
but to use his prerogative, with respect to the appointment, tenure,
and pay of the provincial judges.

[7] "Give me leave to ask you, young man, what it is you mean
by repeating to me so often, in every letter, the Spirit of the
Constitution?" (Dean Tucker, _Letter from a Merchant in London to his
Nephew in America_, 1766.)

[8] This was Jefferson's position, but he said he could get only Wythe
to agree with him in the early days of the Revolution (_Writings_,
Boston ed., 1830, vol. i. 6).

[9] "Why may not an American plead for the just prerogatives of
the crown?" (_Works_, iv. 218.) "The sovereignty of the crown I
understand. The sovereignty of the British legislature out of Britain
I do not understand" (_Ibid._, 208). "Our former kings governed their
colonies as they had governed their dominions in France, without the
participation of British Parliaments" (_Ibid._, 262). "America _is
not_ part of the dominions of England, but of _the king's dominions_"
(_Ibid._, 284). This theory he carried to the farthest extent, and
wrote that "when money is wanted of the colonies for any public
service, in which they ought to bear a part, call upon them by
requisitional letters from the crown (according to the long-established
custom) to grant such aids as their loyalty shall dictate and their
abilities permit" (_Ibid._, 156).

[10] _Works_, x. 321.

[11] _The Rights of Great Britain Asserted_, 82.

[12] An American annual revenue of less than two thousand pounds cost
Great Britain between seven and eight thousand pounds a year (Bancroft,
orig, ed. v. 88, citing the Grenville Papers).

[13] Vol. III. pp. 182, 267, and 381.

[14] A summary of these acts may be found in Adam Smith's _Wealth of
Nations_, ii. 201; and they are discussed by John Adams in a series of
letters to William Tudor (_Works_, vol. x. _passim_). The first act
is understood to be a substantial reënactment of a law of the Long
Parliament in 1651, suggested by Sir George Downing, a native of New
England.

[15] Such, at least, seems to be the effect of the words "in
English-built shipping", in the act of 1663, excluding those "of the
built and belonging to" the colonies which were permitted by the act
of 1660. But were the commodities and manufactures of England included
among those of "Europe" which could be exported to the colonies only in
English-built ships, or could the colonists send their own ships for
them?

[16] From overlooking this option, this clause of the act has received
unmerited obloquy. It was simple justice to the British trader.

[17] This legislation may be traced in the Table to the _Statutes at
Large_, vol. ix., title Plantations, and, in part, in John Adams's
_Works_, vol. x. 350, note. See also Franklin's _Works_, iv. 250, 400.

[18] _Wealth of Nations_, vol. ii. 435.

[19] _Colonial Policy_, vol. i. 7, 239.

[20] Cf. on this point a paper by Charles Deane in the _Amer. Antiq.
Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1886.

[21] _Rights of Great Britain Asserted_, 87. But see Franklin's opinion
as to these bounties (_Works_, iv. 225).

[22] Burke's _Works_, i. 457, Boston ed.

[23] _Colonial Policy_, i. 156.

[24] But see _Works_, iv. 301: "Depend upon it, the Americans are not
so impolitic as to neglect settlements for unprofitable manufactures;
but some manufactures may be more advantageous to some persons than the
cultivation of lands."

[25] Burke's _European Settlements in America_, ch. vii.; _Works_, ix.
328.

[26] See Franklin's "Rules for Reducing a Great Empire to a Small One",
in _Works_, iv. 387.

[27] See Thacher's "Draft of an Address to the King and Parliament", in
_Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc._, vol. xx. p. 49.

[28] _Works_, x. 248.

[29] The writs to which he attributed so much importance require
explanation. A vessel laden with dutiable goods ought to enter some
established port and manifest her cargo at the custom-house for payment
of duties. This the government justly demands, and with it the fair
trader readily complies. Not so the illicit trader. Before reaching
port he may discharge a portion of the cargo in some place remote from
the custom-house; or in a regular port, by connivance, he may secrete
a portion of it, and thus escape paying duties. In either case the
revenue officer needs a search-warrant for such goods. If he applies
to the court, he must set forth a general description of the goods
concealed and the place where, together with the names of witnesses.
This is recorded, and may be known to all parties interested. The
result is, that the informer subjects himself to private animosity and
public obloquy, and the goods meanwhile may be removed to some other
place. This process may be repeated indefinitely, with like results.
What the officer needs, therefore, is a general warrant, good for an
indefinite time, not returnable into the court, and authorizing search
of all suspected places at all hours of the day, for any dutiable goods
supposed to be concealed. This is a Writ of Assistance. Its formidable
nature is readily understood, and the objections to it are apparent.
It is like those General Warrants which made a great noise in England
in connection with John Wilkes (Campbell's _Lord Chancellors_, v. 207,
American ed.; _Parliamentary History, 1764_, vol. xv. 1393). They are
prohibited by the Bill of Rights in the Massachusetts Constitution,
drafted by John Adams, as infringing the right of the citizen to
protect his house from unreasonable search; and when the Constitution
of the United States, without a similar provision, was submitted to
the people, its absence was noticed, and the omission supplied by the
fourth amendment. Such writs are now in force in England (16 and 17
Vict., ch. 107, sec. 221), but not in the United States.

[30] 7 and 8 Wm. 3, ch. 22, sec. 5.

[31] "BOSTON, Feb. 19th, 1753. Whereas, I am informed there still
continues to be carried on an illicit trade between Holland and
other parts of Europe, and the neighboring colonies, and that great
quantities of European and Asiatic commodities are clandestinely
brought from thence unto this port by land as well as by sea; and as
I am determined to use my utmost endeavors to prevent the carrying
on of a trade prejudicial to our mother country and detrimental to
the fair trader, I hereby again give this public notice that if any
person or persons will give me information where such goods are
concealed, that they may be proceeded against according to law, they,
upon condemnation, shall be very handsomely rewarded, and their names
concealed; and I hereby direct all the officers of the customs within
my district to be very vigilant in discovering and seizing all such
contraband goods. H. FRANKLAND, _Coll._" (Nason's _Frankland_, p. 44.)

[32] Hutchinson, _History_, iii. 92.

[33] Quincy's _Reports_, Appendix, 407.

[34] It is of little consequence whether the merchants were instigated
by one Barons, a dismissed revenue officer, or by Otis, supposed to
have been influenced by the appointment of Hutchinson as Chief Justice
to the exclusion of his father, who had cherished expectations of
elevation to the bench on the first vacancy (Hutchinson, _History_,
iii. 86; Tudor's _Life of Otis_, 55; and John Adams's _Works_, x. 281).

[35] Quincy's report, which is of the second hearing, Nov. 18, 1761,
gives little more than the authorities cited. Minot adds a point in
Gridley's argument (_History_, ii. 89). John Adams's notes, taken at
the first hearing in February, may be found in his _Works_, ii. 521,
and a more extended report, in Minot, _ut supra_, 91, and in Tudor's
_Life of Otis_, 63. See also John Adams's _Works_, vol. x. _passim_.

[36] Horace Gray, Jr., sums up the whole matter in the following
paragraph: "A careful examination of the subject compels the conclusion
that the decision of Hutchinson and his associates has been too
strongly condemned as illegal, and that there was at least reasonable
ground for holding, as matter of mere law, that the British Parliament
had power to bind the colonies that even a statute contrary to the
Constitution could not be declared void by the judicial courts; that
by the English statutes, as practically construed by the courts in
England, Writs of Assistance might be general in form; that the
Superior Court of Judicature of the province had the power of the
English Court of Exchequer; and that the Writs of Assistance prayed
for, though contrary to the spirit of the English Constitution, could
hardly be refused by a provincial court, before general warrants had
been condemned in England, and before the Revolution had actually
begun in America. The remedy adopted by the colonies was to throw
off the yoke of Parliament; to confer on the judiciary the power to
declare unconstitutional statutes void; to declare general warrants
unconstitutional in express terms; and thus to put an end here to
general Writs of Assistance" (Quincy's _Reports_, Appendix, 540).

[37] _Works_, x. 183.

[38] Hutchinson, iii. 100.

[39] Pownall's _Administration of the Colonies_, 3d ed., Appendix, iii.
40.

[40] In 1763, when the Indians on the southern frontiers were menacing,
Gen. Gage required 750 men from Massachusetts to assist in a movement
against the Indians on the lakes. The House declined nor would it yield
even when the Secretary of State urged compliance (Minot's _History_,
ii. 142). But while Massachusetts refused the required assistance,
Connecticut, though reluctantly, granted it,—a fact of much
significance in respect to the reliability of voluntary contributions
for the common defence of the colonies.

[41] More than 400 privateers had been fitted out from the colonial
ports, which had cruised against French property even as far as the
coast of France (Ramsay, _Amer. Rev._, i. 40).

[42] Grahame, _Hist. U. S._, iv. 138.

[43] See Vol. V. p. 613.

[44] See Vol. V. p. 177.

[45] In England, admiralty courts were without juries; but revenue
cases were tried in the Court of Exchequer, with juries.

[46] Grahame gives a full and graphic account of these changes (_Hist.
U. S._, iv. 170).

[47] "For some time before and after the termination of the war of
1755, a considerable intercourse had been carried on between the
British and Spanish colonies, consisting of the manufactures of Great
Britain imported by the former and sold to the latter, by which the
British colonies acquired gold and silver, and were enabled to make
remittances to the mother country" (Ramsay, _Amer. Rev._, i. 44).

[48] _History_, ii. p. 147.

[49] _Works_, x. 345.

[50] The expression is Governor Bernard's in January, 1764
(Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, 123, note). The consequences
of breaking up the West India trade by the enforcement of the
navigation laws, and its influence upon the minds of the commercial
colonies, will more fully appear in the following facts. The sugar
colonies, being cultivated by slaves, afforded an insufficient
market for English manufactures. Consequently, the large ships which
were needed to bring off sugar and molasses were obliged to proceed
thither without profitable freight. But the Northern colonies, and New
England in particular, could supply the islands with the commodities
they needed,—cattle, horses, lumber for buildings, casks for sugar
and molasses. A cargo of these commodities sent to the islands was
exchanged for sugar and molasses, which were brought to New England; or
for bullion, which, with a cargo of sugar, was carried to Old England.
The freight money and bullion were exchanged for British merchandise,
which was brought to New England, thus making a profitable double
voyage. With her advantages of position and of profitable freight, New
England also became the carrier of the sugar of the French islands to
Spain.

[51] As to illicit trade in Rhode Island, and the measures to prevent
it, see Bartlett's _Destruction of the Gaspee_, 6.

[52] _History_, iii. 108.

[53] _Ibid._, iii. 106.

[54] _Hist. U. S._, final revision, iii. 73. Two things in the above
summary require explanation. Merchandise imported into England was
subject to heavy duties; but if it was reëxported to America, then
these duties, in whole or in part, were repaid to the importer, and the
result would be that the colonists could purchase wines and Continental
goods cheaper than could be done by British subjects at home. To
equalize this burden, and still to derive a revenue, these drawbacks
were reduced; and, of course, the British Exchequer would gain the
amount of this reduction.

In the Treaty of 1763, two small islands, St. Pierre and Miquelon,
on the south coast of Newfoundland, were accorded to France for the
convenience of her fishing vessels. But they had been made ports of an
illicit trade with the American colonies. Hence the prohibition of all
trade with them.

[55] Printed as an appendix to Otis's _Rights of the British Colonies_.

[56] _Journal of the House_, 1764, 53. This paper was not Otis's
pamphlet with a similar title, though it may have been the substance of
it. See Frothingham, _Rise of the Republic_, 169, _n._

[57] _Ibid._, 66.

[58] _Ibid._, p. 72.

[59] The reader of Tudor's _Life of Otis_, 170, would infer that
Hutchinson was chosen agent at this time instead of in the January
preceding. _House Journal_, 1763-4, 236.

[60] Hutchinson's _History_, iii. 112.

[61] Minot's _History_, ii. 168.

[62] _Mass. State Papers_, 18 _et seq._

[63] Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, p. 171.

[64] Hutchinson's _History_, iii. 103. Two Americans, Franklin and
William S. Johnson, were reporting on the Wilkes turmoils in England,
at this time, to their home correspondents. Cf. Franklin's _Works_
(Sparks's ed.), vii. 401, 403; Bigelow's _Life of F._, ii. 9; _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Coll._, xlix., 270 _et seq._

[65] Bancroft, _History_, v. 275.

[66] These resolutions are in Ramsay, _Amer. Rev._, i. 59.

[67] The proceedings, with the circular letter, may be found in the
_Mass. State Papers_, 35.

[68] Of the colonies south of New England, South Carolina was the first
to agree to the proposed congress. Ramsay, _Amer. Rev._, i. 68.

[69] Later, in December, he was compelled to renounce his office under
circumstances of special ignominy, from which his age and character
afforded no protection.

[70] Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, 184.

[71] Frothingham gives a summary of these papers, with the names of the
committees who drafted them (_Rise of the Republic_, pp. 186, 187).

[72] Though this day was observed in several colonies by the tolling of
bells, closing of shops, funeral processions, and other demonstrations
of hostility to the act, there was no violence (Ramsay, _Amer. Rev._,
i. 68, 70).

[73] _Mass. State Papers_, 61.

[74] _Parliamentary History_, xvi. 133 _et seq._

[75] _Mass. State Papers_, 81.

[76] _Mass. State Papers_, 91, 92.

[77] _Mass. State Papers_, 94.

[78] _Parliamentary History_, vol. xvi. 359; _Prior Documents_, 134.
During the adjournment a double broadside had been issued, containing
the proposed bill for compensation, an extract from Secretary Conway's
letter to Governor Bernard, and letters from De Berdt, the agent,
advising compliance with the parliamentary recommendation. A copy is in
the Boston Public Library.

[79] Mahon's _Hist. of Eng._, v. 81.

[80] _Parliamentary History_, vol. xvi. 331.

[81] Bradford, _History of Mass._, i. 97.

[82] _Parliamentary Hist._, xvi. 375.

[83] 7 Geo. III. ch. 41, _Statutes at Large_, vol. x. 340.

[84] 7 Geo. III. ch. 46, _Ibid._, 369. Bancroft's account of these
Acts is not quite accurate (_History_, vi. 84, 85): "By another Act (7
Geo. III. ch. xli.) a Board of Customs was established at Boston, and
general Writs of Assistance were legalized." The execution of the Laws
of Trade was placed under the direction of Commissioners of Customs,
"to reside in the said Plantations", where the king should direct,—not
localized at Boston. It was by ch. xlvi. sec. x., not xli., that Writs
of Assistance were legalized. But a more serious error is in the
statement that "Townshend's revenue was to be disposed of under the
sign-manual at the king's pleasure. This part of the system had no
limit as to time or place, and was intended as a perpetual menace."
This is far from being accurate. By section iv. it is provided that the
revenue arising from the act should be applied, in the first place,
"for the charge of the administration of justice, and the support of
_civil government_" in the colonies; and the residue was to be paid
into the receipt of the Exchequer, and entered separate and apart from
all other moneys, and reserved to be disposed _by Parliament_ for the
defence of the colonies. It was the civil administration alone that
could be paid by the king's warrant. The expense of the army could
be appropriated only by Parliament; and the difference is worthy of
attention.

[85] It was reported at a town meeting held at Boston on October 28,
1767, in which James Otis presided, that Lynn, in the previous year,
had turned out forty thousand pairs of women's shoes,—an industry
which has since grown to very large proportions,—and that another town
had made thirty thousand yards of cloth (Frothingham's _Rise of the
Republic_, 208).

[86] _Mass. State Papers_, 121, 124, 134.

[87] The circular letter was not adopted without opposition. Bernard
says that the proposition was first rejected two to one; and after the
measure was finally carried, in order to give the appearance of greater
unanimity, the former proceedings of dissent were obliterated from the
journal (_Letters_, 8).

[88] _Mass. State Papers_, 113.

[89] Abstracts of these papers convey no adequate idea of their
strength. They must be read in their completeness, and so read, in
connection with Lord Mansfield's speech in the House of Lords, one sees
the arguments of each party stated at their best.

[90] Hutchinson's _History_, iii. 188.

[91] Gordon, i. 231. Governor Bernard has given an account of these
transactions in a series of letters addressed to Shelburne or
Hillsborough, and published in a collected volume. It is a graphic
narrative, in many cases of events in which he had participated, or
which he had learned from eye-witnesses. Apparently they are as fair
as other partisan accounts of the transactions, which may be found in
various histories. The truth yet waits to be told; but it will not be
accurately told by one who assigns all sublimated virtues to one party,
and the most malignant depravity to the other.

[92] See Hutchinson's _History_, iii. 192, and 488 for the address.

[93] _Mass. State Papers_, 156.

[94] For a summary of these replies, see Frothingham's _Rise of the
Republic_, 213.

[95] _Letters 41._

[96] _History_, iii. 196.

[97] _Ibid._, iii. 197; see also Frothingham, 239.

[98] _Letters 40._

[99] _Mass. State Papers_, 147.

[100] Otis was chairman. On the first day several committees were
appointed: one to learn from Governor Bernard the grounds of his
apprehensions that additional regiments were expected; another to
present a petition for convening the General Court "with the utmost
speed;" and a third to take into consideration the state of public
affairs, and report salutary measures at an adjourned meeting. The
next day the governor replied that his information in regard to the
troops was private: when he had public letters on the subject he would
communicate them to the Council. As for calling another assembly, he
could do nothing without his majesty's commands. Whereupon a series of
resolutions and votes was passed to the effect that the inhabitants
of Boston would defend the king, the charter, and their own rights;
that levying of money within the province, or keeping a standing army,
except by consent of the General Assembly, was in violation of the
charter and of natural rights; that the several towns be asked (the
letter is in Hutchinson, iii. 492) to send delegates to a convention to
be held on the 22d; that on account of a "prevailing apprehension, in
the minds of many, of an approaching war with France", the inhabitants
be provided with arms; and that the ministers in town set apart a day
of fasting and prayer. A broadside of these proceedings was published,
of which a fac-simile is in the Boston Public Library.

[101] Hutchinson's _History_, iii. 212. They were the Fourteenth,
Twenty-ninth, and part of the Fifty-ninth British regiments.

[102] _Parliamentary History_, vol. xvi. 476 _et seq._; Mahon's
_History_, v. 240; Hutchinson's _History_, iii. 219.

[103] W. S. Johnson, _Trumbull Papers_, 317.

[104] Hutchinson's _History_, iii. 221.

[105] _Ibid._, iii. 494.

[106] _Writings_, i. 3 (Boston ed.).

[107] North Carolina adopted resolutions similar to those of Virginia,
and associations were formed to prevent importation of British goods.
Ramsay, _Amer. Rev._, i. 84.

[108] Part of the Sixty-fourth and Sixty-fifth regiments, under
Colonels Mackey and Pomeroy, arrived at Boston November 10th.

[109] Hutchinson's _History_, iii. 233.

[110] _Ibid._, vol. iii. 498.

[111] He was created a baronet March 20, 1769 (Gordon, _History_, i.
275).

[112] An unpublished letter of this date, from Charles Lloyd to George
Grenville, giving an account of the affair, is in the possession of the
writer.

[113] W. S. Johnson, _Trumbull Papers_, 423.

[114] May, 1770. "Agreeably to a vote of the town of Boston, Capt.
Scott sailed from thence this month for London, with the cargo of goods
he had brought from thence, contrary to the non-importation agreement;
to give evidence, on the other side the water, of the sincerity of said
agreement" (_Mass. Hist. Coll._, ii 44).

[115] W. S. Johnson, _Trumbull Papers_, 421. The Minute of the Cabinet,
May 1, 1769, by which Hillsborough was authorized to make the promise
contained in his circular letter, may be seen in Mahon's _History of
England_, v. Appendix, xxxvii.; and the reasons upon which the minute
rests are both interesting and significant—"upon consideration of such
duties having been laid contrary to the _true principles of commerce_."

[116] _Parliamentary History_, xvi. 855, 979

[117] W. S. Johnson, _Trumbull Papers_, 430.

[118] W. S. Johnson, _Trumbull Papers_, 435.

[119] _Parliamentary History_, xvi. 981

[120] _Ibid._, 1006.

[121] W. S. Johnson, _Trumbull Papers_, 437.

[122] _Administration of the Colonies._

[123] _Mass. State Papers_, 306.

[124] Lossing's _Field-Book of the Revolution_, i. 630. For a full
account of this affair, see Bartlett's _History of the Destruction of
the Gaspee_.

[125] W. E. Foster's _Stephens Hopkins_, Pt. ii. 95.

[126] Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, 266.

[127] For a full account of the formation and purpose of the Committee
of Correspondence, with the names of the Boston members, see
Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, 263.

[128] See resolutions and members of the committee in _Mass. State
Papers_, 400.

[129] _History_, iii. 397.

[130] Ramsay gives these resolutions. _Hist. Amer. Rev._, i. 98.

[131] Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, 294; Hutchinson's
_History_, iii. 441.

[132] Hutchinson's _History_, iii. 441.

[133] He died at Brompton, England, June 3, 1780.

[134] Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, 347.

[135] The action of the other colonies in respect to the proposed
Continental Congress may be found in Frothingham's _Rise of the
Republic_, 331, n.

[136] See authorities in _John Adams_, a pamphlet by the writer of this
chapter, 1884.

[137] _Works_, iv. 109. I find in the works of no other writer,
historical or political, more accurate conceptions of the causes,
immediate and remote, of the Revolution, and so fair and judicial a
statement of them. _Works_, i. 24, 92.

[138] Bancroft, v. 250.

[139] See _Rights of Great Britain asserted against the claims of
America_ (London, 1776).

[140] _Works_, x. 321.

[141] _History_, ii. 43.

[142] _Ibid._, vi. 85.

[143] _Hist. N. E._, ii. 444.

[144] New York, 1882 by Eben Greenough Scott.

[145] In the absence of such a work, the student will find something
to his purpose in the _Hutchinson Papers_ (Prince Soc. ed.), ii. 150,
232, 265, 301, 313 _et passim_; _Andros Tracts_, ii. 69, 215, 224, 233
_et passim_; Sewall's _Letters_, i. 4; Chalmers's _Political Annals_,
in the notes particularly, and in his _Introduction to the History
of the Revolt of the Colonies_; Palfrey, _Hist. New England_, ii.
444; iii. 276, 279, _n._ For the commerce and products of Virginia in
1671, and the effect of the navigation laws, see Chalmers's _Political
Annals_, 327; and in 1675, _Ibid._, 353, 354; and for duties imposed
on commerce by colonial assemblies, _Ibid._, 354, 404. For complaints
of British merchants to Charles II. of infractions of the navigation
laws by New England, _Ibid._, 400, 433, 437. See Ramsay's _American
Revolution_, i. 19, 22, 23, 45, 46, 49; and Franklin's _Works_, iv. 37,
for British trade with the colonies. Jefferson's _Notes_, 277, gives
the amount of Virginia exports just before the Revolution. _Queries and
Answers_, relative to the commerce of Connecticut in 1774 (_Mass. Hist.
Coll._, vii. 234), affords much interesting information as to shipping,
sailors, and importations from Great Britain, the course and subjects
of foreign trade of the colony. For similar papers relating to New
York, see O'Callaghan's _Documentary Hist. of New York_, 8vo ed., vol.
i. 145, 699, 709, 737, and vol. iv. 163.

[146] _Works_, Boston ed., vol. ix.

[147] _The Late Revelations Respecting the British Colonies_ (published
at Philadelphia, 1765, and attributed to John Dickinson) contains
valuable statistics of commerce, and discusses the British commercial
and revenue policy with great ability; also, _Considerations on the
Propriety of Imposing Taxes in the British Colonies_, attributed to
Daniel Dulaney, of Maryland, 1765; _The Right to the Tonnage_, by the
same, Annapolis, 1766.

[148] Cf. Felt's _Massachusetts Currency_; Pownall's _Administration of
the Colonies_, 102 _et seq._

[149] _Hist. N. E._, iii. ch. ix.

[150] Sewall says that the first admiralty court was held July 5, 1686,
and that several ships had been seized for trading contrary to the acts
(_Letters_, i. 34). Dudley was inaugurated May 26, 1686, and soon got
to the work of enforcing the laws. See also _Andros Tracts_, iii. 69.

[151] The history of these writs is given, with a fulness and
accuracy which leaves nothing to be desired, in the Appendix to
_Quincy's Reports_, by Horace Gray, Jr. (now Mr. Justice Gray, of
the Supreme Court of the United States). Besides other sources of
unpublished information, in England and America, Mr. Gray had access
to the _Bernard Papers_ (now in Harvard University library); in his
administration these writs were legalized and efficiently used.

[152] See Vol. V. p. 612. For more than a century in the government
of the colonies political considerations were subordinated to a
commercial policy; New England was favored during the Protectorate,
and Virginia after the Restoration, equally on political grounds. But
with the beginning of the French War this commercial policy began to
give way to an imperial policy. To the Congress of 1754 is due the
distinction of being the only body, among similar gatherings before
or since, which of its own motion seriously entertained and adopted a
project of bringing the colonies, as a unit, into defined relations
to the mother country, for general government in respect to their
defence. Nobody saw more clearly than Franklin, or has more explicitly
pointed out the necessity of some general government for the defence
of the colonies (_Works_, by Sparks, iii. 32 _et seq._); and to secure
these ends he was willing to go further, in some respects, even than
Hutchinson. He admitted the power and necessity of parliamentary action
in the alteration of colonial charters (_Works_, iii. 36). He provided
that the President-General should be appointed and his salary paid
by the crown (3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, v. 70); that the Speaker should
be approved by the President-General, thus admitting the validity of
the prerogative (_Works_, iii. 44; and see Plan, that the assent of
the President-General should be requisite to all _acts_ of the Grand
Council, instead of all _laws_, as stated by Bancroft, iv. 123); and
that the Grand Council should have power to "lay and levy such general
duties, imposts, or taxes as to _them_ shall appear most equal and
just" (_Works_, iii. 50). Bancroft, in summarizing the Plan of Union,
drawn by Franklin, says (_Hist._, iv. 124) the general government
was empowered "to make laws and levy just and equitable taxes", thus
giving the impression that the powers of the Council were limited by
absolute justice and equity, or by what each colony should so judge.
But this is what Franklin neither meant nor said. He lodged the powers
in the sole discretion of the Council, which is quite a different
thing. Grenville or Townshend asked no more for Parliament. The General
Assembly of Connecticut knew what the words meant. In their reasons
for rejecting the proposed plan (I _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vii. 212) they
say, "The proposal, in said plan contained, for the President-General
and Council to levy taxes, &c., _as they please_, throughout this
extensive government, is a very extraordinary thing, and against _the
rights and privileges of Englishmen_." Their objections to Franklin's
Plan read like an answer of the Massachusetts General Court, drawn by
Samuel Adams, to a message of Bernard. The governor and council of
Rhode Island had similar fears. They said that they found it to be "a
scheme which, if carried into execution, will virtually deprive this
government, at least, of some of its most valuable privileges, if
not effectually overturn and destroy our present happy constitution"
(_Rhode Island Hist. Tracts_, ix. 61). And that sturdy patriot, Stephen
Hopkins, who was associated with Franklin, Hutchinson, Pitkin, and
Howard in the Albany Plan, was subjected to much worry for invoking the
parliamentary authority in modifying the Rhode Island charter, and was
driven to self-vindication in A _True Representation_ (_Ibid._, I).
Whatever modifications Franklin's opinions may have undergone in later
years on other matters, "it was his opinion thirty years afterwards
that his plan was near the true medium" (_Works_, iii. 24, Sparks's
note).

There is a plan of union in the handwriting of Thomas Hutchinson
(_Mass. Archives_, vi. 171, and in the _Trumbull MSS._, in Mass. Hist.
Soc., i. 97; and printed in Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_,
Appendix) which probably expressed his sentiments in 1754, when it
was rejected by the General Court. Like Franklin, he was willing to
acknowledge and invoke the parliamentary authority for the union, with
the power in the Grand Council to levy such taxes as they deemed just
and equal; but, unlike Franklin, he did not allow the President to
negative the choice of the Speaker by the Grand Council.

But no one wrote from a more varied experience, or more careful
examination of colonial constitutions, and of their possible relations
to the mother country, than Thomas Pownall. His connection with the
Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, as their secretary in 1745,
made him familiar with the difficulties of colonial administration
from the British point of view; and his successive administrations,
as lieutenant-governor, or governor, of New Jersey, Massachusetts,
and South Carolina from 1755 to 1761, extended his acquaintance with
the state of colonial affairs in the Northern, Middle, and Southern
colonies. He was a moderate Whig, and, like all moderate men in those
days, his counsels were duly regarded by neither party. He embodied
his views in a work entitled _The Administration of the Colonies_,
which passed through several editions. His scheme was elaborate and
wise, if his concurrence with Franklin in points which they treat in
common may be regarded as a test of wisdom. His commercial scheme was
predicated on the general law that colonial trade follows capital, and,
while sharing the benefits, pays profit to it. He would have left that
trade free to develop itself within certain limits; but inasmuch as it
must tend somewhere,—to the English, French, or Dutch,—he thought it
right that the trade of English colonies should pay profit to England,
as the country whose navy defended it, and by whose capital it was
developed. But England ought to grasp this trade only as the centre
of a commercial dominion of which America was a part and entitled to
parliamentary representation, which he thought practicable. In theory
he acknowledged the prerogative of the crown in respect to colonial
government, but recognized the necessity of parliamentary intervention,
and would have reduced both to cases of actual necessity, and would
always have subordinated the question of power to the dictates of
reason and expediency.

[153] See letter of Pownall to Franklin, on this subject, and
Franklin's remarks (_Works_, iv. 199).

[154] See the whole passage, not often quoted by historians, in
Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, 149, _n._

[155] Sidney S. Rider (_Rhode Island Hist. Tracts_, 9, xxx.) denies
that Rhode Island rejected the Plan, as affirmed by Sparks.

[156] _Massachusetts State Papers._

[157] Published at Boston in 1818, and edited by Alden Bradford. It is
often quoted as _Mass. State Papers_. The answers were chiefly from the
industrious pen of Samuel Adams.

[158] _Journals of the House of Lords_, xxxiv. 124.

[159] _Works_, iv. 466.

[160] _Memoir of Josiah Quincy, Jr._, 355.

[161] _History_, vi. p. 244.

[162] _Hist. of the Revolution_, i. 175.

[163] What we know of this speech is derived mainly from the notes of
it taken by John Adams (_Works_, ii. 521-525), and from the reminiscent
account of it which Adams gave to William Tudor in 1818, with his
description of the scene in court during its delivery. Minot, in his
_Hist. of Massachusetts_, 1748-1765 (vol. ii. 91-99), worked up these
notes, and they form the basis of the narrative in Tudor's _Life of
Otis_ (p. 62). The legal aspects have been specially examined by
Horace Gray in an appendix to the _Reports of Cases in the Superior
Court 1761-1772, by Josiah Quincy, Jr., printed from his original
manuscripts, and edited by Samuel M. Quincy_ (Boston, 1865). Cf. _John
Adams's Works_, x. pp. 182, 233, 244, 274, 314, 317, 338, 342, 362.
Cf. also _Ibid._, vol. i. p. 58; ii. 124, 521; and the Adams-Warren
Correspondence in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xliv. 340, 355. Cf. also
Hutchinson's _Mass. Bay_, vol. iii.; _Essex Institute Hist. Coll._,
Aug., 1860; Bancroft's _United States_, ii. 546, 553; Thornton's
_Pulpit of the Rev._, 112; Barry's _Massachusetts_, ii. 264; Everett's
_Orations_, i. 388; Scott's _Constitutional Liberty_, 237; _Mem. Hist.
Boston_, iii. 5; Palfrey's _Compend. Hist. N. E._, iv. 306; Wells's
_Sam. Adams_, i. 43. There is a copy of one of these writs in the
cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Society. W. S. Johnson wrote to Governor
Trumbull that the process was in vogue in England (_Trumbull Papers_;
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xlix. pp. 292, 374), as it is to-day. The
most conspicuous instance of an attempt to search under these writs was
when the officers tried to enter the house of Daniel Malcom in Oct.,
1766, and were forcibly resisted. The papers connected with this, as
transmitted to London, and telling the story on both sides, are among
the _Lee Papers_ in Harvard College library (vol. i. nos. 14-25).

[164] Sabin, xiv. p. 84. Haven in Thomas, ii. p. 559; _John Adams_, x.
p. 300. Lecky skilfully sketches the condition of the colonies at this
time (_England in the Eighteenth Century_, iii. ch. 12), and Lodge's
_Short Hist. of the English Colonies_ depicts, under the heads of the
various colonies, the prevailing characteristics.

[165] Dickinson's speech in the Assembly, May 24, 1764, passed through
two editions (Philad., 1764), and was reprinted in London (1764).
(Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 1,387-88.) Galloway's _Speech in Answer_
(Philad., 1764; Carter-Brown, iii. 1,395) was reprinted in London
(1765), with a preface by Franklin (Carter-Brown, iii. 1,452), and
Dickinson's _Reply_ was printed in London, 1765 (Carter-Brown, iii.
1,444). Dickinson's speech is also in his _Works_ (i. p. 1). Cf.
_Franklin's Works_, iv. pp. 78, 101, 143.

[166] _Rise of the Republic_, p. 167.

[167] It is analyzed in _John Adams's Works_ (x. 293), and in
Frothingham, p. 169. It was published in Boston in 1765, and in London
the same year, by Almon, and was circulated through the instrumentality
of Thomas Hollis (Sabin, xiv. p. 83).

[168] _John Adams's Works_, x. 189. Cf. Palfrey, _New England_
(Compend. ed., iv. 343), and Tudor's _Otis_. See _ante_, p. 28.

[169] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,456; Sabin, viii. no. 32,966; _Cooke
Catalogue_, no. 1,202. It was reprinted in London in 1766, at the
instigation of the Rhode Island agent, as _The Grievances of the
American Colonies carefully examined_ (Sparks, no. 1,272; Cooke, no.
1,203). There is a reprint in the _R. I. Col. Records_, vi. 416. The
London text is followed in Selim H. Peabody's _American Patriotism_
(N. Y., 1880). The original edition of all was published by order of
the R. I. Assembly in 1764, but no copy is known. Cf. Wm. E. Foster's
_Stephen Hopkins, a Rhode Island Statesman; study in the political
history of the eighteenth century_ (Providence, 1884,—no. 19 of _R. I.
Hist. Tracts_), who examines (ii. p. 227) the claims of Hopkins to its
authorship, for the tract was printed anonymously. Cf. Frothingham's
_Rise of the Republic_, p. 172; Palfrey's _New England_ (Compend.
ed.), iv. 369. Hopkins's tract was controverted in a _Letter from a
gentleman at Halifax_ (Newport, 1765,—Sabin, x. 40,281); and James
Otis replied in a _Vindication of the British Colonies against the
aspersions of the Halifax gentleman_ (Boston, 1765; Carter-Brown, iii.
no. 1,480); and this in turn was followed by a _Defence of the Letter_,
etc. (Newport, 1765), and _Brief Remarks_ (Brinley, i. nos. 190, 198).
A tract usually cited by a similar title, but which was called at
length _Coloniæ Anglicanæ illustratæ: or the Acquest of dominion and
the plantation of Colonies made by the English in America, with the
rights of the Colonists examined, stated, and illustrated. Part I._
(London, 1762; Sabin, ii. 6,209; Carter-Brown, iii. 1,314) was never
completed, and was mostly occupied with irrelevant matter. Its author
was William Bollan, who was dismissed as the Massachusetts agent during
that same year, and John Adams (x. 355) says he scarce ever knew a book
so utterly despised. Otis (Tudor, p. 114) expressed his contempt for it
(Sabin, ii. p. 265-6).

[170] _Reasons why the Brit. Colonies in America should not be charged
with internal taxes_, etc. (New Haven, 1764). It is reprinted in _Conn.
Col. Records_, vol. xii. Cf. Pitkin's _United States_, i. 165, and
Ingersoll's _Letters_, p. 2.

[171] Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,427. _John Adams's Works_, iv. 129; x.
292. Palfrey, iv. 349. Thacher died in 1765, aged 45 years.

[172] Mayhew had early sounded the alarm, and Thornton begins his
_Pulpit of the Revolution_ with a reprint of Mayhew's sermon in 1750
on _Unlimited submission and non-resistance to the higher powers_
(Boston, 1750; again, 1818; Brinley, no. 1,529). The controversy
with Apthorpe, who was settled over Christ Church in Cambridge, as
representative of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in
Foreign Parts, began with his _Considerations on the institution and
conduct of the Society_, etc. (Boston, 1763), to which Mayhew responded
in his _Observations on the charter and conduct of the Society_, etc.,
_designed to show their non-conformity to each other_ (Boston, 1763;
London, 1763; Stevens's _Hist. Coll._, i. no. 383; Haven, p. 564).
Dr. Caner, of King's Chapel, Boston, replied in _A Candid Examination
of Dr. Mayhew's Observations_, etc. (Boston, 1763). Another _Answer_
(London, 1764) was perhaps by Apthorpe. Mayhew published _A Defence
of his Observations_ (Boston, 1763), and a second defence, called
_Remarks_, etc. (Boston, 1764; London, 1765), which was followed by
a _Review_ by Apthorpe (London, 1765). These and other tracts of the
controversy are recorded in Stevens's _Hist. Coll._, i. nos. 378-391;
in Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 1,433, 1,465; in Haven's list, pp. 562, 564,
565.

[Illustration]

A later controversy, between Thomas Bradbury Chandler and Charles
Chauncy, produced other tracts printed in New York, Philad., and Boston
(1767-68). Cf. Brinley, iv. nos. 6, 127-31, and Haven's list; and for
these religious controversies, Thornton's _Pulpit_, p. 109; Lecky, iii.
435; Palfrey's _New England_ (Compend. ed., iv. 324); E. H. Gillett
in _Hist. Mag._, Oct., 1870; Perry's _Amer. Episc. Church_, i. 395;
Gambrall's _Church life in Colonial Maryland_ (1885); O. S. Straus's
_Origin of Repub. form of gov't in the U. S._ (1885), ch. 3 and 7;
_Doc. Hist. N. Y._, iv. 198, 202.

[173] Cf. Bancroft (original ed., ii. 353; vi. 9); _Adams's Works_ (x.
236); _Dawson's Sons of Liberty in N. Y._ (p. 42); Barry's _Mass._
(ii. 252-255); _Scott's Development of Constitutional Liberty_ (pp.
189-214). In 1764 courts of vice-admiralty for British America had
been established (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xvii. 291), and the sugar
act passed, placing a duty on molasses, etc.,—a modification of the
act of 1733. "I know not", wrote John Adams in 1818, "why we should
blush to confess that molasses was an essential ingredient in American
independence." _John Adams's Works_, x. 345.

[174] _Ames's Almanac_ for 1766 has this notice: "Price before the
Stamp Act takes place, half-a-dollar per dozen, and six coppers single;
after the act takes place, more than double that price." The act was
called, _Anno regni Georgii III. regis Magnæ Britanniæ, Franciæ, &
Hiberniæ, quinto. 1765. An act for granting and applying certain stamp
duties, and other duties in the British colonies and plantations in
America, towards defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and
securing the same_ [etc.]. It was reprinted at once in Boston, New
London, New York, and Philadelphia, and will be found in the official
records and in various modern books like Spencer's _Hist. U. S._ (i.
274), etc. The stamps are found in various cabinets (_Catal. Mass.
Hist. Soc. Cab._, pp. 104, 118, 123, 125), and cuts of the stamp are
found in _Mem. Hist. Boston_ (iii. 12), Thornton's _Pulpit of the
Rev._, etc.

[175] Cf. Bancroft, orig. ed., v. 151. There was a proposition for a
colonial stamp act in a tract published in London in 1755, called _A
Miscellaneous Essay concerning the courses pursued by Great Britain in
the affairs of the Colonies_ (London, 1755).

[176] Lecky, _England in the Eighteenth Cent._ (iii. 324). Mahon (v.
86) quotes Burke's speech of 1774 as proving the small interest in the
debate of 1765, and thinks that Walpole's failure to mention the debate
in his letters proves the truth of Burke's recollections. Adolphus
had earlier relied on Burke. Mahon even intimates that Barré's famous
speech was an interpolation in the later accounts; but the _Letters_
printed by Jared Ingersoll show that it was delivered. (Cf. _Palfrey's
Review of Mahon_.) The _Parliamentary History_ says that Barré's speech
was in reply to Grenville; but Ingersoll says Charles Townshend was the
speaker who provoked it. Cf. Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_ (p.
175); Ryerson's _Loyalists_ (i. 294); H. F. Elliot on "Barré and his
Times" in _Macmillan's Mag._, xxxv. 109 (Dec., 1876); and _Hist. MSS.
Com. Report_, viii. pp. 189, 190.

It was in the speech of Feb. 6, 1765, that Barré applied the words
"Sons of Liberty" to the patriots in America, which they readily
adopted (Bancroft, v. 240; Thornton's _Pulpit_, 131). Dr. J. H.
Trumbull, in a paper, "Sons of Liberty in 1755", published in the
_New Englander_, vol. xxxv. (1876), showed that the term had ten
years earlier been applied in Connecticut to organizations to advance
theological liberty. It is also sometimes said that the popular
party at the time of the Zenger trial had adopted the name. The new
organization embraced the young and ardent rather than the older and
more prudent patriots, and at a later period they became the prime
abettors of the non-importation movements. For their correspondence
in New England, see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ (x. 324) and the Belknap
Papers (MSS., iii. p. 110, etc.) in the Mass. Hist. Soc. cabinet. A
list of those dining together in 1769 at Dorchester is given in _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, Aug., 1869. The correspondence of those in Boston
with John Wilkes, 1768-69, is noted in the _Brit. Mus. Catal._, Add.
MSS. 30,870, ff. 45, 46, 75, 135, 222. H. B. Dawson's _Sons of Liberty
in N. Y._ was privately printed in N. Y., 1859.

[177] A letter of Aug. 11, 1764, from Halifax had forewarned the
colonial governors of the intention (_N. Y. Col. Docs._, vii. 646; _N.
J. Archives_, ix. 448).

[178] Thomas's _Hist. of Printing_, Am. Antiq. Soc. ed., ii.
223; Sargent's _Dealings with the Dead_, i. 140, 144; Lossing's
_Field-Book_, i. 466; _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 159; Thomas Paine's
"Liberty Tree Ballad" in the _Penna. Mag._, July, 1775; and Moore's
_Songs and Ballads of the Rev._, p. 18. The selecting of a large tree
and its dedication to the cause became general. Cf. Silas Downer's
_Discourse, July 25, 1768, at dedication of a tree of liberty in
Providence_ (Providence, 1768), and the _Providence Gazette_, July 30,
1768 (Sabin, v. 20, 767; J. R. Bartlett's _Bibliog. of R. I._, p. 112;
Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,622).

[179] Hutchinson had expressed disapproval of the Stamp Act; but
doubting its expediency did not affect his judgment of the necessity
of enforcing it (P. O. Hutchinson, i. 577; ii. 58). On the destruction
of his house, see his own statement in P. O. Hutchinson's _Governor
Hutchinson_, i. 70, 72, and his letter, dated Aug. 30, 1765, in the
_Mass. Archives_, xxvi. 146, printed in the _Mass. Senate Docs._ (1870,
no. 187, p. 3). He says: "The lieutenant-governor, with his children,
lodged the next night at the Castle, but after that in his house at
Milton, though not without apprehension of Danger." Quincy's diary
(_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iv. 47) preserves Hutchinson's speech,
when a few days later he took his seat on the bench, clad with such
clothing as was left to him. Cf. the accounts in _Boston Newsletter_,
Sept. 3, 1765; _Parliamentary History_, iv. 316; _Conduct of a late
Administration_, 102; _Memorial Hist. Boston_, iii. 14, etc.; _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, Jan., 1862, p. 364.

[180] _Boston Town Records, 1758-1769_, p. 152 (_Rec. Com. Rept._,
xvi.).

[181] These papers are given in Hutchinson's _Mass. Bay_ (iii. 467,
471, 476). Samuel Dexter was the head of the committee to draft the
reply of the assembly, but it is thought Sam. Adams wrote the paper
(Bancroft, v. 347). Cf. _Speeches of the Governors of Mass., 1765-1775,
and the answers of the House of Representatives, with other public
papers relating to the dispute between this Country and Great Britain_
(Boston, 1818). This collection was edited by Alden Bradford, and is
sometimes cited by historians as "Bradford's Collection", "Mass. State
Papers", etc.

There is a portrait of Dexter (b. 1726; d. 1810) by Copley, and a
photograph of it in Daniel Goodwin, Jr.'s _Provincial Pictures_
(Chicago, 1886).

[182] There is a likeness of Andrew Oliver, by Copley, in the
possession of Dr. F. E. Oliver; and a photograph of it is in the
cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Society (Perkins's _Copley_, p. 90), and
in P. O. Hutchinson's _Governor Hutchinson_ (vol. ii. 17); and a
woodcut in _Mem. Hist. Boston_ (iii. 43). Another portrait, by N.
Emmons (1728), is given in a photograph in P. O. Hutchinson's _Governor
Hutchinson_ (i. 129).

[183] This paper is preserved, and a fac-simile is given in _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, June, 1872, and in the _Mem. Hist. Boston_ (iii.
15). Cf. Bancroft, orig. ed., v. 375, etc.

For other accounts of the feelings and proceedings in Boston and
Massachusetts, see a letter of Joshua Henshaw, in _N. E. Hist. and
Geneal. Reg._ (1878, p. 268), and the histories of Boston by Snow and
Drake; Tudor's Otis; _John Adams's Works_ (iii. 465; x. 192, 197);
_Adams-Warren Correspondence_, p. 341; Frothingham's _Warren_; Loring's
_Hundred Boston Orators_, p. 50; the instructions of Lexington, in
Hudson's _Lexington_, p. 88; the instructions of Braintree, in _John
Adams's Works_, iii. 465, and many other similar documents; beside Dr.
Benjamin Church's poem, _The Times_ (Boston Pub. Library, H. 95, 117,
no. 3).

[184] Bancroft, orig. ed., v. ch. 14; _Boston Rec. Com. Rept._, xvi.
p.155.

[185] For details, see—

For New Hampshire, a letter from Portsmouth, Jan. 13, 1766, to the New
Hampshire agent in London, in the Belknap MSS. (Mass. Hist. Soc., 61,
C. p. 108).

For Connecticut, Stuart's _Governor Trumbull_; Jared Ingersoll's
_Letters relating to the Stamp Act_ (New Haven, 1766); and some tracts
by Governor Fitch (_Brinley Catal._, nos. 2,116-2,118).

For New York, the _Journal of the N. Y. Assembly_; histories of the
City and State of New York; _N. Y. Col. Docs._, vii. 770; _N. Y. Hist.
Soc. Coll._, 1876; Lossing's _Schuyler_, i. 203; Leake's _Lamb_, ch.
2-4; a long and interesting letter from Wm. Smith to Geo. Whitefield
in _Hist. MSS. Com. Rept._, ii. (Dartmouth Papers); a letter of R. R.
Livingston to General Monckton, in _Aspinwall Papers_, ii. 554; _Penna.
Mag. of Hist._, ii. 296; J. A. Stevens in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, June,
1777 (i. 337), and on "Old Coffee-Houses" in _Harper's Monthly_, lxiv.
p. 493 (see view of Burns's Coffee-house, the headquarters of the Sons
of Liberty, in Valentine's _Manual of N. Y. City_, 1858, p. 588; 1864,
pp. 513, 514; and in Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 456); and Dawson's
_Sons of Liberty_ in N. Y.

For New Jersey, letter of Governor Franklin to Lords of Trade, in _N.
J. Archives_, ix. 499, with other papers.

For Pennsylvania, Sparks's _Franklin_, vii. 297, 303, 307, 308,
310-13, 317-19, 328; the account in the _Penna. Gazette_, no. 1,239,
Supplement, reprinted in Hazard's _Reg. of Penna._, ii. 243; Watson's
_Annals of Philad._, vol. ii.; Muhlenberg's journal in _Penna. Hist.
Soc. Coll._, vol. i. 78; Wallace's _Col. Bradford_, p. 95.

For Delaware, _Life of Geo. Read_, p. 30.

For Maryland, the Gilmor Papers in the Maryland Hist. Soc.
library, vol. iii., division 2; and references in vol. xi. of the
Stevens-Peabody index of Maryland MSS.

For Virginia, the Resolves (May 29th) of the Assembly (to which Patrick
Henry made his bold speech), given in Hutchinson's _Mass._, iii., App.
p. 466; Geo. Tucker's _United States_, i., App., and cf. _Franklin's
Works_, vii. 298; C. R. Hildeburn in _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, ii. 296;
_Huguenot Family_, p. 424; Ryerson's _Loyalists_, i. 286; and Randall's
_Jefferson_, i. ch. 2.

For North Carolina, J. H. Wheeler's _Reminiscences and Memoir of No.
Carolina_ (1884).

For South Carolina, R. W. Gibbs's _Doc. Hist. of the Amer. Rev._, p. 1;
Niles's _Principles and Acts_ (1876), p. 319; _Charleston Year-Book_,
1885, p. 331, with a fac-simile of broadside of schedule of stamps;
Ramsay's _South Carolina_; Flanders's _Rutledge_, p. 456. There are in
the _Sparks MSS._ (xliii. vol. iv.) various official letters of the
governors of the different colonies to the home government. Gage's
reminiscent letter to Chalmers is in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._ (xxxiv.
367, etc.); and other letters are in the _Hist. Mag._ (May, 1862, vol.
vi. 137).

[186] Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._ (iii. 341), for a view of the hall.

[187] _Authentic Account of the proceedings of the Congress held in
New York in 1765 on the subject of the American Stamp Act_ (Philad.,
1767; Lond., 1767; Philad., 1813; in Almon's _Tracts_, 1773; in Niles's
_Principles and Acts_, 1876, p. 155,—see Sabin, xiii. nos. 53,537,
etc.); _Journal of the first Congress of the American Colonies, N.
Y., Oct. 7, 1775, ed. by Lewis Cruger_ (Sabin, iv. 15,541). They
passed a declaration of rights, an address to the king, a memorial to
the lords, and a petition to the commons. (Cf. Hutchinson's _Mass._,
vol. iii., App. pp. 479, 481, 483, 485; _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vii.
87, 89; H. W. Preston's _Docs. illus. Amer. Hist._,1886). John Adams
and McKean at a later day exchanged memories of the Congress (_John
Adams's Works_, x. 60, 63). Beardsley, in his _W. S. Johnson_ (p. 32),
explains the position of that member for Connecticut. Cf., among the
general writers, Bancroft, v. ch. 18; N. C. Towle, _Hist. and Analysis
of the Constitution_, 307; Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, 185;
Palfrey's _New England_, iv. 399; Barry's _Mass._, ii. 304; Dunlap's
_New York_, i. 416; Green's _Hist. View of the Amer. Rev._, 72; Lossing
in _Harper's Monthly_, xxvi. 34, and Mahon's _England_, v. 126.

Timothy Ruggles (b. 1711), who later joined the Tories, was chosen
president by a single vote. Cf. sketch in _Worcester Mag._ (1826), vol.
ii., p. 54, and Sabine's _Amer. Loyalists_.

[188] _Works relating to Franklin in Boston Pub. Lib._, p. 20;
Bancroft, orig. ed., v. 306; _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, viii. 426, and
x. 220; Sparks's _Franklin_, i. 290; iv. 156, 161, 206; vii. 281; x.
429-32; Parton's _Franklin_, i. 436. The grounds of the accusation
against Franklin are discussed in a correspondence of Franklin with
Dean Tucker (Sparks's _Franklin_, iv. 518; Bigelow's _Franklin_, i.
460-466), and Tucker so far admitted his error as to omit the passage.

[189] Smyth's _Lectures_, ii. 383.

[190] _The Examination of Franklin_ [before the House of Commons]
_relative to the repeal of the American Stamp Act in 1766_
(Williamsburg, n. d.; London, 1766; Philad.? 1766?; n. p. and n. d.;
London, 1767—the titles vary in some of these editions). The report is
also in Almon's _Prior Documents_ (London, 1777, pp. 64-81; Sparks's
_Franklin_ (iv. p. 161; cf. vii. 311, 328); Bigelow's _Franklin_, i.
467); Bancroft, v. 428; Ryerson, i. 308.

[191] In recording the debates in Parliament, Bancroft (orig. ed., v.
383, 415) used the accounts in the _Political Debates_, in Walpole's
_Letters_, the _précis_ in the French archives, the report set down
by Moffat of Rhode Island, and the copious extracts made by Garth,
a member, who sent his notes to South Carolina. William Strahan's
account is given in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, April, 1886, p. 95.
It is said in P. O. Hutchinson's _Governor Hutchinson_ (i. 288) that
Pitt was in doubt at first which side to take. Cf. lives of Pitt and
editions of his speeches, and the comment in Mahon, v. 133, 138, and
Ryerson, i. 302. Smyth (ii. 365) considers the protest of the lords
against the repeal (_Protests of the Lords_, ed. by J. E. T. Rogers,
ii. 77) the best exposition of the government view of taxation. For
a Paris edition of this _Protests_, with Franklin's marginal notes,
see _Brinley Catal._, no. 3,219. See also, for English comment,
Fitzmaurice's _Shelburne_ (i. ch. 7), and Lecky, (iii. 344); and for
American, Bancroft, v. 421, 450; _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, iii. 19; and
in _Franklin's Works_ (iv. 156; vii. 308, 317).

There were rumors of the coming repeal in Boston as early as April 1st
(Thornton's _Pulpit_, 120), but the confirmation came May 16th, when
public rejoicing soon followed, and on a Thanksgiving, July 24, Charles
Chauncy delivered a _Discourse_ in Boston (Boston, 1766; reprinted by
Thornton, p. 105). The _Boon Catalogue_ (no. 2,949) and others show
numerous sermons in commemoration of the repeal; and the public prints
give the occasional ballads (F. Moore's _Songs and Ballads_, p. 22).

The town of Boston ordered portraits of Conway and Barré to be painted,
and the pictures hung in Faneuil Hall till the British made way with
them during the siege (_Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii, 181). There is a head
of Conway in the _European Mag._ (i. 159), and another in the _London
Mag._, April, 1782.

The Mass. Assembly, June 20th, thanked Pitt. Cf. _Mass. State Papers_,
by Bradford, pp. 10, 92. For the general scope of the whole period
of the Stamp Act turmoil, see, on the American side, beside the
contemporary newspapers, Tudor's _Otis_, ch. 14; Bancroft, v. ch.
11, etc.; Gay, iii. 338; Palfrey, iv. 375; Barry, ii. ch. 10; E. G.
Scott's _Constitutional Liberty_, p. 253; Irving's _Washington_, i.
ch. 28; Parton's _Franklin_, i. 459-483; Bigelow's _Franklin_, i. 457;
Thornton's _Pulpit_, etc., 133; Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 463; ii.
877. Sparks made sketches and notes for a history of the Stamp Act,
which are in the _Sparks MSS._, no. xliv. On the English side, beside
the acts themselves and the current press, the _Annual Register_,
_Gentleman's Mag._, etc., see Le Marchant's _George the Third by
Walpole_, ii. 217, 236, 260, 277; the _Pictorial Hist. England_; Mahon;
Massey; C. D. Yonge's _Constitutional Hist. England_, ch. 3; Sir Thomas
Erskine May's _Const. Hist. England_, ii. 550-562; _Rockingham and his
Contemporaries_, i. 250; Fitzmaurice's _Shelburne_, i. 319; Macknight's
_Burke_, i. ch. 10, 11; J. C. Earle's _English Premiers_ (London,
1871), vol. i. ch. 5; Smyth's _Lectures_, ii. 379, 423; Lecky, iii.
314, 340 ("Every farthing which it was intended to raise in America, it
was intended also to spend there"), and Ryerson's _Loyalists_, i. ch.
10.

[192] There was a _History of Amer. Taxation from 1763_, published
in a third ed. at Dublin in 1775 (Sabin, vii. 32,125). Franklin
contended that at this time taxation of the colonies was a popular
idea in England (_Works_, vii. 350), while Smyth found that at a later
day (_Lectures_, ii. 371) he could get sympathy in speaking of "the
miserable, mortifying, melancholy facts of our dispute with America."
See synopsis of the arguments _pro et con_ in _Life of George Read_,
76; Palfrey, iv. 327; Smyth's _Lectures_, ii. 471; Green's _Hist.
View_, 55; Gardiner and Mullinger's _Eng. Hist. for Students_ (N. Y.,
1881), p. 183. Cf. also Bigelow's _Franklin_, i. 515; Foster's _Stephen
Hopkins_, ii. 244.

A few of the most indicative tracts on the subject may be mentioned:—

Soame Jenyns's _Objections to the Taxation of our American Colonies
briefly considered_ (London, 1765; also in his _Works_, 1790, vol. ii.
p. 189), which was answered in James Otis's _Considerations on behalf
of the British Colonies_, dated Boston, Sept. 4, 1765 (Boston and
London, 1765).

George Grenville is credited with the authorship of _The Regulations
lately made concerning the Colonies and the taxes imposed upon them
considered_ (London, 1765,—Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,472; _Sparks
Catal._, p. 83).

William Knox, the agent of Georgia, printed _The Claim of the Colonies
to exemption from internal taxes imposed by authority of Parliament
examined_ (Lond., 1765). The _Brinley Catal._, no. 3,218, shows
Franklin's copy, with his annotations.

Daniel Dulaney's _Considerations on the propriety of imposing taxes
in the British Colonies for the purpose of raising a revenue by Act
of Parliament_ (North America, 1765; Annapolis, 1765; New York, 1765;
London, 1766) is in most copies without the author's name. (Cf. Sabin,
v. no. 21,170; Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 1,438-39, 1,503; Brinley, i.
no. 188; also Frothingham's _Rise of the Repub._, p. 194, and _Chatham
Correspondence_, iii. 192.)

_The late regulations respecting the British colonies in America
considered in a letter from a gentleman in Philadelphia to his friend
in London_ (Philad., 1765; Lond., 1765) is usually said to have been by
John Dickinson. It is included in his _Political Writings_, vol. i. A
brief tract of two pages, _A denunciation of the Stamp Act_ (Philad.,
1765), is also said to be Dickinson's.

The right of Parliament is sustained, but the Stamp Act as a measure
condemned, in _A letter to a member of Parliament wherein the power of
the British legislature and the case of the colonists are briefly and
impartially considered_ (London, 1765,—Sabin, x. 40,406; Carter-Brown,
iii. 1,462).

_Objections to the taxation of our American Colonies briefly
considered_ (Lond., 1765).

See also Charles Thomson's letter to Cook, Laurence & Co., Nov. 9,
1765, in _N. Y. Hist. Society Coll._ (1878, p. 7).

[193] The first is a _Letter from a merchant in London to his nephew
in No. America relative to the present posture of affairs in the
Colonies_ (Lond., 1766), and the last _A series of answers to certain
popular objections against separating from the rebellious colonies and
discarding them entirely: being the concluding tract of the Dean of
Gloucester on the subject of American affairs_ (Gloucester, 1776). The
dean's plan of separation is best unfolded, however, in his _Humble
Address and Ernest appeal_ (London, 1775; 3rd ed., corrected, 1776).
The views of Tucker are given synoptically by Smyth (_Lectures_, ii.
392), Lecky (iii. 421), Hildreth (iii. 58). If Haven's list is correct,
only two of Tucker's tracts were reprinted in the colonies. Cf.
_Menzies Catal._, no. 1,997. The letters of Franklin and Wm. S. Johnson
reflect opinions in England at this time.

[194] Published in London in 1767, two editions; Boston, 1767; also in
Almon's _Tracts_, vol. iii. Cf. Sabin, iv. nos. 15,202-3; Brinley, iii.
p. 185; Carter-Brown, iii., no. 1,498. 18 It is sometimes attributed
to C. Jenkinson. The published tracts of 1766 are enumerated in
Carter-Brown and Haven under 1766; in Cooke, 1,336, 1,929, 1,934; in
Brinley, i. p. 21; ii. p. 154; and in Sabin, under the authors' names.

During 1767 also there was something of a flurry in the religious part
of the community induced by a sermon (London, 1767) which the Bishop
of Landaff had preached before the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel in Foreign Parts, in Feb., in which he had styled the Americans
"infidels and barbarians." William Livingston, of New York, addressed a
_Letter to the Bishop_ (London, 1768), and Charles Chauncy, of Boston,
published a _Letter to a friend_ (Boston, 1767), in which the bishop
was taken to task, while an anonymous friend undertook a _Vindication
of the Bishop_ (New York, 1768). Cf. Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 1,585,
1,629, 1,630.

The other tracts of 1767 are not numerous. Cf. Carter-Brown, and Haven
under 1767.

[195] Sabin, xiv. 61,646.

[196] _Rec. Com. Rept._, xvi. p. 22.

[197] Following a copy in the Mass. Hist. Soc. library.

[198] Franklin (Sparks), vii. 371, 373, 376, 378, 387; (Bigelow), i.
551, 556. The resolutions were printed in the public prints, in _Ames's
Almanac_ (1768), etc.

[199] For the movements in Boston, see Frothingham's "Sam. Adams's
Regiments" in the _Atlantic Monthly_, June and Aug., 1867, and Nov.,
1863. The letter of the town to Dennis Deberdt, the London agent, sets
forth their side of the case (_Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 29). John Mein,
the Boston printer, one of the proscribed, published his _State of
the importation of Great Britain with the port of Boston from Jan. to
Aug., 1768_, to show that his assailants were also importers (Stevens's
_Hist. Coll._, i. no. 393; Quaritch, 1885, no. 29,618). There is one
of the agreements among the Boston merchants, Aug. 14, 1769, in _Misc.
MSS._, 1632-1795, in Mass. Hist. Soc. cabinet. Samuel Cooper tells
Franklin how the agreements are adhered to (Sparks's _Franklin_, vii.
448). Moore, _Songs and Ballads of the Rev._, p. 48, gives some verses
from the _Boston Newsletter_, urging the "daughters of liberty" to
lend their influence in this direction. In the early part of 1770
the movement seemed to be vigorous (_Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 150;
cf. papers of Cushing, Hancock, and others, in _Letters and Papers_,
1761-1776, in Mass. Hist Soc. cabinet). Late in the year Hutchinson
could write: "The confederacy in all the governments against importing
seemed in the latter end of the summer to be breaking to pieces" (P. O.
Hutchinson, i. 24). For such matters in Philadelphia, see Scharf and
Westcott's _Philadelphia_; Franklin (Sparks), vii. 445; (Bigelow), ii.
39. In Delaware, see _Life of George Read_, 82. In Charlestown (S. C.)
there was a controversy over the non-importation association, in which
Christopher Gadsden and John Mackenzie supported the movement, and W.
H. Drayton and William Wragg opposed it. These letters, which appeared
in Timothy's _S. C. Gazette_, June-Dec., 1769, were issued together in
_The letters of Freeman_, etc. ([London], 1771, Brinley, no. 3,976).

[200] Thornton, _Pulpit of the Rev._, 150. It is printed in the _Penna.
Archives_, 1st ser., iv. 286, and _N. Jersey Archives_, x. 14.

[201] _New Jersey Archives_, x. 14.

[202] _New Jersey Archives_, x. 21. Cf. William E. Foster on the
development of colonial coöperation, 1754-1774,—a chapter in his
_Stephen Hopkins_, vol. ii. A symbol, common at this time, of a
disjointed snake, the head representing New England, and the other
fragments standing for the remaining colonies, and accompanied
by the motto "Join or Die", seems to have first appeared in _The
Constitutional Courant_, no. 1, Sept. 21, 1765, and was used later by
the _Boston Evening Post_. Cf. _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Nov., 1882, p.
768; 1883, p. 213; and Preble's _Hist. of the Amer. Flag_.

[203] Hutchinson's side of the story is in his _History_, iii. 189. At
a large town meeting, over which Otis presided, and at which no direct
reference was made to the riots, the people recapitulated grievances,
and petitioned (_Rec. Com. Rept._, xvi. 254) the governor to order
the "Romney" away from the harbor. Hutchinson (iii. App. J and K)
prints the address and the instructions which were given to their
representatives. (Cf. _John Adams's Works_, iii. 501.) The examination
of Robert Hallowell, controller of the port, is in the _Lee MSS._ (H.
C. library), i. no. 40.. Johnson (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xlix. 301)
speaks of the effect in England. See the general historians, and also
special reports in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1868, p. 402; 1869,
p. 452; and also 1883, p. 404, for Hancock's spirit of challenge in
naming a sloop, the next year, the "Rising Liberty."

[204] Caruthers's _Life of Dr. Caldwell_; Foote's _Sketches of No.
Carolina_; Martin's _Hist. of No. Carolina_; a paper by Francis L.
Hawks in _Revolutionary Hist. of No. Carolina_, ed. by W. D. Cooke
(Raleigh and New York, 1853), which has a sketch of the "Battle of
Alamance;" papers by David L. Swain in the _University Magazine_
(Chapel Hill, N. C.); J. H. Wheeler's _Reminiscences and Memoirs of
No. Carolina_ (1884); _Southern Literary Messenger_, xi. 144, 231. Cf.
also Lossing's _Field-Book of the Rev._, ii. 577, and Jones's _New York
during the Rev._, ii. 5; and a paper on James Few, "the first American
anarchist", in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Nov., 1886.

[205] _A Fan for Fanning and a Touchstone for Tryon, containing an
impartial account of the rise and progress of the so much talked of
Regulation in North Carolina, by Regulus_ (Brinley, ii. no 3,866). They
had organized for the purpose of "regulating public grievances." Such,
at least, was their profession.

[206] _An impartial relation of the first rise and cause of the recent
differences in public affairs in North Carolina, and of the past
tumults and riots that lately happened in that province.... Printed for
the Compiler_, 1770 (Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,744).

[207] _Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the inhabitants of the
British Colonies_ (Philad., Boston, New York, 1768). They originally
appeared in twelve numbers in the _Penna. Chronicle and Universal
Advertiser_, between Dec. 2, 1767, and Feb. 15, 1768. When reprinted
in London (1768) Franklin added a preface, and they were again printed
there in 1774. (Cf. Sparks's _Franklin_, i. 316; iv. 256; vii. 391,
x. 433; Bigelow's _Franklin_, i. 566; Sabin, v. nos. 20,044-20,052;
Haven, p. 594; Carter-Brown, iii. 1,620, 1,621.) They are included
in Dickinson's _Political Writings_ (Wilmington, 1801, vol. ii.).
Lecky (iii. 419) calls these letters "one of the ablest statements
of the American case." Cf. Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, p.
208, and Shea's _Hamilton_, p. 255. For Boston's letter of gratitude
to Dickinson, see _Record Com. Rept._, xvi. p. 243. Lecky (iii. 320,
348) thinks the ablest presentation of the case against the colonies
is _The Controversy between Great Britain and her Colonies_ (London,
1769; Boston, 1769), written to offset the _Farmer's Letters_. Bancroft
says that Grenville himself wrote the constitutional argument in it,
and the Board of Trade furnished the material. The pamphlet itself is
usually ascribed to William Knox, the Under-Secretary of State, though
the names of Whately, Israel Mauduit, and John Mein have been sometimes
preferred. (Cf. Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,666; Sabin, x. p. 532.)

[208] _The True Sentiments of America contained in a Collection of
Letters sent from the House of Representatives of the Province of
Massachusetts Bay to several persons of high rank in this kingdom.
Together with certain papers relating to a supposed Libel on the
Governor of that Province and a Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal
Law_ (London, 1768). The volume includes the petition to the king
of Jan. 20, 1768; the letter of Jan. 12, 1768, to Dennis Deberdt;
letters to Shelburne, Conway, Camden, Chatham, and others,—most of
these papers being written by Sam. Adams; Joseph Warren's attack on
Bernard, from the _Boston Gazette_ and the _Dissertation on the Canon
and Feudal Law_, attributed here to Jeremy Gridley, but written in fact
by John Adams (Sabin, viii. 32,551; Brinley, ii. 4,163 Menzies, 946;
Carter-Brown, iii. 1,603. Cf. _John Adams's Works_, x. 367).

_A Letter to the Right Honorable the Marquis of Rockingham from the
Province of Massachusetts Bay_, Jan. 12, 1768, signed by the Speaker,
was circulated in broadside (copy in Mass. Hist. Soc. library). Warren
was writing in the public prints at this time (Loring's _Hundred Boston
Orators_, 53). Samuel Cooper was corresponding with William Livingston
(Sedgwick's _Livingston_, pp. 136-138). Bernard was writing to
Hillsborough, Nov. 30, 1768, that "Bowdoin had all along taken the lead
in the Council in their late extraordinary proceedings" (_Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, viii. 86). The Boston merchants printed _Observations on
several acts of parliament passed in the 4th, 6th, 7th years of [the]
reign of [George III.]: also on the conduct of the officers of the
customs since those acts were passed, and the board of commissioners
appointed to reside in America_ (Boston, 1769),—Sabin, xiii. 56,501;
Carter-Brown, iii. 1,690. Cf. Hutchinson's character of Bowdoin
(_Massachusetts_, iii. 293).

[Illustration: James Bowdain]

There is among the Chalmers Papers in the _Sparks MSS._ (no. x. vol.
ii.) a paper dated June, 1768, without signature, which begins, "Being
in the gallery a few days before the Assembly was dissolved, I heard
Mr. Otis make a long speech, part of the substance of which was, as
near as I can remember, couched in the following terms", etc.; and
(_Ibid._, vol. iii.) there is the affidavit of Richard Sylvester,
a Boston innholder, sworn to before Hutchinson, and describing the
speeches of the Boston leaders.

For the spirit of the hour, see the lives of the chief Boston patriots,
like Sam. Adams, and a summary of the progress of opinion in Amory's
_James Sullivan_ (Boston, 1859). Admiral Hood was so far deceived that
in 1769 he wrote from Boston that the spirit of sedition had fallen
(_Grenville Papers_, iii.).

[209] Not to name the newspapers, see the address of Georgia to the
king (_Sparks MSS._, xlix. ii.); that of New Jersey (_N. J. Archives_,
x. 18); that of Virginia, May 16,1769 (Hutchinson's _Mass. Bay_, iii.
App. p. 494). On these royal petitions, see Ryerson's _Loyalists_, i.
ch. 14.

A collection of papers of which William Livingston, as is supposed, was
one of the writers, and which were printed in the _New York Gazette_
and in other newspapers, were published separately as _A Collection of
Tracts from the late newspapers_ (Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_,
244; Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,617; Brinley, iv. no. 6,135). The
correspondence of the Philadelphia merchants is in the _Sparks MSS._,
lxii.

[210] Hutchinson's view of the matter is in his vol. iii. p. 227. These
and other letters and papers were included in several publications,
published about the same time:—

_Letters to the Earl of Hillsborough from Gov. Bernard, General Gage,
and the Honorable his Majesty's Council for the province of Mass.
Bay, with an appendix containing divers proceedings referred to in
said letters_ (Boston, folio, 1769; Salem, quarto, 1769; London, n.
d.,—Sabin, ii. 4,924; Carter-Brown, iii. 1683).

_Letters to the Ministry from Gov. Bernard, General Gage, and Commodore
Hood; and also memorials to the lords of the treasury from the
commissioners of the customs, with sundry letters and papers annexed
to said memorials_ (Boston, 1769; London, n. d.,—Sabin, ii. 4,923;
Carter-Brown, iii. 1,684).

_A third extraordinary Budget of Epistles and Memorials between Sir
Francis Bernard, some natives of Boston, and the present ministry,
against North America and the true interests of the British Empire and
the rights of mankind_ (no imprint,—Sabin, ii. 4,927; Haven in Thomas,
ii. p. 600).

_Copies of letters from Sir Francis Bernard to the Earl of
Hillsborough_ (two editions, without place, and one, Boston,
1769,—Sabin, ii. 4,921).

There had already been efforts made by the Boston authorities to get at
the contents of these letters by a request to Bernard for a statement
respecting his transmissions to England (_Mass. State Papers_, ed.
Bradford, 115, 120; _Papers_ pub. by the Seventy-Six Soc.; Lee MSS.
in Harvard College library, i. nos. 42-45). Bernard ascribed all his
tribulations to his enforcement of the laws of trade (Bernard Papers in
_Sparks MSS._, iii. 150). For Bernard's character, see _John Adams_,
iv. 21, Mahon, v. 235, and Palfrey in his review of Mahon. Bernard left
Boston Aug. 2, 1769.

[211] The general belief is that the author of this defence was Samuel
Adams (Wells, i. 282; Bancroft, vi. 312), though it has been ascribed
to William Cooper, to James Otis, and to Otis and Adams combined.
Cf. Barry's _Mass._, ii. 399; Franklin, viii. 459; _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, i. 485; _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. p.28; Carter-Brown, iii. nos.
1,643, 1,644, 1,716. See Report as spread on the Town Records, in _Rec.
Com. Rept._, xvi. p. 303.

[212] _A letter to the right honourable the earl of Hillsborough,
on the present situation of affairs in America._ _Also an appendix
in answer to a pamphlet intitled, The constitutional right of
Great-Britain to tax the colonies_ (London, 1769; Boston, 1769,—Sabin,
viii. p. 297; Carter-Brown, iii. 1,681).

This also has been attributed to S. Adams; but Hutchinson (iii. 228,
237) believed that James Bowdoin was the writer.

[213] The notes include comments on the _Protest of the Lords against
the repeal of the Stamp Act_ (_Franklin_, iv. 206); on _A letter from
a merchant in London_ (iv. 211); on _Good Humour, or a way with the
Colonies_ (iv. 215); on _An inquiry into the nature and causes of the
present disputes_ (iv. 281); on _The true constitutional means of
putting an end to the disputes_ (iv. 298). On Franklin in London at
this time, see Sparks's _Franklin_, vii. 338, 350, 354, etc. The tracts
above noted are said by Sparks to be in the Philadelphia Athenæum,
but some of these titles appear, as having Franklin's notes, in the
_Brinley Catal._ ii. nos. 3,218-22. Israel Mauduit's _Short View of the
Hist. of the Colony of Mass. Bay_ (Lond., 1769) is noted in Brinley,
and not by Sparks.

[214] Sparks's _Franklin_, iv. 258. Some letters of Strahan (1767-8,
etc.) are in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, x. 322. The letters of Wm.
Samuel Johnson are also of importance (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._,
xlix.). He describes Barré and others in debate. Barré, in March, 1769,
predicted the loss of the colonies (Smyth, _Lectures_, ii. 384), and
in April Johnson is writing, "It seems pretty probable that we shall
go on contending, and fretting each other, till we _become_ separate
and _independent_ empires" (Beardsley's _Life of W. S. Johnson_, p. 65;
also see pp. 38, 42).

A few of the other more significant pamphlets of 1769 may be mentioned:
_The rights of the Colonies and the extent of the legislative authority
of Great Britain_ (London, 1769), by Phelps, the under-secretary to
Lord Sandwich. Allan Ramsay's _Thoughts on the origin and nature of
government_ (London, 1769). Alexander Cluny's _American Traveller,
or Observations on the British Colonies in America by an old and
experienced trader_ (London, 1769), said to have been instigated
by Chatham. _The present state of liberty in Great Britain and her
Colonies_ (London, 1769). _The present state of the Nation_ (London,
1768), by Robert Tickle, and the reply to it, called _Considerations
on the dependencies of Great Britain_ (London, 1769), and Burke's
_Observations_ on it in his _Works_ (Boston, 1865, i. p. 269). _The
Case of Great Britain and America_, _addressed to the King and both
houses of parliament_ (London, 1769; Philad., 1769). Richard Bland's
_Enquiry into the rights of the British Colonies, intended as an answer
to The Regulations lately made concerning the Colonies_ (Williamsburg,
1769; London, 1769). Cf. Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 1,646, 1,652, 1,660,
1,661; Stevens's _Hist. Coll._, i. 510; Sabin, xvi. nos. 61,401, 67,679.

[215] Hutchinson's _History_, vol. iii. _John Adams's Works_, ii. 224;
ix. 317; x. 204.

[216] Barry's _Mass._, ii. 407 and references.

[217] Reprinted in London in three editions the same year. Brinley, i.
no. 1,655, etc.; Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,719, etc.; Haven in Thomas,
ii. p. 608.

[218] Not the historian, but his uncle. Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
xi. 240.

[219] The letter of the Boston committee, covering the copy sent to the
Massachusetts agent in London, is among the Lee Papers in the Univ. of
Virginia. There is a fac-simile of its signatures in the _Mem. Hist.
Boston_, iii. 39. Some copies of the _Narrative_ have a list of the
persons in England to whom copies were sent.

The _Letter from the Town of Boston to C. Lucas, Esq., one of the
Representatives of the City of Dublin, in Parliament, inclosing a Short
Narrative_, etc., was printed in Dublin, 1770 (_Cooke Catal._, iii. no.
256; Sabin, x. no. 40,348). The other contemporary American accounts
are in the _Boston Gazette_, March 12th (bordered with black lines);
Jos. Belknap's in _Belknap Papers_ (MS., i. 69); letter of William
Palfrey to John Wilkes, and one of Governor Hutchinson in _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, vol. vi. 480 (March, 1863).

The accounts in Gordon (vol. i.) and Hutchinson (vol. iii. 270) are
also those of contemporaries. Cf. documents in _Hist. Mag._, June,
1861, and in Niles's _Principles and Acts of the Rev._ Dickinson, on
March 31st wrote of it to Arthur Lee, from Philadelphia. Lee's _Life of
A. Lee_, ii. 299.

Crispus Attucks, one of the slain, usually called a mulatto, is held
by J. B. Fisher, in the _Amer. Hist. Record_ (i. 531), to have been a
half-breed Indian. Cf. _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 32; George Livermore's
_Historical Research_.

[220] Separately, Boston, 1770 (Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,721; Haven in
Thomas, ii. p. 608).

[221] There are other later accounts in J. S. Loring's _Hundred Boston
Orators_; Frothingham's "Sam. Adams's Regiments" (_Atlantic Monthly_,
June and Aug., 1862, and Nov., 1863), which is epitomized in his _Life
of Warren_ (ch. 6); Wells's _Samuel Adams_; Tudor's _Otis_; Bancroft's
_United States_ (orig. ed., vi. ch. 43, with references); histories of
Boston by Snow and Drake, and the _Mem. History of Boston_, iii. 38,
135; Barry's _Mass._, ii. 409; Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. ch. 14.

[222] _John Adams's Works_, x. 201. The brief used by John Adams is in
the Boston Public Library, and a fac-simile of the opening paragraph is
in the _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 38. It is printed by Kidder (p. 10).
A portrait of Lynde, the presiding judge, is given in the _Memorial
Hist. of Boston_ (ii. 558), and in the _Diaries of Benj. Lynde and
Benj. Lynde, Jr._ (Bost., privately printed, 1880), where will be found
all that remains of his charge. Sam. Adams's "Vindex" criticised the
arguments for the defence in the _Mass. Gazette_. Cf. Buckingham's
_Reminiscences_, i. 168.

[223] He was a Scotch bookbinder in Boston. Thomas's _Hist. of
Printing_ (1874), ii. 228.

[224] Brinley, i. 1659; Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,722; Haven in Thomas,
ii. p. 608.

[225] This volume was reprinted in Boston in 1807 and 1824, and in
Kidder's monograph (1870). Other contemporary accounts of the trial
are in Hutchinson (iii. 328); by S. Cooper in _Franklin's Works_ (vii.
499); and reminiscences are in _John Adams's Works_, x. 162, 201,
249. Cf. _Life of Josiah Quincy, Jr._ (ch. 2), and P. W. Chandler's
_American Criminal Trials_ (vol. i.).

[226] Brinley, i. no. 1,658.

[227] Cf. _Proc. of his Majesty's Council, relative to the deposition
of Andrew Oliver, Esq._ (Boston, 1770, Carter-Brown, iii. no. 1,752).

[228] The principal later English accounts are in Stedman, Mahon (v.
268), Grahame (iv. 310), Ryerson's _Loyalists_ (i. ch. 16). Lecky
(_England in the Eighteenth Century_, iii. 369, 401) thinks Bancroft
shows violent partisanship, and says that "few things contributed
more to the American Revolution than this unfortunate affray. Skilful
agitators perceived the advantage it gave them, and the most fantastic
exaggerations were dexterously diffused."

[229] A fac-simile of the _Mass. Spy_, March 7, 1771, with its
blackened columns, is given in the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_ (iii. 135).
On the same day Revere showed illuminated pictures of the scene from
his house in North Square. The orations were gathered and published
collectively by Peter Edes in 1785, and this book appeared in a second
edition in 1807. The successive speakers were Thomas Young, James
Lovell, Benjamin Church (third ed. was corrected by the author), John
Hancock, Joseph Warren (two editions), Peter Thacher, Benj. Hichborn,
Jonathan W. Austin, William Tudor, Jonathan Mason, Thomas Dawes, Geo.
R. Minot, and Thomas Welsh. These orations were published separately,
and Hancock's is said by Wells (ii. 138) to have been largely written
by Samuel Adams. Hancock's was reprinted in New Haven. Some of them are
in Niles's _Principles and Acts_ (1876), p. 17; and Loring (_Hundred
Boston Orators_) particularly commemorates them.

When Warren's oration in 1772 was published, a poem by James Allen
(1739-1808) was to have accompanied it, but some of the committee,
having doubts of Allen's sentiments, suppressed it, when the poet's
friends later published it separately as _The poem which the town
of Boston had voted unanimously to be published with the late
oration; with observations relating thereto; together with some very
pertinent extracts from an ingenious composition never yet published_
[Anon.] (Boston, 1772). Cf. _Brinley Catal._, iv. no. 6,771; J. C.
Stockbridge's _Harris Coll. of Amer. Poetry_ (Providence, 1886), p. 8.

The oration of Thacher, delivered at Watertown during the siege of
Boston, is said to be rarest of all the separate issues (Cooke, no.
2,428).

A sermon on the massacre, by the Rev. John Lathrop, of the Second
Church in Boston, "preached the lord's day following", was first
printed in London, 1770, and reprinted in Boston, 1771 (Carter-Brown,
iii. 1,792; Haven in Thomas, ii. p. 610).

[230] These documents are Hutchinson's address, Apr. 26th (p. 505);
the instructions of Boston to its representatives, May 15th (p. 508;
cf. _John Adams's Works_, ix. 616); and various other documents
interchanged between them which largely concern Hutchinson's removing
the Assembly to Cambridge (pp. 515-542).

In June, 1770, it would seem that Hutchinson's life was threatened
because of the passions aroused by the massacre, and there is in the
Mass. Hist. Soc. library (_Misc. MSS._, 1632-1795) a brief note of his
written on being advised to protect himself, dated June 22, 1770, at
Milton. It is printed in the Society's _Proceedings_, Jan., 1862, p.
361.

[231] Arthur Lee's _Political detection_ (London, 1770), being letters
addressed to Hillsborough, Bernard, and others (Carter-Brown, iii.
1,760).

Edmund Burke's _Thoughts on the Cause of the present discontents_ (3d
ed., London, 1770,—in _Works_, Boston ed., 1865, i. p. 433).

Catharine Macaulay's _Observations on a pamphlet entitled Thoughts on
the Cause of the present discontents_ (London, 1770).

_Extract of a letter from the House of Representatives of the Mass. Bay
to their agent, Dennys de Berdt, with some remarks_ (London, 1770).

There is a portrait of De Berdt in the State House, Boston.

[232] Beardsley's _Life of W. S. Johnson_, p. 84.

[233] Instructions of the House of Representatives to Franklin, in
Mass. Hist. Soc. cabinet.

[234] _Works_, vii. 486, 488, 493, 501.

[235] _Ibid._, vii. 508.

[236] P. O. Hutchinson, ii. 79. Some interesting letters of Hutchinson
(1771-1772) are in the English Public Record Office, and are printed in
the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xix. 129-140.

[237] One of an indicative English stamp is Allan Ramsay's _Hist. Essay
on the English Constitution, wherein the right of Parliament to tax our
different provinces is explained and justified_ (Sabin, xvi. 67,675).

[238] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xii. 9.

[239] A duplicate of the original document is in the Lee Papers
in the University of Virginia library. Cf. Franklin's account of
his conversation with Dartmouth, _Works_, viii. 25, 28; and of his
presentation of the petition and one forwarded the next year (viii.
47). For duplicates of originals, see _Calendar of Lee Papers_, p. 5
(vol. ii. nos. 5-7).

[240] _John Adams's Works_, iv. 34; Frothingham's _Warren_, 200,
Wells's _Sam. Adams_, i. 509, ii. 62; Grahame's _United States_, iv.
328; Barry's _Mass._, ii. 448; Goodell's _Provincial Laws_, v. index.
Something of the sort seems to have been suggested in Rhode Island,
Oct. 8, 1764, in a letter to Franklin (_Works_, vii. 264). Dawson
(_Sons of Liberty in N. Y._, 61-64) finds the earliest movement in the
New York Assembly, Oct. 18, 1764. Thornton (_Pulpit of the Rev._, 45,
191) notes the suggestion in a letter of Jonathan Mayhew, June 8, 1766,
to James Otis, that there might be a communion of colonies, as there
was a communion of churches.

[241] Prefiguring, as John Adams said, the Declaration of Rights in
1774, and the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Wells's _Adams_,
i. 501, where it is printed; _John Adams's Works_, ii. 514; Haven in
Thomas, ii. p. 622. Franklin's preface to the English edition of the
_Rights_ is in his _Works_, iv. 381. Cf. Francis Maseres's _Occasional
Essays_ (London, 1809). The proceedings of Boston, Oct. 28th and Nov.
20th, were also printed. The letters of John Andrew from Boston begin
at this time (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, viii. 316-412).

[242] Wirt's _Patrick Henry_, 3d ed., p. 87, _Life of R. H. Lee_,
i. 89; _No. Amer. Rev._, March, 1818; Randall's _Jefferson_, i. 80;
Tucker's _Jefferson_, i. 52; _Franklin's Works_, viii. 49. Frothingham
(_Rise of the Republic_, 284, 312, 327) traces the growth of the
committee, and determines the time of appointing such a committee
by each colony. The correspondence of the Rhode Island Committee is
in the _R. I. Col. Rec._, vii. On the committee in New York, see
Dawson's _Westchester County_, 10. Philadelphia appointed one May 20,
1774 (4 Force, i. 340). Sparks points out the distinction between the
Committees of Correspondence, Inspection, and Safety (_Gouverneur
Morris_, i. 31).

[243] Mr. Bartlett was born Oct. 23, 1805, and died in May, 1886. His
life was so largely devoted to advancing the study of American history
that this record needs to be made, and reference given to Professor
William Gammell's _Life and Services of the Hon. John Russell Bartlett,
a paper read before the Rhode Island Historical Society_ (Providence,
1886), and the tribute by Charles Deane in the _Amer. Antiq. Soc.
Proc._, Oct., 1886.

[244] Mr. Wm. R. Staples had earlier published the _Documentary Hist.
of the destruction of the Gaspee_ (Providence, 1845). An account by
Ephraim Bowen is given in S. G. Arnold's _Rhode Island_ (vol. ii. ch.
19, 20). For local accounts, see _Providence Plantations_ (Providence,
1886), pp. 58, 359; O. P. Fuller's _Warwick, R. I._ (p. 101); Foster's
_Stephen Hopkins_ (ii. 83, 245); E. M. Stone's _John Howland_ (p. 35).
For the political bearings to the country at large, see Frothingham's
_Rise of the Republic_ (p. 278); Parton's _Jefferson_ (ch. 14, 15);
_Life of R. H. Lee_ (i. 85); Lossing's _Field-Book_ (ii. 60). There are
in the _Sparks MSS._ (xliii. vol. i. p. 140, etc.) the letters of the
British Admiral Montague, and depositions copied from papers in the
English Archives. G. C. Mason, in the _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._, vii.
301, etc., traces the presence of different English war vessels in the
bay between 1765, and 1776. Cf. _New Jersey Archives_, x. 375, 395.

[245] Sam. Adams seems to have drafted this reply, with aid on
law-points from John Adams, the latter being almost the exclusive
author of the reply of the House to the second speech of the governor.
Wells thinks Hawley may have had a hand in these papers. Cf. Quincy's
_Quincy_, p. 113; _Life, etc., of John Adams_, i. 118-133, ii.
310; Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii. 29, 31, 41; Tudor's _Otis_, p. 410;
Bradford's _Mass. State Papers_, 336, 399; Bancroft, orig. ed., vi.
446-453; Niles's _Principles_ (1876 ed., pp. 79, 87); _Speeches of his
Excellency, with the answers of his Majesty's Council and the House of
Representatives_ (Boston, 1773). A meeting of the town of Boston was
held in Faneuil Hall, March 8, 1773, "to vindicate the town from the
gross misrepresentations of his Excellency's message to both Houses",
and its proceedings were circulated in broadside.

One of the most violent of the tracts of this year was _The American
Alarm, or the Bostonian Plea, by a British Bostonian_ (Boston,
1773,—Stevens's _Nuggets_, no. 3,257). Joseph Reed was writing to
Dartmouth on the condition of affairs (Reed's _Reed_, i. ch. 2); and
as respects the feelings farther south, see Gov. Wright's letters from
Georgia to Dartmouth, in the _Georgia Hist. Soc. Coll._, vol. iii.

[246] Pownall (b. 1722; d. 1805), who knew America well from residence
and official station, proved a man of great forecast, and a prudent,
conciliatory friend of both countries. We have his speech in Parliament
in 1769 (Haven in Thomas, ii. 604, 649), and know how impatient
Parliament was of his wisdom (Smyth, _Lectures on Mod. Hist._, Bohn's
ed., ii. 384-85). We see his admirable spirit in his correspondence
(1772) with James Bowdoin (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, v. 238).

Pownall had first published his _Administration of the Colonies_
(London, 1764) at the very outset of the dispute, and it was enlarged
in 1765. In an appendix to the edition of 1766 he made a strong
statement of his views in opposition to the right of Parliament to tax
America, and he reprinted this in a fourth ed. (1768), and also issued
it separately. In the fifth edition (1774) he added a second part,
giving his plan of pacification. The last edition was in 1777 (Sabin,
xv. nos. 64,841, etc.; Carter-Brown, iii. nos. 1,425, 1,470, 1,537,
1,636). In 1780 Pownall published a tract that has acquired some fame,
as a forecast of the future republic (Harper's _Cyclo. of U. S. Hist._,
ii. 1,151), entitled _A Memorial to the Sovereigns of Europe on the
present state of affairs between the old and new world_ (London, 1780).
Somebody undertook what was rather fancifully called _A Translation_
of this tract into plainer language (London, 1781,—_Brinley Catal._,
no. 4,109), but it did not meet with Pownall's approval. In 1783 he
published a _Memorial addressed to the sovereigns of America_ (Lond.,
1783,—Sabin, xv. nos. 64,824, etc.). On his tracts, see Shea's
_Hamilton_, p. 261. There is a portrait of Pownall at Earl Orford's in
Norfolk (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Nov., 1875), and an engraving of it
published in 1777, of which there is a reproduction in the _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, Nov., 1886, with an account of the governor by Robert
Ludlow Fowler. The painting in the gallery of the Mass. Hist. Soc. is
said to have been painted from this engraving. Cf. _Mem. Hist. Boston_,
ii. 63.

[247] First in a Philadelphia paper, Sept. 29, in a letter dated
London, Aug. 4.

[248] We have full reports of the Boston meetings. The newspapers give
us the accounts of the earlier irregular conferences, and the town
printed the reports of the first regular town meetings in _The votes
and proceedings of the freeholders and other inhabitants of the town
of Boston, in town meeting assembled, according to law, the 5th and
18th days of Nov., 1773_ (Boston, 1773). It was reprinted in London
by Franklin, with a preface. The call of the committee for the later
meetings exists in Mr. Bancroft's collection, in the handwriting of
Joseph Warren (Frothingham's _Warren_, 255), and was circulated in
broadside. The reports of the meetings of Nov. 29th and 30th exist in
the original minutes in the handwriting of William Cooper among the
papers in the Charity Building in Boston, and have been printed by Dr.
Green in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ (xx. 10, etc.). The prepared
record was printed in a broadside dated Dec. 1, 1773, and a copy is
preserved in the Boston Public Library. It represents the meeting as
called "for consulting, advising, and determining upon the most proper
and effectual method to prevent the unloading, receiving, or vending
the detestable tea sent out by the East India Company, part of which
has just arrived in this harbor." Hutchinson wrote from Milton, Nov.
30, to his son, one of the consignees of the tea, who had taken refuge
in the Castle, that the proclamation, warning the meeting to dissolve,
which he had just sent into Boston, might "possibly cause [him] to take
[his] lodging at the Castle also" (P. O. Hutchinson, i. 94). The full
report of these meetings was also printed in the Boston newspapers,
and particularly in the _Boston Gazette_ of Dec. 6th, whose report
was reprinted in one of _Poole's Mass. Registers_, and in the _Boston
Journal_, Dec. 15, 1849.

Of the meeting of Dec. 16, 1773, and the raid of the "Mohawks" upon
the tea-ships, an account was printed in the _Boston Gazette_ of Dec.
20th (Buckingham's _Reminiscences_, i. 169), and in the _Boston Evening
Post_ of Dec. 20th (_Bay State Monthly_, April, 1884, p. 261), and
the spread of these accounts as they were copied through the country
can be followed in the postscript of the _Penna. Gazette_ of Dec.
24th. The speech of Josiah Quincy, Jr., at the meeting, as reported
by himself and sent back to his wife after he had reached England, is
the only harangue of this critical stage of the controversy in Boston
of which we have any detailed account (_Life of Quincy_, 2d ed., 124;
Frothingham's _Warren_, 39; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Dec. 16, 1873).
The conclave which planned the raid was held in Court Street (Drake's
_Old Landmarks of Boston_, 81; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Dec., 1871,
for an account of the punch-bowl around which the conclave was held).
There are a number of contemporary journals and statements respecting
these riotous proceedings. The letter of the Mass. Ho. of Rep. to
Franklin, Dec. 21, is preserved in the Lee MSS. (Harvard College
library, vol. ii. no. 14), and is printed in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._
(xxxiv. 377). There are details in the Andrews letters (_Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, viii. 325), in Newell's diary (_Ibid._, Oct., 1877), in
the Jolley narrative (_Ibid._, Feb., 1878, p. 69), in John Adams's
diary (_Ibid._, Dec., 1873, and his letter, Dec. 17, to James Warren,
in _Works_, ix. 333). A copy of the testimony of Dr. Hugh Williamson
before the Privy Council, Feb. 19, 1774, copied from his own draft, and
relating the destruction of the tea, was transcribed from the original
in 1827, while in the possession of Dr. Hosack, and is included in the
_Sparks MSS._ (lii. vol. iii.). Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xxxiv.
373, etc.

All this and other documentary evidence can be found in Force; in
Niles's _Principles and Acts_ (1876), p. 96; in the _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, Dec. 16, 1873; and in Francis S. Drake's _Tea Leaves:
being a collection of letters and documents relating to the shipment
of tea to the American colonies in the year 1773, by the East India
tea company. Now first printed from the original manuscript. With
an introduction, notes, and biographical notices of the Boston tea
party_ (Boston, 1884). The only considerable narrative of an actor in
the "Mohawk" raid is G. R. T. Hewes's _Traits of the Tea Party_ (N.
Y., 1835), which was written out for him by B. B. Thacher. Cf. also
_Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party, with a memoir of Hewes_ (N. Y.,
1834); Loring's _Hundred Boston Orators_ (p. 554). The last survivor
was Capt. Henry Purkitt, who died March 3, 1846. A picture of David
Kinnison, also called the last survivor, is in Lossing's _Field-Book of
the Revolution_ (i. 499). Of Samuel Phillips Savage, the moderator of
the meeting of Dec. 16th, there is a portrait owned by Mr. G. H. Emery,
engraved in Drake's _Tea-leaves_.

Hutchinson gives his view of the transactions in the third volume (pp.
422-441) of his _Massachusetts_. (Cf. Ryerson's _Loyalists_, i. 383.)
There is among the Bernard Papers (vol. viii. p. 229), in the _Sparks
MSS._, a paper giving the story as those in authority transmitted it to
the home government.

Among the later American sources, see Frothingham's _Warren_ (ch. 9),
his _Rise of The Republic_ (ch. 8), and his paper in _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._ (Dec. 16, 1873): Tudor's _Otis_ (ch. 21); Wells's _Adams_
(ii. ch. 28), Ramsay's _Amer. Rev._ (i. 373); Holmes's _Annals_ (ii.
181); Palfrey's _New England_ (iv. 427); Barry's _Mass._ (ii. ch.
15); Bancroft's _United States_ (orig. ed., vi. ch. 50); Lossing's
_Field-Book_ (i. 496); and his paper in _Harper's Monthly_ (iv. 1);
Snow's _Boston_; the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_ (iii. 46-51); _Essex Inst.
Hist. Coll._ (xii. 197); _Niles's Register_ (1827), from Flint's
_Western Monthly Rev._ (July, 1827).

The first accounts of the destruction of the tea which reached London
(Jan. 19, 1774) were printed in the London newspapers of Jan. 21st and
in the _Gentleman's Mag._ (1774, p. 26), copied in Carlyle's _Frederick
the Great_ (vi. p.524). Cf. Mahon (v. 319); May's _Const. Hist. Eng._
(ii. 521); Massey's _England_ (ii. ch. 18); McKnight's _Burke_ (ii.
ch. 20); Fitzmaurice's _Shelburne_ (ii. ch. 8). Lecky, in his _Eng. in
the Eighteenth Century_ (iii. p. 371), speaks of the speech of George
Grenville, reported by Cavendish, as particularly worthy of attention.
Cf. _Parliamentary History_ and Force's _Amer. Archives_ (4th ser., i.
133).

For the commotions in the other colonies, see, for New Hampshire,
beside the histories, the _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vii. 408, 413, and
the letter of July 26, 1774, in the Chas. Lovell Papers (Mass. Hist.
Soc.). For Connecticut, the general histories of the State, Peters's
_Connecticut_, and McCormick's reprint, to be corrected by J. L.
Kingsley's _Hist. Address_ (1838), _New Englander_ (1871, p. 248),
and _Scribner's Mag._, June, 1878. Cf. also J. H. Trumbull's _Blue
Laws true and false_. Dawson (_Westchester County_, p. 7) claims that
the refusal of the New York authorities to allow the tea ship Nancy
to enter the harbor was more significant than the riot in Boston, and
he cites various authorities. Cf. Lossing's _Schuyler_ (i. ch. 16)
and Leake's _Lamb_ (ch. 6). For Pennsylvania, see the histories of
Philadelphia; Niles's _Principles and Acts_ (1876, p. 201); Reed's
_Life of Joseph Reed_ (i. ch. 2) for his letters to Dartmouth;
Madison's _Works_ (i. 10). For North Carolina, see _Hist. Mag._ (xv.
118).

[249] For a portrait of Cushing, see _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, iii. 34.

[250] _Journals of the House_, 1773; _Boston Gazette_; Alden Bradford's
ed. of _Mass. State Papers_; _Gent. Mag._, July, 1773. The letters were
first published June 16, 1773 (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1877, p.
339).

_Copy of letters sent to Great Britain by Thomas Hutchinson and
Andrew Oliver, and several other persons born and educated among
us; which original letters have been returned to America_ (Boston,
1773; reprinted in Salem, 1773). _The letters of Gov. Hutchinson and
Lieut.-Gov. Oliver, 1st and 2d ed._ (edited by Israel Mauduit) (London,
1774). _The representations of Gov. Hutchinson and others contained in
certain letters transmitted to England, and afterwards returned from
thence_ (Boston, 1773). These letters are reprinted in _Franklin before
the Privy Council_ (Philad., 1859). Cf. _Works relating to Franklin in
the Boston Public Library_, pp. 21, 22; Sabin, vi. p. 344, Haven in
Thomas, ii. 632, 633; Stevens's _Hist. Coll._, i. p. 166.

[251] Mahon (v. 323) thinks it strange that any American of high
standing should care to justify or palliate the conduct of Franklin.
Goldwin Smith (_Study of History_, N. Y., 1866, p. 213) says: "Franklin
alone, perhaps, of the leading Americans, by the dishonorable
publication of an exasperating correspondence, which he had improperly
obtained, shared with Grenville, Townshend, and Lord North the guilt
of bringing this great disaster on the English race." Lecky (_England
in the Eighteenth Century_, iii. 380, 416) alleges rather hastily that
Hutchinson had once been concerned in using Franklin's letters with
a certain disregard of rights. (Cf. Sparks's _Franklin_, iv. 450.)
Some memoranda of Chalmers are in the _Sparks MSS._ (x. vol. iv.) Cf.
Campbell's _Lives of the Chancellors_ (vi. 105); Massey's _England_
(vol. ii.); Adolphus's _England_ (vol. ii. 34); Walpole's _Last
Journals_, i. 255, 289.

[252] It is included in Sparks's edition, iv. 405, and embraces
Franklin's letters to Cushing and his replies. Cf. also Sparks's
_Franklin_, i. 356, viii. (his letters), 72, 79, 81, 85, 98, 100,
116, 117; Bigelow's _Life of Franklin_, ii. 130, 141, 158, 187, 206;
Parton's _Franklin_, i. 560, 564, 582.

[253] _A faithful account of the transaction relating to a late affair
of honour between J. Temple and W. Whateley, containing a particular
history of that unhappy quarrel_ (London, 1774). On Temple's connection
with the Hutchinson letters, see the citations of the contemporary
correspondence in Temple Prime's _Some account of the Temple Family_
(N. Y., 1887), pp. 61-85.

[254] _Franklin's Works_, iv. 435.

[255] _Ibid._, iv. 441.

[256] Cf. _Boston Daily Advertiser_, April 3 and 5, 1856.

[257] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xvi. 43; R. C. Winthrop's _Speeches_,
1878-1886, p. 1.

[258] Cf. Bancroft's _United States_, orig. ed., vi. 435; Almon's
_Biog., lit., and polit. anecdotes_ (Lond., 1797); Wells's _Sam. Adams_
(ii. 74); Barry's _Mass._, ii. 462. Hutchinson's own account of the
transactions is given in his third volume (pp. 400-418), which may
be supplemented by sundry references in P. O. Hutchinson's _Governor
Hutchinson_ (pp. 82-93, 577; ii. 79), part of which refer to that
editor's own views. C. F. Adams (_Adams's Works_, ii. 319) thinks the
evidence nearly conclusive that John Temple was the person who gave the
letters to Franklin. (Cf. P. O. Hutchinson, pp. 205, 210, 221, 222,
232, 353.) Cf. statement in _Mass. Archives_, "Miscellaneous", i. 386.

[259] Sparks's _Franklin_, iv. 426; _Sparks MSS._, xlviii.

[260] Sparks's _Franklin_, iv. 430. Cf. _Ibid._, viii. 93, 103, 110.
Cf. Bigelow's _Life of Franklin_, ii. 189.

[261] An account of it is given in Israel Mauduit's edition of _The
letters of Gov. Hutchinson_, etc. (London, 1774), with an abstract
of Wedderburn's speech. There is a description of this scene in
Bowring's _Memoir of Jeremy Bentham_ (p. 59; cf. _Monthly Mag._, Nov.
10, 1802, and Sparks's _Franklin_, iv. 451). Gage wrote from London
to Hutchinson, Feb. 2, 1774, that no man's conduct was ever so abused
for so vile a transaction as Franklin's. There is a letter of Burke
on the hearing (_Sparks MSS._, xlix. ii.). There is a contemporary
double-folio print, _Proceedings of his majesty's Privy Council on
the address of the Assembly of Mass. Bay to remove the Governor and
Lieutenant Governor, with the substance of Mr. Wedderburn's speech_
(Mass. Hist. Soc.). The whole proceedings are given in _Franklin before
the Privy Council in behalf of the Province of Mass. Bay, to advocate
the removal of Hutchinson and Oliver_ (Philad., privately printed,
1859). Arthur Lee has a word to say on the scene (_Life of A. Lee_, i.
240, 273). Franklin is said to have worn a suit of Manchester velvet
during this castigation from Wedderburn, which he did not put on again
till he signed the treaty of alliance with France in 1778 (Mahon, v.
328).

[262] In 1772 the town of Boston had sent a printed circular to the
neighboring towns, asking their advice as to the course best to be
pursued in consequence of the crown's assuming to regulate the judges'
salaries. Hutchinson (_History_, iii. 545, 546) gives the report of the
committee of the Assembly on the grant of the governor's salary from
the crown, and the governor's answer (July, 1772). For John Adams's
controversy with Brattle on this point, see _Adams's Works_, iii. 513.
On Oliver's impeachment, see Hutchinson (iii. 443, 445), and P. O.
Hutchinson (i. 133, 142), and papers in the MS. collection of _Letters
and Papers_, 1761-1776, in Mass. Hist. Soc. cabinet.

A portrait of Chief Justice Peter Oliver, by Copley, painted in England
in 1772 (Perkins, p. 89), belongs to Dr. F. E. Oliver of Boston. Cf.
photograph in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, July, 1886, with a memoir
which was issued separately as _Peter Oliver, the last chief-justice of
the Superior Court of Judicature of the Province of Mass. Bay. A sketch
by Thomas Weston, Jr._ (Boston, 1886).

Something of the Boston spirit appears in various letters from her
patriots which are printed in Leake's _Lamb_. The _Familiar Letters of
John and Abigail Adams_ begin at this time. Cf. summary in Sargent's
_Andre_, ch. 4. Lecky finds (_Eighteenth Century_, iii. 379) in the
talk of the hour the "exaggerated and declamatory rhetoric peculiarly
popular at Boston." Isaac Royal's letter to Dartmouth, Jan. 18, 1774,
is in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Dec., 1873. There is a letter to the
British officers at Boston attributed to General Prescott (Sabin, x.
40,316).

[263] The action of Parliament can be readily traced in Force, 4th
ser., i. 35. The bill was immediately sent in print to this country,
and it can be found in Force, in the _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vii. 402,
and elsewhere.

[264] There are in the Boston Archives sundry record-books of this
time: list of donations; records of Donation Committee; list of
persons aided; cash-book of the Donation Committee. The House of
Representatives at Salem, June 18, 1774, passed resolutions commending
Boston to the aid of all, and sent these resolutions through the
country in broadsides. The provincial congress at Cambridge, Dec. 6,
1774, recorded their vote and similarly scattered it. (Cf. _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, xiii. 182.) For the gifts which came to Boston, and the
attendant records and correspondence, see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._,
xix. 158, and vol. xxxiv.; Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, 382;
Col. A. H. Hoyt's paper in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, July,
1876. For the help from Virginia, see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iii.
259.

For notes on the condition of Boston during the operation of the act,
see the Andrews letters in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, July, 1865,
p. 330; Timothy Newell's diary, _Ibid._, Feb., 1859; Thomas Newell's,
_Ibid._, Oct., 1877, p. 335; _M. H. Soc. Coll._, xxxi.; Bowdoin's
letter to Franklin in _Franklin's Works_, viii. 127; letter of Ellis
Gray in _M. H. Soc. Proc._, xiv. 315; Charles Chauncy's _Letter to a
friend ... on the sufferings of the town of Boston_ (Boston, 1774);
_Review of the rise, progress, services, and sufferings of New England,
humbly submitted to the consideration of both houses of Parliament_
(London, 1774); _A very short and candid appeal to free born Britons,
by an American_, i. e. Carolinian (London, 1774). For a general
treatment of the effect of the Port Bill, see, among modern writers,
Bancroft; Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, 319, and _Life of
Warren_, ch. 10; Tudor's _Otis_; Wells's _S. Adams_ (ii. 170); Reed's
_Joseph Reed_ (i. ch. 3); lives of John Adams, Josiah Quincy, Jr.; A.
C. Goodell's Address at Salem in _Essex Inst. Hist. Coll._, xiii. p.
1; Pitkin's _United States_ (i. App. 15); Grahame (iv. 358); Sargent's
_Dealings with the Dead_ (i. 152); and the histories of Boston. On
the British side, see _Parliamentary History_, xvii. 1163; _Annual
Register_, xvii. 1159; Donne's _Corresp. of Geo. III. and North_,
i. 174; _Protests of the lords_, ed. by Rogers, ii. 141; Adolphus,
ii. 59; Massey, ii.; _Pict. Hist. Eng. Geo. III._, i. 159; Smyth's
_Lectures_; Mahon (vi. 3); Ryerson's _Loyalists_ (i. 358); Russell's
_Life and Times of Fox_, ch. 5; _Life of Shelburne_, ii. 302; _Chatham
Corresp._, iv. 342; _Rockingham Memoirs_, ii. 238; Macknight's _Burke_,
ii. 50. The London limners made several caricatures out of the hungry
Bostonians.

[265] Cf. letter from Portsmouth, N. H., in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
2d ser., ii. 481; Hollister's _Connecticut_, ii. ch. 6; lives of Jay
by Jay and by Flanders, and documents in Force, for the effect in
New York; _Minutes of the Prov. Congress of New Jersey_, p. 3; _New
Jersey Archives_, x. 457, etc. A paper by Joseph Reed on the action in
Pennsylvania (_N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1878, p. 269) was controverted
by Thomson (_Ibid._, p. 274), who held that Reed had no intimate
knowledge in the matter. Cf. Chas. Thomson's letter to Wm. H. Drayton
in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._ (ii. 411), from _the Sparks MSS._, and
his letter in the _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc._ (1878, p. 218); Niles's
_Principles and Acts_ (1876), p. 203; Dickinson's _Polit. Works_, i.
285-416. The resolutions of Delaware are in the _Life of George Read_,
pp. 88, 101. For the Maryland action, see Niles (p.258) and McSherry's
_Maryland_. For Virginia, see Rives's _Madison_ (i. 60); Niles (p.
272); _Life of R. H. Lee_ (i. 97); Randall's _Jefferson_ (i. 85);
Parton's _Jefferson_ (p. 130). For North Carolina, McRee's _Iredell_.

[266] The covenant was printed in the _Mass. Gazette_, June 23, 1774,
and is reprinted in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ (xii. 45), where is also
(_Ibid._, xi. 392; also see xii. 46) the protest against the covenant,
and the loyalist signers of the protest (given in _Mass. Gazette_,
July 7, 1774). This drew out a proclamation from Gage, pointing out
the error of illegal combinations (_Mass. Gazette_, June 30, 1774,
and _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xii. 47). It was turned into verse in
ridicule (Moore's _Songs and Ballads of the Rev._, p. 65). Dr. Belknap
gave his reasons for not entering such a combination (_Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, 2nd ser., ii. 484). Cf. Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_,
336. Timothy Ruggles soon organized a counter-association of loyalists.

[267] An account of this interview by Hutchinson himself was first
published at length in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xv. p. 326, Oct.,
1877. Cf. _Ibid._, April, 1884, p. 164; P. O. Hutchinson, i. 158, and
ii. preface; Donne's _Corresp. of Geo. III. and North_, i. 194.

[268] There are in the Mass. Hist. Soc. cabinet two early, apparently
official copies of the act for regulating the government. Cf. Ramsay's
_Revolution in South Carolina_ (i. 204); Frothingham's _Rise of the
Republic_, p.347, where are various references. Hutchinson wrote from
London that he was opposed to these acts (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
Jan., 1862, p. 301). A letter from Jos. Wood, in London, April 18,
1774, makes note of the efforts of the Americans in London to prevent
Parliament committing itself so hastily to the Regulating Act (_Penna.
Mag. of Hist._, x. 265). Something of the spirit of these protests can
be seen in Bishop Shipley's _Speech intended to have been spoken on
the bill for altering the charters of the colony of Massachusetts Bay_
(London, 1774). Cf. in reply _A speech never intended to be spoken in
answer to a speech intended_, etc. (London, 1774). Cf., on Shipley,
_Franklin's Works_, viii. 40. The bishop's views are also expressed
in his _Sermon before the Soc. for the propagation of the Gospel
in foreign parts_ (London, 1773; Norwich, Conn., 1773). There is a
portrait of Shipley in the _European Mag._, April, 1788.

For the debate in Parliament, see Force, 4th series, i. 65; Niles's
_Principles_, etc. (1876 ed.), pp. 414, 419.

[269] _Westchester County, N. Y., during the Amer. Rev._ (Morrisania,
1886), pp. 84, 87.

[270] J. C. Hamilton's _Repub. of the U. S._, i. 55; Shea's _Hamilton_,
ch. 7; Lossing's _Schuyler_, vol. i.; _Life of Peter Van Schaack_;
Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, i. 477, 490, etc. John Adams (_Works_,
ix. 407, 411) believed that New York held back. Dawson (_Westchester_,
9) thinks that ignorance or neglect is at the bottom of the usual
view of the New York sluggishness, held to by writers, but he admits
that Gouverneur Morris was doubtful for a while (p. 12; cf. Sparks's
_Life of Morris_); he sets forth the great ability of the Tory organ,
_Rivington's Gazetteer_ (p. 127); he gives a fuller account than Hinman
or Beardsley of the arrest of Samuel Seabury, the "Westchester Farmer",
by Isaac Sears (pp. 127, 136; and on Sears, Jones, ii. 337, 622). Much
can be gleaned from Tryon and Colden's letters to Dartmouth in _N. Y.
Col. Docs._, viii.

[271] Beside the general histories, see, for Pennsylvania, the
resolutions of Northampton County in _Hist. Mag._, ix. 49 (also see
_Penna. Archives_, iii. 543); for Virginia, Jefferson's resolutions, a
_Summary view of the rights of British America_ (Williamsburg, London,
and Philadelphia, 1774); the Fairfax County resolutions (Sparks's
_Washington_, ii. 488), and Irving's _Washington_ (vol. i. ch. 1); for
North Carolina, E. F. Rockwell on Rowan County, in _Hist. Mag._ (xv.
118), and letters in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._ (xiii. 329); for
South Carolina, _Hist. Mag._, ix. 341, and xxii. 90; and _Southern
Quarterly_, xi. 468; xiv. 37. In a more general way, for movements in
the South, see, for South Carolina, Ramsay, Moultrie, Drayton, R. W.
Gibbs; for North Carolina, Cooke, Jones, Foote, Martin, Caruthers's
_Caldwell_; for Virginia, C. Campbell's _Bland Papers_, Wirt's _P.
Henry_, Randall's _Jefferson_, Parton's _Jefferson_, Rives's _Madison_;
and for Maryland, Purviance's _Baltimore_. For Southern sentiment of a
Tory cast, see Jonathan Boucher's _Views of the Amer. Revolution_.

[272] Force's _Amer. Archives_, 4th ser., i. 333; Dawson's _Westchester
County_, 18; Arnold's _Rhode Island_, ii. 334; W. E. Foster's _Stephen
Hopkins_, ii. p. 232.

[273] Sparks's _Franklin_, i. 350. It is claimed that Sam. Adams was
earlier. Cf. Wells, ii. p. 84.

[274] Bancroft, orig. ed., vi. 508.

[275] Bancroft, orig. ed., vii. 40. To New York the precedence is also
given by Gordon, Ramsay, Hildreth, and Dawson (_Westchester County_, p.
19).

[276] Dawson, pp. 18, 19.

[277] Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii. 221. Silas Deane's letters home are in
_Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii.

[278] _Works_, ix. 339. Cf. E. D. Neill in _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, ii.
58; Scharf and Westcott's _Philadelphia_, i. 291.

[279] _John Adams's Works_, ix. 617, x. 78, 173; _Life of Geo. Read_,
93. The Congress met in Carpenter's Hall. (Cf. Scharf and Westcott's
_Philadelphia_, i. 290; Egle's _Penna._, 141; Lossing's _Field-Book_,
ii. 262.)

[280] _Works_, viii. 131, 142. The Congress had been variously
constituted. New York and Pennsylvania had acted outside their
legislatures. John Adams, in going through those States on his way
to Philadelphia, had remarked "that some in them wanted a little
animation." The spirit in New York is shown on the loyal side in
Jones's _New York during the Rev._, i. 449. Cf. J. A. Stevens on
"New York in the Continental Congress" in _The Galaxy_, xxii. 149.
The credentials of the Delaware members are in the _Life of Geo.
Read_, 91. The Virginia delegates were at variance. Patrick Henry was
eager for a fight. R. H. Lee thought Great Britain would revoke her
obnoxious legislature. Washington was undecided. The instructions of
the Virginia delegates are in _Jefferson's Writings_, i. 122. Gadsden
was for forcing the conflict by attacking Gage in Boston; and a rumor
reaching Philadelphia that Boston was undergoing bombardment fanned
the flame, and Samuel Adams wrote home that America would stand by the
devoted town. In Georgia the royal governor had prevented the choice
of delegates, and that province was not represented. The opposing
feelings, North and South, can be gathered from some of the tracts
Which the Congress elicited:—

_A few remarks upon some of the resolutions and votes of the
Continental Congress at Philad. in Sept., and the Provincial Congress
at Cambridge in November, by a friend to Peace and Good order_ (Boston,
1775; same, no date,—Sabin, iv. 15,529). _The two Congresses cut up_
(Boston and New York,—Sabin, iv. 15,597). Thomas Jefferson's _Summary
View of the rights of British America, set forth in some resolutions,
intended for the inspection of the delegates now in convention_
(Williamsburg, 1774; Philad., 1774). _A letter from a Virginian
to the members of the Congress to be held at Philadelphia, Sept.,
1774_ (without place, 1774; Boston, 1774, in three editions; London,
1774),—in opposition to the non-importation combination. _Address
to the deputies in General Congress_ (Aug. 10, 1774, Charlestown, S.
C.,—Sabin, v. 15,511). _Letter from a freeman of South Carolina to
the deputies of North America, assembled in High Court of Congress at
Philadelphia_ (Charlestown, S. C., 1774,—Sabin, x. 40,277).

The relations of the colonies to the Congress appear in the lives of
the leading members. For New England, of which there was not a little
jealousy, and whose members refused to attend Sunday sessions (Wells's
_Sam. Adams_, ii. 237; _Life of George Read_, 97), see C. F. Adams's
_John Adams_; Wells's _Sam. Adams_, vol. ii. 218; Frothingham's _Joseph
Warren_, ch. 12; Quincy's _Josiah Quincy_; Austin's _Elbridge Gerry_,
ch. 5. For the Middle States, see Sedgwick's _William Livingston_;
Lossing's _Schuyler_, i. ch. 17; Shea's (p. 234) and other lives of
_Hamilton_; Read's _Geo. Read_, 93; Jay's _John Jay_, and the life
of Jay in Flanders's _Chief Justices_. For Virginia, the lives of
_Washington_ (Marshall; Sparks, ii. 505; Irving, i. 365); Rives's
_Madison_, i. 51; Lee's lives of Arthur and R. H. Lee; Wirt's _Patrick
Henry_, 105; lives of Jefferson (Tucker, i. ch. 3; Parton, ch. 17). For
South Carolina, the life of Rutledge in Flanders.

The legal aspects are particularly touched in Towle's _Constitution_,
311; _Cocke's Constitutional Hist._, i. 29; Scott's _Development of
Constitutional Liberty_, 166; Oscar S. Strauss's _Origin of Republican
Form of Government_, (N. Y.) 1885. Cf. Daniel Webster's _Address before
the N. Y. Hist. Society_, Feb. 23, 1852, pp. 36, 40; and H. A. Brown's
_Oration on the Centennial of the Congress_, 1874.

The general works to be consulted are Grahame, iv. 373; Bancroft, orig.
ed., vii. 127; Hildreth, vol. iii.; Pitkin, i. ch. 8; Frothingham's
_Rise of the Republic_, 335, 359; Greene's _Hist. View of the Amer.
Rev._, 79; Dunlap's _New York_, i. ch. 29, 31, and Jones's _N. Y.
during the Rev._, i. 468; Gordon's _Pennsylvania_, ch. 20; Mulford's
_New Jersey_, 389.

[281] _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, i. 438.

[282] Sabin, iv. 15,542. A MS. copy of the journal, attested by C.
Thomson, and evidently brought home by Thos. Cushing, a Massachusetts
member, is in the library of the Mass. Hist. Soc. (_Proc._, i. 271).
Later editions are _The whole proceedings of the American Continental
Congress held at Philadelphia_ (New York, 1775,—Sabin, iv. 15,598);
_Extracts from the journal and from the votes and proceedings of
Congress, published in Philad., reprinted in Boston and London_
(_Ibid._, iv. 15,526-28; Brinley, ii. 3,990; Stevens, _Nuggets_, no.
3,264). There were other editions in Providence, Newport, New London,
Hartford. There were two editions published in London by Almon in 1775
(Sabin, iv. 15,544; Brinley, ii. 3,989). The journal appears also in
the several authenticated series of the _Journals of Congress_, 1777,
1801, 1823, etc.

The correspondence of Congress with Gage (Oct. 10th and 20th) is
contained in the _Journal_, i. 18, 46.

The documents of the Congress are given by Force.

[283] _Works_, i. 150, ii. 340, 366, 370, 382, 387, 393, ix. 339, 343;
his correspondence with Mercy Warren is in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._,
xliv. 348.

[284] Vol. ii. p. 535. It was printed separately at the time in
Philad., Watertown (Mass.), and Newport. It will also be found in the
_Journals of Congress_, i. p. 19; in Ryerson's _Loyalists_, i. p. 411;
in Marshall's _Hist. of the Colonies_, App. ix. p. 481. Cf. Story's
_Constitution_, i. 179; Curtis's _Constitution_, i. 22; Pitkin's
_United States_, i. 283; Hildreth's _United States_, iii. 43; Gay's
_Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 341; Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, p.
371; Greene's _Hist. View_, p. 83; Ramsay's _South Carolina_, i. p. 233.

[285] Cf. note on the authorship of it, in _N. Jersey Archives_, x. 529.

[286] It is printed from this copy, with fac-similes of the signatures,
in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (May, 1883, p. 377), together with the
letter transmitting it (Stevens's _Hist. Coll._, i. 167; _Bibl. Hist._,
1870, no. 1,026). Franklin printed it at once in Almon's edition of the
_Journal of the Congress_ (_Works relating to Franklin in the Bost.
Pub. Lib._, p. 24; _U. S. 47th Cong., 1st Sess. Misc. Doc._, no. 21,
p. 20). It is also in the Philad. ed. of the _Journal_, i. 46; and was
separately printed at Boston in 1774 and 1775, and at New York in 1776,
with other documents (Sabin, iv. nos. 15,581-83; Haven in Thomas, ii.
pp. 642-43). It has since been given in Force, 4th ser., i. 934; _N.
H. Prov. Papers_, vii. 437-41; _N. Jersey Archives_, x. 522; Spencer's
_United States_, i. 348, 381; Griffeth's _Historical Notes_, 136. Cf.
Ramsay's _So. Carolina_, i. 242; _John Adams's Works_, i. 159, x. 273;
Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, 377; _Amer. Quart. Review_, i.
413.

[287] Cf. _Journals of Congress_, i. 26; Pitkin's _United States_, i.
App. 17; Spencer's _United States_, i. 338; Lee's _Life of R. H. Lee_,
i. 119; Jay's _Life of John Jay_, i. App.; Ramsay's _South Carolina_,
263. There was published in London _A letter to the people of Great
Britain in answer to that published by the American Congress_ (London,
1775,—Sabin, x. no. 40,509).

[288] Given in Ramsay's _Rev. in So. Carolina_, i. 279; _N. H. Prov.
Papers_, vii. 426, etc.

[289] Given in the Appendix of Frothingham's _Joseph Warren_, and in
_Journal Cont. Cong._, i. p. 9. Cf. _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 59; _Life
of George Read_, 95.

[290] _New York during the Rev._, i. 34, 36.

[291] P. O. Hutchinson's _Governor Hutchinson_, i. 272.

[292] Cf. a letter of A. Lee on the effect of the Congress on the
ministry, in _Life of A. Lee_, i. 213.

[293] The plan was published in Philadelphia at the time, and was
included the next year in Galloway's _Candid examination of the mutual
claims of Great Britain and the colonies, with a plan of accommodation
on Constitutional principles_ (New York, 1775, and again in 1780).
This drew out _An Address to the Author of a pamphlet entitled_, etc.,
to which Galloway responded in _A Reply_ (N. Y., 1775). It was later
included in Galloway's _Historical and political Reflections on the
Rise and Progress of the Amer. Rebellion_ (London, 1780). Cf. Force,
4th ser., i. p. 1; Sparks's _Franklin_, vii. 276, viii. 145; Bigelow's
_Franklin_, ii. 249; Gordon, i. 409; _John Adams's Works_, ii. 387,
iv. 141; Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, ii. 109, 430; Bancroft,
_United States_, orig. ed., vii. 140; Pitkin's _United States_, i.
299; Hildreth's _United States_, iii. 46; Frothingham's _Rise of
the Republic_, 367, 399; Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii. 218; Dawson's
_Westchester County_, 34; Graydon's _Memoirs_, 117; lives of Washington
by Marshall and Sparks; lives of John Jay by Jay and by Flanders; and
of Patrick Henry by Wirt.

Jones, in his _New York during the Rev._, i. ch. 2, with notes on pp.
438, 449, 477, 490, explains the relations of the loyalists to this
Congress. Governor Franklin sent the Galloway plan to Dartmouth with
comments (_N. J. Archives_, x. 503).

Galloway explains his relations to this Congress, and divulged more
than the agreement of secrecy was held to warrant, in his _Examination
before the House of Commons in a committee on the American Papers_
(London, 1779; 2d ed., with explanatory notes, 1780; ed. by Thomas
Balch, Philad., for the Seventy-Six Society, 1855). There is a Dutch
version, 1781 (Muller, 1877, no. 1,200). Respecting this examination,
Lecky (ii. pp. 443, 481, etc.) says: "As a loyalist, Galloway's mind
was no doubt biased; but he was a very able and honest man, and he had
much more than common means of forming a correct judgment."

It has been supposed that Galloway conveyed to Governor Franklin the
information which through that official reached Dartmouth (_N. Jersey
Archives_, x. 473). Galloway is said also to have prepared the pamphlet
_Arguments on both sides in the dispute_, etc., which is also reprinted
in the _N. J. Archives_, x. 478. On Galloway, see Sabine's _Loyalists_,
i. 453.

Haven ascribes to Thomas B. Chandler, and Sabin (no. 16,591) to Dr.
Myles Cooper, a tract, _What think ye of Congress now? Or an Enquiry
how far the Americans are bound to abide by and execute the decisions
of the late Continental Congress, with a plan by Samuel_ [sic]
_Galloway, Esq., for a proposed union between Great Britain and her
Colonies_ (N. Y., 1775; Lond., 1775). This pamphlet accuses the New
England republicans of urging the Congress beyond the purpose for which
its members were elected.

[294] The articles were printed in all newspapers, and in those of
Boston, Nov. 7th. They are also in the _Journals of Congress_, i.
23; in Ramsay's _Rev. in South Carolina_, i. 252; in H. W. Preston's
_Docs. illus. Amer. Hist._ (N. Y., 1886), p. 199; in Force, 4th ser.,
i. 915, with fac-simile of signatures; in the _Charleston Year Book_
(1883), p. 216, with fac-similes; in Jos. Johnson's _Traditions and
Reminiscences of the Amer. Rev._ (Charleston, 1851), p. 51, with
fac-similes. The signatures, somewhat reduced, are given herewith from
Smith's _Hist. and Lit. Curiosities_, 2d ser., p. liii. Maryland's copy
of the original printed broadside, with written signatures, is in the
Penna. Hist. Soc. library. Frothingham gives the best account of the
genesis of the document and the effect it had (_Rise of the Republic_,
373, 396). In Massachusetts, a broadside Resolution of the Provincial
Congress, signed by Hancock, Dec. 6th, was sent to all the ministers,
urging them to give their influence to secure a general compliance
(in Boston Pub. Lib., H. 90 _a_, 3). This plan of association was
opposed by Galloway, Duane, and all the South Carolina delegates except
Gadsden. Jones (_N. Y. during the Rev._, i. 438) gives the loyalist
view. _The association of the delegates, etc., by Bob Jinger_, is a
burlesque on the association (_Harris Collection of Amer. Poetry_, p.
13).

[295] Bancroft, orig. ed., vii. 161.

[296] _Cavendish Debates_, ed. by Wright, viz., _Debates of the House
of Commons in 1774 on the bill for making more effectual provision
for the government of the Province of Quebec, with Mitchell's map of
Canada_ (Lond., 1839). See also the proceedings and the bill in _Amer.
Archives_, 4th ser., i. 170-219, 1823-1838. The bill is also in the
Regents of the University of New York's _Report on the boundaries of
the State of N. Y._, i. 90. Cf. Burke's letter on the Quebec Bill and
the bounds of New York in _N. Y. Hist. Coll._, 2d ser., ii. 215, 219;
Mill's _Boundaries of Ontario_, p. 50; Gordon's Sermon in Thornton's
_Pulpit of the Rev._, 217, Shea's _Hamilton_, 324; and _Works of Alex.
Hamilton_.

The satirical print "Virtual Representation", given herewith, follows
an original print in a volume of _Proclamations_ in the library of the
Mass. Hist. Society. Cf. Lossing's _Field-Book of the Rev._, i. 158.

[297] Cf. Lecky, _England in the Eighteenth Century_, iii. 400,
433, on the effect of the act. Cf. also _The Singular and Diverting
Behaviour of Doctor Marriot, His Majesty's Advocate-General; Who was
Examined concerning the Religion and Laws of Quebec; And found means
from his incomparable Wit and Subtility To defeat the Purposes for
which he was brought to the Bar of Parliament On the 3d of June,
1774_ (Phila., 1774). Samuel Johnson's _Hypocrisy unmasked, or a
short inquiry into the religious Complaints of our Amer. Colonies_
(Lond., 1776, 3 editions), defends the bill, and says it extends no
more rights to Catholics than some of the colonies do (Sabin, ix. no.
36,297). _A Letter to Lord Chatham on the Quebec Bill_ reached five
editions (London, 1774; reprinted, Boston, 1774), and was corrected in
the second edition. Sabin (x. 40,468) says it was attributed to Lord
Lyttelton, and more probably to Sir William Meredith. The New York
reprint (1774) gave it as _A letter from Lord Thomas Lyttelton to Wm.
Pitt, Earl of Chatham_ (Stevens, _Hist. Coll._, ii. no. 433). Wilkie
published _The justice and policy of the late Act of Parliament, for
making more effectual provision for the government of Quebec, asserted
and proved; and the conduct of the administration respecting that
province stated and vindicated_ (London, 1774, two editions), which
is attributed to William Knox. Francis Masères published _An account
of the proceedings of the British and other Protestants, inhabitants
of the province of Quebec_, with _Additional papers concerning the
province of Quebec_ (Lond., 1776), and _The Canadian Freeholder ...
shewing the sentiments of the bulk of the freeholders of Canada,
concerning the late Quebeck act_ (Lond., 1777, in three vols.). _An
Appeal to the public, stating and considering the objections to the
Quebec bill_ (London, 1774), was dedicated to the patriotic society of
the Bill of Rights.

[298] _A letter to the inhabitants of the Province of Quebec_ (Philad.,
1774). _Lettre addressée aux habitans de la Province de Quebec_
(Philad., 1774). _A clear idea of the genuine and uncorrupted British
Constitution in an address to the inhabitants of the province of
Quebec from the forty-nine delegates in the Continental Congress at
Philadelphia, Sept. 5-Oct. 10, 1774_ (London, 1774). Cf. Sabin, iv.
15,516, ix. p. 293, x. 40,664; _Journals of Congress_, i. 39.

[299] P. O. Hutchinson's _Governor Hutchinson_, i. 296.

[300] _Aspinwall Papers_ (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._), ii. 706.

[301] Cf. Reed's _Life of Reed_, i. 76, 78, 82, and George Bancroft's
_Jos. Reed_, p. 10. Governor Franklin's letters to Dartmouth are in
the _New Jersey Archives_ (x. 473, 503), where the anxiety of the king
is disclosed (_Ibid._ x. 496, 534-5). Chatham's opinion is cited in
Quincy's _Life of Josiah Quincy, Jr._, 268. Later English views are
given in Mahon, vi. 13, and Lecky, iii. 408, 443.

[302] Dawson's _Westchester County_, pp. 36, 37.

[303] On the Tory side were Doctors Cooper, Inglis, Seabury, and
Chandler; on the Whig side, William Livingston, John Jay, and Alex.
Hamilton. Cf. Lossing's _Schuyler_, i. ch. 17.

[304] Dawson, _Westchester County_, p. 137 (see also _Hist. Mag._,
1868, p. 9), contends for Wilkins, and doubts what is put forward as
Seabury's own evidence in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Feb., 1882, p.
117. Cf. _Amer. Quart. Church Rev._, April, 1881; Shea's _Hamilton_,
ch. 7; _Manual of N. Y. City_, 1868, p. 813.

[305] The Seabury-Wilkins tracts are:

_Free thoughts on the proceedings of the Continental congress, held at
Philadelphia, Sept. 5, 1774: wherein their errors are exhibited, their
reasonings confuted and the fatal tendency of their non-importation,
non-exportation, and non-consumption measures, are laid open to the
plainest understanding_ [_etc._]; _in a letter to the farmers, and
other inhabitants of North America in general, and to those of the
province of New York in particular. By a farmer._ [_Signed A. W.
farmer._] (Without place, 1774.)

_The congress canvassed: or, an examination into the conduct of the
delegates, at their grand convention, held in Philadelphia, Sept.
1, 1774. Addressed to the merchants of New York. By A. W., Farmer_
(Philad., 1774).

There was a reply to the Farmer in _Holt's New York Journal_, Dec. 22,
1774 (Dawson, p. 40); but the most extraordinary rejoinder was that
of the youthful Alexander Hamilton, then eighteen years old, in _A
full vindication of the measures of the congress, from the calumnies
of their enemies; in answer to a letter, tender the signature of A.
W., Farmer. Whereby his sophistry is exposed_ [_etc._]; _in a general
address to the inhabitants of America, and a particular address to the
farmers of the province of New York._ [_Signed, A friend to America._]
(New York, 1774.) Cf. P. L. Ford's _Bibliotheca Hamiltoniana_ (N. Y.,
1886), no. 1.

The "Farmer" replied in _A view of the controversy between Great
Britain and her colonies. In a letter to the author of A full
vindication of the measures of congress, from the calumnies of their
enemies. By A. W., Farmer?_ (New York, 1774.)

Hamilton's final rejoinder is _The farmer refuted; or, a more
comprehensive and impartial view of the disputes between Great Britain
and the colonies. Intended as a further Vindication of the congress, in
answer to a Letter from a Westchester farmer, entitled a View of the
controversy between Great Britain and her colonies. By a sincere friend
to America_ (1775). Cf. Ford, no. 3.

These productions of the young Whig are contained in the various
editions of _Hamilton's Works_. Cf. J. Hamilton's _Repub. of the U.
S._, i. 65; Shea's _Hamilton_, p. 330.

[306] _A friendly address to all reasonable Americans on our political
confusions_ (New York, 1774; America, 1774; Lond., 1774; Dublin,
1775; abridged, New York, 1774. Sabin, iv. 16,587-8). A copy with the
author's MS. corrections was sold at Bangs's, N. Y., Feb., 1854, no.
178. The resulting tracts are: _The other side of the question, or a
defence of the liberties of No. America, in answer to a late Friendly
Address_ (N. Y., 1774; Boston, 1775). By Philip Livingston. _Strictures
on a pamphlet entitled a Friendly Address_ (N. Y., 1774; Philad., 1774;
Boston, 1775). This is by Charles Lee, and is reprinted in the Charles
Lee Papers, in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1871, p. 151. _The strictures
on the Friendly Address examined and a refutation of its principles
attempted_ (Philad., 1775, two editions). This is sometimes ascribed to
Thomas B. Chandler, and sometimes to Lieut. Henry Barry. Cooper also
printed _The American querist, or some questions proposed relative to
the present disputes between Great Britain and her American colonies_
(N. Y., 1774; Boston, 1774; London, 1775,—Sabin, iv. 16,586).

[307] It is printed in Almon's _Prior Documents_ (1777), with
Franklin's name, and Sparks includes it in his edition of Franklin (iv.
466). Lee is also said to have had a main hand, aided by Franklin, in
_An appeal to the justice and interests of the people of Great Britain
in the present dispute with America_ (London, 1774). Cf. Sparks's
_Franklin_, iv. 409. Another tract ascribed at the time to Franklin was
really written by James Wilson, namely, _Considerations on the nature
and extent of the legislative authority of the British parliament_
Philad., 1774. Cf, Sparks's _Franklin_, iv. 409.

[308] Philad. and London, 1774; included in _Political Writings of
Dickinson_ (Wilmington, 1801, vol. i.), and in _Penna. Archives_, 2d
ser., iii. 560. Cf. _Hist. Mag._, x. 288. Governor Bernard briefly
set forth his view of _The Causes of the present distractions in
America_ (1774), and also gathered certain letters written from Boston
in 1763-68, and published them as _Select letters on the trade and
government of America_ (London, 1774,—Sabin, ii. 4,920, 4,925). The
government printed a _Report of the Lords' Committee, appointed to
inquire into the several proceedings in the colony of Mass. Bay, in
opposition to the sovereignty of his Majesty_ (London, 1774). Granville
Sharp's _Declaration of the people's natural right to a share in the
legislature_, issued in London (1774), was reprinted in Boston, New
York, and Philadelphia (Haven in Thomas, ii. p. 650).

[309] Cf., for instance, the letters of the king to Dartmouth, in
the Dartmouth Papers (_Hist. MSS. Com. Rept._, ii.); proceedings in
Parliament given in Force, 4th ser., i. 5, and in Niles's _Principles_,
etc.; Hutchinson's diary, including his interview with the king (P. O.
Hutchinson, i. p. 157) and talks with Pownall (p. 251); the picture
of Fox and Barré in debates in Smyth's _Lectures_ (ii. 386), and such
more general accounts as those in Frothingham's _Rise_, etc. (p. 344),
Bancroft's _United States_ (vii. 173, 186, 194), Parton's _Franklin_
(ii. 5), and papers by T. H. Pattison in the _New Englander_ (xl. 571),
and Winthrop Sargent in the _No. Amer. Rev._, lxxx. p. 236. The letters
of Franklin (_Works_, iv.) add much, and the influence and speeches of
Chatham bring him into prominence.

[310] Dawson's _Westchester_, 48, 50, 60, where the authorities of
the diverse views are cited. Its sessions closed April 3d, and it
was the last Assembly under the royal order. Its proceedings are in
Jones's _New York during the Rev._, i. 506. Within a month a general
association was signed (April 29th) in New York of the opposers of
government (Jones, i. 505). The proceedings of the New York and
Elizabethtown committee of observation, relating to infractions of the
non-importation agreements, are in the _N. Jersey Archives_, x. 561.
The records of the provincial congress (which followed) are at Albany,
and are partly printed in Force. The _Sparks MSS._ (no. xxxvii.) show
extracts, 1775-78. (Cf. Dawson, 91. Cf. Hamilton's _Repub. of the U.
S._, i. ch. 3; Reed's _Jos. Reed_, i.93.) As soon as Governor Tryon
discovered the temper of the Continental Congress he sought safety on
board a man-of-war in the harbor (_Ibid._, 118), and later in the year
(Dec. 4th) he addressed a letter to the people of the province, urging
the adoption of plans of reconciliation (_Ibid._, 141).

[311] Henry was a character of which, as time goes on, there is an
appreciating estimate. His grandson, William Wirt Henry, is preparing
an extended memoir, having already sketched his career in the _Hist.
Mag._, xii. 90, 368, xxii. 272, 346; _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, p. 78.
Professor Moses Coit Tyler has embodied new material in his _Patrick
Henry_ of the "American Statesmen Series." Cf. Frothingham's _Rise_,
etc., 179; Mahon, v. 89; and references in _Poole's Index_. For
contemporary judgments, see _John Adams's Works_, i. 208, x. 277;
and Jefferson's letter in _Hist. Mag._, Aug., 1867, and comments
in _Ibid._, Dec., 1867. Alexander Johnston, in his _Representative
American Orations_ (vol. i.), selects Henry's speech in the House of
Delegates, March 28, 1775, as the leading specimen of Revolutionary
oratory. The usual portrait of Patrick Henry is the one by Sully,
representing him with his spectacles raised upon his forehead. It
was engraved by W. S. Leney in 1817. There is a woodcut in Lossing's
_Field-Book_, ii. 439. His is one of the portraits in Independence
Hall. On the class rank of the leading agitators in Virginia, compare
Rives's _Madison_, i. 71; Grigsby on _The Virginia Convention of 1776_;
and John Tyler's _Address at Jamestown, May, 1857_.

[312] _Journals of Congress_, i. 40.

[313] Cf. verses "Loyal York" from _Rivington's Gazetteer_, in Moore's
_Songs and Ballads_, 74.

[314] Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 37. For Hancock's character, see
Wells's _Sam. Adams_, an unfavorable view. Cf. also Sanderson's
_Signers of the Decl. of Ind._; Loring's _Hundred Boston Orators_; C.
W. Upham's speech in the Mass. Legislature, March 17, 1859, on the bill
for preserving the Hancock House. Hancock's correspondence as president
of Congress is in Force, 4th ser., v.; 5th ser., i., ii., iii.

[315] Cf. ed. in 13 vols. Also see _List of delegates, with journal
of their proceedings from May 10 to July 31, 1775_ (Philad.,
1775,—Sabin, x. 41,447). Extracts from the votes, etc., were printed
in New York; and their _Journal_ in Philad. and New York (Haven in
Thomas, ii. 656). There are notes on the debates in _John Adams's
Works_, ii. 445. Cf. _Elliot's Debates_, i. 45. A fac-simile of the
minutes for Dec. 26, 1775, signed by Chas. Thomson, is given in J.
J. Smith's _Hist. and Lit. Curios._, 2d ser., p. xiii. The several
publications of the Congress (included also in their _Journals_) are as
follows:—_Declaration by the representatives of the United Colonies_
... _setting forth the causes and necessity of taking up arms_
(Philad., Watertown, Newport, 1775; London, 1775,—Sabin, iv. 15,522).
Cf. L. H. Porter's _Outlines of the Const. Hist. of the U. S._, p. 38.

_The twelve United Colonies by their delegates in Congress to the
inhabitants of Great Britain, July 8, 1775_ (Philad., 1775; Newport,
1775,—Sabin, iv. 15,596). It was drafted by R. H. Lee. Cf. his _Life_,
i. 143. Cf. Ramsay's _Rev. in S. Carolina_, p. 362.

_Address of the twelve United Colonies_ ... _to the people of Ireland_
(Philad. and New York, 1775,—Sabin, iv. 15,512).

_Address from the delegates of the twelve United Colonies to the people
of New England_ (Newport, 1775; reprinted in the _R. I. Hist. Mag._,
1885).

A petition to the king was adopted July 8th. It is said to have been
moulded, in part at least, upon an appeal of Richard Stockton, of
New Jersey, dated Dec. 12, 1774 (_Orderly-book of Sir John Johnson_,
p. 176-78). Cf. Force, 4th ser., iv. 607; Ramsay, i. 355; Sparks's
_Franklin_, i. 372, x. 435; Bancroft, vii. 186; Barry's _Mass._, ii.
60, 61, with references; Lee's _Arthur Lee_, i. 47; ii. 312. The London
agents were instructed to print and circulate it (_Journals_, i. 112).
Mahon (vol. vi.) says that the king was influenced by a mere punctilio
in not replying to it, and Dartmouth writes to Carleton that it found
no favor in or out of Parliament.

On the choice by Congress of Washington as commander-in-chief,
see _John Adams's Works_, ii. 417; Bancroft, orig. ed., vii. ch.
37; Hildreth's _United States_; Hamilton's _Hamilton_, i. 110;
Frothingham's _Rise of the Repub._, 430, and his paper in _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, March, 1876, and C. F. Adams in _Ibid._, June, 1858.

On the proposed articles of confederation (May 10th) and the debate
thereon, see Sparks's _Franklin_, v. 91; _N. Jersey Archives_, x. 692;
_Secret Journals of Congress_ (July and Aug., 1775); and a contemporary
draft of the articles in _Letters and Papers, 1761-1776_ (MSS. in Mass.
Hist. Soc. library).

In June, 1775, the Congress was called upon to approve the form of
autonomy into which the progress of events had forced the people
of Massachusetts Bay. Mr. A. C. Goodell, Jr., has traced the legal
bearings of successive steps in a paper in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
May, 1884, p. 192. The word "province" was renounced, as the dependence
upon the royal governor had ceased; and the word "colony" accepted, as
indicating the modified dependence which still held applicable to the
relations of the people to the throne. Up to April, 1776, the regnal
year was used in acts, but upon the Declaration of Independence being
received, all legislative acts run in the name of the "State." For
the change of government in New Hampshire, see Belknap's _Hist. of N.
Hampshire_, and papers in the Belknap MSS. (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
x. 324). An _Historical Sketch of the Hillsborough County Congresses
held at Amherst, N. H., 1774 and 1775, with other Revolutionary
Records_, by Edw. D. Boylston, was published at Amherst in 1884.

On May 10th Congress adopted _Rules and articles for the better
government of the troops raised and to be raised by the twelve United
English Colonies_ (Philad., Watertown, Mass., New York, 1775). Also
in Force, 4th ser., ii., 1855; _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vii. 538; _R. I.
Col. Rec._, vii. 340; _N. J. Prov. Cong._, etc. (1879), p. 264. The
Massachusetts articles of war were much the same. The _Rules_ arranged
by Timothy Pickering were published in 1775, and a presentation copy
from Pickering to Gen. John Thomas, with a letter annexed, belongs to
W. A. Thomas, of Kingston, Mass.

The plan of Congress for organizing the militia is given in their
_Journals_, i. 118. They also caused to be printed W. Sewall's _Method
of making saltpetre_ (Philad., 1775). A paper by C. C. Smith on the
making of gunpowder during the Revolution is in _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, March, 1876. As to the manufacture of other munitions of war,
see Bishop's _Hist. Amer. Manuf._, i. ch. 17 and 18, and index, under
cannon and firearms; and J. F. Tuttle on the Hibernia furnace, in the
_N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 2d ser., vi. 148.

An agreement of the members (Nov. 9th) to keep the proceedings secret
is given in fac-simile in _Force_, 4th ser., iii. 1,918. A Committee
of Secret Correspondence, for preserving relations with sympathizers
in Europe, was established Nov. 29th. (Cf. C. W. F. Dumas's letters in
_Diplom. Corresp._, ix.; and _Force_, 5th ser., ii. and iii.)

For the Congress in general, see the histories of Gordon, Pitkin (i.
ch. 9), Bancroft (vii. 353, viii. 25, 51), Grahame (iv. 407), Hildreth
(iii. ch. 31); Greene's _Hist. View_, 89; Frothingham's _Rise_, etc.,
419; Thaddeus Allen's _Origination of the Amer. Union_; Lecky (iii.
465); Ryerson (i. ch. 23); and the histories of the original States.
Also, see lives of the members, etc.,—Franklin (by Sparks, Bigelow,
Parton), Washington (by Marshall, Sparks, Irving), Sam. Adams (by
Wells, ii. ch. 37), John Adams (by Adams, i. 212, ii. 408, x. 163, 171,
396, and his _Familiar Letters_, 83), R. H. Lee (i. 140), Schuyler (by
Lossing, i. 316), Jefferson (by Randall, i. ch. 4, by Parton, ch. 19),
Jay (by Jay), Madison (by Rives, i. 105), Geo. Read (by Read, 110),
Gouverneur Morris (by Sparks, i. 46), Rutledge (by Flanders, ch. 8);
lives of John Alsop and Philip Livingston (_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, i.
226, 303); Silas Deane's letters in _Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii.;
diary of Christopher Marshall; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, by John Ward,
ii. 193; _Poole's Index_, p. 295. A memorial of the inhabitants of
Newport to the Congress is in the _R. I. Hist. Mag._, July, 1855. Sam.
Adams wrote, Nov. 16th, from Philadelphia to Bowdoin: "The petition
of Congress has been treated with evident contempt. I cannot conceive
that there is any room to hope for the virtuous efforts of the people
of Britain" (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xii., 227). Walpole (_Last
Journal_, i. 439) describes the effects of the action of this Congress
in England.

The most significant controversial reply in England to the action of
Congress came from a man of whom William S. Johnson (Beardsley, p.
71) was reporting to his American friends that he "was not much above
an idiot" in appearance, but could repay one for his unfavorable
appearance when he spoke,—Dr. Samuel Johnson, who published in 1775
his _Taxation no tyranny, an answer to the resolutions and address
of the American Congress_, passing through four editions in that
year. Macaulay says of it: "The arguments were such as boys use in
debating societies. The pleasantry was as awkward as the gambols
of a hippopotamus." Cf. Johnson's works, all editions; Boswell's
_Johnson_; Bancroft, orig. ed., vii. 257-8; Smyth's _Lectures_, ii.
399; Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_, 110; Sabin, ix. 36,303, where (36,304-9)
are various tracts which appeared in answer. Cf. _Cooke Catal._, no.
1,315. One of the most prominent of these replies was an anonymous
_Defence of the resolutions and address of the American congress, in
reply to Taxation no tyranny. By the author of Regulus. To which are
added, general remarks on the leading principles of that work, as
published in the London Evening Post of the 2d and 4th of May; and a
short chain of deductions from one clear position of common sense and
experience_ (London, 1775,—Sabin, iv. 15,523). The next year the same
writer published _A letter to the Rev. Dr._ [Richard] _Price_. Moore's
_Sheridan_ (ch. 3) gives an outline of an intended answer to Johnson.

A sort of semi-official response to the Declaration, made on the part
of the government, appeared in the _Rights of Great Britain asserted
against the claims of America_, which is usually ascribed to Sir John
Dalrymple, though by some to James Macpherson. It appeared in seven or
eight editions at London in 1776, and also the same year at Edinburgh
and Philadelphia, and was translated into French (Sabin, v. 18,347).
Dalrymple is said also to have been the writer of an _Address of the
people of Great Britain to the inhabitants of America_, published
anonymously by Cadell, at London, in 1775. This was a conciliatory
effort at coöperation with certain placating measures, which the
government sought to promote, and copies of the tract in large numbers
are said to have been sent to America for distribution (Sabin, v.
18,346; _Sparks Catal._, no. 709; Stevens, _Nugget_, no. 3,106).

A Portuguese Jew, Isaac Pinto, living in Holland, took up the line of
argument used in the _Rights of Great Britain_, and "employed a venal
pen", as Franklin expressed it, "in the most insolent manner, against
the Americans" (_Sparks Catal._, no. 2,075; _Diplom. Corresp. of the
Rev._, ix. 265). Pinto's tracts were addressed to Samuel Barretts of
Jamaica, and were called _Lettre ... au sujet des troubles qui agitent
actuellement toute l'Amérique Septentrionale_, and a _Seconde Lettre_
(both La Haye, 1776,—Sabin, xv. 62,988-89). The English translation,
_Letters on the American Troubles_, appeared the same year in London
(Sabin, xv. 62,990). Pinto was answered in _Nouvelles observations_,
and a _Réponse_ followed, also La Haye, 1776 (Sabin, xiii. 56,095, xv.
62,991).

Almon published in 1775 an _Appeal to the justice and interests of the
people on the measures respecting America_, and the same year a _Second
appeal_; and later, by the same author, _A speech intended to have been
delivered in the House of the Commons in support of the petition from
the general Congress at Philad._ There has been much difference of
opinion as to the writers of these tracts, the names of Arthur Lee, C.
Glover, Lord Chatham, and Franklin having been mentioned. (Cf. _Cooke
Catal._, iii. no. 1,033; R. H. Lee's _Life of A. Lee_, i. 19.)

[316] "Massachusettensis", a Tory writer, brought out his first letter
in the _Mass. Gazette_, Dec. 12, 1774, and continued them at intervals
till April 3, 1775. The evidence that their writer was Leonard is
presented in Bancroft, orig. ed., vii. 231; by Lucius Manlius Sargent
in the _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, July, Oct., 1864, or vol. xviii.
291, 353 (from the _Boston Transcript_). The letters were separately
published in New York, 1775, as _The present political state of the
province of Mass. Bay in general and the town of Boston in particular_,
and again as _The origin of the Amer. Contest with Great Britain, or
the present political state_, etc.,—both giving the writer as "a
native of New England" (Haven in Thomas, ii. p. 660). What is called
a second and third edition (London, 1776) purports to follow a Boston
imprint, and is called _Massachusettensis, or a series of letters
containing a faithful state of many facts, which laid the foundation
of the present troubles, ... by a person of honor upon the spot_. (Cf.
Sabin, x. p. 219.) There was also an edition in Dublin, 1776 (_Hist.
Mag._, i. 249). Lecky (iii. 419) speaks of these letters as showing
"remarkable eloquence and touching and manifest earnestness." Trumbull,
in the first canto of his _M'Fingal_, had early assumed that Leonard
was the author. See, on Leonard, Sabine's _Amer. Loyalists_ and Ellis
Ames in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xii. 52.

John Adams, on the patriot side, began Jan. 23, 1775, a series of
letters in the _Boston Gazette_, to counteract the effect of those of
"Massachusettensis", and used the signature "Novanglus." The fight at
Lexington broke off further publication for either disputant. Almon
printed an abridgment of these papers in the _Remembrancer_, and they
were later (London, 1783, 1784) published as _A history of the Dispute
with America_, and were included finally in C. F. Adams's ed. of _John
Adams's Works_ (vol. iv.,—see also ii. 405, x. 178-79).

Both series were reprinted together in Boston in 1819, with a preface
by Adams, who then still considered Sewall his adversary. Cf. Edmund
Quincy's _Life of Quincy_, p. 381; Frothingham's _Rise of the Repub._,
393.

Of the Boston newspapers, _Fleet's Evening Post_ was used
indiscriminately as the organ of the patriots and their opponents,
and expired April 24, 1775; the _Boston Newsletter_ passed under
governmental control, and alone continued to be published during the
siege of Boston; the _Massachusetts Gazette_ was the chief organ of
the government; the _Boston Gazette_, devoted to the patriots, and
more temperate than the _Massachusetts Spy_, which was later removed
to Worcester. The most important Massachusetts journal outside of
Boston was the _Essex Gazette_. (Cf. B. F. Thomas's _Memoir of Isaiah
Thomas_, prefixed to the Amer. Antiq. Society's ed. of Thomas's _Hist.
of Printing_ [also see ii. 294]; J. T. Buckingham's _Specimens of
newspaper literature_; F. Hudson's _American Journalism_; _Mem. Hist.
Boston_, iii. 130.)

Rivington published in New York the principal paper in the Tory
interests, known as the _Gazetteer_, 1773-1775, and later as the
_Loyal_ and then _Royal Gazette_. The footnotes in Moore's _Diary of
the American Revolution_ and Thomas's _Hist. of Printing_ will show the
newspapers of the other colonies.

The tracts of 1775-76 are too numerous to enumerate. Grahame
characterizes the chief writers (_United States_, iv. 320). The monthly
lists of the _Gent. Mag._ and _Monthly Rev._ will show most of their
titles for England. Cf. Adolphus's _England_, ii. 331; Morgann's _Life
of Richard Price_; Fitzmaurice's _Shelburne_, iii. 95. Haven's list for
America ends with 1775; but the Brinley, Sparks, and other catalogues
give many of them, and they can be found in Sabin by their authors'
names. Many of these tracts embody plans of reconciliation.

[317] Sabin, xv. nos. 65,444, etc.; P. O. Hutchinson, ii. 38. John
Wilkes, who had been Lord Mayor of London since 1774, brought the
influence of its government against the ministry, and Price was offered
the freedom of the city. Wilkes's speech of Feb. 6, 1775, is in Niles
(ed. 1776, p. 425). In April, 1775, Wilkes and the aldermen had
appealed to the king against the ministry (Bancroft, orig. ed., vii.
282), and there is a broadside copy of an appeal, July 5, 1775, by the
city to the king, in the Mass. Hist. Soc. library. In Aug., 1775, when
the king issued his proclamation for the suppression of the rebellion,
Wilkes paid it studied affront.

[318] Varying views of the current of British feeling will be found in
Frothingham's _Rise of the Repub._, p. 412, etc.; in Bancroft, orig.
ed., vii. 219, 241, 257, etc., and in the final revision, iv. ch. 22
and 23. Lecky (iii. 573) thinks the majority of the people were with
the king, and Hutchinson reported like views (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
xvi. 255). Galloway was still communicating to the ministry secret
intelligence through Gov. Franklin, of New Jersey (_N. J. Archives_, x.
570), and was causing it to be known that the people in the colonies
who were for war were the violent ones, while the Quakers and the
Dutch, the Baptists, Mennonists, and Dumplers, were for moderation
(_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. 340).

[Illustration]

A letter of John Wesley, June 14, 1775, to the Earl of Dartmouth,
protesting against the war, is among the Dartmouth Papers, noted in
the _Hist. MSS. Com. Rept._, ii., and is printed in _Macmillan's
Mag._, Dec., 1870. Dartmouth, July 5th, wrote to Governor Franklin,
of N. Jersey, that the king was determined to crush the revolt (_N.
J. Archives_, x. 513, 645), and the king issued his proclamation "for
suppressing rebellion and sedition" Aug. 23, 1775. It was sent over
in broadside (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xii. 186), and is printed in
Force's _Amer. Archives_. In September Arthur Lee was writing of the
violent temper of the ministry (_Calendar of A. Lee Papers_, p. 7, no.
62). The _Diary_ of Governor Hutchinson helps us much, and throws light
on the talk of compromise (ii. 25, 27), the temporary forgetfulness of
the American question in the trial of the Duchess of Kingston (ii. 34),
and Pownall's talk (ii. 127). The military resources of the colonies
were not overlooked, and _A letter to Lord Geo. Germain_ (London, 1776)
warned that minister of what this meant, while the decision to pardon
criminals in order to enlist them in the service of suppressing the
rebellion did not a little to widen the breach (Lecky, iii. 585).

Abstracts of various papers in the Public Record Office for 1775 are
given in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. 340, etc.

[319] Cf. the indexes under the names of the leading debaters.

[320] The subject gets some enlivenment in the Toryism of Walpole's
_George the Third_, edited by Le Marchant, and his _Last Journals_,
edited by Dr. Doran.

Edmund Burke's conspicuousness makes his character and the record of
it of first importance, and we need for successive estimates of his
influence to consult the lives of him by Bisset, Prior, P. Burke,
and Macknight. For his bearing as a speaker, see Wraxall's _Hist.
Memoirs_ (ii. 35). For an estimate of his arguments, see Smyth's
_Lectures_ (Bohn's ed., ii. 403, 408). His speeches on American
Taxation (April 19, 1774) and conciliation (March 22, 1775) are in
the various collected editions of his _Works_,—among the best of
such being the Boston edition (1865, etc., Little, Brown & Co.) and
the edition published by Nimmo (1885),—all of them following in the
main Rivington's first octavo edition in 16 vols., London, 1801-27.
Henry Morley has edited, with an introduction, Burke's _Two speeches
on Conciliation with America_ (London, 1886). His speech of March 22,
1775, is in Niles's _Principles_, etc. (1876 ed., p. 429). Lecky (iii.
426) sketches his policy. For conversations of Burke and North, see
_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Nov., 1881, p. 358.

The lives and speeches of Chatham are quite as necessary. Franklin
was introduced into the Lords in Jan., 1775, by Chatham himself, when
Chatham brought forward his motion for conciliation with America, and
Franklin considered as much the best the notes which Josiah Quincy,
Jr., made (Jan. 20, 1775) of the speeches of Chatham and Camden (_Life
of J. Quincy, Jr._, 226, 264, 272, 318, 335, 403, 418; Sparks's
_Franklin_, v. 43). Among the Cathcart MSS. is a contemporary copy of
Chatham's plan which the Lords rejected (_Hist. MSS. Com. Rept._, ii.
p. 28). The later speech of Dec. 20, 1775, for removing the troops from
Boston, is also in Niles (1876 ed., p. 455). Cf. Gordon, i. 298; Force,
4th ser., i. 1,494; Smyth's _Lectures_, ii.; Parton's _Franklin_,
ii. Mahon says that the whole spirit evaporates from the reports of
Chatham's speeches in Almon. In March, 1775, Camden made a speech
which Hutchinson (P. O. Hutchinson's _Governor Hutchinson_, 408, 410)
describes and imagines Camden to have made in order that Franklin might
take the speech to America. Hutchinson also in the same month describes
Franklin in the Commons gallery, "staring with his spectacles", and
listening to the speeches against America. Two speeches of Mansfield
against America were criticised in _The Plea of the Colonies on the
Charges brought against them by Lord M——d and others_ (London, 1775,
1776; Philad., 1777,—Sabin, xv. 63,401-2).

Charles James Fox had been dismissed from the Tory government in 1774,
and was now on the opposition side, a young and vehement debater of
twenty-five (Lecky, iii. 571; Russell's _Mem. and Corresp. of Fox_, and
his _Life and Times of Fox_; numerous references in _Poole's Index_,
p. 472). On the relations of English parties to the American question,
see Lecky (iii. 586); Campbell's _Life of Loughborough_, in his _Lord
Chancellors_; _Rockingham and his Contemporaries_; Geo. W. Cooke's
_Hist. of Party_ (London, 1786-87; 1837, vol. iii.,—Sabin, iv. 16,309).

[321] Cf. Franklin's letters in his _Works_, and the letters to him
from Quincy, Winthrop, Cooper, and Warren in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
vii. 118, etc.

[322] Parton, ii. 26.

[323] Cf. Parton's _Franklin_, ii. 41, 44; Mahon, v. 24; Niles (1876
ed.), 476, _Gent. Mag._, xlvii. Franklin left London in March,
1775, and on his voyage home he wrote out an account of his recent
negotiations, which is printed in Sparks (vol. i.) and in Bigelow (ii.
256). There are different copies of this paper (Parton, ii. 71); and
Stevens (_Hist. Coll._, i. p. 160 D) has an account of one given to
Jefferson (Bigelow, ii. 253).

Just before leaving London, Franklin wrote some articles for the
_Public Advertiser_ on _The Rise and Progress of the Difference between
Great Britain and her American Colonies_, which are reprinted in
Sparks, iv. 526. (Cf. _Ibid._, v. 2, 97, and Parton, ii. 72.)

[324] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, viii. 85.

[325] P. O. Hutchinson's _Gov. Hutchinson_, i. 115, 116. Percy, writing
(April 17, 1774) just before he left England, said: "I fancy severity
is intended. Surely the people of Boston are not mad enough to think
of opposing us. Steadiness and temper will, I hope, set things in that
quarter right, and Gen. Gage is the proper man to do it." Letter to
Dr. Percy (Bishop of Dromore), among the Percy MSS. in Boston Public
Library.

[326] Address of the Merchants of Boston in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
xii. 45. A broadside list of the addressers, as taken from the _London
Gazetteer_ and _New Daily Advertiser_ of Sept. 24, 1774, was printed in
Boston. There is a copy in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society.

[327] Where he had occupied the Hooper house. Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, xvi. 6; _Evelyns in America_, p. 267. There is a view of it in
_The Century_, xxviii. p. 864. "King Hooper", as he was called, was
born in 1710 and died in 1790. Cf. Perkins' _Copley_, p. 74, for a
picture of him.

There is a portrait of Gage, now in the State House at Boston, which
came to Gen. William H. Sumner through his marriage with Gage's
niece, and which is engraved in Sumner's _Hist. of East Boston_. A
contemporary engraving of Gage is reproduced in Shannon's _N. Y.
Manual_, 1869, p. 766, and in Wheildon's _Siege of Boston_.

[328] Lee, in Sept., 1774, was writing of Gage: "He is now actually
shut up at Boston ... and has perhaps the most able and determined
men of the whole world to deal with." Chas. Lee Papers, _N. Y. Hist.
Soc. Coll._, 1871, p. 136. Various letters of this period written from
Boston are in the _Evelyns in America_ (Oxford, 1881).

[329] This is the house still standing, belonging to James Russell
Lowell. _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 114.

[330] Loring's _Hundred Orators_, p. 89; _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 62;
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, vi. 261.

[331]

[Illustration]

For an account of Preble, see _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, 1868, pp.
404, 421. He, as well as Ward and Pomeroy, had been in the French wars.

[332] P. O. Hutchinson, 293, 297. Percy was writing, October 27, 1774,
from the camp in Boston: "Our affairs here are in the most critical
situation imaginable. Nothing less than the total loss or conquest of
the colonies must be the end of it.... We have got together a clever
little army here." _Percy MSS._ in Boston Public Library.

[333] _Percy MSS._, Nov. 25, 1774: "I really begin now to think that it
will come to blows at last, for they are most amazingly encouraged by
our having done nothing as yet. The people here are the most artful,
designing villains in the world."

[334] _Mem. of Quincy_, p. 216.

[335] Letters, Dec. 12 and 28, 1774. The census or estimate by congress
in 1775 gave New England 800,000 souls.

[336] _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1868, p. 337; letters of Gov.
Wentworth in _Ibid._, 1869, p. 274; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv.
450; Force's _Am. Archives_; Belknap's _New Hampshire_; T. C. Amory's
_General Sullivan_, 295; _N. H. Rev. Rolls_, i. 31; _N. H. Provincial
Papers_, vii. 420-423, 478; Mary P. Thompson's _Mem. of Judge Eben.
Thompson_ (Concord, N. H., 1886).

[337] E. S. Riley, Jr., in _Southern Monthly_, xiv, 537.

[338] Sept. 30, 1774.

[339] Gibbes' _Doc. Hist. of the Amer. Rev._

[340] Thornton's _Pulpit of the Rev._, p. 218.

[341]

[Illustration]

The paper which excited Patrick Henry was the "Broken Hints" of Joseph
Hawley, which was first printed in Niles's _Principles and Acts of the
Revolution_; and since in _John Adams'_ _Works_, ix. p. 641.

[342] See documents in _Amer. Archives_; Frank Moore's _Diary of the
Revolution_, i. 15.

[343] Frothingham's _Warren_, p. 416.

[344] _Ibid._, p. 413.

[345] P. O. Hutchinson, p. 371.

[346] Frothingham's _Warren_, p. 418.

[347] Gage seems to have reported to the War Office that the
information was erroneous which induced him to send out this
expedition. P. O. Hutchinson's _Gov. Hutchinson_, 432. Cf. _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, xiv. 348.

[348] They started April 5th. Howe's record appears in _A Journal kept
by Mr. John Howe, while he was employed as a British Spy during the
Revolutionary War; also while he was engaged in the smuggling business
during the late war_. (Concord, N. H., 1827.) The only copy known is
in the library of the New Hampshire Hist. Soc. Extracts from it are
printed in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_, Apr. 20, 1886.

[349] Their reports to Gage are in Force's _Amer. Archives_.

[350] P. O. Hutchinson, p. 397.

[351] _Ibid._, p. 529; Joshua Green's diary in _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, xiv. 101.

[352] Rivington's _N. Y. Gazetteer_, Mar. 16, 1775, cited in Loring's
_Hundred Boston Orators_, 60; also Moore's _Diary of the Amer. Rev._,
i. 34.

[353] The manuscript of Warren's address is preserved in the hands of
Dr. John C. Warren, and a page of it is in fac-simile in the _Mem.
Hist. of Boston_, 143. Frothingham enumerates the editions of the
printed pamphlet in his _Warren_, p. 436.

[354] It was printed as given "at the request of a number of the
inhabitants of the town of Boston." Haven in Thomas, ii. 654.

[355] _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 64.

[356] Niles's _Principles and Acts of the Revolution_ (ed. of 1876), p.
277.

[357] "Much art and pains have been employed to dismay us", wrote
Samuel Cooper to Franklin, Apr. 1, 1775, "or provoke us to some rash
action, but hitherto the people have behaved with astonishing calmness
and resolution." _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, viii. 124.

[358] Moore's _Diary of Amer. Rev._, i. 57.

[359] On this same day, Percy, in Boston, was writing "Things now every
day begin to grow more and more serious. The [rebels] are every day
in great numbers evacuating this town, and have proposed in congress
either to set it on fire and attack the troops before a reinforcement
comes, or to endeavor to starve us. Which they mean to adopt time only
can show." _Percy MSS._ in Boston Public Library.

[360] P. O. Hutchinson, pp. 428, 433.

[361] _Ibid._, 434, 475.

[362] Thomas's letter in the _Worcester Centennial Anniversary_, p. 116.

[363] They lodged in the house of the Rev. Jonas Clark, half a mile
away from Lexington Common. Loring's _Orators_, 81. The house was built
in 1698. See Hudson's _Lexington_. A painting of the house was owned by
the late H. G. Clark, of Boston.

[364] As early as Jan. 28, instructions to Gage to apprehend the
leaders of Congress had been signed. P. O. Hutchinson, p. 416.

[365] Gage had married her in 1758. She died in 1824, aged 90.

[366] _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 70.

[367] Gen. Wm. H. Sumner (_New Eng. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, viii. 188)
records some recollections of the opening of the fight as narrated to
him by Dorothy Quincy, later Mrs. John Hancock, who saw it begin.

[368] Hudson's _Lexington_, 200.

[369] The night had been chilly; but the day grew rapidly warm. The
season was a month early. Cf. Geo. Dexter's note in _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, xix. 377.

[370] John Howe was sent towards Lexington to meet and hurry Percy
along. _Journal of John Howe._

[371] Cf. Everett's _Orations_, i. p. 102.

[372] These were under the command of Col. Timothy Pickering, who
was then and has been since charged with dilatoriness in coming up.
Bancroft (_United States_) and W. V. Wells (_Sam. Adams_) so assert.
Bancroft was controverted by Samuel Swett in a pamphlet in 1859, and
Octavius Pickering, in his _Life of T. Pickering_ (ch. 5 and App.),
makes a full defence of his father.

[373] Andrews' letters (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, July, 1865) show the
rumors which reached Gage in Boston during the day. There were some
among the provincials who thought the news, when received in England,
would stir up civil war (_Proceedings_, vol. v. p. 3); but Washington
records, respecting its influence there, that it was "far from making
the impression generally expected here." Sparks' _Washington_, iii. 43.

[374] Minutes in _Mass. Archives_, vol. cxv.

[375] Bancroft, orig. ed., vii. 311.

[376] Frothingham's _Warren_, 467.

[377] It was before long known what a reception these delegates had
had in New York, and how the crowd were with difficulty prevented
from taking the horses from Hancock's carriage and drawing it. _N. E.
Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1865, p. 135. The journey of the delegates to
Philadelphia in May, 1775, is described in the Deane Correspondence
(_Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. 222, etc.), and Jones (_N. Y. during the
Rev._, i. 45) describes their reception.

[378] The papers of Quincy include a long message to the patriots,
practically a report on his English mission, which he was too weak
to write himself, but dictated to a sailor on the voyage. The only
poetrait of Quincy is one painted after his death. This is engraved in
the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, vol. iii.

[379] The trouble was in part whether "effects" included merchandise
as well as furniture. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiii. 58. Cf.
Frothingham's _Warren_, p. 483. James Bowdoin, as representative of
the Boston people, tried to make an arrangement on the basis of a
surrender of arms, and the draft of an order in Bowdoin's handwriting,
in the name of Gage, is given, with references, in _Mem. Hist. Boston_,
iii. 76. Cf. _Evacuation Memorial_, p. 115. A part of the agreement
with Gage was that the country Tories should be allowed to move into
Boston. Among those who soon found their way into Boston, but under
difficulties, were Lady Frankland and Benjamin Thompson, afterwards
Count Rumford. (_Evacuation Mem._, 125-130. Cf. Barry's _Mass._, iii.
5, and references.)

[380] Whittier's "Great Ipswich Fright", in his _Prose Works_, ii. 112;
_Ipswich Antiq. Papers_, iv. no. 46; Crowell's _Essex_ (Mass.), 205.

[381] See Alexander Scammell's letter in Amory's _General Sullivan_,
299. New Hampshire was already sending forward her men. _Hist. Mag._,
vii. 21.

[382] Niles's _Principles and Acts_ (1876), p. 141.

[383] Force's _Am. Archives_, ii. 433-39; Beardsley's _Life of W. S.
Johnson_, 110, 210. The Massachusetts delegates meanwhile had tarried
long enough in Connecticut, on their way to Philadelphia, to confirm
the patriots there, and force the halting to take a decided stand. Cf.
_Journals Prov. Cong._, 179, 194, 196.

[384] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xii. 227.

[385] Cf. account of Warner in _Hist. Mag._, iv. 200, and by Gen.
Walter Harriman in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1880, p. 363.

[386] De Costa's _Lake George_, p. 11; Jones, _N. Y. during the Rev._,
i. p. 550. There is an account of Bernard Romans in F. M. Ruttenber's
_Obstructions to the Navigation of Hudson's River_, (Albany, 1860), p.
9.

[387] Various papers respecting the capture of Ticonderoga and Crown
Point in the spring of 1775, and movements thereabouts, are in the
Mass. Archives, including letters of John Brown, Arnold, Allen, Easton,
and some of these are copied in the _Sparks MSS._, vol. lx. Sparks
indorses on a copy of the letter of the Mass. committee at Crown Point,
June 23, 1776: "By the journal of the Mass. assembly it appears that
Arnold, on his way to Ticonderoga, had engaged a company of men in
Stockbridge, who marched on the 10th of May, under Captain Abraham
Brown, but how far is uncertain."

On the trouble between Allen and Arnold at Crown Point (May, 1775), see
the Deane Correspondence. (_Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. 247.)

[388] Frothingham's _Siege_, 106.

[389] Circulated in broadside. There is one in the Mass. Hist. Soc.
Cabinet, among the Elton broadsides.

[390] _Heath Papers_ (MS.), vol. i.

[391] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. 352.

[392] Grape Island, May 21: Moore's _Diary of the Am. Rev._, i. 84, 85;
Adams' _Familiar Letters_, 56; Frothingham's _Warren_, 492, 496; _New
Jersey Archives_, x. 606.

Noddle's Island, May 27: Frothingham's _Siege_, 109; Dawson's _Battle_,
i. 47; Force's _Am. Archives_, ii. 719; Gordon, ii. 24; Humphrey's
_Putnam_, 69; Tarbox's _Putnam_; Sumner's _East Boston; N. E. Hist. and
Gen. Reg._, April, 1857, p. 137.

[393] Frothingham's _Warren_, 490 (May 16).

[394] P. O. Hutchinson's _Gov. Hutchinson_, 457.

[395] Thornton's _Pulpit of the Revolution_, p. 277.

[396] _Life of Gerry_, i. 79.

[397] _Familiar Letters_, p. 60.

[398] P. O. Hutchinson, p. 468.

[399] Issued in pursuance of Dartmouth's instructions of April 15.
Sparks' _Washington_, iii. 510. There are copies of the broadside in
the Mass. Hist. Soc. library, and in the Bostonian Society's rooms.

[400] Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_, 136, with the document in the Appendix.
It is also in Niles's _Principles and Acts_ (1876), p. 122. Moore, in
his _Diary of the Amer. Rev._, i. 93, gives a sample of the fun made of
it in rhyme. Cf. Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii. 310.

[401] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. 352.

[402] E. E. Hale, _One Hundred Years Ago_.

[403] Cf. John Adams's account of this choice, _Works_, ii. 417;
_Familiar Letters_, 65; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iv. 68. Also see
Sparks' _Washington_, i. 138, etc.; iii. 1; Barry's _Mass._, iii. 18,
and references; Irving's _Washington_, i. 411. His commission and
instructions are in Sparks' _Washington_, iii. 479.

[404] Frothingham's _Warren_, 512; _Evacuation Memorial_, p. 731;
Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii. 13, 17.

[405] It was torn down in the summer of 1884. See cut and note in _Mem.
Hist. Boston_, ii. p. 108.

[406] _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 83.

[407] The first boat to approach was struck by a three-pound shot from
the redoubt. _Life of Josiah Quincy_, by Edmund Quincy, p. 372.

[408] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xii. 69.

[409] This is Stedman's statement, but it seems at variance with the
official report, which states that they took sixty-six rounds with
their guns, and did not use over half. Denman's _Royal Artillery_, 3d
ed., ii. 303.

[410] Washington, on his arrival in Cambridge, recognized the services
of Col. Joseph Ward, who at this time had borne an order from General
Ward across Charlestown Neck amid the cross-fire of the British
batteries, by giving him a brace of pistols, now preserved; and
perhaps the only written order of the battlefield now remaining is a
requisition by Jos. Ward for ammunition, which is given in fac-simile
in _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 86, where are also other notes on Jos.
Ward. Cf. also J. V. Cheney in _Scribner's Monthly_, xi. 424. Some
memoranda respecting Joseph Ward are in the _Sparks MSS._ (LII. vol.
iii.)

[411] Only one or two hundred people, out of a population of from two
to three thousand, were now remaining in the town.

[412] Belknap (_Papers_, ii. 164) says the wind was southwest all day,
and incommoded the British but not the intrenchment. There are some
verses on the burning of Charlestown, attributed to Barlow. (Moore's
_Songs and Ballads of the Amer. Rev._, 95.) For a supposed painting,
see _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 86.

[413] Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_, 154; C. Hudson, in _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, Jan., 1880. He was killed by a negro. (Livermore's _Historical
Research_, etc., p. 119.) His body was taken to Boston and buried under
Christ Church. There is said to have been a blunder subsequently in
taking the wrong body to England. Sargent's _Dealings with the Dead_,
i. 54; Drake's _Landmarks of Boston_, 207.

[414] When Elisha Hutchinson, in London, heard of the battle, he
said: "If every small hill or rising ground about Boston is to be
recovered in the same way, I see no prospect of an end to the war."
(P. O. Hutchinson's _Governor Hutchinson_, p. 506.) Belknap (_Papers_,
published by Mass. Hist. Soc., ii. 159) says the criticism on Howe for
attacking in front was general. The royalist Jones, in his _New York
during the Revolutionary War_ (i. 52), charges the British general with
obstinacy in this respect. Lee (_Memoirs of the War in the Southern
Department_, 2d ed., p. 33) traces Howe's subsequent timidity in his
conduct of campaigns to the lesson this battle taught him.

[415] Their loss was 150 killed, 270 wounded, and 30 taken
prisoners,—450 in all.

[416] Their loss was 224 killed and 830 wounded,—1,054 in all, of
which 157 were officers.

[417] Jones (_N. Y. during the Rev._, i. 55, 555) is characteristic
upon the double-faced spirit of New York at this time.

[418] The news of Bunker Hill reached Philadelphia in a vague way, June
22. The cannonade at Boston Neck during the battle had been magnified
into a second fight going on at the same time at Dorchester Point.
(Adams, _Familiar Letters_, 70.)

[419] Sparks, iii. 11.

[420] The provincial congress of New York assembled on the 22d of
May, and it soon became evident that some violent wrenching would be
necessary to unloose the grasp which the loyalists had upon it. The
Johnsons, with their Indian affiliations, were strong royalists, and
the leadership of the family, by the death of Sir William in July,
1774, fell to his son-in-law and nephew, Guy Johnson. The motives which
actuated the one remained with the other.

[421] This elm, now going to decay, has been often pictured: _Amer.
Mag._ (1837), iii. 432; _Harper's Monthly_, xxiv. 729; Gay's _Pop.
Hist. U. S._, iii. 410; _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 110, etc.; Von
Hellwald's _Amerika in Wort und Bild_, i. 73.

On the 22d. of June, 1775, Hancock had written to Ward, transmitting
his commission as first major-general, and next in command after
Washington. He says of the new commander-in-chief, that "he takes
his departure to-morrow morning from this city [Philadelphia] in
order to enter upon his command. I the rather (he adds) mention the
circumstance of his departure, that you may direct your movements for
his reception." (_Ward MSS._, in Mass. Hist. Society.)

The assumption of command by Washington under this tree rests, so far
as the writer knows, on tradition only, and he knows of no detail of
the ceremonies given by contemporary evidence, though writers have much
exercised their ingenuity in giving various attendant circumstances.

[422] Cf. Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 486.

[423] He held subsequent councils during the siege, at Cambridge, Aug.
3, Sept. 11, Oct. 8, Oct. 18, Jan. 16, 1776, Jan. 18, Feb. 16, and at
Roxbury, Mar. 13. Copies of their proceedings are in the _Sparks MSS._
Minutes of Gates's speech at the council of war in Cambridge, Dec.,
1775, in which he advised against an assault on Boston, are among the
Gates papers (copied in _Sparks MSS._, xxii., and xxxix. 446).

[424] Washington complained that vessels cleared at New York with fresh
provisions for the West Indies, and, when free of the harbor, steered
for Boston. (N. Y. Arch., in _Sparks MSS._, no. xxix.)

[425] Cf. John Adams' _Works_, i. 245; ix. 358. See, on the Southern
view of the North at this time, _Life of Chief Justice Parsons_, p. 40.

[426] Bancroft, orig. ed., viii. 26. Cf. John Adams's opinion, _Works_,
ix. 362.

[427] Lee had his headquarters at one time at the Royall house, in
Medford. Cf. Drake's _Landmarks of Middlesex_, ch. vi.; Lamb's _Homes
of America_; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xi. 334. A paper on Lee, Gates,
Stephen, and Darke as generals from the Shenandoah Valley, by J. E.
Cooke, is in _Harper's Mag._, 1858, p. 500.

[428] Cf., for the letters and comment, Niles's _Principles and Acts_,
1876, p. 118; Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 498; Moore's _Diary_, 108;
_Boston Evacuation Memorial_, p. 146; Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_, 172.
The correspondence was soon printed, as _Letter from General Lee to
General Burgoyne, with General Lee's answer, and the letter declining
an interview_ (Boston, 1775). Cf. Haven, in Thomas, ii. p. 659. The
letters are given in the _Lee Papers_ (_N. Y. Hist. Coll._, 1871,
pp. 180, 188, 222), and were translated into German and published at
Braunschweig, 1777. (Sabin, iii. no. 5,259.) When Burgoyne sailed for
England, Lee says, in a letter written from the camp at Winter Hill,
Dec. 15, 1775: "I have written a parting letter to Burgoyne. It is in
my opinion the most tolerable of my performances." _Sparks MSS._, xxvi.

[Illustration]

It was Burgoyne's opinion at this time that no force which Great
Britain and Ireland could supply would bring the war to a speedy
conclusion; while he thought that hiring foreign troops, levying
Canadians, and arming blacks and Indians, might do it. (Fonblanque,
153.) By July 3, Dartmouth had become aware that almost every colony
had caught the flame, and he had deduced from Gage's letters that
twenty thousand men would be required to reduce New England alone.
Burgoyne soon began to chafe under Gage's inaction, and urged him to
transfer the army to New York. (Fonblanque, p. 190.) He writes to the
ministry about "being invested on one side and asleep on the other"
(_Ibid._, p. 198), and says Gage is "amiable for his virtues, but not
equal to the situation."

There is in the Mass. Hist. Soc. library (Misc. MSS., 1632-1795) a
printed burlesque of a supposed battle of "Roxborough, July 19, 1775",
which shows the drift of public satire.

[429] W. B. Reed thinks these letters on Washington's part the
production of Colonel Reed. _Life of Jos. Reed_, i. 111.

[430] Sparks' _Corresp. of the Rev._, i. 12.

[431] Sullivan writes to Schuyler from Winter Hill, Aug. 5, 1775: "Our
enemies fear to come out, though we endeavor in every way to aggravate
them."

[432] Of the attack at Stonington, Aug. 30, 1775, see _Conn. Hist. Soc.
Coll._, ii. 298 and references.

[433] Draper's _Gazette_, of Sept. 21, had intimated that there was to
be some faithlessness in the patriot party. Barry's _Mass._, ii. 48.

[434] Being carried to Connecticut, he sunk under his confinement, and
was allowed to embark for the West Indies, but the vessel on which
he sailed was never heard of. For the sources and their examination,
see Sparks' _Washington_, iii. 115, 502; John Adams's _Works_, ii.
414; ix. 402; Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii. 51, 333; Greene's _Life of
Greene_, i. 120; Cowell's _Spirit of Seventy-Six in Rhode Island_;
Bancroft, vi. 409; Chandler's _Criminal Trials_, i. 417; Frothingham's
_Siege of Boston_, 258; Loring's _Hundred Boston Orators_, 37, 40;
_Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 111, 145; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, June,
1884, p. 15; _Sparks MSS._, xlix. vol. i.; _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vii.
622; _New Jersey Archives_, x. 671. An exculpatory letter of Church,
dated American Hospital, Sept. 14, 1775, is among the Sullivan papers
(_Sparks MSS._, xx.)

[435] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. 353.

[436] _Sparks MSS._ xlv. There is a list of his addressers (Oct. 6) in
Curwen's _Journal_, p. 474.

[437] A letter from H. Jackson to John Langdon, describing the
preparations (Sept. 3, 1775) is in the _Sparks MSS._, xlix., vol. 2.

[438] Mahon, vi. 74.

[439] Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 129, 145, 520; _Correspondence of the
Rev._, i. 70, 71; _Genl. Mag._, 1775; Bailey's letter, in _Me. Hist.
So. Coll._, v. 437. Washington, Oct. 24, 1775, transmits a statement
(Oct 16) of Pearson Jones. (N. Y. Archives in _Sparks MSS._ xxix.). A
letter of William Whipple, Nov. 12, 1775, to Langdon, describing the
burning, is among the Langdon Papers, and a copy in the _Sparks MSS._
(lii. vol. ii.). There is a rude copperplate engraving of the burning
town, by Norman, in the Boston ed. of the _Impartial Hist. of the War_
(1781), vol. ii. Cf. Williamson's _Maine_, ii. 422; William Goold's
_Portland in the Past_ (1886), ch. 10; Willis's _Portland_, with plans
and views; Smith and Deane's _Journal of Portland_; Jos. Williamson's
_Belfast_; Barry's _Mass._, ii. 56; _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._,
July, 1873, p. 256; _Hist. Mag._, Mar., 1869 (xv. 202); _Old Times_,
vi. 823; _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vii. 633, 635. Hutchinson records (_Life
and Diaries_, i. 583) that when the news reached London, Lord George
Germain told him that "Graves had been put in mind of his remissness,
and he imagined he would run to the other extreme." Cf. Mahon's
_England_, vi. 75.

[440] Lynch, Franklin, and Harrison.

[441] _Heath MSS._, p. 3.

[442] Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 288, 297; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
Dec., 1877, p. 390; _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 147 and references.

[443] Fac-simile of handbill printed to send among the royal troops to
induce desertion. It follows an original in a volume of _Proclamations_
in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society. Cf. _Evacuation Memorial_.

[444] P. O. Hutchinson, 123.

[445] Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 141; _Corresp. of the Rev._, i. 73;
Quincy's _Life of J. Quincy, Jr._, 412.

[446] Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 113. Gage had, as early as July 14,
1775, pronounced Boston a "disadvantageous place for all operations",
and expressed a preference for New York as a base of operations. The
government had advised (Sept. 5, 1775) Howe to abandon the town. Before
Howe, perhaps, got this, Gage wrote to Dartmouth that "the possession
of Boston occasions a considerable diversion of the enemy's force;
but it is open to attacks on many sides, and requires a large body to
defend it." In November Howe had made up his mind that he must winter,
at least, in Boston. (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. 353, 354, 356.)
The Secretary of War, as early as Nov. 12, 1774, had urged that Boston
was a place where the royal troops could do little good, and might do
much harm. (_Life of Barrington_, 140.)

[447] Dr. Peter Oliver wrote (Nov. 27) from Boston: "The pirates, or,
as the rebels term them, the privateers, have taken a Cork vessel,
Captain Robbins, of this town, with provisions, and carried her into
Marblehead; and a number of wood vessels from the eastward are carried
into the worthless town of Plymouth." P. O. Hutchinson, i. p. 571.
Again, Dec. 7, he writes: "We have eight or ten pirate vessels out
between the capes; and yet our men-of-war are chiefly in the harbor."
_Ibid._, p. 581. Admiral Graves was as inactive as Gage, and, on Dec.
30, Admiral Shuldham arrived with orders to relieve him. Percy, writing
from Boston of the new admiral, says: "We wanted a more active man than
the last, for really the service suffered materially during his stay."
(_Percy Letters_, in Boston Pub. Library.) Curwen records how matters
at this time were regarded in London: "Their [the rebels'] activity and
success is astonishing."

[448] She reached Cambridge Dec. 11.

[449] Adams's _Works_, ix. 270, 369. Burgoyne was soon too distant for
the implied blow. He sailed for England Dec. 5.

[450] See the rolls in the State House in Boston, and _N. H. Rev.
Rolls_, i. 240. Cf. _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vii. 675-681.

[451] There is in a volume of _Misc. MSS._, 1632-1795, in the Mass.
Hist. Soc. library, an agreement to release Andrew Richman, who had
joined the regiment after the suppression of the rebellion,—signed by
John Small, major of brigade.

[452] _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 77.

[453] It will be recollected that independence had not yet been
declared.

[454] Percy wrote from Boston, January 7, 1776: "I take it for granted
that the next campaign will be so active and, I hope, so decisive a
one, that the rebels will be glad to sue for mercy. All, however, will
depend on our having a sufficient force sent us out very early in the
spring.... Brig. Gen. Grant directs our commander-in-chief and all his
operations. Mr. Howe is, I think, the only one here in his army who
does not perceive it. I wish from my soul that we may not feel the
consequences." (_Percy Letters._) Hutchinson was writing in January,
1776, from London: "I count the days, and absurd as it is so near the
close of life, I can hardly help wishing to sleep away the time between
this and spring, that I may escape the succession of unfortunate events
which I am always in fear of." (P. O. Hutchinson, vol. ii.)

[455] Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 223.

[456] Moore's _Diary of the Rev._, i. 193, 199.

[457] Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 230; _Corresp. of the Rev._, i. 106,
112; John Adams's _Works_, ix. 370.

[458] Lee's instructions in Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 230. Cf. Duer's
_Stirling_, p. 123; Johnston's _Campaign of 1776_, p. 49; Jones's _N.
Y. during the Rev._, i. 570, 593.

[459] Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._, i. 124, 135, 139; _Life of
Gouverneur Morris_, i. 74-88. Already, on Jan. 6, 1776, the provincial
congress of New York had organized a company of artillery to defend the
colony and guard its records; and March 14, 1776, a student in King's
College was made its captain. That organization still exists as Battery
F, Fourth Regiment U. S. Artillery. (Asa Bird Gardner, in _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, 1881, P. 416.)

[460] Letters to and from Lee during his movements from Connecticut
to Charleston (S. C.) are in the Lee Papers. (_Sparks MSS._, xxv.,
January, 1776-July, 1776, for copies, and _N. Y. Hist. Coll._, 1871
and 1872, for the print. There are letters from Lee during Jan.-March,
1776, from Connecticut and New York, in the _Sparks MSS._ xxix.) Cf.
Sparks's _Gouv. Morris_, i. ch. 5.

[461] _Works_, ii. 431.

[462] Knox's instructions are in Sparks's _Washington_, iii. p. 160;
Knox's letters from the Lake, in the _Corresp. of the Rev._, i. 86, 94.

[Illustration]

Knox's diary is in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, July, 1876, p.
321; and an inventory of the cannon, made Dec. 10, 1775, is in Drake's
_Soc. of Cincinnati_, p. 544. Cf. Drake's _Knox_, pp. 22, 128, 129. A
roll of men whom Knox enlisted in his artillery, 1775, is in _Mass.
Archives; Rev. Rolls_, vol. xlix.

[463] N. Y. Archives in _Sparks MSS._, no. xxix. Curiously enough,
Franklin was at this time urging a resort to bows and arrows. (_N. Y.
Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1871, p. 285.)

[464] His headquarters here were in the Roxbury parsonage, a house
still standing, and delineated in the _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 115.
On the 2d of March Washington gave notice to Ward, then commanding in
Roxbury, of his intention. His letter in fac-simile is given in the
_Boston Daily Advertiser_, March 17, 1876.

[465] Burgoyne had suggested the occupation of these heights by the
British very soon after the battle of Bunker Hill. Fonblanque, p. 150.
Clinton says (_Notes on Stedman_) that he had told Gage and Howe, in
June, 1775, that if ever the royal army was forced to evacuate Boston,
it would be owing to the rebels getting possession of Dorchester
Heights. What is given in T. C. Simond's _South Boston_, p. 31, as "a
plan of Dorchester Neck for the use of the British army", seems to be
but an extract from Pelham's Map.

[466] _Heath's Papers_ (MSS.), i. 180.

[467] See Washington's letters on the occupation of Dorchester Heights
and its effect, in Sparks, iii. 302, 311. Cf. _N. H. State Papers_,
viii. 86; Mary Cone's _Life of Rufus Putnam_ (Cleveland, 1886) p. 45.

[468] Hutchinson says the list which reached England showed 938 souls.
(P. O. Hutchinson, ii. 61.) On Nov. 20, 1775, Lieut.-Gov. Oliver wrote
that there were 2,000 loyalists in Boston, men, women, and children,
and that Boston had then 3,500 inhabitants, instead of the 15,000
properly belonging to it.

[469] _Mem. of Josiah Quincy, Jr._, 416.

[470] These before long were gone. Jones (_N. Y. during the Rev._, i.
54), referring to the captures after the British left Boston harbor,
says: "One or two frigates stationed in the bay would have prevented
all this mischief. But a fatality, a kind of absurdity, or rather
stupidity, marked every action of the British commanders-in-chief
during the whole of the American war."

[471] Nearly eighty armed vessels and transports were necessary
to carry the army and its followers, but a large number of other
vessels loaded with merchandise accompanied the fleet. Abigail Adams
counted 170 sail in all, from her home in Braintree. Washington had
supposed they would steer for New York, and so had warned the New York
authorities as early as March 9. (N. Y. Archives, in _Sparks MSS._, no.
xxix.) Cf. his letter to Stirling of March 14. (Duer's _Stirling_, p.
143.)

[472] A small number of General Ward's papers, given by Mrs. Barrell,
a granddaughter, are in the cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Society. Ward
resigned April 12, 1776, and Hancock's reply to him of April 26 is
among these, as are also sundry papers pertaining to his retention
of the command of the Eastern department after Washington went to
New York. Cf. a paper on Ward in _Scribner's Monthly_, xi. p. 712. A
letter of Ward's, April 16, 1776, describing the army's condition, is
in the Mass. Archives, and is copied in the _Sparks MSS._, vol. lx.
There is an engraving of Ward, after an original picture in Irving's
_Washington_, illus. ed., ii. Cf. also picture in A. H. Ward's _Hist.
of Shrewsbury, Mass._; and _Memorial Hist. of Boston_, vol. iii.

[473] _Mem. of Josiah Quincy, Jr._, p. 417.

[474] Edmund Quincy's letter in _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, 1859, p.
233.

[475] For the Mugford affair, see Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._, i.
204; Moore's _Diary_, i. 244.

[476] _Secret Journals of Congress_, i. 19.

[477] John Adams understood these sectional difficulties. _Works_,
ix. 367. Cf., on the New England distrust of Schuyler, Sparks's
_Washington_, iii. 535. Bancroft says of Schuyler that he was "choleric
and querulous, and was ill suited to control undisciplined levies of
turbulent freemen." Schuyler, who was honest and uncompromisingly
zealous, is defended in Lossing's _Life of Schuyler_, where (vol.
ii. 27) Bancroft's assertion (original ed., viii. 423) that Schuyler
"refused to go into Canada" is controverted on the ground that Congress
declined to accept Schuyler's resignation, when ill-health prevented
his leading the army. Bancroft, in his final revision (iv. 377),
says of Schuyler that he owned himself unable to manage the men of
Connecticut, and proposed to resign. The differences between Schuyler
and Wooster have led to much championing of the two by writers of New
York and Connecticut. Wooster, a man now of sixty-five years, austere
in habit, could hardly be expected to commend himself to one of
Schuyler's temperament. Cf. Hollister's _Connecticut_.

[478] Hinman's _Conn. in the Rev._, p. 571; Guy Johnson's despatch to
Dartmouth, Oct. 12, 1775, in _Canadian Antiquarian_, iv. 25, 135.

[479] Moore's _Diary of the Rev._, i. 153, 158; Sparks's _Corresp.
of the Rev._, i. 471; Allen's own _Narrative_; Lossing in _Harper's
Monthly_, xvii. 721. Cf. Warner's letter of Sept. 27, in the _Sparks
MSS._, xlix. vol. 2.

[480] On November 3, the colors taken at Chamblée were hung up in Mrs.
Hancock's chamber at Philadelphia.

[481] Silas Deane seems to have comprehended something of the
intractable quality of Wooster (_Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. 288.)

[482] Parton's _Burr_, i. 68.

[483] Niles's _Principles and Acts_ (1876), p. 461; Sparks's
_Washington_, iii. 92; Henry's _Journal_ (1877), p. 5.

[484] This rear division was under Colonel Enos.

[485] Parton's _Burr_, i. 71. Cf. "Burr as a Soldier", in _Hist. Mag._,
xix. 385 (June, 1871).

[486] Burr was near by. Parton's _Burr_, i. 75. See the denial of the
statement that Burr endeavored to carry off the body of Montgomery, in
_Hist. Mag._, ii. 264. Cf. Lossing in _Ibid._, xiv. 272; and General
Cullum's note in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, April, 1884, p. 294. Trumbull,
in his picture of the death of Montgomery (Hinton's _United States_, i.
233, and other places), represents Burr supporting the falling hero.
_Catal. of Paintings by Colonel Trumbull_ (N. Y., 1838), p. 14. The
attack was premature. _N. H. State Papers_, viii. 351.

[487] Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._, i. 134.

[488] They were accompanied by the Rev. John Carroll, a Catholic priest
and brother of Charles, of whom there is a _Biographical Sketch_ by
Brent.

[489] Percy got the news at Halifax in this fashion (June 1, 1776):
"So precipitate was their retreat that whole companies flung away even
their arms. Nay, they left their pots boiling, so that the king's
troops sat down and ate their dinners from them." (_Letters in Boston
Public Library._)

[490] There is a likeness of Thomas, owned by Mrs. Williams, of New
York, a descendant. This portrait was engraved for the illustrated
edition of Irving's _Washington_, and is reproduced in Jones's
_Campaign for the Conquest of Canada_, p. 52. There is a brief memoir,
_Life and Services of Maj.-Gen. John Thomas, compiled by Chas. Coffin_
(New York, 1844). In July, 1775, Thomas had been justly irritated at
the irresponsible action of Congress in ranking the general officers
of its appointment, and had only been prevented from resigning by
Washington's urging him to pause. W. B. Reed, in his _Life of Joseph
Reed_ (i. 109), prints this appeal of Washington from the draft in
Reed's handwriting.

[491] Greaton writes to Heath, July 31, 1776, from Ticonderoga: "We
have got out of Canada very well considering the situation we were
in; but happy would it have been for us if we had retreated three
weeks sooner. We are fortifying as fast as we can; the men in very low
spirits." (_Heath MSS._, i. 306. Cf. Adams, _Familiar Letters_, p. 195.)

[492] They are traced in Bancroft, orig. ed., viii. 373.

[493] Rives's _Madison_, i. 102.

[494] Moore's _Diary of the Rev._, i. p. 160; Niles, _Principles and
Acts_ (1876), p. 286; Force's _Archives_, iii. 1385; Geo. Livermore's
_Historical Research_, p. 134; Rives's _Madison_, i. 117.

[495] Moore's _Diary_, i. 179. Dawson, _Battles_, gives contemporary
reports (i. 121, 125); Maxwell's _Virginia Register_, vol. vi. p. 1.

[496] Moore's _Diary of the Rev._, i. 189. There are in the _Sparks
MSS._, no. xxxviii., various letters in 1775 and 1776 respecting Lord
Dunmore's proceeding in Norfolk, and, after Aug., 1776, in New York.
A letter in Nov., 1775, shows that he had given orders to raise a
regiment of savages, to be called "Lord Dunmore's own regiment of
Indians." On the other hand, Arthur Lee was making interest with
Vergennes in Paris, to secure ammunition for Virginia. _Calendar Lee
MSS._, p. 7, no. 65. An _Orderly book of that portion of the American
Army near Williamsburg, Va., under Gen. Andrew Lewis, Mar. 18 to Aug.
28, 1776_ (Richmond, 1860), with notes by C. Campbell, covers some of
the patriots' movements at this time.

[497] Husband of Flora Macdonald. Cf. _The Autobiography of
Flora Macdonald, being the home life of a heroine, edited by her
granddaughter_, Edinburgh, 1870; London,1875; _Bentley's Mag._, xix.
325; _Amer. Hist. Record_, i. 109, etc.; Mrs. Ellet's _Women of the
Rev._, ii. 142.

[498] David L. Swain published a paper on "the British invasion of
North Carolina in 1776" in the _University Magazine_ (Chapel Hill,
N. C.), which was afterwards included in W. D. Cooke's _Rev. Hist.
of North Carolina_ (1853). Cf. Dawson's _Battles_, i. 128, with
the official documents; Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._, ii. App.;
Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, 502; _Harper's Mag._, lx. 682;
Gay, _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 465; Mrs. Ellet's _Women_, etc., i.
316; the Tory account in Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, i. 95; and
an _Address on the battle of Moore's Creek bridge, Feb. 27, 1857, by
Joshua G. Wright_ (Wilmington, N. C., 1857).

[499] _Corresp. of the Rev._, i. 161; _N. Y. Hist. Coll._, 1871, p.
343. It seems to have been the determination in March to send him
north. Adams, _Familiar Letters_, p. 135.

[500] Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._, i. 485, etc.

[501] _Corresp. of the Rev._, ii. 501. Cf. Lee Papers in _N. Y. Hist.
Soc. Coll._, 1872, and _Sparks MSS._, no. xxv.

[502] Letter of W. A. Hyrne in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, April, 1870,
p. 254; and one of Jacob Morris, June 10, noting preparations, in _N.
Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1875, p. 435. Lee had at first wished to abandon
the fort. _Ibid._, 1872, p. 221.

[503] It was the favorable report of a reconnoitering vessel sent from
Cape Fear to Charleston that induced Clinton to attack Charleston
instead of joining Howe at once. P. O. Hutchinson's _Governor
Hutchinson_, ii. 96.

[504] See an account of the effects of the fort's fire given by some
Americans who had been captured at sea, and escaped. (_N. Y. Hist.
Coll._, 1872, p. 111.)

[505] Jones (_N. Y. during the Rev._, i. 100), without recognizing the
conditions, is very severe on Clinton for his failure to coöperate. Cf.
Johnston's _Observations on Jones_, p. 67.

[506] McCall's _Georgia_, p. 393.

[507] _Celebration of the Centennial Anniversary of the Battle of
Bunker Hill_, edited by James M. Bugbee (Boston, 1875).

[508] This was first printed in the _Essex Institute Hist. Coll._, i.
p. 2. Cf. _Ibid._, xviii. 190. Gage's account to Dartmouth is in _Mass.
Hist. Society Proc._, xiv. 348. Cf. further, _Memorial Services at the
Centennial Anniversary of Leslie's Expedition to Salem_ (Salem, 1875),
including addresses by G. B. Loring and others; O. Pickering's _Life of
Timothy Pickering_, i. ch. 4; Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 379; F.
Moore's _Diary of the Rev._, i. 27, etc.

[509] On Cliff Street, between Fulton Street and Maiden Lane, where
several of the British troops were beaten and disarmed, but none
killed, Jan. 19-20, 1770. Cf. H. B. Dawson in _Historical Mag._, iv.
202, 233, and (best account) xv. p. 1; Leake's _Gen. Lamb_, p. 57.

[510] Cf. the histories of Vermont; _Hist. Mag._, iii. 133; Bancroft,
orig. ed., vii. 271. See further on these preliminary acts of violence,
Potter's _Amer. Monthly_, April, 1875; Seba Smith in _Godey's Mag._,
xxii. 257; Moore's _Diary of the Amer. Rev._, i. 50.

[511] General Carrington has recast his narrative in his _Boston and
New York, 1775 and 1776, historical papers from the Bay State Monthly_
(Boston, 1884).

[512] Gay, _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. ch. 16; Barry, _Mass._, iii. ch.
2, with notes; _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, iii., where the chapter on the
siege is written by Edward E. Hale (cf. also his _Hundred Years Ago_);
Paige, _Hist. of Cambridge_; Drake, _Hist. of Roxbury_; Clapp, _Hist.
of Dorchester_; Symonds, _Hist. of South Boston_; Lossing, _Field-Book
of the Revolution_, i.; A. B. Muzzey, _Reminiscences and Memorials
of Men of the Revolution_ (Boston, 1883); H. E. Scudder in _Atlantic
Monthly_, April, 1876.

[513] By Marshall and Irving, in particular. Something may be added by
the memoirs of Putnam, Heath (with also his diary as printed in _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, May, 1859), Greene, Wilkinson, Knox, John Sullivan,
John Thomas, Wm. Hull, Col. John Trumbull, with lives of such civilians
as Dr. John Warren and Elbridge Gerry.

[514] Reed's letters from the camp during the summer of 1775 are in the
_Life of Joseph Reed_, i. 116, etc., as well as those of Washington (p.
125, etc.) to Reed during the autumn and winter, after the departure
of the latter. Sparks thought these letters of Washington the most
imperfect he had seen, being written in great haste and confidence.
Sparks printed them in part. Reed gives them at length. Washington's
letters to Reed from the Cambridge camp make 20 of the 51 letters
constituting the lot of his correspondence with Reed, which, having
passed from Mr. William B. Reed to Mr. Menzies, was sold at the
latter's sale (no. 2,051), and was again sold in the J. J. Cooke sale
($2,250) in Dec., 1883, when they passed into the Carter-Brown library.
The _Cooke Catalogue_ (pp. 340-349) describes them mainly as Mr. Reed
prepared the statement, and they are commented on in the _No. Am.
Rev._, July, 1852, p. 203, and in Irving's _Washington_, ii. 178. The
original draft of Washington's letter to his officers, Sept. 8, 1775,
asking their views respecting a boat attack on Boston, is among them
(_Cooke Catal._, p. 342), while a fair copy in Washington's hand, as
addressed to Ward, is among the Ward MSS. in the Mass. Hist. Society's
library. It is printed in Sparks, iii. 80.

[515] There is necessarily much in the _Mass. Archives_. Cf. _Mem.
Hist. Boston_, iii. 118.

[516] Lossing's _Field-Book_, vol. i.; Lossing's _Schuyler_, i. ch. 26;
Stone's introd. to Thayer's _Journal_, and the references given by that
editor, p. v.

[517] On the "Canada Campaign."

[518] The manuscript is in the cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Society. Cf.
_Worcester Mag._, i. 202.

[519] The tower upon which the lanterns were hung is a matter of
dispute, Revere's "North Church" being considered by some to have been
the church in North Square, Boston, pulled down by the British during
the siege, and by others the present Christ Church, and it is upon the
latter that the tourist to-day is shown an inscription identifying that
building with the event. Richard Frothingham, in a letter to the mayor
of Boston, called _The alarm on the night of April 18, 1775_ (Boston,
1876, 2nd ed., 1877) protested against this act, and wrote in favor of
the church in North Square. The other alternative was upheld by the
Rev. John Lee Watson in a letter to the _Boston Daily Advertiser_, July
20, 1876, and this was printed separately in 1877 as _Paul Revere's
Signal, with remarks by Charles Deane_, and in a second edition with
an additional letter in 1880. (Cf. _Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc._, Nov.,
1876.) This second letter was mainly in answer to William W. Wheildon's
_History of Paul Revere's Signal Lanterns_ (Concord, 1878), in which,
while accepting the Christ Church theory, it was claimed that Robert
Newman was the person who showed the lanterns, and not John Pulling, as
averred by Mr. Watson (cf. note in Everett's _Orations_, i. p. 101).
Mr. Deane had shown that, both before and after the destruction of
the church in North Square, Christ Church had been called the North
Church; while the earliest use of that designation for the latter
building seems to have been in one of Dr. Stiles's almanacs in 1754,
where he speaks of "Dr. Cutler's _alias_ North, _alias_ Christ Church."
(_Atlantic Monthly_, Aug., 1884, p. 256.) E. G. Porter's _Rambles in
Old Boston, N. E._, favors Christ Church.

Among the more general histories, the fullest account of this ride can
be found in S. A. Drake's _Middlesex County_, i. ch. 16.

Mr. E. H. Goss printed a paper on Revere in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
Jan., 1886, p. 3, giving, among other cuts, a view of his birthplace(?)
in North Square, in Boston. There is a portrait of him, with a note
on other likenesses, in _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 69. Cf. also T. W.
Higginson in _Harper's Monthly_, Oct., 1883, and his _Larger Hist. of
the U. S._

[520] Boston, 1878,—one hundred copies privately printed.

[521] The entire series (twenty in number) is printed in Force's
_American Archives_, 4th ser., ii. 490, _et seq._; Shattuck's _History
of Concord_, pp. 342, _et seq._; _Journal of second continental
congress_, pp. 79, _et seq._; and portions of it are given in
Frothingham's _Siege of Boston_, pp. 367, _et seq._; _Remembrancer_,
1775, i. 35, _et seq._; _London Chronicle_, June 1, 1775; also in
various Boston newspapers of the time. They were also printed in a
tract without imprint, _Affidavits and depositions relative to the
commencement of hostilities at Concord and Lexington, April 19, 1775_.
They were again issued by Isaiah Thomas, at Worcester, in a _Narrative
of the incursions and ravages of the King's troops on the nineteenth
of April_ (Haven, in Thomas, ii. p. 661); again at Boston, in 1779
(_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xiv. 204). Dawson (i. 23) prints some of
the depositions, and so does Hinman in his _Connecticut during the
Revolution_, App. Governor Franklin, of New Jersey, transmitted copies
to Dartmouth (_N. Jersey Archives_, x. 612). Lieut. E. T. Gould, of the
King's Own, captured by the provincials, testified that he "could not
exactly say which fired first."

[522] Sparks says (_Sparks MSS._, no. xxxii., vol. ii.): "In the public
offices in London, I saw several papers respecting [Lexington], and
particularly about the arrival of Captain Derby and the intelligence
he brought. He was examined by order of the ministers, and he seems
to have acted a bold part in circulating the intelligence.... In the
first dispatch to General Gage he was censured for not sending the
particulars immediately, and ordered to keep a packet in constant
readiness."

[523] P. O. Hutchinson, 436.

[524] These depositions of the combatants, thus falling among Arthur
Lee's papers, were finally separated in a strange division, by the
younger R. H. Lee, who gave a part to Harvard College and a part to
the University of Virginia. Cf. _Calendar of the Lee MSS. in Harvard
University Library_, p. 6; Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 35.

[525] _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, May, 1883, vol. ix; Mahon, vi., App. p.
xxvii.

[526] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. 343, 349; Hudson's _Lexington_,
249; _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1857, p. 165.

[527] Sabin, viii 33,030. This money was later paid to Dr. Franklin,
and by him, in October, to a committee of the Mass. assembly. Sparks's
_Franklin_, iii. 134.

[528] Frothingham's _Siege of Boston_, 86; Sparks's _Washington_, iii
512. In the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, May, 1876 (vol. xiv, p. 349), is
Percy's report to Gage, April 20, 1775, and Smith's, of April 22 (p.
350),—both from the Public Record Office. Cf. _Sparks MSS._, xxxii.,
vol. i., and the Appendix to Lord Mahon's _Hist. of England_, vol. vi.
The government's bulletin, dated Whitehall, June 10, 1775, as printed
in the _London Gazette_, is given in Dawson, i. 26. For the effect of
the news in England, see Bancroft, orig. ed., vii. 342.

[529] One of these despatches, dated Watertown, April 19, endorsed
by the officers of the towns through which it had passed, is printed
in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Oct., 1873, p. 434. It is
pointed out in Greene's _Life of Nathanael Greene_ (i. 77), how the
news affected Rhode Island. The confused statements which reached
Connecticut can be seen in the Deane Correspondence in the _Conn. Hist.
Soc. Coll._, ii. 218, and in the broadside _Letter of James Lockwood
and Isaac Bears, dated Wallingford, April 24, 1775, respecting the
Battle near Winter Hill, in which Lord Percy was killed_. The news
reached New York, Sunday, April 23, and the response was sudden.
Vessels loaded for Boston were seized; arsenals were taken in charge,
and cannon planted at Kingsbridge (Dawson's _Battles_, i. 130, and
his _Westchester County during the Amer. Rev._, Morrisania, 1886,
p. 75; Bancroft, orig. ed., vii. 328; Leake's _Lamb_, 101; _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, Apr., 1882, p. 283). Governor Colden describes the
effects in his despatch to Dartmouth (_N. Y. Col. Docs._, viii. 571).
Jones, in his _New York during the Rev. War_ (i. 39, 497), gives a
curiously perverted story, saying, among other things, that the British
muskets were unloaded when the Americans attacked them at Lexington,
and describes the stormy meeting of the governor's council in the
afternoon. From New Jersey, Governor Franklin wrote to Dartmouth May
6, and June 5 and 7. (_New Jersey Archives_, x. 590, 601, 642.) The
tidings reached Philadelphia April 24, and the original endorsed
despatch is in the Pennsylvania Hist. Soc. library. (_N. E. Hist.
and Geneal. Reg._, 1864, p. 23; Hazard's _Reg. of Penna._, iii. 175,
Christopher Marshall's _Diary_, p. 18.) In the second week in May the
news reached Western Pennsylvania, and the resolutions which were
passed at Hannastown were drawn by St. Clair (_St. Clair Papers_, i.
363). It reached Williamsburg, Va., April 29 (Moore's _Diary_, i. 75.)
It came to Kentucky just as the settlers were founding a town, and
they named it Lexington. (Winthrop's _Speeches_, 1878, etc., p 106.) A
despatch which was written at Wallingford, Conn., April 24, embodying
the reports which had reached that point, and representing that both
the American commander and Lord Percy had been killed, was sent South,
receiving endorsements as it passed along, and reached Charleston, S.
C., May 10 6.30 P.M. It is given in R. W. Gibbs's _Doc. Hist. of the
Amer. Rev._, pp. 82-91. (See broadside mentioned above.) A military
company, the Fusiliers, was at once formed, and its roll and career are
registered in the _Charleston Year Book_, 1885, p. 342.

For the effect of Lexington and Concord upon the other colonies, see,
beside Bancroft and the other general histories, Stuart's _Jonathan
Trumbull_; Moore's _Diary_, i. 77; John Dickinson's Letter in Lee's
_Arthur Lee_, ii. 307; Lossing's _Philip Schuyler_, i. 307.

[530] This was reprinted in Nathaniel Low's _Astronomical Diary or
Almanac_ (Boston), 1776; in George's _Cambridge Almanac_, 1776 and in
Stearns's _North Amer. Almanac_ (Boston), 1776. It is substantially
included with additions and abridgments in Gordon's _History of the
Amer. Revolution_, and can be found in Force's _Amer. Archives_.

[531] Cf. Dawson's _Battles of the United States_, i.; Frank Moore's
_Diary of the Amer. Revolution_, i. 63; Niles's _Principles and Acts
of the Revolution_; L. Lyons's _Mil. Journals of two private soldiers,
1758-1775_ (Poughkeepsie, 1855), with notes by Lossing, and an App. of
"official papers" (Field, _Indian Bibliog._, 963; Sabin, x. 42,860);
a letter by John Andrews in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, July, 1865, p.
403; one by Dr. Foster (?) of Charleston, in _Ibid._ (April, 1870), xi.
306; and others by D. Greene in xiii. 57, and by Jos. Greene in xiii.
59. Cf. also letter of Jos. Thaxter in _Hist. Mag._, xv. 206; and one
by Alex. Scammell in _Ibid._, xviii. 141. A significant handbill was
issued at the time, with a row of coffins at the head, called _Bloody
Butchery by the British Troops_. The narrative had before appeared in
the _Salem Gazette_ for April 21, 25, and May 5, which, with an elegy
and a list of the killed and wounded, constituted this broadside as
printed at Salem. It was reproduced a few years since in fac-simile.
The _Essex Gazette_ and the _Worcester Spy_ (May 3) also contained
accounts. Thaddeus Blood, of Concord, jotted down at some later period
his recollections which, found among his papers, were printed in the
_Boston Daily Advertiser_, April 20, 1886.

[532] Clark's is appended to a discourse which he delivered on the
first anniversary in 1776, and this was reprinted in 1875. It was also
reprinted in the _Massachusetts Mag._, 1794. Emerson's, which makes
three pages of an interleaved almanac (which was in the possession of
his grandson, Ralph Waldo Emerson, when the fac-simile was made, which
is here followed, so far as the first page goes), was first printed
by R. W. Emerson in his _Historical Discourse_ in 1835 (republished
in 1875), and again in the _American Historical Magazine and Literary
Record_, New Haven, 1836. Other early anniversary sermons add little
or nothing to our knowledge; such are Samuel Cooke's _The violent
destroyed and oppressed delivered_ (Lexington, 1777, but printed in
Boston, 1777), and Philip Payson's sermon, also at Lexington, in 1782.
Sermons were preached at Concord from 1776 to 1783; the series is in
the Mass. Hist. Society's library. A sermon preached by John Langdon,
at Watertown, May 31, 1775, refers to the fight. This is reprinted in
J. W. Thornton's _Pulpit of the Amer. Revolution_.

[533] _Memoirs of Maj.-Gen. William Heath, containing anecdotes,
details of skirmishes, battles, and other military events during the
American War, written by Himself_ (Boston, 1798). Accounts by those who
knew the actors intimately are in Mercy Warren's _Hist. of the Amer.
Revolution_ (1805), and in James Thacher's _Military Journal_ (1823).

[534] _Works_, ii. p. 406.

[535] We have brief records of other observers of the after-appearances
in Dr. McClure's diary and in Madam Winthrop's letter. (_Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, 1875, vol. xiv. p. 28; 1878, vol. xvi. p. 157.)

[536] This letter is in the _Trumbull MSS._, iv. p. 77.

[537] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. 351. There are two or three copies
of this broadside in the library of this society, and it is reproduced
somewhat smaller in the _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 73, and is reprinted
in the Society's _Collections_, xii.; and in Wm. Lincoln's ed. of the
_Journals of the Provincial Congresses_ (Boston, 1838). There is in
the Mass. Hist. Soc. library a printed broadside containing Governor
Trumbull's letter to Gage, dated at Hartford, April 28, 1775, sent by
a committee of the Connecticut assembly, and also Gage's reply of May
3, 1775, in which he characterizes his _Circumstantial Account_ in the
language quoted in the text. He also tells Trumbull that the royal
troops "disclaim with indignation the barbarous outrages of which they
are accused, so contrary to their known humanity. I have taken the
greatest pains (he adds) to discover if any were committed, and have
found examples of their tenderness both to the young and the old, but
no vestige of cruelty or barbarity."

[538] This name, probably by a typographical error, appears in some
of the contemporary accounts as Berni_cre_, and this mistake has been
followed by various later writers. The pamphlet is called _Instructions
of 22 Feb. 1775 to Capt. Brown and Ensign de Berniere ... and an
account of their doings in consequence of further orders to proceed to
Concord. Also an Account of the Transactions of the British troops from
their march from Boston, April 18, till their retreat back, April 19,
1775, and a return of killed and wounded_ (Boston, 1779, 20 pp.). There
is a copy in the Boston Pub. Library. Cf. Haven in Thomas, ii. p. 658.

[539] There is also a table of casualties at Lexington, Concord, and
Bunker Hill, in the _Hist. of the War in America_ (Dublin, 1779-1785).
On the provincial side there is a list of casualties (forty-nine
killed, thirty-nine wounded, and five missing,—ninety-three in
all) of the 19th April given in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xviii.;
Frothingham's _Siege of Boston_, 80; Dawson's _Battles_, etc.; Hudson's
_Lexington_, p. 211; Everett's _Orations_, i. 562; Wm. Lincoln's ed.
of the _Journals of the Provincial Congresses_ (Boston, 1838). The
names of the men who were on duty on that day are in what are called
the Lexington alarm rolls in the State Archives (_Revolutionary
Rolls_, vols. xi., xii., and xiii.). The histories of towns which sent
companies usually print such lists, as the _Hist. of Sutton_, p. 783,
etc. The losses of property sustained by Lexington during the day, as
figured in 1780, is given in the _Mass. Archives_, cxxxviii. p. 410;
and the Report of the Committee of the Provincial Congress on the
losses along the line of march is given in Wm. Lincoln's ed. of the
_Journals of the Prov. Congresses_ (Boston, 1838). This report makes
the damage done by the king's troops in Concord, £274 16_s._ 7_d._; in
Lexington, £1,716 1_s._5_d._, and in Cambridge, £1,2O2 8_s._ 7_d._;
total, £3,193 6_s._ 7_d._ In Oct., 1775, a committee of Congress—Silas
Deane, John Adams, and George Wyeth—were addressing letters to get
information respecting extent of losses inflicted by the ministerial
troops. One of these, addressed to Ezra Stiles, is in _Letters and
Papers_, 1761-1776 (MSS. in Mass. Hist. Soc.).

[540] Incidental British accounts are given in Donkin's _Military
Collections_ (_Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 74); in G. D. Scull's _Memoir
and letters of Capt. Evelyn of the King's Own_, 1774-76, Oxford, 1779,
privately printed, 200 copies (_Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 56), and the
later _Evelyns in America_, pp. 161, 263, 277, 299, 303; in _Detail and
Conduct of the Amer. War_, p. 9; in Force's _Amer. Archives_.

Capt. George Harris, of the fifth regiment, lost half his company in
covering the retreat, and describes his perils in a letter in S. R.
Lushington's _Life and Services of General Lord Harris_ (London, 1840).
A letter from Boston, July 5, 1775, is in _A view of the Evidence
relative to the Conduct of the American War_, 1779. Cf. Duncan's _Royal
Artillery_, 3d ed., ii. 302.

[541] _Siege of Boston_, 63.

[542] _Hist. of Lexington_, 225.

[543] Stedman, who was not present, and most British writers, say the
Americans fired first, as did Pitcairn, whose representations, as
reported by Stiles in his diary, are given by Frothingham (p. 62),
and by Irving (_Life of Washington_, i. 393). One tory, on talking
with the British soldiers afterwards, was satisfied that they were the
aggressors. (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiii. 60.) Hudson, in a paper on
Pitcairn in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xvii. 318, examines the question.
(Cf. Frothingham's _Warren_, 488; _Evelyns in America_, 299, 303;
Mahon's _England_, vi. 36.) A deposition of one Sylvanus Wood, taken
in 1826, says that the stories in this country of the Americans firing
first were started long after the event. Dawson (i. 22) prints this
document.

[544] Reprinted in 1875 at Boston. The literary sources with
interest centering in Lexington are Edward Everett's address in
1835 (_Orations_, i. 526), where he noted (p. 561) the survivors of
Captain Parker's company taking part in the celebration; Everett's
_Mount Vernon Papers_, no. 47; _Hudson's Hist. of Lexington_, ch. 6,
and his Abstract (1876); _Harper's Magazine_, vol. xx.; R. H. Dana's
Address in 1875; C. Hudson's and E. G. Porter's _Proceedings at the
Centennial Celebration_, 1875; The _Centennial Souvenir of 1775_;
Henry Westcott's _Lexington Centennial Sermons_ (1875); A. B. Muzzey's
_Battle of Lexington_ (_New Eng. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Oct., 1877,
and separately, 1877); E. S. Thomas's _Reminiscences of the last
Sixty Years, commencing with the battle of Lexington_ (Hartford,
1840); William D. Howells's _Three Villages_; Poole's _Index_, under
"Lexington." See Mr. R. C. Winthrop's remarks on Chas. Hudson in _Mass.
Hist. Proc._, xviii. 418; cf. also _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._,
1881, p. 395, and _Worcester Soc. of Antiq. Proc._, 1881, p. 46.

Geo. W. Curtis made the oration in 1875, and J. R. Lowell's ode is
printed in _Atlantic Monthly_, June, 1875. The town of Concord printed
in 1875 an account of its centennial celebration. Cf. Poole's _Index_,
under "Concord."

The orations of 1875 at Concord and Lexington, with an account of the
celebration, are given in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Oct.,
1875; and there are additional particulars in the reports of the two
towns for 1875-1876.

[545] This was reissued in 1832,—both editions at Concord, and the
side of that town was again espoused by Lemuel Shattuck, in his
_History of Concord_, whose views were, however, examined in the _North
American Review_, vol. xlii. (Cf. notice of Shattuck in _N. E. Hist.
and Geneal. Reg._, Apr., 1860.)

Among the literary sources with their interest centering in Concord
may be named Edward Everett's oration in 1825 (_Orations_, i. p. 73);
Grindall Reynolds in _Unitarian Review_, April, 1875, and his chapter
xvii. in Drake's _Middlesex County_; Frederic Hudson's illustrated
paper in _Harper's Mag._ (May, 1875).

[546] For Acton,—the _Centennial Address_ of Josiah Adams (1835),
and his _Letter_ to Shattuck (1850); James T. Woodbury's _Speech_ in
the Massachusetts Legislature (1851) for a bill to erect a monument
to Capt. Davis, killed at the North Bridge. Cf. a pamphlet by Rufus
Hosmer, of Stowe (1833).

For Danvers,—D. P. King's _Address_ on the seven young men of Danvers
slain at Lexington (Salem, 1835).

For West Cambridge,—J. A. Smith's _West Cambridge on the 19th of
April, 1775_ (Boston, 1864).

For Cambridge,—Rev. Alexander Mackenzie's address in 1870, when
the bodies of some "men of Cambridge", who fell Apr. 19, 1775, were
reinterred in the old burying-ground, where a monument now marks the
spot.

For Bedford,—notice of the flag borne by the company from this town in
the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Dec., 1885, and Jan., 1886. This flag,
which is still preserved, bore a device very like that made in England
for the Massachusetts Three County Troop, an organization which existed
from 1659 to 1690. It is probable that this flag had been used in
earlier wars. (Cf. _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, xxv. 138.)

Cf. also Perley's _Hist. of Boxford_, ch. x.; _Hist. of Sutton_, p.
783; S. A. Drake's _Middlesex County_; and Wheildon's _New Chapter in
the History of Concord Fight_ (for Groton). The Andover men did not
arrive in time (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xv. 254).

In 1850 all the participating towns celebrated the anniversary at
Concord, when an oration by Robert Rantoul, Jr., was given, and was
later printed.

In the general histories, the best account is in Bancroft's _United
States_ (final revision), iv. ch. 10; but other accounts are in
Lossing's _Field-Book_; Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 389; Elliott's
_New England_, ii.; Barry's _Massachusetts_; E. E. Hale's _One Hundred
Years Ago_, etc.

Dawson's _Battles of the United States_, vol. i ch. 1, has some
essential errors, as where he says Smith proceeded "up Charles River to
Phipps's farm in West Cambridge."

[547] He has abundantly fortified his narrative with authorities,
though it is only the chief ones that he enumerates in chronological
order in an appendix of his _Siege_ (p. 372; also see p. 121).

[548] The substance of this volume is also found in the _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, xiv. p. 53, etc. In the same year Mr. Frothingham
condensed the story of the battle into a little volume,—_The
Centennial: Battle of Bunker Hill_ (Boston, 1875). Mr. Frothingham's
enthusiasm for his subject may be easily misjudged by the unsympathetic
reader. P. O. Hutchinson says of the _Siege_: "This would be a
creditable book if it were not so overloaded with boast, tall talk, and
self-glorification." (_Life of Governor Hutchinson_, p. 11.)

[549] This will be quoted in the following pages as "Dawson" simply;
and it is a much ampler and more critical account than that in his
_Battles of the United States_, vol. i.

[550] _Bibliography of Charlestown_, etc., p. 19. Taking precedence in
time is that in the _Boston Gazette_ of June 19, at this time printed
at Watertown. The _Massachusetts Spy_ (Worcester, June 21st) had the
next account, and this is reprinted in Frothingham's _Centennial_. The
_Connecticut Journal_ printed an account the same day; and in New York
a handbill was circulated, _Fresh news just arrived_, by an express
from the provincial camp near Boston, giving an account by Capt. Elijah
Hide, of Lebanon. See fac-simile in _Mag. of American Hist._, March,
1885, p. 282. Hide saw the battle from Winter Hill, and his account
is printed by Ellis (1843), p. 142, and Dawson, p. 378. Frank Moore's
_Diary of the American Revolution_ (i. pp. 97, 102), which begins
Jan. 1, 1775, gives most of these contemporary press articles, and so
does Dawson. Several of these newspaper accounts were reproduced in
fac-simile in 1875.

[551] This was first printed by Frothingham (_Siege_, etc., p. 395),
and is also in Dawson, p. 390, and in his _Battles_, i. p. 70. A
paper usually called _The Prescott MS._, said to have been prepared
under Colonel Prescott's supervision, in part at least, abridged in
Graydon's _Memoirs_ (1846), is printed in Butler's _Groton_ (p. 337)
and in Dawson. A memoir prepared by Judge Prescott, son of the colonel,
derived in part from his recollection of his father's accounts, is
printed in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. 68, and in Frothingham's
_Battle-Field_, p. 18.

[552] The MS. of this account is in the Am. Antiq. Society's
Collections at Worcester, and was printed in Dawson, p. 381. Cf.
_Belknap Papers_, ii. 163, 166. Frothingham (_Siege_, p. 385) gives
Thacher's indorsement of the MS. This narrative and that of Gordon,
mainly following it, were the basis of some elaborate papers in the
_Analectic Magazine_ (Feb. and March, 1818), which, however, present
some important differences of view, supported by documents.

[553] It is signed by J. Palmer, and dated July 25, 1775, and was
transmitted to Arthur Lee. It is printed in the _Journal of the Third
Prov. Congress; Analectic Magazine_, May, 1818, p. 261; Force's
_Archives_, iv. 1,373; Ellis (1843), p. 131; Frothingham's _Siege_,
382; Dawson, 387, and his _Battles_, i. p. 68. The provincial congress
had already (June 20) sent an account to the Continental Congress
(Ellis, p. 140; Dawson, p. 371). There are other official accounts sent
to Albany and New Hampshire (Dawson, 380; _N. H. Hist. Coll._, ii. 143.)

[554] These may be named in an approximate chronological order thus
thus:—

JUNE 17. Dr. Holyoke saw the smoke at Salem, and wrote to his wife the
reports which reached him. (_Essex Inst. Hist. Coll._, xiii. 212.)

JUNE 18. David Cheever wrote from Watertown to the provincial congress
of New Hampshire (_N. H. Prov. Papers_, vii. 521). Abigail Adams, at
Braintree, wrote her impressions (having heard of Warren's death)
to John Adams, in Philadelphia. She supposed the battle was then (3
P. M., June 18) still unended. She wrote farther June 25 and July 5
(_Familiar Letters of John Adams and his Wife_, pp. 67, 70, 72). Josiah
Bartlett, at Kingston, N. H., learned the news by express, and B.
Greenleaf repeated the news (_N. H. Prov. Papers_, vii. 520). On this
day Ezra Stiles, then at Newport, made his first entry in his diary as
the news came in (Dawson, 391). Loammi Baldwin's letter (Frothingham's
_Battle-Field_, P. 43). General Greene to Governor Cooke, of R. I.
(copy in _Sparks MSS._, vol. xlviii.).

JUNE 19. Andrew Eliot to Isaac Smith, then in England (Ellis, 151;
Dawson, 369; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1878, p. 288). Col. John Stark,
from Medford to the N. H. congress (Ellis, 145; Dawson, 370; _N.
H. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. 144; _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vii. 322-23).
Job Bradford, from Hingham to Col. B. Lincoln (_Rivington's N. Y.
Gazetteer_, Dawson, 370; _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vii. 523). Bradford had
come out of Boston on the 18th.

JUNE 20. Colonel Stark to the Continental Congress (Ellis, Dawson, _N.
H. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii.). James Warren to John Adams (_Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, xiv. 79). Letter from Providence (_N. Y. Gazetteer_, June
26; Dawson, 372). William Williams to the Connecticut delegates in
Congress (Frothingham's _Battlefield_, 41).

JUNE 21. Professor Winthrop to John Adams (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._,
xliv. 292). John Bromfield (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Feb., 1870, p.
226). James Warren to Sam. Adams (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. 80).

JUNE 22. Isaac Lothrop to T. Burr (_Rivington's Gazetteer_, June 29;
Ellis, 148; Dawson, 374). Capt. John Chester (Frothingham's _Siege_,
389). Samuel Paine (Dawson, 440). Letter from Philadelphia (Force, iv.;
Dawson, 375). Gen. N. Folsom to the N. H. Committee of Safety, from
Medford (_N. H. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. 146; Dawson, 373; _N. H. Prov.
Papers_, vii. 527).

JUNE 23. William Tudor (Dawson, 376).

JUNE 25. Peter Brown to his mother. Frothingham calls it the most
noteworthy account by a common soldier (Frothingham's _Siege_, 392;
Potter's _Amer. Monthly_, July, 1875, from the original). Dr. Geo.
Brown to Maj.-Gen. Haldimand (_Evelyns in America_, p. 171).

JUNE 27. Letter from camp (Force, iv.; Dawson, 379). Officer
(_Rivington's Gazetteer_, July 6; Dawson, 380).

JUNE 30. Isaac Smith, from Salem (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xvi. 291)

JULY 3. Letter from camp (Dawson, 384).

JULY 11. Samuel B. Webb to Silas Deane, from camp at Cambridge
(original MS. in Brinley, i. 1,789; printed _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
xiv. 83).

JULY 12. Samuel Gray to Dyer (Frothingham's _Siege_, 393; Dawson, 385).

AUGUST 31. Governor Trumbull (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, vi. 159. Cf.
Stuart's _Jonathan Trumbull_, ch. vi.)

There is among the _Charles Lowell MSS._ in the Mass. Hist. Soc. a
document found with the papers of Dr. Lowell's grandfather, Judge
Russell, giving a list of the houses burned in Charlestown, June 17,
1775. Thaddeus Mason's account of his losses at Charlestown is in the
_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1882, p. 397; papers on individual
losses in the battle, and by the burning of Charlestown, are in _Mass.
Archives_, cxxxviii. and cxxxix.

[555] DIARIES.—Lt.-Col. Storrs, June 1-28 (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
xiv. 86; Frothingham's _Battlefield_, 34) Benj. Crufts, June 15, etc.
(_Essex Inst. Hist. Coll._, April, 1861); Ezekiel Price, May 23,
etc. (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Nov., 1863, p. 185); Dr. John Warren
(Frothingham's _Siege: Life of Dr. John Warren_); Thomas Boynton
(_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xv. 254).

ORDERLY-BOOKS.—Capt. Chester's, June 5-17 (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
xiv. 87; Frothingham's _Battlefield_, 37); Henshaw's, April-Sept.
(_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1876); Fenno's (_Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, Oct., 1876).

[556] References in Poole's _Index_, p. 1328.

[557] Charles Coffin, at Saco in 1831 and at Portland in 1835,
published a _History of the Battle of Bunker Hill_, which was compiled
from the accounts by Heath, Wilkinson, Lee, and Dearborn. Of less
importance are Dr. Belknap's note-book and letters (_Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, xiv. 92, 96, etc.); _Adventures of Israel R. Potter_
(Providence, 1824); Oliver Morsman's _Hist. of Breed's, commonly called
Bunker's Hill Battle_ (Sacketts Harbor, 1830); Col. E. Bancroft's
narrative (J. B. Hill's _Bicentennial of Old Dunstable_, Nashua, 1878);
_Columbian Centinel_ (Dec., 1824; Jan., 1825); Needham Maynard (Boston
newspaper, 1843); Timothy Dwight (_Travels in New England_, New Haven,
1821, vol. i. 468-476), who knew some of the actors, and who says that
a member of the council of war held the day before told him that the
representations of an old hunter, that it was better to fire a small
number of shots well aimed than many carelessly, induced the council to
order fifteen rounds to a man instead of sixty.

A large number of depositions of supposed survivors were made in
1818 and 1825, but they are held to be of no value by the critical
student. There is a transcript in three folio volumes, made in William
Sullivan's office, of some of the latter date, preserved in the cabinet
of the Mass. Hist. Society. What purported to be some of the originals
were offered for sale in New York in 1877, but were bid in. C. L.
Woodward, of New York, advertised in May, 1883, nearly two hundred
papers, which were called Col. Swett's Collection of Affidavits, priced
at $200 (_Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 104).

[558] For instance, Rev. Wm. Gordon's _Hist. of the Independence of the
United States_ (London, 1788), vol. ii. 39, who followed closely the
Committee of Safety's account; D. Ramsay's _Amer. Revolution_ (1789),
i. 201, who is criticised by Charles Thomson (_N. Y. Hist. Coll._,
1878, p. 216) for not allowing that military necessity justified
Gage in firing Charlestown; Charles Smith's _American War from 1775
to 1783_ (N. Y., p. 97, also _Monthly Repository_, N. Y., 1796-97);
Holmes' _Amer. Annals_ (1805), ii. 231; Mercy Warren's _American War_
(Boston, 1805), i. 217; Hubley's _Amer. Revolution_ (1805); Lee's _Mem.
of the War in the Southern Department_ (Philad., 1812); Marshall's
_Washington_, ii. 237. (See, for others, Hunnewell, p. 23.)

Colonel Scammans's court-martial is reported in the _N. E. Chronicle_,
Feb. 29, 1776; _Essex Gazette_, Feb. 29, 1776; Dawson, p. 400.

[559] Charles Hudson availed himself of this in a pleasantry, _Doubts
concerning the battle of Bunker Hill_ (Boston, 1857), in which he
paralleled Whately's famous argument for the non-existence of Napoleon.
Cf. _Christian Examiner_, vol. xl.

[560] _Hist. of the United States_, orig. ed., vol. vii. ch. 38-40; and
final revision, iv. ch. 14.

[561] He ceases, however, to speak of "the age and infirmities" of
Ward, as Carrington indeed does, calling him "advanced in years and
feeble in body", and as many of the writers have, misled perhaps by the
somewhat elderly appearance of the usual portrait of him. He was in
fact but forty-eight years old!

[562] _Battles of the Amer. Revolution_, N. Y. [copyrighted 1876], ch.
15.

[563] Gen. Carrington has contributed other papers on the battle to the
_Granite Monthly_, vii. 290, and _Bay State Monthly_, May, 1884. Edward
E. Hale has given accounts in his _One Hundred Years Ago_ (ch. 4) and
in a chapter in _Memorial Hist. Boston_, vol. iii. Dr. George E. Ellis
was one of the earliest to collate carefully the sources in his _Battle
of Bunker Hill_ (1843). Barry (_Massachusetts_, iii. ch. 1) gives the
story with care, and fortifies it by references. Irving's account
(_Washington_, i. ch. 40, 41) is of course flowingly done.

[564] See Hollister's _Connecticut_, and other histories; Stuart's
_Life of Jonathan Trumbull_; lives of Putnam; Hinman's _Conn. in the
Revolution; Memorial Hist. of Hartford County_, ii. 473;, and H. P.
Johnston on "Yale in the Revolution", in _The Yale Book_. The news of
the battle as it reached Connecticut is remarked upon in the Silas
Deane Correspondence (_Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. 270, etc.).

[565] Stark's letter to the N. H. congress, of June 18, has already
been mentioned. Cf. memoirs of Stark by Caleb Stark and Edward Everett;
"Col. Jas. Reed at Bunker Hill", in _N. H. Hist. Soc. Proc._ (1876-84),
p. 111; account in _N. H. Adj.-General's Report_, 1866, vol. ii.; the
rosters of her regiments in the Adj.-General's office; _N. H. Prov.
Papers_, vol. vii. pp. 516, 586; _N. H. Rev. Rolls_, i. 32-44; ii.
739; C. C. Coffin in _Boston Globe_, June 23, 1875; _N. E. Hist. and
Gen. Reg._, xxvii. 377, and the account by E. H. Derby in the number
for Jan., 1877. Evans' account of the service of New Hampshire troops,
1775-1782, is among the Meshech Weare papers (_Letters and Papers_,
1777-1824, vol. ii. p. 61, _Mass. Hist. Soc._). For the part of New
Hampshire towns: HOLLIS, _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vii. 601, by S. T.
Worcester; _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, xxvii. 377; xxx. 28; xxxi.
169; S. T. Worcester's _Hist. of Hollis_ (1879), p. 146. MANCHESTER,
Potter's _Hist. of Manchester_.

[566] The connection of Putnam with the final stand at Prospect Hill
naturally conveyed the impression of his commanding through the day, as
he was known to have been by turns upon different parts of the field.
Gen. Greene, who hurried up from Rhode Island that night, got this
impression from the understanding of the case which he found prevailing
in the Roxbury lines, when he wrote back the next day (June 18) to Gov.
Cooke, of Rhode Island. "General Putnam", he says, "had taken post at
Bunker's Hill, and flung up an entrenchment with a detachment of about
three hundred" (_Sparks MSS._, no. xlviii. p. 67). This notion reached
England, and on a print of Putnam published there Sept. 9, which is
annexed, Putnam is called commander-in-chief (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
Nov., 1881, p. 102). An American engraving, by Roman, which appeared
shortly afterwards, represents Putnam on horseback at the redoubt,
as if commanding there. Col. Trumbull gave him similar prominence
when he painted his well-known picture in 1786, though he is said to
have regretted it at a later day. The earliest general narrative to
give the command to Prescott was Gordon's, which followed closely the
account of the Committee of Safety, and this was printed in 1788. The
_Life of Putnam_ by Humphreys was published in 1788, while Putnam was
still living, and makes no mention of his having the command; but the
Rev. Josiah Whitney, in 1790, in a note to a sermon preached upon the
death of Putnam, took exception to this oversight (Stevens's _Hist.
Coll._, i. no. 685). In 1809, Eliot, in his _Biographical Dictionary_,
represents Prescott as commanding at the redoubt and Stark at the
rail fence. When Gen. Wilkinson's _Memoirs_ were published, in 1816
(reviewed in the _N. Am. Rev._, Nov., 1817), the conduct of Putnam
on that day was represented in no favorable light; and Gen. Henry
Dearborn, who was with Stark at the rail fence, asserted that Putnam
remained inactive in the rear. It is also significant that Major
Thompson Maxwell, who was with Reed's regiment at the rail fence, also
asserted that Prescott commanded (_Essex Inst. Hist. Coll._, vol.
vii.; _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Jan., 1868, p. 57). Dearborn's
statement was made in a paper in the _Portfolio_ (March, 1818), which
is reprinted in the _Hist. Mag._, August, 1864, and June, 1868 (Dawson,
p. 402). It was printed also separately at the time in Philadelphia
and Boston (1818) as _An Account of the Battle of Bunker Hill with De
Bernière's map corrected by General Dearborn_ (16 pp.). Col. Daniel
Putnam replied in the _Portfolio_ (May, 1818) with numerous depositions
(all reprinted by Dawson, p. 407), which was issued separately as
_A letter to Maj. Gen. Dearborn, repelling his unprovoked attack on
the character of the late Maj. General Putnam, and containing some
anecdotes relating to the Battle of Bunker Hill, not generally known_
(Philadelphia, 1818). Both tracts were reprinted as an _Account of
the Battle of Bunker's Hill, by H. Dearborn, Major-General of the
United States Army; with a letter to Maj. Gen. Dearborn, repelling his
unprovoked attack on the character of the late Maj.-Gen. Israel Putnam,
by Daniel Putnam, Esq._ (Boston: Munroe & Francis, 1818). Each document
is paged separately, and the last has a separate title. Dearborn
replied in the _Boston Patriot_ (June 13, 1818), with depositions, all
of which are in Dawson, p. 414. See account of Gen. Dearborn by Daniel
Goodwin, Jr., in the _Chicago Hist. Soc. Proc._ In July, 1818, Daniel
Webster, in the _North Amer. Rev._, vindicated Putnam, but claimed
for Prescott as much of a general command during the day as any one
had, which claim he held to be established by Prescott's making his
report to Ward at Cambridge when it was over. (Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, June, 1858.) John Lowell offered counter-depositions in the
_Columbian Centinel_ (July 4 and 15, 1818), again reprinted in Dawson,
p. 423. In October, 1818, Col. Samuel Swett appended an _Historical
and Topographical Sketch of Bunker Hill Battle_ to a new edition of
Humphrey's _Life of Putnam_. In the _Boston Patriot_, Nov. 17, 1818, D.
L. Child claimed that Putnam was not in the battle, and he published
separately _An Enquiry into the Conduct of Gen. Putnam_ (Boston, 1819).
In 1825, Swett enlarged his text, and published it as a _History of
the battle of Bunker Hill_ (Boston, 1825), followed by _Notes_ to his
_Sketch_ in Dec., 1825. His history passed to a second edition as a
_History of the Bunker Hill Battle, with a plan. By S. Swett. Second
Edition, much enlarged with new information derived from the surviving
soldiers present at the celebration on the 17th June last, and notes_
(Boston, 1826). A third appeared in 1827. (Cf. Sparks in _N. Am. Rev._,
vol. xxii.)

[Illustration]

A new advocate for Putnam appeared in Alden Bradford's _Particular
Account of the Battle of Bunker or Breed's Hill, by a Citizen of
Boston_ (two editions, Boston, 1825, and since reprinted); while Daniel
Putnam during the same year recapitulated his views in a communication
to the Bunker Hill Monument Association (_Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll._, vol.
i.). A summary of this Putnam-Dearborn controversy is given in G. W.
Warren's _Hist. of the Bunker Hill Monument Association_.

The dispute now remained dormant till 1841, when George E. Ellis
delivered an oration at Charlestown, and then, and in his _Sketches of
Bunker Hill Battle, with illustrative documents_ (Charlestown, 1843),
he presented at fuller length than had been before done the claims of
Prescott to be considered the commander. This led to a criticism and
rejoinder by Swett and Ellis in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_. See
Judge Prescott's letter to Dr. Ellis in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ (iv.
76), and another to Col. Swett (xiv. 78. Cf. Memoir of Swett and a list
of his publications in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1867, p.
374). In 1843, John Fellows, in _The Veil Removed; or reflections an
David Humphrey's essay on the life of Israel Putnam; also, notices of
Oliver W. B. Peabody's life of the same; S. Swett's sketch of Bunker
Hill_, etc. (New York, 1843), ranged himself among the detractors of
Putnam.

In 1849, the question was again elaborately examined in Frothingham's
_Siege of Boston_ (p. 159, etc.), favoring Prescott, which produced
Swett's _Who was the Commander at Bunker Hill?_ (Boston, 1850), and
Frothingham's rejoinder, _The Command in the battle of Bunker Hill_
(Boston, 1850). Cf. also the _Report_ to the Massachusetts Legislature
on a monument to Col. Prescott (1852). In 1853, Irving favored Prescott
(_Washington_, vol. i.). In 1855, L. Grosvenor, in an address before
the descendants of Putnam, reiterated that general's claims. In 1857,
Barry (_Hist. of Mass._, iii. 39) gave to Prescott the command in the
redoubt, and to Putnam a general direction outside the redoubt. In
1858, Bancroft in his _History_ (vol. vii.) took the view substantially
held by the present writer. In 1859, Mr. A. C. Griswold, as "Selah", of
the _Hartford Post_, had a controversy with H. B. Dawson, who exceeded
others in his denunciation of Putnam, and this correspondence was
printed as parts 6 and 11 of Dawson's _Gleanings from the Harvest-field
of American History_ (Morrisania, 1860-63), with the distinctive title
_Major General Putnam_. In 1860, the Hon. H. C. Deming published an
address on the occasion of the presentation of Putnam's sword to the
Conn. Hist. Society.

The question of the command was again discussed at the season of the
Centennial of 1875. The chief papers in favor of Putnam were by I. N.
Tarbox in the _N. Y. Herald_ (June 12 and 14), in the _New Englander_
(April, 1876), and in his _Life of Putnam_; by S. A. Drake in his
_General Israel Putnam the Commander at Bunker Hill_; by W. W. Wheildon
in his letters to the _N. Y. Herald_ (June 16 and 17) and in his _New
History of the battle of Bunker Hill_. Gen. Charles Devens' oration
in _The Celebration of the Centennial Anniversary of the Battle of
Bunker Hill_ (Boston, 1875) did not extend Prescott's command beyond
the redoubt, as was done, however, in Francis J. Parker's _Colonel Wm.
Prescott the Commander in the Battle of Bunker's Hill_ (Boston, 1875),
and his paper "Could General Putnam command at Bunker's Hill?" in _New
Eng. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._ (Oct., 1877, p. 403). During this same
year, Dr. George E. Ellis recast the material of his earlier book in
his _History of the Battle of Bunker's (Breed's) Hill_ (Boston, 1875,
in 16mo and 8vo, the last revised).

The Centennial period produced, also, various magazine articles, the
most important of which are one by H. E. Scudder in the _Atlantic
Monthly_, July, 1875; one by Launce Poyntz in the _Galaxy_, July, 1875;
one by Dr. Samuel Osgood in _Harper's Monthly_, July, 1875; and those
which later constituted a brochure, _One Hundred Years Ago_, by Edward
E. Hale.

[567] As in the accounts of Ward and Knowlton in the _N. E. Hist. and
Geneal. Reg._, July, 1851, and Jan., 1861; the _Journals of Samuel
Shaw_ (Boston, 1847); _The Female Review_, being a life of Deborah
Sampson, by Herman Mann (1797; also edited by J. A. Vinton in 1866);
and C. W. Clarence's _Biographical Sketch of the late Ralph Farnham, of
Acton, Me., now in the one hundred and fifth year of his age, and the
sole survivor of the glorious battle of Bunker Hill_ (Boston, 1860).
There are other accounts of this man in the _Historical Magazine_, iv.
3, 12; and in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, xvi. 183.

[Illustration: Camp at Roxbury Nov 20th 1775]

[Illustration: Artemas Ward]

There is a portrait of Artemas Ward, with a memoir, in A. H. Ward's
_Genealogy of the Ward family_, and another in the same writer's _Hist.
of Shrewsbury_ (Boston, 1847). Cf. also _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._,
v. 271; and _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii.

[568] Accounts of the present obelisk on Bunker Hill can be found
in G. W. Warren's _Hist. of the Bunker Hill Monument Association_;
Wheildon's _Life of Solomon Willard_; Ellis's _Battle of Bunker Hill_
(1843); Frothingham's _Siege_; and in other places noted in Hunnewell's
_Bibliog. of Charlestown_, p. 28.

[569] Winthrop's _Speeches_, 1878-1886, p. 253, and separately. The
statue was erected by anonymous subscribers, acting through the Rev.
Dr. Ellis.

[570] For anniversary memorials, see Hunnewell's _Bibliog._, 25, 26.

[571] See extracts and fac-simile from Waller's orderly-book in _Mem.
Hist. Boston_, iii. 83, 84.

[572] The earliest English accounts which we have are two dated
June 18, a letter of John Randon, a soldier (Lamb's _Journal of
Occurrences_, 33; Dawson, 358), and that of an officer of rank from
Boston (Force, iv.; Dawson, 357; Ellis, 115). Written on June 19, is
a short letter from Brig.-Gen. Jones, colonel of the fifty-second
regiment (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. 91; Frothingham's
_Battle-Field_, 45). Henry Hulton, commissioner of his majesty's
customs at Boston, wrote a long letter on June 20 (Emmons's _Sketches
of Bunker Hill Battle_, 123; Dawson, 359; Ellis, 123). On the 22d,
Adjutant Waller, of the Royal Marines, wrote a letter which is given
in S. A. Drake's _Bunker Hill, the Story told in Letters from the
Battlefield_. (Cf. P. H. Nicholas's _Historical Record of the Royal
Marine Forces_, London, 1845, i. 84-89.) On the 23d we have the account
of an officer on one of the king's ships (Force, iv.; Dawson, 360;
Ellis, 117), and a brief letter by Dr. Grant, one of the surgeons
(Dawson, 361; Ellis, 114). On the 24th, a merchant in Boston writes to
his brother in Scotland (Ellis, 119).

The 25th of June must have been a letter day in Boston, in anticipation
of the sailing of the despatch ship "Cerberus", for we have several
letters of that date. Gage wrote then his official despatch to Lord
Dartmouth, which reached London July 25, but a vessel had arrived
at Waterford a week earlier (July 18), bringing rumors of the fight
(P. O. Hutchinson's _Governor Hutchinson_, 489). The news was at
once published from Whitehall (Almon's _Remembrancer_, 1775, p. 132;
_Analectic Mag._, 1818, p. 260; Force, iv.; Dawson, 361, and his
_Battles_, 65; Ellis, 94; Frothingham's _Siege_, 385; Moore's _Ballad
History_, 86, etc.). Gage wrote at the same time a private letter to
Dartmouth. "The number", he says, "of killed and wounded is greater
than we could afford to lose, and some extraordinary good officers have
been lost. The trials we have had show that the rebels are not the
despicable rabble too many have supposed them to be" (_London Gazette_,
July 25; Force, iv.; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. 353; Dawson, 363).
Burgoyne wrote the same day (June 25) a "letter to a noble lord"
(Stanley). He saw the action from Copp's Hill. We have the letter in
two forms; the first in Burgoyne's letter-book, where he calls it the
"substance" of the letter, and in this form it is printed by E. D.
de Fonblanque in his _Political and Military Episodes derived from
the life and correspondence of the Right Hon. John Burgoyne, General,
Statesman, Dramatist_ (London, 1876), p. 153. In this draft he says
that the fight "establishes the ascendency of the king's troops, though
opposed by more than treble numbers, assisted by every circumstance
that nature and art could supply to make a situation strong." This
and other paragraphs, as well as other forms of expression, do not
appear in the letter as historians print it, as by Mahon (vol. vi.),
for instance, who, as Fonblanque supposes, had access to the letter
actually received by Stanley. In this latter form the letter appeared
in London in the public prints (Sept.), and in a broadside with a
plan of the battle. It came back to Boston in this shape, and was
printed in Hall's _New England Chronicle_ (Cambridge, Nov. 24), and
in Edes's _Boston Gazette_ (Watertown), and is now frequently met
with (_Analectic Mag._, 1815, p. 264; Ellis, p. 106, with comments
from a London opposition journal; _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, xi.
125; Dawson, p. 363, and his _Battles_, p. 66; and in the Centennial
publications of David Pulsifer and Samuel A. Drake). Fonblanque adds
something more of Burgoyne's view in letters (pp. 147, 193) which
he wrote to Lord Rochfort, without date, and to Lord George Germain
(Aug. 20). In the former he said: "The defence was well conceived and
obstinately maintained; the retreat was no flight; it was even covered
with bravery and military skill."

Beside the Stanley letter of Burgoyne, we find also, written on June
25, two others: the first from Boston to a gentleman in Scotland
(Force, iv.; Dawson, 364); the second from an officer in Boston (Force,
iv.; Dawson, 365).

On the 26th, Gage wrote to the Earl of Dunmore in Virginia (Force, iv.;
Dawson, 366).

On July 5th, there is a letter from an officer in Boston (_Detail and
Conduct of the American War_, 3d ed., 1780, p. 12; Dawson, p. 367;
Frothingham's _Siege_, 373).

A letter of Captain Harris, describing his receiving a wound and being
taken from the field, is given without date in Lushington's _Lord
Harris_ (p. 54; also Dawson, 366; Drake, 37). The Bunker Hill letter
is lacking in G. D. Scull's _Capt. Evelyn of the King's Own_ (Oxford,
1879), but there is new matter in his _Evelyns in America_ (pp.
166-171, 278).

[573] The book passed to a second edition the same year. It was
privately printed in New York in 1868, and is included by S. A. Drake
in his _Bunker Hill_, published in 1875 (Brinley, no. 1,786; Stevens,
_Americana_, 1885, £3 3_s_).

[574] Particular reference may be made to the more extended accounts in
Moorsom's _Fifty-Second Regiment_ (with a plate of uniforms); Lamb's
_Journal of Occurrences_ with the Welsh Fusiliers; E. Duncan's _Royal
Artillery_ (London, 1872, i. 302); R. G. A. Levinge's _Fifty-third
Regiment Monmouthshire light infantry_ (Lond., 1868, pp. 61-64); The
_Case of Edward Drewe, late Major Thirty-fifth Regiment_ (Exeter,
1782,—see Dawson, 368).

[575] In 1793, when Stedman used the plate in his _American War_, he
only altered the title, as Frothingham says. In 1797 it was again
reëngraved, but also with changes in the title, as _A plan of the
action at Breed's Hill, etc._, and, as then reduced by D. Martin,
it constitutes the earliest American engraved plan. It appeared in
C. Smith's _American War from 1775 to 1783_ (New York, 1797), and
Hunnewell (p. 18) gives a heliotype of it. Nathaniel Dearborn, in his
_Boston Notions_, engraved it, on a very small scale, in 1848; and the
next year (1849) Frothingham reproduced it in its original state in his
_Siege_, and pointed out that the correspondence of Montresor's survey
to a recent survey of Felton and Parker inspired one with confidence
in its accuracy (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv.). It is the basis
of the best plans of the action, and is reproduced also in Irving's
_Washington_, illus. ed., ii. 467.

[576] Dearborn was at the time a captain in Stark's regiment, at the
rail fence. Winthrop was on the field unattached. Dr. Dexter looked on
from the Malden shore of the Mystick. Kettell was a common soldier, at
first in the redoubt; then at the rail fence. Miller was at the rail
fence.

[577] _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, July, 1858. There is a portrait
of Brooks, by Stuart, owned by Mr. Francis Brooks, of Boston. It has
been engraved by A. B. Durand. Cf. Usher's ed. of Brooks' _Medford_
(Boston, 1886.)

[578] The figures in the town denote the numbers of the wards. The
letters signify,—A, Town Hall; B, Old meeting; C, the Chapel; D,
Governor's house; E, Christ Church; F, Trinity Church; G, Faneuil
Hall; H, Old North meeting; I, Old South meeting; L, Work-house; M,
Prison. A map like it appeared in 1782 in a work of similar title to
that published in Boston, but printed at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, being a
second edition of one printed at London in 1779. (Cf. Henry Stevens's
_Hist. Coll._, i. no. 435.) The whole design seems, however, to be
taken from a map which appeared in London, Sept. 2, 1775, whose main
title is _Seat of War in New England, by an American Volunteer, with
the marches of the several Corps sent by the Colonies towards Boston,
with the Attack on Bunker Hill_; and which has in the margin a _Plan of
Boston Harbor_, and is also the prototype of the one in the _Impartial
History_ (Boston, 1781). Modern reproductions are also given in
Wheildon's _New History_, F. S. Drake's _Tea Leaves_, and in various
other of the Centennial memorials of 1875.

[579] _Military Journal_ (Boston, 1823). Others are the following:
Diary of Jeremy Belknap, Chaplain, in _Life of Belknap_ and _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, June, 1858. _Diary of David How_, ed. by H. B.
Dawson (Morrisania, 1865). A journal of Solomon Nash (beginning Jan.
1, 1776) is included in the series (vol. i.) edited by C. I. Bushnell,
called _Crumbs for Antiquarians_, 2 vols., 1862-66 (Sabin, iii. 9,538).
Journal of David McCurlin, beginning at Cambridge, Aug. 9, 1775, and
ending May, 1776, in _Papers relating to the Maryland line_, ed.
by Thomas Balch (Philad., 1857). Diary of Lieut. Jonathan Burton,
of Wilton, N. H., on Winter Hill, Dec., 1775, to Jan. 26, 1776, in
_N. H. State Papers_ (1885), vol. xiv., and _N. H. Rev. Rolls_, i.
667-689. Diary of Aaron Wright, June 29, 1775, to March 11, 1776, in
_Boston Transcript_, April 11, 1862, and _Hist. Mag._, vi. 208. He
was a private in a rifle company from the South. Diary of Lieut.-Col.
Experience Storrs, June 13, 1775, to Feb., 1776, in _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, Feb., 1882, p. 124. Journal of Crafts, June 15, etc., in _Essex
Inst. Hist. Coll._, iii. Diaries in the _Hist. Mag._, Oct., 1864; Aug.,
1871, p. 128; March, 1874, p. 133, by Ensign Clap. Diaries in _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, Nov., 1863 (by Ezekiel Price); Feb., 1872 (by Paul
Lunt, May 10 to Dec. 23, 1775); March, 1876 (by Samuel Bixby); Sept.,
1882 (by Paul Litchfield, at Cambridge and Scituate). A diary of Caleb
Haskell, beginning May 5, 1775, was published at Newburyport in 1881.
There are some rather vague reminiscences in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
xv. 390; and others in Elkanah Watson's _Memoirs_.

[580] In Sparks's _Washington_; in W. B. _Reed's Life of Reed_; in the
Chas. Lee Papers (_N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1871); in Lee's _R. H. Lee_
(vol ii.). A letter to his brother, July 20, 1775, is in the _Penna.
Mag. of Hist._, x. 353. His appeals for powder are in the _N. H. Prov.
Papers_ (vii. pp. 571, 572, 581), as in other places. Two letters (July
23 and Dec. 4) are in the _Gen. Thomas Papers_. His correspondence with
Josiah Quincy about fortifying the harbor is in the _Quincy Papers_ in
the Mass. Hist. Soc. Cabinet.

[Illustration]

John Adams tells of dining with Washington and the Caghnawaga sachems
(_Familiar Letters_, p. 131). From near headquarters there are letters
of Charles Lee (_N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1871; Lee's _Life of R. H.
Lee_, i. 281; _Memoirs of Charles Lee_; one of July 23 in the _Gen.
Thomas Papers_); of Horatio Gates (_N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1871;
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. 281; several in the _Thomas Papers_); of
Gen. Ward (many in the _Thomas Papers_); of Lewis Morris (_N. Y. Hist.
Soc. Coll._, 1875, p. 433, etc.); of Joseph Trumbull (_Hist. Mag._,
vii. 22; Hinman's _Conn. in the Rev._, 554); of Asa Fitch (_Hist.
Mag._, iii. p. 6); of Samuel B. Webb (_Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii.
284; _Sparks MSS._ no. xxv.); of Thomas Brown (_Trumbull MSS._, iv.
no. 75). Other letters of more or less interest will be found in the
_N. Jersey Archives_, x. 606-608; in the _Memoirs of General Heath_;
_Drake's Life of Knox_; Bicknell's _Barrington, R. I._ (p. 190);
and others of Richard Devens and Richard Gridley are in the _Thomas
Papers_. Letters of Robert Magaw, in August, are in the _Mag. of West.
Hist._, Sept., 1886, p. 674.

[581] There are others in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. p. 282
(Joseph Ward to John Adams); in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, March, 1884,
p. 221 (by Stephen Johnson); and by W. T. Miller, of the Rhode Island
camp, in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1857, p. 136.

[582] Amory's _Life of Sullivan_; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. pp.
275, 283; others from the Langdon papers are copied in the _Sparks
MSS._ (no. lii., vol. ii.; see also _Ibid._, no. xxi.). There are also
letters of Scammel (_Hist. Mag._, xviii. 129); of John Stark and others
(_N. H. Prov. Papers_, vii. 528-29, 531, 557, 565, 581, 612, 616, 675;
viii. 30; one of Aug. 23 is in the _Thomas Papers_); of Samuel Sweat
(_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Dec., 1879); and some in R. A. Guild's
_Chaplain Smith and the Baptists_ (p. 166, etc.). Others from Medford
are in _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vii. 530, 555, 565.

[583] There is a letter of Thomas Mifflin in the _Thomas Papers_ (Aug.
26). Others of W. T. Miller in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._ (1857, p.
137); and of William Thompson in the _Life of George Read of Delaware_
(pp. 112, 128).

[584] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. 277, 279, 280. Various letters
of Joseph Warren, James Warren, and Mercy Warren are in the _Thomas
Papers_. A book of contracts for supplies for the army, 1776, kept at
Watertown and in part in the handwriting of Elbridge Gerry, is in the
Boston Public Library [H. 90 a, 7].

[585] Col. Ephraim Doolittle's, April 22 to Aug. 19, 1775; an anonymous
one, Sept.-Oct., 1775; and another, written at Roxbury and Cambridge,
July 29, 1775, to Jan. 12, 1776; Sergeant Isaac Nichols's, Sept. 5 to
Dec. 11, 1775, and Col. William Henshaw's, Oct. 1, 1775, to March 12,
1776, and March 19-27,1776. A book of Henshaw's, preceding this one,
and covering April 20 to Sept. 26, 1775, as edited by C. C. Smith, was
printed in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1876, and separately with
additions (Boston, 1881).

[586] In the library of the Mass. Hist. Society, and unprinted, Maj.
William Lee's orderly-book (Cambridge); and, in Harvard College
library, that of Jeremiah Fogg (Winter Hill), Oct. 28, 1775, to Jan.
12, 1776. In the Penna. Hist. Society is one kept at Cambridge, July
3 to Sept. 11, 1775; and another, also at Cambridge, Nov. 5, 1775, to
Jan. 1, 1776, is in the Boston Public Library [H. 90 a, 9]. Two were
sold in F. S. Drake's sale, Boston, Nov., 1885, nos. 1,073, 1,074:
one covering Feb. 1 to March 31, 1776; the other, Nov. 5 to Dec. 31,
1775. Glover's (June 29, etc.) is printed in the _Essex Inst. Hist.
Coll._, V. 112. That of Col. Israel Hutchinson, Cambridge and Winter
Hill, Aug. 13, 1775, to July 8, 1776, is in the _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, November, 1879. Baldwin's, Jan. 5 to March 28, 1776, is at the
State House, Boston, with a large mass of rolls, commissary and other
papers. Sullivan's brigade-book is in the library of the Mass. Hist.
Soc. (_Proc._, Oct., 1884, p. 250). There are in the _N. E. Hist.
and Geneal. Reg._, iv. 67, papers on the rank of the field-officers
at Cambridge, Nov., 1775; and in _Ibid._, xxviii. 259, a list of the
bodies of troops near Boston in 1775. The state of affairs in and about
Boston in 1774-75 is cleverly sketched in Winthrop Sargent's _Life of
André_, ch. iv.,—that young British officer being there at the time.

[587] _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 130.

[588] _Evelyns in America_, 273. Some of Gage's letters, however, are
preserved in the Haldimand Papers in the British Museum, and their
substance is given in the _Calendar of the Haldimand Papers_ (p. 52,
etc.), published by the Canadian Archivist, Brymner, in 1884. They
end, however, in March, 1775. There are letters of Gage and Howe to
Dartmouth and Germaine in the _Sparks MSS._ (no. lviii., Part 2).

[589] Given in synopsis by Dr. Ellis in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
March, 1876, p. 233.

[590] _Boston Evacuation Memorial_, 1876.

[591] Cf. his _Men and Manners in America one hundred years ago_ (N.
Y., 1876).

[592] The liberty-tree was cut down Sept. 1, 1775 (Moore's _Diary_,
i. 131). There is a picture of it in _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, iii. p.
159. The various houses occupied by the British generals are traced
in _Ibid._, iii. 155, with references. Within our day, a cannon-ball
imbedded in the tower of the Brattle Square Church has attracted
attention. A ball from the American lines struck there, and was
afterwards fastened in the hole it made, as a memorial. When the
church was taken down, the ball was transferred to the cabinet of the
Historical Society (Loring's _Hundred Boston Orators_, 108; _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, xx. 189; _Catal. Cab. Hist. Soc._, p. 141). The
house of John Hancock was rather roughly used (_Mem. Hist. of Boston_,
iii. 155).

[593] Newell's diary in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxxi.; that of "a British
officer in Boston in 1775", edited by R. H. Dana, in _Atlantic
Monthly_, April and May, 1877. (Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xvi. 307.)

We have also the diaries of some American prisoners in the town: Peter
Edes's, which was printed at Bangor in 1837; and John Leach's, June
29 to Oct. 4, printed in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, July,
1865 (see also Oct., 1865). On the imprisonment of James Lovell, see
Loring's _Hundred Boston Orators_, p. 33. Much of interest is found
in the _Memoir and letters of Captain W. Glanville Evelyn, from North
America, 1774-1776, ed. by G. D. Scull_, Oxford, privately printed,
1879. (Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1879, p. 289.) The letters were
reprinted in Scull's _Evelyns in America_ (1881). Letters of Peter
Oliver and others in P. O. Hutchinson's _Diary and letters of Thomas
Hutchinson_ (vol. i., 1884; vol. ii., 1886). The letters of John
Andrews, in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, July, 1865, are scant in
the period from June, 1775, to April, 1776. The passing of news in
and out of Boston is illustrated in letters, edited by W. P. Upham,
printed in the _Essex Institute Hist. Coll._ (July, 1876), vol. xiii.
153, etc. Letters addressed to Gardiner Greene are in _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, June, 1873. Samuel Paine, Oct., 1775, in _N. E. Hist. and
Geneal. Reg._, July, 1876. _American Hist. Record_, Dec., 1872. Andrew
Eliot remained for pastoral duty in the town during the siege. His
letters to friends without, April, 1775, to Feb., 1776, are in _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, xvi. 182, 288-306. Letters on the last days of the
siege, in Almon's _Remembrancer_, iii. 106-8, quoted in the _Evacuation
Memorial_, 175. Letters of Maj. Francis Hutcheson are in the Haldimand
Papers (_Calendar_, p. 177).

A MS. orderly-book of Adjutant Waller is in Mass. Hist. Soc. Library. A
fac-simile of the order for the attack at Bunker Hill is given from it
in _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, iii.

The log-book of the British ship "Preston", lying in the harbor,
April-Sept., 1775, is printed in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Aug.,
1860.

[594] Sparks, iii. 319, 320, 330; Dawson, i. 96; _Life of Jos. Reed_,
i. ch. 8; _N. H. Prov. Papers_, viii. 86.

[595] Force's _Amer. Archives_. A letter by Eldad Taylor, Sunday,
March 18, 1776, in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, viii. 231; Edmund
Quincy's, in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, April, 1858, p. 27, etc.; John
Winthrop to John Adams, in _Heath Papers, etc._ (_Mass. Hist. Soc.
Coll._); Abigail Adams, in _Familiar Letters_, p. 148. See _Mem. Hist.
of Boston_, iii., with references; and _Potter's Amer. Monthly_, vi.
166; and Chief Justice Oliver's diary, in P. O. Hutchinson's, _Thomas
Hutchinson_, ii. 46.

[596] It appears from Hutchinson's _Diary_ (ii. 44) that while
Dartmouth had directed the evacuation, Lord George Germain, in coming
into office, had rescinded the order, but for some reason the despatch
was not forwarded.

[597] There is a description of Crean Brush in a letter from Ebenezer
Hazard (Feb. 18, 1775) in the _Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. 201.

[598] The royal arms carried off from the old State House are now in
St. John, N. B. (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xx. 231).

[599] Edmund Quincy wrote at the time: "The tories, they say, have been
equal plunderers with the military." _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._,
1859, p. 231. Washington wrote to Lee, "The destruction of the stores
at Dunbar's camp, after Braddock's defeat, was but a faint image of
what was seen in Boston" (_N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1872, p. 32). For
the contributions of the Friends of Philadelphia to the poor of Boston,
see the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, i. 168.

[600] Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._, i. 191, 200. There is an
orderly-book of Colonel Francis's regiment, at Dorchester Point,
Aug.-Dec., 1776, among the _Moses Greenleaf MSS._ (Mass. Hist. Soc.)
Various castle and harbor rolls, seacoast defence rolls, etc., are in
the _Mass. Archives; Rev. Rolls_, vols. xxv., xxxvi., xxxvii.

[601] Similar letters are in John Adams's _Works_, ix. 381, etc.
Abigail Adams constantly informed her husband of the condition of
affairs (_Familiar Letters_, 78, 85, 91, 111, 124, 129, 137, 138, 141,
156). There is a diary of Chief Justice Oliver at Halifax, after the
refugees had reached there, in P. O. Hutchinson's _Hutchinson_, ii. 50.

[602] It was not procured from Paris till four years after the peace
(Colonel Humphrey's letter, Nov., 1787, in _Amer. Museum_, ii. 493).
John Adams (_Familiar Letters_, 210) describes a device proposed for
it, as early as 1776. It was purchased for the city of Boston in
1876, and is now preserved in the Boston Public Library. Its history
is given in the _Boston Evacuation Memorial_. It has been described
and delineated, obverse and reverse, several times, as in Sparks's
_Washington_, i. 174, iii. 356; in Frothingham's _Siege_ (cover);
_Mem. Hist. of Boston_, iii. 100; _Amer. Journal of Numismatics_
(July, 1880), xv. 1, 38; Snowden's _Medals of Washington_; Loubat's
_Medallic Hist. of the United States; Nat. Port. Gallery_ (N. Y. 1834);
Johnston's _Orig. portraits of Washington_, p. 235; Guizot's _Atlas
to his Washington_. Baker (_Medallic Portraits of Washington_, p. 27)
says the artist made in it the earliest use of Houdon's bust. See
Washington's letter in Force's _Archives_, v. 977. On one side are the
words "Hostibus primo fugatis", and Mahon (vi. 85) seizes upon them to
show that they plainly renounce all "the idle vaunts of Lexington",
that the British had there fled.

[603] There is a reduction of this issue in the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_,
iii. p. lv.

[604] It is reproduced in Wheildon's _Siege, etc., of Boston_; in
Moore's _Ballad History_, etc.

[605] Reproduced by Wheildon (p. 32).

[606] This is reproduced in the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, vol. iii.

[607] Like those in Marshall's _Washington_ (1806); in Sparks's
_Washington_ (iii. 26, also in the Boston _Evacuation Memorial_, 1875);
in Frothingham's _Siege_ (1849), p. 91; and in Carrington's _Battles_,
p. 154,—to say nothing of those in Guizot's _Washington_, Lossing's
_Field-Book_ (p. 154), Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._ (iii. 427), etc.

[608] This is reprinted in Frothingham's _Siege_ (p. 409).

[609] There is among the Washington plans a plan of the works on Winter
Hill. Cf. _Sparks's Catal._, p. 207. It is not at Cornell. It is
understood that nos. 1-11 of this set of plans, as per catalogue, were
not sent to the Cornell University library. They do not appear to be
among the _Sparks MSS._ in Harvard College library. This aspect of the
siege of Boston is particularly studied in Lossing's _Field-Book of the
Revolution_ (also in _Harper's Monthly_, vol. i.), and in S. A. Drake's
_Landmarks of Middlesex_, and _County of Middlesex_ (ch. 19). There are
photographs of this sheet in the Boston Public Library, the Mass. Hist.
Soc. library, and in the State Library of Massachusetts. Cf. map of
Boston, 1750-1773, in Brit. Mus. MSS., 21,686, fol. 70, in the _Index
to Brit. Mus. MSS._ (1880).

[610] The whole map was reëngraved and published at Augsburg by T. C.
Lotter, and the plan of the town was reproduced in Boston in 1875 by A.
O. Crane. The whole map was reëngraved in Paris (1777) by Le Rouge, and
makes part of the _Atlas Ameriquain_ (1778).

[611] It is reduced in the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, iii. (Cf. _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, May, 1860.)

[612] It has been reproduced in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, vol. xvii.

[613] Sabine's _Amer. Loyalists_, i. 537.

[614] Cf. _Boston Harbor, [with] nautical remarks and observations by
G. Callendar_, London, 1775. _Brit. Mus. Maps_ (1885), col. 491.

[615] Cf. the Rawdon map in _Harper's Mag._, xlvii. 20.

[616] There are photographs of it in the Mass. Hist. Soc. Library,
Boston Public Library, and State Library. _Brit. Mus. Map Catal._,
1885, col. 493.

[617] _Belknap Papers_, ii. 115; _Mass. Hist. Soc Proc._, xix. 93,
94. A tracing is given in the _Boston Evacuation Memorial_ (1876),
and it is reduced, but not in fac-simile, in Frank Moore's _Diary of
the Revolution_, i. p. 213, and given in reduced fac-simile in S. A.
Drake's _Old Landmarks of Middlesex_, and in the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_
(vol. iii.; introduction).

[618] These Faden maps are numbered, for the finished and rough drafts
in E. E. Hale's _Catal. of the Faden Maps_, nos. 32-36, and include one
by Lieutenant Hill, of the Welsh Fusileers.

[619] Frothingham reproduces it in his _Siege_, and it is reduced in
the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, vol. iii., introduction.

[620] _Brit. Mus. Map Catal._, 1885, col. 493.

[621] A reproduction of the harbor map was issued in Boston by W.
P. Parrott, in 1851. It is also reproduced as no. 5 in the _Neptune
Americo-Septentrional_, 1780.

[622] Dr. Thomas A. Emmet, of New York, owns several interesting,
graphic memorials of the seat of war round Boston, one of which, a _Map
of Boston and vicinity_, made during the British occupancy, is given by
Benson J. Lossing in _Harper's Magazine_, July, 1873.

[623] _Labanoff Catalogue_, no. 1,576; copy in Amer. Geog. Soc. library.

[624] There are photographs of it in the Boston Public Library, Mass.
State Library, and Mass. Hist. Society library.

[625] Cf. his letter to the provincial congress of Massachusetts in
their journals, and various letters from him in the _Trumbull Papers_,
vol. iv.

[626] Dr. Trumbull also stated the Connecticut case in the _Hartford
Daily Courant_, Jan. 9, 1869, likewise printed separately. Cf. further
Hollister's _Connecticut_, ii. ch. 7; Hinman's _Connecticut in the
Revolution_, p. 29.

[627] Holland's _Western Mass._; Barry's _Mass._; Smith's _Pittsfield_;
letters of Thomas Allen, May 4 and 9, 1775, in _Hist. Mag._, i. p. 109,
etc.

[628] The original edition, _A narrative of Col. Ethan Allen's
Captivity, Sept. 25, 1775, to May 6, 1778, containing his voyages and
travels, with the most remarkable occurrences respecting himself, ...
particularly the destruction of the prisoners at New York by Gen. Sir
William Howe, in 1776 and 1777. Written by himself_ (Philad., 1779),
was reprinted the same year in Philad., and also in Boston; again
at Newbury, for publication in Boston, 1780; at Norwich in 1780; at
Philadelphia in 1799; in the Appendix of the second volume of Ira
Allen's _Particulars of the Capture of the ship Olive Branch_, etc.
(Philad., 1805); with notes, at Walpole, N. H., 1807 (Stevens, _Hist.
Coll._, ii. no. 6); at Albany, 1814; at Burlington, 1838; as _Ethan
Allen's Captivity, being a Narrative, etc._ (Boston, 1845); as _A
Narrative of Col. Ethan Allen's Captivity_ (Burlington, 1846, and, with
slightly changed title, in 1849); as _Ethan Allen's Narrative of the
Capture of Ticonderoga and of his Captivity_, etc. (Burlington, 1849);
as _Narrative of the Captivity_, etc. (Dayton, 1849). Cf. Sabin, i.
793-800, 821. Allen's letter (May 11th) to the Massachusetts Congress
is in Dawson's _Battles_, i. 38; and another (May 10th) to Seth Warner
is in the _Mag. of Am. Hist._, 1885, p. 319. Various letters of Ethan
Allen at this time are among the _Trumbull Papers_ (vol. iv.): to the
Conn. Assembly, from Crown Point, May 26, 1775, covering a copy of his
letter to the Indians (p. 96); to Governor Trumbull, July 6th and Aug.
3d. His letter from Crown Point, June 2d, to the N. Y. Congress, is in
Sparks's Gouverneur Morris, i. p. 54. Cf. Lives of Allen by Sparks and
by Hugh Moore; De Puy's _Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain heroes_;
Williams's _Vermont_. Dr. De Costa having, in the _Galaxy_, Dec., 1868
(also in his _Fort George_, p. 10), disputed Allen's claim to the sole
credit of the surprise, he was answered by Hiland Hall in a pamphlet,
_The Capture of Ticonderoga_ (Montpelier, 1869; also in the _Vermont
Hist. Soc. Proc._, Oct. 19, 1869). Cf. Ira Allen's _Vermont_; Goodhue's
_Shoreham, Vt._

[629] Cf. Lives of Arnold by Sparks and by Isaac N. Arnold (ch. 2).
The regimental memorandum-book of Benedict Arnold, written while at
Ticonderoga and Crown Point, is printed in the _Penna. Mag. of History_
(Dec., 1884), viii. 363, and separately. It begins May 10th and ends
June 24th, and is published from a copy made by W. H. B. Thomas before
the original was lost. The _Sparks MSS._ (lii. vol. ii. p. 27) contain
letters from Arnold between 1775 and 1780, beginning with a letter
from Crown Point, May 23, 1775, and ending with a letter dated at
Philadelphia, July 17, 1780, to Governor Huntington. There is a letter
of Arnold from Crown Point, June 13, 1775, in the _Trumbull Papers_
(vol. iv. p. 111). Arnold was accused of countenancing the robbery of
Skene's house a few days before the capture, and some papers in his
defence are given in Stevens's _Bibliotheca Historica_ (1870), no. 96.
The original list of trophies of Ticonderoga, in Arnold's handwriting,
is in Dr. T. A. Emmet's Collection (Carrington's _Battles_). Cf. "Who
took Ticonderoga?" in _Hist. Mag._, vol. xv. (Feb., 1869) p. 126.
Arnold's appointment of May 3d, and his report of May 14th, are given
from the original documents in the possession of Jonathan Edwards, of
N. Y., in Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, i. pp. 546-7.

[630] Jones (p. 49) sets forth the tergiversations of Duane and other
New Yorkers (who had assisted a few months before in proclaiming Allen
an outlaw) as soon as the capture of Ticonderoga had made him the hero
of the hour. Depositions and other documents in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._,
iv., touch the riotous proceedings of Allen, which had caused a price
to be set on his head by the New York authorities. Cf. also Jones, _N.
Y. during the Rev._, i. note xx.

[631] Cf. also Schuyler's letters in Sparks's _Correspondence of the
Amer. Revolution_ and Lossing's _Life of Schuyler_, i. 310. Lossing
also deals with the subject in his _Field-Book of the Revolution_, and
in _Harper's Monthly_, vol. xvii. p. 721. Chas. Carroll (_Journal to
Canada_, 1876, p. 75) describes the ruinous condition of Ticonderoga a
year later. Reference may be made to Sparks's _Gouverneur Morris_ (vol.
i. ch. 4), and to the general historians: Bancroft (orig. ed., vii.
338); Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._ (iii. ch. 17); Irving's _Washington_
(i. 404); and local histories, like Watson's _Essex County_ (ch. 9);
Palmer's _Lake Champlain_; Holden's _Queensbury_ (p. 405); Bourne's
_Wells and Kennebunk, Me._; Van Rensselaer's _Essays_; Poole's _Index_,
etc. A letter of Joseph Warren congratulating Connecticut on the
event is in Frothingham's _Warren_, p. 490. Another letter of Joseph
Warren (Watertown, May 17, 1775) to John Scollay, being captured by
Gage, gave the British general the first intimation of the fall of
Ticonderoga (_Sparks, MSS._, xxxii.). Governor Franklin communicates a
diary at Ticonderoga, May 11-19, to Dartmouth (_N. Jersey Archives_, x.
608). Respecting the condition of Ticonderoga after the capture, see
Eliphalet Dyer's letter, May 31, 1775, in _Hist. Mag._, vii. 22; and
the letters of Governor Trumbull and the Connecticut committee to the
New Hampshire authorities, in the _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vii. 489-501.

[632] Sparks caused copies to be made of some of the most important
parts, which are in the _Sparks MSS._, no. lx.

[633] The orderly-book of Sergeant Aaron Barlow, under Montgomery, June
2 to Dec. 6, 1775, was preserved in 1848, when a copy was made for the
New York Historical Society (_Proc._, 1849, p. 279).

[634] Dawson, i. p. 116, who points out some errors in Leake's _Life of
Lamb_ (p. 374), or _4 American Archives_, iii. p. 1343. Cf. Lossing's
_Schuyler_, i. 444; Sargent's _Major André_, p. 79; Alex. Scammel's
letter in _Hist. Mag._, xviii. 136; accounts in Gen. John Lacy's papers
in the N. Y. State Library; Samuel Mott's letters in the _Trumbull
Papers_ (iv. p. 174); and others of Timothy Bedel in _N. H. Prov.
Papers_, vii. 637, 670. There are in the Archives at Ottawa a Mémoire
of Amable Berthelot, of Quebec, on the war of 1775; a journal at Three
Rivers, May 18, 1775, etc.; and a journal of the siege of St. John,
1775 (Brymner's _Report on the Canadian Archives_, 1881, p. 46). These
are printed in Verreau's _Invasion du Canada_ (Montreal, 1873). Carroll
(_Journal to Canada_, 1876, p. 89), describing the works at St. John,
says they were not injured by Montgomery's siege of them. There is a
view of the works in Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 172.

[635] Dawson, i. p. 115, etc.

[636] Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._, i. 477. Montgomery's letter to
the inhabitants is given in fac-simile in _4 Force's Archives_, iii.
1596, and his demand for its surrender, _Ibid._, v. 312. The articles
of capitulation were printed in broadside. Sabin, xii. p. 314. Copies
of Montgomery's letters are in the _Sparks MSS._ (lii. vol. ii.).
Lareau, _Littérature Canadienne_, p. 240, says that L'Abbé Perrault
intended a book, _Le Siège de Montreal en 1775_. See various documents
in Verreau's _Invasion du Canada_.

[637] Dennie's _Portfolio_, xx. 75. A paper by Louise L. Hunt in
_Harper's Monthly_, vol. lxx. (Feb., 1885), in which the story of the
preservation of Montgomery's sword is told. Cf. _Living Age_, no.
1,017, p. 428; _Biog. Notes concerning Richard Montgomery_, by L.
L. Hunt (1876); _A Sketch of Montgomery_ (1876), by General Geo. W.
Cullum, and an article by him in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, April,
1884, with interesting illustrations, including (p. 277) a view of
Montgomery Place, on the Hudson, which was building at the time of his
death, and was afterwards the home of his widow. There are other views
of this well-known estate in Lamb's Homes of America, _Harper's Mag._,
lxx. 354, etc. General Cullum's paper has also a fac-simile of a letter
sent by Montgomery to Colonel Bedel, Oct. 2, 1775. For the ancestry
of Montgomery, see _N. Y. Geneal. and Biog. Record_, July, 1871, p.
123. The memory of Montgomery suffered for a long time in Canada from
the belief that he was the officer of that name who was charged with
atrocities during the siege of Quebec in 1759 (_Quebec Lit. and Hist.
Soc. Trans._, 1870-71, p. 63).

On his death and burial, see, beside the usual accounts, a paper among
the Belknap papers in Mass. Hist. Soc. library (_Proc._, x. 323),
called "A true account of Gen. Montgomery's death and burial at Quebec"
(cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, i. p. 111), _Life of Geo. Read_, p.
140; Hilliard d'Auberteuil's _Essais_, with a stately picture of his
funeral; _Niles's Register_, xiv. 371; Sparks's _Washington_, iii.
264, on the identification and burial of his remains; a picture of the
house to which his body was carried in Grant's _Picturesque Canada_
(Toronto, 1882, vol. i. p. 28); the final removal of his remains to New
York, when his widow, forty-three years after his death, watched the
barge which bore them as it slowly floated down the Hudson in front of
Montgomery Place (Dennie's _Portfolio_, xxi. 134; _Harper's Mag._, lxx.
357; _Quebec Lit. and Hist. Soc. Trans._, 1870-71, p. 63; Dr. W. J.
Anderson's paper was reprinted in _Hist. Mag._, xiii. 97); and a paper
on the hundredth anniversary of his death in the _New Dominion Monthly_
(Montreal), xvii. 397.

The tributes of Congress to Montgomery are recorded in the _Journals
of Congress_, i. 247. Public services took place before that body
Feb. 19, 1776, when an address was delivered which was published as
_An Oration in Memory of General Montgomery, and of the Officers and
Soldiers who fell with him, December 31, 1775, before Quebec; drawn up
(and delivered February 19th, 1776). At the Desire of the Honorable
Continental Congress. By William Smith, D. D., Provost of the College
and Academy of Philadelphia_ (Phila., 1776) It was reprinted in
Norwich, Conn., and in London twice in the same year.

Franklin was commissioned to procure in France a monument to
Montgomery's memory. One was finally erected in Trinity Church in New
York (_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, April, 1884, p. 297; _Harper's Mag._,
Nov., 1876, p. 876; _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, iii. 473).

Of some interest are a contemporary tragedy by H. H. Brackenridge,
_The Death of Montgomery_ (Norwich and Providence), with an engraving
of the death scene by Norman (Sabin, ii. no. 7,185; _Sparks' Catal._,
no. 337); and Thomas Paine's _A Dialogue between the ghost of general
Montgomery just arrived from the Elysian fields; and an American
delegate, in a wood near Philadelphia_. [_Anon._] [Phila.], 1776. N.
Y.; privately reprinted, 100 copies, 1865.

[638] Printed in the _Maine Hist. Soc. Coll._ (i. 343), at Portland, in
1831; Sabin, xii. 50,221. Cf. _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1881, p. 117,
for an account of the Montresors, father and son, and G. D. Scull's
_Mem. and letters of Capt. W. G. Evelyn_ (1879), enlarged as _The
Evelyns in America_ (1881). Cf. also _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._,
Jan., 1882, p. 104.

[639] _Catal. of King's Maps_, Brit. Mus., i. 608. Cf. also the _Map
of New Hampshire_, by Col. Joseph Blanchard and Rev. Samuel Langdon,
engraved in Jefferys, dated Oct. 21, 1761.

[640] Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 193.

[641] _Lives of Arnold_, by Sparks (ch. 3 and 4) and Isaac N. Arnold
(ch. 3); Irving's _Washington_ (ii. ch. 5 and 8); Graham's _Morgan_
(ch. 4); Lossing's _Schuyler_ (i. ch. 26); B. Cowell's _Spirit of
Seventy-Six in Rhode Island_; North's _Hist. of Augusta_; Gay's _Pop.
Hist. U. S._, iii. 441; a paper by William Howard Mills, describing the
route, in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (Feb., 1885), xiii. 143; and William
Allen's "Account of Arnold's Expedition" in the _Maine Hist. Soc.
Coll._, vol. i. p. 387, derived mainly from the journals of Meigs and
Henry.

The conduct of Enos in deserting Arnold has been extenuated in _General
Roger Enos—a lost Chapter of Arnold's Expedition to Canada, 1775_, by
Horace Edwin Hayden (1885), reprinted from _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (May,
1885). The papers of the court-martial which acquitted Enos are in the
State Department at Washington, and have been printed by Force and
Allen, and also in Henry's _Journal_ (ed. of 1877), p. 59.

[642] Described by G. T. Packard in the _N. Y. Independent_, 1881. Cf.
_Good Literature_, 1881, p. 239.

[643] Dawson (i. 118) also gives his Quebec despatch of Dec. 31, 1775.
Sparks preserved copies of various of Arnold's letters in the _Sparks
MSS._ (lii. vol. ii.); and in _Ibid._ (no. lvii. 10) are letters of
Arnold on his early trading visits to Quebec, when he acquired a
knowledge of the region.

[644] _Journal of the march of a party of Provincials from Carlyle to
Boston and from thence to Quebec, begun the 13th of July and ended
the 31st of Dec., 1775. To which is added an account of the Attack
and Engagement at Quebec, the 31st of Dec., 1775_ (Glasgow, 1775, pp.
36). It is, says Sabin (ix. no. 36,728), the journal of a company of
riflemen under Captains William Hendricks and John Chambers, and it was
sent from Quebec to Glasgow by a gentleman who appended the "account."

Henry Dearborn's is in the Boston Public Library, and is called
_Journal of the proceedings, and particular occurrences, which
happened, within my knowledge, to the troops under the command of
Benedict Arnold, in 1775, which troops were detached from the American
army lying before Boston for the purpose of marching to, and taking
possession of Quebec_. [_From Sept. 10th, 1775, to July 16th, 1776._]
It has been printed by Mellen Chamberlain in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
April, 1886, and separately.

_Caleb Haskell's diary, May 5, 1775, to May 30, 1776,—a revolutionary
soldier's record before Boston and with Arnold's expedition_
(Newburyport, 1881, 8vo, pp. 23). It is edited by L. Withington.
Haskell belonged to Ward's company.

John Joseph Henry's _Accurate and interesting account of the hardships
and sufferings of that band of heroes, who traversed the wilderness in
the Campaign against Quebec in 1775_ (Lancaster, Pa., 1812). _Campaign
against Quebec, being an accurate_, etc. (Watertown, N. Y., 1844).
_Account of Arnold's Campaign against Quebec, and of the hardships,
etc._ (Albany, 1877). This last edition has a memoir of Judge Henry by
his grandson, Aubrey H. Smith. (Cf. Brinley, ii. no. 4,026; Murphy,
no. 1,192.) Mr. Smith says that the _Account_ was dictated by Henry
to his daughter in his latest years, with the aid of casual notes
and memoranda, and was published without any revision and proper
press-reading. (Cf. Sabin, viii. 31,400-1.)

Lieut. William Heth's journal is referred to in Marshall's
_Washington_, i. pp. 53, 57, and is still preserved in Richmond, Va.

A journal of Sergeant McCoy, of Hendricks's company, is referred to by
Henry in his _Account_.

Major Return J. Meigs's _Journal of the expedition against Quebec under
Col. Benedict Arnold in the year 1775_. (Cf. Almon's _Remembrancer_,
Part ii., 1776, p. 294.) This is in vol. i. of Chas. I. Bushnell's
_Crumbs for Antiquarians_ (New York, 1859). This series is recorded
in Sabin, iii. no. 9,538; _Boon Catal._, p. 591. The journal is also
in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xii., and notices of Meigs are in
Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev. War_, i. 180, 668, and in the _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, April, 1880, iv. 283 (with a portrait taken in his later
years), by H. P. Johnston. There is also a life of Meigs in John W.
Campbell's _Biographical Sketches_ (Columbus, O., 1838). There appeared
at Cincinnati in 1852 _Biographical and Historical Memoirs of the early
Pioneer settlers of Ohio, with narratives of incidents and occurrences
in 1775, by S. P. Hildreth, M. D., to which is annexed a journal of
occurrences which happened in the circles of the author's personal
observation in the detachment commanded by Colonel Benedict Arnold,
consisting of two battalions of the United States Army at Cambridge in
1775. By Colonel R. J. Meigs._ The Meigs journal thus called for in the
title was never included in the book (Field, _Ind. Bibliog._; Thomson's
_Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 551).

J. Melvin's _Journal of the Expedition to Quebec in the year 1775,
under the command of Col. B. Arnold_. In the "Publications of The
Club", New York, 1857 (100 copies). The introduction is signed with the
initials of William J. Davis. The Club was a preliminary organization
which became the Bradford Club. The journal was also printed in a
small edition by the Franklin Club, in Philadelphia, in 1864 (Alofsen,
_Catalogue_, nos. 12, 13). Melvin was attached to Dearborn's company.

John Peirce's journal of daily occurrences, Sept. 8, 1775, to Jan. 16,
1776, is that of an engineer with the pioneers. It is defective at the
beginning and end, and has not been printed. Stone refers to it.

_Journal of Isaac Senter, Physician and Surgeon to the Troops on a
Secret Expedition against Quebec, under command of Col. Benedict
Arnold, in Sept., 1775_ (Phila., 1846). This journal, which begins at
Cambridge, Sept. 13, 1775, and ends at Quebec Jan. 6, 1776, made part
of the _Bulletin_, vol. i., of the Penna. Hist. Society. There is an
account of Senter, with extracts from his journal, in Stone's _Invasion
of Canada in 1775_, p. 65.

The Diary of Ephraim Squier, Sept. 7 to Nov. 25, 1775, preserved in the
Pension Office in Washington, is printed in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
ii. 685.

Capt. John Topham's Journal of the expedition to Quebec through the
wilderness of Maine in Sept., Oct., and Nov., 1775. Stone reports it as
being in the hands of David King, of Newport, as not published, and not
being legible before the date of Oct. 6th.

_Invasion of Canada in 1775, including the Journal of Cap. Simeon
Thayer, describing the Perils and Sufferings of the Army under Col. B.
Arnold. With Notes and Appendix, by E. M. Stone_ (Providence, 1867).
This has a bibliography, and made part of the _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._,
vol. vi.

_Journal of an Expedition against Quebec in 1775, under Col. Benedict
Arnold, by Joseph Ware, of Needham, Mass. Published by Joseph Ware,
grandson of the journalist_ (Boston, 1852). The journal begins Sept.
13, 1775. The writer was taken prisoner during the attack of Dec. 31st,
and his journal ends on a cartel at sea, Sept. 6, 1776. The notes are
by Justin Winsor, and the journal was first printed in the _N. E. Hist.
and Geneal. Reg._, April, 1852. A question has been raised as to Ware's
authorship of this journal (Whitmore's _Amer. Genealogist_, p. 84).

There is in Harvard College library a copy of the MS. journal of
Ebenezer Wild, beginning at Cambridge Sept. 13th, and ending at Quebec,
while he was a prisoner, June 6, 1776. It was printed by Justin Winsor
with a note on similar records, in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, April,
1886, and separately (75 copies).

Of Christian Febiger, the adjutant of the expedition, a Dane, but
resident in Massachusetts, there is an account and portrait in _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, March, 1881.

An orderly-book of the expedition, Nov. 8, 1775, to Feb. 26, 1776,
is in the Pension bureau of the War Department at Washington. There
is in the _Sparks MSS._ (lii. vol. ii. p. 25) a list of officers and
volunteers on the expedition and at Quebec, furnished to Sparks at New
York, Feb., 1831, by Col. Samuel Ward, of whom a letter describing his
experiences on the march is also preserved (_Sparks MSS._, no. xxv.).
There are in the _Mass. Archives: Revolutionary Rolls_, vol. xxviii.,
lists of officers of the reinforcements for Ticonderoga and Canada,
and in a separate volume a list of soldiers under Colonel Arnold, and
of the killed, wounded, and prisoners at Quebec, Dec. 31, 1775. (Cf.
list in _Ware's Journal_.) The N. Y. Continental line (four regiments
and one artillery company) was organized, under a vote of the N. Y.
provincial congress, June 28, 1775, and served on this campaign. Capt.
John Lamb's artillery company left New York with seventy enlisted men,
and (March 30, 1776) were reduced to thirty-one rank and file. The term
of service of the N. Y. line expired in April, 1776; but a large part
reënlisted (Asa Bird Gardiner in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Dec., 1881).
The service of New Hampshire is shown in the _N. H. Rev. Rolls_, i. pp.
209, 311, 339, etc. Cf. _Quebec Lit. and Hist. Soc. Trans._, 1871-73,
1876-77; _Potter's Amer. Monthly_, Dec., 1875.

[645] Wooster's share in the campaign was not a happy one. "His defect
was his age", says C. F. Adams. "Few of the brave officers in the
French war sustained their reputation in the revolutionary struggle"
(_Life and Works of John Adams_, iii. 44). Lossing's _Schuyler_ and
Hollister's _Connecticut_ have somewhat opposing sympathies respecting
Wooster's character. Cf. much in _4 Force's Archives_, iv., v., vi.,
and _5 Ibid._, i. The opinion upon Wooster of the Commissioners to
Congress is shown in their letter of May 27th (_Force's Archives_,
vi. 589). There is a letter of Wooster from Montreal, Feb. 11, 1776,
addressed to Roger Sherman, in _Letters and Papers_, 1761-1776 (MSS. in
Mass. Hist. Soc., p. 167). In this he speaks of his disagreements with
Schuyler, and says that his persuasion had prevented Montgomery from
resigning.

[646] Sparks's _Corresp., etc._, vol. i. 116, 154, and App. (Dec. 31,
1775; Jan. [1776] 2, 11, 12, 24; Feb. 1, 27; April 20, 30; May 8, 15;
June, etc.). Arnold's letter of Dec. 31 in the _N. H. Prov. Papers_,
vii. 719. Cf. Lossing on Arnold in _Harper's Monthly_, xxiii. 721.

[647] AMERICAN.—Report, Jan. 24th, to Congress, in _Secret Journal_,
i. 38.

Letters from Point-aux-Trembles in App. of Henry's _Journal_ (ed. of
1877).

Donald Campbell's despatch to Wooster, Dec. 31, 1775, in Dawson, i.
116; and in _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vii. 718.

Letters of Wooster to Schuyler and Warner (Jan. 5th and 6th), and
Schuyler to Washington (Jan. 13th), in _N. H. Prov. Papers_, vii.
720-22. Cf. _Sparks MSS._, lviii. 12.

Lieut. Eben Elmer's diary of the Canada expedition in _N. Jersey Hist.
Soc. Proc._, ii. and iii.

General Irvine's diary, beginning May, 1775, in _Hist. Mag._, April,
1862.

The journal of Col. Rudolphus Ritzema, first N. Y. regiment, Aug. 8,
1775, to March 30, 1776, now in the N. Y. Hist. Soc., and printed in
_Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (Feb., 1877), i. p. 98. Under date (Montreal)
of Jan. 3, 1776, he gives an account of the failure at Quebec, news
of which had just reached there by Mr. Antell, an express (from N. Y.
Archives in _Sparks MSS._, xxix.).

_Journal of the Rev. Ammi Ruhamah Robbins, chaplain in the American
army, in the northern campaign of 1776_ (New Haven, 1850).

_The Shurtleff manuscript, No. 153. Being a narrative of certain events
in Canada during the invasion by the American army, in 1775, by Mrs.
Thomas Walker, with notes and introd. by Silas Ketchum_ (Contoocook,
1876), making part no. 2 of the _Collections of the N. H. Antiquarian
Soc._

Some of the diaries noted under the Kennebec expedition cover the
attack on Quebec. Cf. Moore's _Diary of the Rev._, i. 185. A letter
of Samuel Ward, Philad., Jan. 21, 1776, gives the news as it reached
Congress (_Sparks MSS._, xxv.; cf. _N. H. Prov. Papers_, viii. 49).

A letter of Samuel Hodgkinson, before Quebec (April 27, 1776), is in
the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, July, 1886, p. 158.

Wilkinson joined the army in May, 1776, and his _Memoirs_ (i. p. 39)
has accordingly a personal interest.

The _Memoirs of Charles Dennis Rusoe d'Eres, a native of Canada_
(Exeter, 1800), begins with the attack on Quebec.

More or less of reference to original sources is made in the lives of
Washington by Marshall (i. 329) and Irving (ii. ch. 4, 5, 8, 12, 13,
15, 20, 22, 23); Lossing's _Schuyler_ (i. ch. 28, 29); Leake's _Lamb_
(ch. 7 and 8); Read's _Geo. Read_ (i. 141); and the lives of Montgomery
and Arnold already referred to. Intercepted letters from Arnold to
Montgomery and Washington are in the _Haldimand Papers_.

Daniel Morgan, the commander of the Virginia riflemen, was a
conspicuous actor in the attack. Rebecca McConkey, in her _Hero of
Cowpens_ (New York, 1881), claims that Morgan deserves the credit which
Arnold usually receives. A description by Morgan of his part in the
attack is among some papers gathered by Sparks for a life of Morgan
(_Sparks MSS._, lii. vol. ii. p. 99), and this same autobiographic
letter is printed at greater length in the _Hist. Mag._, xix. 379, as
from the _Pittsburgh Gazette_ of July 10, 1818, where it is said to
have been found among some papers once belonging to Gen. Henry Lee, and
is supposed to have been addressed to Lee by Morgan about 1800, two
years before Morgan died. The copy made by Sparks is given as from a
paper then (1831) in the possession of General Armstrong. Cf. Graham's
_Life of Morgan_ (ch. 5); Dennie's _Portfolio_, viii. p. 101; _Southern
Lit. Messenger_, xx. p. 559.

The principal general accounts on the American side are in Bancroft
(viii. ch. 52-54, or final revision, iv. ch. 19 and 24); Ramsay's
_Amer. Rev._; Hollister's _Connecticut_ (ii. ch. 9); Dawson's _Battles_
(ch. 7); Carrington's _Battles_ (ch. 20, 21); Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._,
ix. 133; Dennie's _Portfolio_, ix. 133.

Sullivan rehearses the news as it reached the Cambridge camp (_N. H.
Prov. Papers_, viii. 36). There are in the _Aspinwall Papers_ (ii. 772)
various items of intelligence respecting "the defeat of the rebels" in
Canada, gathered in New York in Feb., 1776.

BRITISH.—Carleton's despatch to Howe (Dawson, 118; also see _Gent.
Mag._, June, 1776). The letters which passed from Dartmouth to
Carleton, Dec. 10, 1774 to Sept. 9, 1777, are noted in the Chalmers
MSS. (Thorpe's _Supplement_, 1843, no. 622). Other papers are in the
Haldimand Papers (Brit. Mus.), of which a calendar has been printed (p.
207) by the Dominion archivist at Ottawa. The volumes in the Public
Record Office, London, marked "Quebec, xiv., xv., vols. 348, 349",
cover this period.

Journal of the siege of Quebec, by Hugh Finlay, in _Quebec Lit. and
Hist. Soc. Docs._, 4th series. (The bibliography of this society is
given in Sabin, xvi. no. 67,015, etc.)

Account of the siege, beginning Nov., 1775, dated on board sloop-of-war
"Hunter", June 15, 1776, addressed by Col. Henry Caldwell to Gen. Jas.
Murray, has been printed in the _Transactions_ of the Quebec Lit. and
Hist. Soc., and in _Hist. Mag._, xii. 97 (1867).

A _Journal of the Siege_, Dec. 1, 1775, to May 7, 1776, is noted in the
Chalmers MSS. (Thorpe's _Supplement_, 1843, no. 623). This MS. is now
in the _Sparks MSS._ (xlii. no. 1). Its earliest entry is really Dec.
5th. It gives a particular account of the share taken by the journalist
in the defence of Dec. 31st, calling it "a glorious day for us, and as
complete a little victory as was ever gained." The last entry is, in
fact, May 9, 1776.

In Thorpe's _Supplement_ (no. 624) there is also noted a _Journal of
the Siege, by Capt. Thomas Ainslee, written on the spot, Sept., 1775,
to May 6, 1776_. This is also now in the _Sparks MSS._, i.

_Journal of the Siege of Quebec in 1775-76, collected from some old
manuscripts originally written by an officer, to which are added a
preface and illustrative notes by W. T. P. Short_ (London, 1824). It
begins Dec. 1, 1775, and ends May 6, 1776; but the editor continues the
narrative, briefly, through the campaign (_Menzie's Catal._, no. 1,107).

_Journal of the most remarkable occurrences in Quebec, from the 14th
of Nov., 1775, to the 7th of May 1776, by an officer of the garrison._
It is printed in the _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1880, p. 175. Of
the British general accounts, mention may be made of the _Annual
Register_, xix. ch. 1, 5; xx. ch. 1; Andrew's _Late War_ (ch. 19, 20);
Stedman's _Amer. War_ (ch. 2, 10); Adolphus's _England_ (ii. 237);
Bisset's _George the Third_ (i. ch. 15); Mahon's _England_ (vi. 76);
W. Lindsay's _Invasion of Canada by the American provincials_ (1826).
Sir James Carmichael-Smythe's _Précis of the War in Canada_ criticises
the plan of Montgomery's attack. Cf. _Canadian Antiquarian_, v. 145;
Lemoine's _Maple Leaves_, pp. 84, 95; his _Picturesque Quebec_, pp.
120, 231; J. Lesperance's _Bastonnais: tale of the American invasion of
Canada in 1775-76_ (Toronto, 1877).

Lossing has a paper on the local associations of Quebec in _Harper's
Monthly_, xviii. 176; and similar detail is also given in his
_Field-Book of the Am. Rev._

FRENCH.—There are three records in the Lit. and Hist. Soc. of Quebec:
1. _Le témoin oculaire de la guerre des Bastonnais durant les années
1775 et 1776 par M. Simon Sanguinet_.

2. _Journal contenant le récit de l'invasion du Canada en 1775-1776,
redigé par M. Jean B. Badeaux_, printed in their Hist. Documents, 3d
series. For Nos. 1 and 2 see Verreau's _Invasion du Canada_ (Montreal,
1873).

3. _Journal tenu pendant le Siège du fort St. Jean en 1776 par M.
Antoine Foucher._

The principal general French history on the subject is Garneau's
_Histoire du Canada_.

Cf. _Centenaire de l'assaut de Québec par les Américains 31 Décembre,
1775. Compte-rendu de la Séance solennelle donnée par l'Institut
Canadien, 30 Déc., 1875._ Quebec, 1876 (Sabin, xvi. 66,997).

[648] A letter of Samuel Hodgkinson, April 27th, is in the _Penna. Mag.
of Hist._, July, 1886, p. 162.

[649] Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._, i. 185, 189, 196; Force's
_Archives_, 4th, v., vi.; 5th, i. Among the General Thomas papers,
beside drafts of his own letters at this time, there are letters to him
from Arnold (May 1, 11, 14); from Schuyler (May 17); and from Baron de
Woedtke (May 11, 12, 18, 19). Some memoranda from Thomas's letters are
in a collection of _Letters and Papers, 1761-1776_ (p. 165), in the
Mass. Hist. Soc. cabinet. Cf. also Lossing's _Schuyler_ (ii. ch. 1, 2);
I. N. Arnold's _Arnold_ (ch. 5); Read's _Geo. Read_, 150; Bancroft's
_United States_ (orig. ed., viii. ch. 67); Irving's _Washington_ (ii.
ch. 20; 22); Stone's _Brant_, i. 154.

[650] See the general narratives, and specially Sparks's _Washington_
(iv. 56), for the capitulation; Resolutions of Congress, July 10,
1776, in Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._ (i. 258); S. E. Dawson in
_Canadian Monthly_, v. 305; and _Authentic narrative of facts relating
to the exchange of prisoners taken at the Cedars, with original papers_
(London, 1777—_Brinley Catal._, ii. no. 3,967). Cf. _John Adams's
Life and Writings_, ix. 407; _N. H. Rev. Rolls_, i. 477; and Force's
_Archives_, 4th, vi. (p. 598), and 5th, i. The Agreement (May 27, 1776)
of Arnold and Foster about the prisoners is in _Sparks MSS._, xiii.
and xlv. Jones recounts the disputes arising over the fulfilment of
Arnold's agreement for an exchange of the prisoners. _N. Y. during
the Revolution_, i. 93. There is a French edition of the _Authentic
Narrative_, by Marcel Ethier (Montreal, 1873).

[651] Sparks's _Corresp. of Rev._, i. 525, 531; Force's _Archives_,
4th, vi.; Colonel Irvine's account in _Hist. Mag._; vi. 115; _Life
of George Read_ (ch. 3, with memoir of Thompson at end of ch. 2);
Lossing's _Schuyler_ (ii. 85); Marshall's _Washington_ (ii. 362);
Amory's _John Sullivan_; Bancroft's _United States_, original edition,
viii. p. 415, etc.

[652] Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 423; _Corresp. of the Rev._, 211,
216, 231, 237, 239, 241; _John Adams's Life and Writings_, ix. 43.
Letters of Sullivan, with some from Arnold during the retreat from
Canada, are among the Sullivan papers (_Sparks MSS._, xx.). A letter
from Arnold to Gates, Chamblée, May 31, 1776, is among the Gates Papers
(copies in _Sparks MSS._, xx.). A letter of Thompson to St. Clair from
Sorel, June 2, 1776, is in the _St. Clair Papers_ (i. 367), with notes
on the retreat.

[653] The are several personal records and diaries of these final
months of the campaign. Dr. S. J. Meyrick, a surgeon of a Massachusetts
regiment, wrote, June 1, 1836, to J. Trumbull, his recollections of the
retreat, drawn up from contemporary minutes, beginning May 21, 1776
(Trumbull's _Autobiography_, 299).

Diary of Joshua Pell, Jr., beginning at Quebec, May 29, 1776, giving an
account of Three Rivers defeat, ending Nov. 22d, is printed in _Mag. of
Am. Hist._, ii. 43.

Letters of Colonel Bond (July, Aug., 1776) in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal.
Reg._, iv. 71.

In the _Sparks MSS._ (lii. vol. ii. p. 69, etc.) are copies of papers
belonging to the Amer. Philosophical Society (Feb., 1831), which
contain a journal of Jacob Shallus, beginning in the camp before
Quebec, May 6, 1776, and ending at Crown Point, July 1st. A journal of
Lieut. Jona. Burton, Aug. 1 to Nov. 29, 1776, is in the _N. H. State
Papers_, vol. xiv.

There are local aspects and connections of the campaign to be got from
Watson's _Essex County_ (ch. 10); Dunlap's _New York_ (ii. ch. 1, 4);
Mrs. Bonney's _Hist. Gleanings_, i.; Smith's _Pittsfield, Mass._ (ch.
15); Temple and Sheldon's _Northfield_, etc.

[654] Sedgwick's _Livingston_. There is also a copy in the _Langdon
Papers_, and a copy from that in the _Sparks MSS._ (lii. vol. ii.). A
letter of Paine is in _Ibid._ (xlix. ii.).

[655] A letter of John Carroll, describing his journey, and written
from Montreal, May 1, 1776, is in Force's _Archives_, v. 1,158.

[656] _Memoir of Josiah Quincy, Jr._, 418. Lives of Franklin by Sparks,
Parton, and Bigelow.

[657] _Journal of Charles Carroll to Canada, with notes by B. Mayer_
(Baltimore, 1845). _Journal of Charles Carroll of Carrollton during a
visit to Canada in 1776, as one of the Commissioners from Congress_
(Baltimore, 1876—the Centennial volume of the Maryland Hist. Soc.).
On Carroll, see Boyle's _Marylanders; Annals of Annapolis_; Niles's
_Register_, xxx. 79; J. C. Carpenter in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, ii.
101; J. M. Finotti in _Cath. World_, xxiii. 537; S. Jordan in Potter's
_Amer. Monthly_, vii. 401. Poole's _Index_ gives other references upon
John Carroll. The Commissioner Charles Carroll was reputed to be the
wealthiest man in America. Views of his mansion are in _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, ii. 101; Lamb's _Homes of America_; Brotherhead's _Signers_
(1861, p. 81); and in _Appleton's Journal_, xii. p. 321. For a Carroll
medal, see _Amer. Journal of Numismatics_, v. 8, xv. 45; _Cath. World_,
July, 1876, p. 537.

[Illustration]

The best known portrait of Carroll is that painted by Chester Harding,
which for a while was deposited in the cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Soc.
(_Proc._, i. 500). It has been engraved by A. B. Durand (_National
Portrait Gallery_, N. Y., 1834), H. B. Hall (in Carroll's Journal,
1876), and J. B. Longacre. A portrait by Thomas Lally, formerly
belonging to Governor Swann, of Maryland, is now in the Mass. Hist.
Soc. Gallery (_Proc._, 2d ser., ii. 261). Cf. McSherry's _Maryland_.

[658] A letter of Chase and Carroll from Montreal, May 26, 1776, to
General Thomas, is in the _Mass. Archives_, and is copied in the
_Sparks MSS_ (lii. vol. iii.).

[659] Their letters, written in May, are in _Force's Archives_, and
the originals are preserved in the Archives at Washington; but Brantz
Mayer says (_Carroll's Journal_, 1876, p. 37) that their report of June
12, 1776, could not be found. Their last letter, however, of May 27th,
which Mayer prints (p. 38), gives their results. It is also in Force
(vi. 589). The papers of General Thomas show their letters addressed to
him of May 6, 12, and 15.

[660] Maj.-Gen. Robert Howe's report on the defences of Charlestown,
some months later (Oct. 9th), is in the _Amer. Archives_, iii. 49.

[661] _An Introduction to the History of the Revolt of the American
Colonies, being a comprehensive view of its origin derived from the
State Papers contained in the public offices of Great Britain_ (Boston,
1845).

[662] It is to be remembered that these positive statements as to
the spirit of independence latent in the colonies were written after
the achievement of the fact. It is but fair to say that it has been
objected against the positiveness of Chalmers's statements that he
presents no specific evidence of their truth from written authorities.
(See Sparks's _Washington_, vol. ii. Appendix x., and his Preface to
the American edition of Chalmers.) Viscount Bury, in his _Exodus of
the Western Nations_ (i. 395, 412), repeats the opinion of Chalmers
as positively, yet also without authorities. On the other side, as
illustrating how general statements may be affirmed, as if not to be
qualified or challenged, we read in Governor Hutchinson's volume of
his _History_ written during his exile in England this sentence (vol.
iii. p. 69), as of date 1758: "An empire, separate or distinct from
Britain, no man then alive expected or desired to see",—an assertion
more rhetorical than true. In the debate in the Commons on the Boston
Port Bill and the infraction of the charter of Massachusetts, Sir
Richard Sutton said "that even in the most quiet times the disposition
to oppose the laws of this country was strongly ingrafted in the
Americans, and all their actions conveyed a spirit and wish for
independence. If you ask an American who is his master, he will tell
you he has none, nor any governor, but Jesus Christ" (Adolphus, ii.
108).

[663] This last word recognized the jealousy and apprehension felt in
Massachusetts about the sending over of bishops to the province.

[664] _Examination before Committee of Parliament._

[665] See _ante_, chapter i.

[666] This Congress issued a very strong declaration "of the causes
and necessity of taking up arms." It sought by clear statements "to
quiet the minds of our friends and fellow-subjects. We do not mean to
dissolve the union. Necessity has not driven us into that desperate
measure. We have not raised armies with the ambitious designs of
separation from Great Britain, and establishing independent states."
This hesitating and vacillating course of the first two congresses
would naturally encourage the British ministry in the belief, first,
that the colonists were by no means of one mind as to valid reasons for
a united opposition to government; and second, that the strength of
the existing feelings of loyalty and attachment, backed by efficient
policy, would withstand any looking towards independence.

[667] For an explanation of the reasons why R. H. Lee, the mover, was
not made chairman of this committee, see Randall's _Life of Jefferson_,
vol. i. 144-159.

[668] There is a slight conflict of testimony in private records—for
we have none that are official—as to some of the details in the
preparation of the Declaration. John Adams, trusting to his memory,
wrote in his _Autobiography_ (cf. _Works_, ii. 512), twenty-eight years
after the transaction, and again in a letter to Timothy Pickering,
forty-seven years after it (cf. _Life of Pickering,_ iv. 463), and
when he was in his eighty-eighth year, substantially to the same
effect, namely, that Jefferson and himself were appointed by their
associates a sub-committee to make the draft. Jefferson (_Mem. and
Corresp._, iv. 375), on reading this letter, published in 1823, wrote
to Madison denying this statement, and making another, relying on notes
which he had made at the time. He says there was no sub-committee,
and that when he himself had prepared the draft he submitted it for
perusal and judgment separately to Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams, each
of whom made a few verbal alterations in it. These he adopted in a
fair copy which he reported to the committee, and on June 28th to
Congress, where, after the reading, it was laid on the table. On July
1st Congress took up for debate Mr. Lee's resolution for independence.
Nine colonies—New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia—voted
for the resolution. The two delegates of Delaware were divided. South
Carolina and Pennsylvania voted against it. The New York delegates
affirmed that they approved it, but that their instructions at present
did not warrant their voting for it; but on July 9th a New York
convention ratified it. Rutledge moved for a day's delay, which being
granted, South Carolina accorded. A third delegate coming by post
from Delaware turned that colony to the affirmative. Two substituted
delegates from Pennsylvania carried that province. The roll of the
thirteen colonies was now in union. On the same day, July 2d, and the
two days following, Jefferson's draft was under debate, and was amended
in committee of the whole. The author of the instrument leaves us to
infer that he sat in an impatient and annoyed silence through the
ordeal of criticism and objection passed upon it. The two principal
amendments were the striking out a severe censure on "the people of
England", lest "it might offend some of our friends there." and the
omission of a reprobation of slavery, in deference to South Carolina
and Georgia. When the committee reported to Congress, such notes of the
debates as we have inform us, that, with much vehemence, discordance,
remonstrance, and pleadings for delay, with doubts as to whether the
people were ready for and would ratify the Declaration, it secured a
majority of one in the count of the delegates. Jefferson said that John
Adams was "the colossus" in that stirring debate.

There is no occasion here for a critical study or estimate of the
Declaration, either as a political manifesto or as a literary
production. Its rhetoric, as we know, was at the first reading of it
regarded as excessive,—needlessly, perhaps harmfully, severe. That has
ever since been the judgment of some. But Jefferson, Franklin, and John
Adams, men of three very different types of mental energy and styles
of expressing themselves, accorded in offering the document. The best
that can be said of it is, that it answered its purpose, was fitted
to meet a crisis and to serve the uses desired of it. Its terse and
pointed directness of statement, its brief and nervous sentences, its
cumulating gathering of grievances, its concentration of censure, and
its resolute avowal of a decided purpose, not admitting of temporizing
or reconsideration, were its effective points. Dating from its passage
by the Congress, and its confidently assured ratification by the
people, it was to announce a changed relation and new conditions for
future intercourse between a now independent nation and a repudiated
mother country. The resolve was sustained. Henceforward, whatever
proffers, threats, appeals of amity, for readjustment of quarrels,
or for harmony, might come from king or Parliament, or through
commissioners, must proceed after the diplomatic fashion, on the
admission that the negotiation was no longer between a government and
its revolted subjects, but between two distinct sovereignties.

[669] It might be regarded as a matter of course that no parliamentary
or other official proceeding or document of the British government
would recognize, by way of examination or controversy, the crowning
state paper of the American Congress. Chagrin, contempt, vengeful
feelings, or a simple regard for its own dignity, may have induced the
government to assume indifference. As yet the Declaration was a paper
assertion of what was not then secured. But the English press was
neither silent nor respectful about the Declaration. An able pamphlet
appeared as _An Answer to the Declaration of the American Congress_
(London, 1776). Another pamphlet, at first privately circulated,
afterwards published, was written by Governor Hutchinson, then in
England, entitled _Strictures on the late Declaration of Congress_. It
is reprinted anonymously in Almon's _Remembrancer_, iv. 25. The writer
says that the reasons given in the Declaration to justify it are "false
and frivolous." He sent a copy of this pamphlet to the king, with an
obsequious letter. Adolphus, after saying "that at no preceding period
of history was so important a transaction vindicated by so shallow and
feeble a composition", adds that "some passages are remarkable for low
and intemperate scurrility", (vol. ii. 405, 406).

[670] A shining exception to the sweep of Judge Jones's assertion is
found in the case of that gifted and eminent man, Dr. William Samuel
Johnson, first Senator in the Constitutional Congress from Connecticut,
and president of Columbia College. Though not a clergyman, he had
been a lay reader in the Episcopal Church, as inheriting from his
distinguished father, and accepting through his own convictions, its
doctrine and discipline. Strongly conservative, with many fond ties
to England and Englishmen from long residence abroad as an agent of
his colony, he might naturally have espoused the side of the mother
country. Indeed, rather from a suspicion that he would do so than
from any overt act of his, he was arrested on an occasion of popular
excitement, in 1779. But he proved to be among the wisest and firmest
of patriots. See his _Life, by Dr. E. E. Beardsley_, 2d edition,
Boston, 1886.

[671] _Reflections_, etc., p. 115.

[672] _The History of the American Episcopal Church, 1587-1883_, by
Bishop W. S. Perry, Boston, 1885, vol. i. chap. xxiv., "The Position of
the Clergy at the Opening of the War for Independence."

[673] On the records of the New York Provincial Congress, or
Convention, is a letter dated July 11, 1776, drafted by Gouverneur
Morris, and addressed to Hancock, president of the Continental
Congress, which contains the following remarkable proposition: "We take
the liberty of suggesting to your consideration the propriety of taking
some measures for expunging from the Book of Common Prayer such parts,
and discontinuing in the congregations of all other denominations all
such prayers, as interfere with the interests of the American cause.
It is a subject we are afraid to meddle with. The enemies of America
have taken great pains to insinuate into the minds of the Episcopalians
that the church is in danger. We could wish that the Congress would
pass some resolve to quiet their fears, and we are confident it would
do essential service to the cause of America at least in this State."
Happily Hancock did not act on this suggestion. Congress might indeed
have issued a revised edition of the English Liturgy; but a censorship
of the utterances of extemporaneous prayers would have been beyond
its range. These extemporaneous devotions were doubtless at the time
sufficiently patriotic.

[674] See _ante_, chapter i.

[675] The writings of Samuel Adams abound in the expression of
opinions similar to the following from the pen of his cousin, John
Adams: "If Parliament could tax us, they could establish the Church of
England, with all its creeds, articles, tests, ceremonies, and titles,
and prohibit all other churches, as conventicles and schism-shops"
(_Works_, x. 287, 288).

[676] See _The Pulpit of the American Revolution: or, the Political
Sermons of the Period of 1776_. _With a Historical Introduction,
Notes, and Illustrations. By John Wingate Thornton._ (Boston, 1860.)
It contains Election and Thanksgiving sermons by Dr. Mayhew, Dr.
Chauncy, Mr. Cook, Mr. Gordon, Dr. Langdon, Mr. West, Mr. Payson, Mr.
Howard, and President Stiles, all of them eminent and able divines of
Massachusetts and Connecticut, fearlessly bold, yet guided by wisdom.

In the French Archives, among the papers of Choiseul, prime minister
of France before our Revolutionary period, there are curious evidences
of the intelligent and keenly inquisitive method which that astute
statesman employed to acquaint himself thoroughly with the relations
of the religious teaching and belief of the people of New England and
the spirit of liberty aroused among them. He sent here a messenger to
gather information especially upon those as upon many other subjects.
He was to collect newspapers, advertisements, and extracts from
sermons. It was inferences from such communicative papers, with other
interpretations of omens and signs of the times, that helped prepare
the government for the alliance of 1778. The French minister sent two
emissaries, M. de Fontleroy in 1764 and the Baron De Kalb in 1768.
(See Kapp's _Life of John Kalb_.) The latter's letters are copied
in the _Sparks MSS._ Cf. the Vicomte de Colleville's _Les missions
secrètes du général-major baron de Kalb, et son rôle dans la guerre de
l'indépendance américaine_ (Paris, 1885). Franklin was in Paris at this
time. Cf. E. E. Hale's _Franklin in France_, p. 2.

[677] _American Presbyterianism, its Origin and Early History_, etc. By
Charles Augustus Briggs, D. D. (New York, 1885, ch. ix.)

[678] All that can be said in justification of George III. is said
by Mahon (vi. 100). The fact is, that, with the exception of a few
like Dean Tucker and John Cartwright, the king's subjects were, like
himself, deceived for a long time into believing that the loss of
England's colonies would cause her sun to set. It was the king's
obstinacy or "steadfastness", as you choose to call it, which kept him
longer of that opinion than almost all of his subjects.—ED.

[679] Well might Washington, writing to Dr. Franklin in France,
October, 1782, and referring to the delay of the negotiations for
peace, emphasize "the persevering obstinacy of the king, the wickedness
of his ministry, and the haughty pride of the nation" (Sparks's
Franklin, ix. 422).

[680] Lord Mahon's _History_, vol. vi. Appen. lviii.

[681] _Ibid._, vii. Appen. xxix.

[682] An emphatic sentence from the pen of the able and candid
historian Lecky may be quoted here. Referring to "the sullen and
rancorous nature of an intensity of hatred" towards Chatham, which led
the king, against all advice and urgency, to refuse any aid from that
noble statesman, Lecky writes "This episode appears to me the most
criminal in the whole reign of George III., and in my own judgment
it is as criminal as any of those acts which led Charles I. to the
scaffold" (_Hist. of Eng. in the XVIIIth Cent._, iv. 83).

[683] The Massachusetts refugee, Judge Curwen, thus writes, in London,
in 1780: "In this baneful, woful quarrel, such a continued, unbroken
series of disappointments, disasters, and mortifying events have taken
place, that it seems to me to be morally impossible but the eyes of all
thoughtful, prudent, knowing men must open and discern the impolicy
and impracticability of accomplishing the great end for which this war
was undertaken,—the reduction of the colonies to the obedience of the
British Parliament" (Curwen, p. 311).

[684] Wells's _Adams_, i. p. 164.

[685] There is something very significant as well as comical in the
following entry in John Adams's Diary in Congress, in 1775, when he
had made his way to a full deliverance: "When these people began to
see that independence was approaching, they started back. In some
of my public harangues, in which I had freely and explicitly laid
open my thoughts, on looking round the assembly, I have seen horror,
terror, and detestation strongly marked on the countenances of some
of the members, whose names I could readily recollect; but as some of
them have been good citizens since, and others went over afterwards
to the English, I think it unnecessary to record them here" (_Works
of John Adams_, ii. p. 407). Mr. Sparks has gathered (_Washington_,
Appendix x. vol. ii.) the expressed opinions of such typical patriots
as Washington, Franklin, Henry, Madison, Jay, etc., utterly and
emphatically disavowing all thoughts or purposes of independence till
the crisis made it a matter of necessity, not of choice. It is but
candid, however, to note an anticipation of that acute observer Joseph
Galloway, whether it was but a surmise or a reasonable inference. In
a letter addressed by him, Jan. 13, 1766, to Dr. Franklin, in London,
he writes: "A certain sect of people, if I may judge from all their
late conduct, seem to look on this as a favorable opportunity of
establishing their republican principles, and of throwing off all
connection with their mother country. I have reasons to think that
they are forming a private union among themselves from one end of the
continent to the other" (Sparks's _Franklin_, vii. 305). The assertion
of John Jay is most explicit and emphatic: "During the course of my
life, and until the second petition of Congress, in 1775, I never did
hear any American of any class, or any description, express a wish for
the independence of the colonies" (_Life and Writings of John Jay_, ii.
p. 410). Mr. Jay probably referred to the contemptuous treatment of
that second petition, "Dickinson's Letter", not to its transmission.

[686] _Works_, vii. 391.

[687] _Reflections_, etc., p. 102.

[688] Before this decision was reached, however, Congress, in 1774,
made this tentative effort to recognize the unity of the empire in
the extending through it of some sovereign power while holding to a
local independence, in this form: "From the necessity of the case and
a regard to the mutual interests of both countries, we cheerfully
consent to the operation of such acts of the British Parliament as are
_bonâ fide_ restricted to the regulation of our external commerce, for
the purpose of securing the commercial advantages of the whole empire
to the mother country, and the commercial benefits of its respective
members, excluding every idea of taxation, internal and external, for
raising a revenue, on the subjects in America, without their consent."
This was a seemingly candid and sincere suggestion to harmonize the
positions taken by the respective parties in the controversy. Britain,
the mistress of the seas, protected the great highways of commerce, and
so might regulate the trade of her colonies by the ocean, as she did
her own. But these colonies had constitutional charter assemblies with
exclusive powers for raising and disposing of their own revenues.

[689] A very admirable and faithful digest of the proceedings of
Congress, the materials and incidents being gathered by wide and
diligent research, may be found in the ninth chapter of _The Rise of
the Republic of the United States_, by Richard Frothingham (Boston,
1872).

[690] _History of England in the XVIIIth Century_, iii. p. 377.

[691] A very significant reference to the mixed qualities recognized
in Paine by his contemporaries is found in _Men and Times of the
Revolution; or Memoirs of Elkanah Watson_, etc. (New York, 1856). Mr.
Watson, a native of Plymouth, was patriotic in his sentiments, and
was on mercantile business in Europe during the war, honored with the
friendship of Dr. Franklin and John Adams in Paris. His brother, Benj.
Marston Watson, of Marblehead, was a noted loyalist. (See a "Memoir" of
him in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Oct., 1873.) When Elkanah was at
Nantes in 1781, Paine arrived there as secretary of Colonel Laurens,
"and took up his quarters at my boarding-place. He was coarse and
uncouth in his manners, loathsome in his appearance, and a disgusting
egotist. Yet I could not repress the deepest emotions of gratitude
towards him, as the instrument of Providence in accelerating the
declaration of our independence. He certainly was a prominent agent in
preparing the public sentiment of America for that glorious event."

A very fair estimate of the qualities in Paine's pamphlet which adapted
it for popular effect is the following, by the English historian
Adolphus: "His pamphlet was replete with rough, sarcastic wit, and he
took, with great judgment, a correct aim at the feelings and prejudices
of those whom he intended to influence. Writing to fanatics, he
drew his arguments and illustrations from the holy Scriptures; his
readers, having no predilection for hereditary titles, distinctions
to them unknown, received with applause his invectives and sneers
at hereditary monarchy; a notion of increasing opulence, and false
calculations on their population and means of prosperity, had rendered
them arrogant and self-sufficient, and consequently disposed them to
relish the arguments he employed to prove the absurdity of subjugating
a large continent to a small island on the other side of the globe.
To inflame the resentment of the Americans, every act of the British
government towards them was represented in the most ungracious light",
etc. (Adolphus, ii. 400). A most thoroughly candid and discriminating
estimate of the character and abilities, the good and the bad elements
in Paine, may be found in a letter, not for publication, by Joel Barlow
to Cheetham, Paine's biographer (_Life and Letters of J. Barlow_, by
Charles Burr. Todd, 1886, pp. 236-239). Cheetham meanly published this
letter.

[692] Dr. Josiah Tucker, Dean of Gloucester, sought to be an oracle
alike on its commercial and political bearings. He had well informed
himself about the history and condition of the colonies. He thought
it a mistake that Britain had broken the power of the French, and, by
withdrawing the threat of their presence over the English colonists,
had left them to set up for independence. The idea that their
disaffection began with the Stamp Act he repudiated, as disproved
by their restiveness and truculency from their first settlements,
and from the occasion there had always been for the interposition of
sharp measures of government for restraining them. His opinion of
their general character was highly unfavorable, but he was thoroughly
satisfied with the impossibility of subduing them, and even of the
inexpediency of retaining a forced relation to them. His advice was
that Britain should at once give over its attempts at subjugation, and
even acquiesce in leaving them to take care and govern themselves, at
least till they should repent of their folly. He anticipated, as the
solution of wisdom, the complete abandonment of any interference with
the recusant Americans, maintaining that the methods of profitable
commerce, which would secure English interests and supremacy,
would be more effective than a fretting interference with them.
His views—which, looked at in the retrospect, appear thoroughly
sagacious—were, to most of his contemporaries, either visionary or
exasperating. Tucker set forth the positive facts, that while war was
most ruinous to the interests of commerce, those interests ought to
serve to the security of peace. The war of England against the Spanish
right of search had won no benefit, but had added sixty millions
sterling to the debt of the realm. The late French war had cost ninety
millions more, and by relieving the colonists of all dread of the
French had encouraged them to set up for independence.

[693] For further account of Galloway as a controversialist, see
_post_, the section on the Loyalists.

[694] _Introduction to the Hist. of the Revolt_, and in his preface
to his _Opinions of eminent lawyers_. Cf. J. R. Seeley on the
accountability of the old colonial system for the revolt of the
American colonies. _Expansion of England_, lecture iv. Cf. W. T.
Davis's _Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth_, p. 75. On religious causes,
see B. Adams's _Emancipation of Mass._ (last chap.).

[695] _Works_, ii. 411, 413, iii. 45, ix. 591, 596, x. 284, 359, 394;
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll.,_ xliv. 300, 465; _N. E. Hist. and Geneal.
Reg._, July, 1876.

[696] There is help in tracing the sporadic instances of the
independent spirit to be found in Sparks's App. to his _Washington_
(ii. 496), in Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_ (pp. 154, 245,
291, 315, 364, 428, 438, 449, 452, 469, 483, 489, 499, 506, 509);
in Hutchinson's _Massachusetts_ (iii. 134, 264, 265,—cf. _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, xix. 135); in Jefferson's _Notes on Virginia_; in
Galloway's _Examination_; in Force's _American Archives_, 4th ser.,
ii. 696, and vi., index, under "Independence;" in Bancroft, vii. 301,
viii. ch. 64, 65, 68; in Grahame, iv. 315; in J. C. Hamilton's _Repub.
of the U. S._, i. 110; Palfrey's _New England_, i. 308, ii. 266; _Mem.
of Josiah Quincy, Jr._, p. 228; Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii. 242, 352;
Greene's _Nath. Greene_, i. 122; Austin's _Gerry_, ch. 13; Rives's
_Madison_, i. 108, 124.

The position of parties in Congress can be traced in Randall's
_Jefferson_, i. 153; Read's _Geo. Read_; _John Adams's Works_, i. 220,
517, ii. 31-75, 93; Pitkin's _United States_, i. 362.

[697] _Boston Gazette_, April 15th and 29th; _Penna. Evening Post_,
April 20th, etc. Several of these are quoted in Moore's _Diary_.

[698] _Declaration of Independence by the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
May 1, 1776, by H. B. Dawson_, N. Y., 1862; or _Hist. Mag._, May, 1862.

[699] _Adams's Works_, iv. 201; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, May, 1884, p.
369; Bancroft, viii. ch. 64; Force, 4th ser., vi. 1524.

[700] _N. Y. Hist. Coll._, 1872, p. 26; and on the timidity of Penna.,
Reed's _Reed_, i. 199-202.

[701] _Works_, ii. 489, 510; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xliv. 466;
_Jameson's Constitutional Conventions_, pp. 115, 116.

[702] _No. Amer. Rev._, by L. Sabine, April, 1848.

[703] Passed May 15th, and written by Edmund Pendleton,—Rives's
_Madison_, i. 123, 130. For R. H. Lee see _Life_ by R. H. Lee, Jr.;
Sanderson's _Signers_; Brotherhead's _Book of Signers_, etc.

[704] The record is scant in the one called "Secret Domestic Journal."
These are described in M. Chamberlain's _Authentication_, etc., p. 17.

[705] In Jefferson's _Writings_, i. 10, 96; _Madison Papers_ (1841), i.
9; Elliot's _Debates_, vol. i. 60; Read's _George Read_, 226. There are
other accounts in _John Adams's Works_ (i. 227, iii. 30, 55, ix. 418).
John Adams's letter to Mercy Warren (1807) is in Frothingham's _Rise of
the Republic_ (App.) and in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xliv. 465.

[706] Works, i. 229, and Mellen Chamberlain's _John Adams, the
Statesman of the Revolution_ (Boston, 1884).

[707] Bancroft, viii. ch. 65; Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii. ch. 41, 42;
Rives's _Madison_, i. 125; C. F. Adams's _John Adams's Works_, i. 227;
and a brief but clear exposition in Lecky (iii. 498). The reasons for
and against the Declaration are summarized in Read's _George Read_,
226, 247; and Smyth (_Lectures_, ii. 370) gives from an English
point of view the reasons which rendered separation and independence
inevitable. The lives of the leading participants—Jefferson, the two
Adamses, R. H. Lee, Franklin—necessarily include accounts.

[708] Pitkin's _U. S._, vi. 263; _Penna. Journal_, June 19, 1776;
Read's _Geo. Read_, 164; _John Adams_, ix. 398.

[709] Niles's _Weekly Register_, xii. 305, etc.; _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Coll._, xliv. 507; his letter of June 16, 1817, in App. of Christopher
Marshall's _Diary_, and one of Aug. 22, 1813, in _Harper's Mag._, 1883,
p. 211.

[710] This being sent to a friend in England, thirty copies of the
paper were printed under the title of _The Declaration of independence,
or notes on Lord Mahon's history of the American declaration of
independence_ (London, 1855). The criticism was also printed in
_Littell's Living Age_ (xliv. 387).

[711] A copy of it with notes by John Home, the author of Douglas, is
in the Philadelphia library.

[712] Cf. Morley, in his _Edmund Burke_, p. 125. Lord John Russell
(_Mem. and Corresp. of Fox_, i. 152) thinks the truth was warped in
charging all upon the king, while in fact "the sovereign and his people
were alike prejudiced, angry, and wilful."

[713] Cf. Franklin's _Works_ (Sparks), x. 293; Wells's _S. Adams_, ii.
340, 360; _John Adams's Works_, i. 204, ix. 627, and his _Familiar
Letters_, 134, 137, 146; Moore's _Diary_, i. 208; Jones's _N. Y. during
the Amer. Rev._, i. 63; Force's, _Amer. Archives_, indexes. A letter
from Charleston, S. C., March 17, 1776, says, "Common Sense hath made
independents of the majority of the country, and [Christopher] Gadsden
is as mad with it as ever he was without it" (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
xi. 254). On Paine, see Duyckinck, Allibone, Poole's _Index_, W. B.
Reed in _No. Amer. Rev._, vol. lvii.; J. W. Francis' _Old New York_,
2d ed., p. 137; Parton's _Franklin_, ii. 19, 108; _N. E. Hist. and
Geneal. Reg._, October, 1879. See further, on his influence at this
time, Frothingham's _Rise_, etc., 476, 479; Barry's _Mass._, iii.
89; Randall's _Jefferson_, i. 137; Bancroft, orig. ed., ch. 56. On
the English side, Smyth's _Lectures_, ii. 430, 446; Mahon, vi. 93;
Ryerson, ii. ch. 32. For the Rousseauishness of the sentiments, see
Lecky, iv. 51. Louis Rosenthal (_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, July, 1884, p.
46) thinks we need not go beyond English precedents for any of the
sentiments of the day. For the bibliography of _Common Sense_, See
Hildeburn's _Issues of the Press in Penna._ (1886), nos. 3,433, etc.;
Sabin, xiv. p. 124; _Menzies Catal._, no. 1,536; Brinley, ii. p. 166.
It was printed and reprinted in Philadelphia, in English and once in
German, and in the same year (1776) reprinted in Salem, Newburyport,
Providence, Boston, Norwich, Newport, New York, Charleston, and also in
London and Edinburgh, and is included in Paine's _Writings_ (Albany,
1791-92; Charlestown, Mass., 1824; New York, 1835, etc.) A volume of
_Large Additions to Common Sense_ (Philad. and London, 1776, etc.) was
got up by Robert Bell to extend his edition over that of Paine's then
publisher (Hildeburn, no. 3,439; Brinley, ii. no. 4,100). Frothingham
(p.476) has a bibliographical note. It is included in a French _Recueil
des divers écrits_ of Paine (Paris, 1793).

There is a portrait of Thomas Paine by Peale, engraved by J. Watson
(cf. J. C. Smith's _Brit. Mez. Portraits_, iv. 1529). A likeness by
Romney, engraved by William Sharp, in two sizes. There is a portrait in
Independence Hall, Philadelphia.

The chief answer was _Plain Truth, written by Candidus_ (Philad. and
London, 1776). In the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, 4to ed., iii. 642, its
authorship by Charles Inglis is thought to be established; but see
Franklin Burdge in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, ii. 59. Sabin (xv. p. 176)
says it was probably by Jos. Galloway; but there is no evidence of
it. Hildeburn (no. 3,345) gives reasons for assigning it to George
Chalmers. It passed to a second edition.

[714] Bancroft (_United States_, orig. ed., ix. ch. 15; final ed., v.
ch. 9), and G. W. Greene (_Hist. View_, p. 104) groups the several
records.

[715] Rives's _Madison_, i. ch. 5; Madison's _Writings_, i. 21; Niles's
_Principles and Acts_, 1876, p. 301; J. E. Cooke in _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, May, 1884; Preston's _Docs. illus. Amer. Hist._, p. 206, and
_Bill of Rights passed June 12, 1776, adopted without alteration by the
Convention of 1829-30, and readopted with amendments by the Convention
of 1850-51, and now readopted as passed June 12, 1776_ (Richmond, 1861;
also _Journal of the Convention of 1861_). On George Mason see R.
Taylor in _No. Amer. Rev._, cxxviii. 148; _Southern Bivouac_, April,
1886. A portrait is owned by the Penna. Hist. Soc.

[716] Randall's _Jefferson_, i. ch. 6; Grigsby's discourse on the
Convention in 1855.

[717] Cf. the account of its centennial celebration, July 30, 1877,
with a view of the old senate house at Kingston, in the _Centennial
Celebrations of N. Y._ (Albany, 1879), and J. A. Stevens's "Birth of
the Empire State" in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, iii. p. 1. Also see
_Ibid._, April, 1887, p. 310, and Dawson's _West Chester County_, pp.
182, 206.

Congress, July 1, 1782, passed votes for perpetuating the observance
of the day (_Journals_, iv. 43). A famous letter of John Adams to his
wife, dated July 3d, and predicting that the future observance would
be of July 2d as the essential day, was so far altered as to be dated
July 5th when first printed, in order to keep the prophecy true to the
custom, which by that time had designated July 4th as the day to be
observed (_Familiar Letters_, p. 190; _Works_, ix. 420). A letter of
Adams to Judge Dawes on this point is in Niles's _Principles_, etc.
(1876), p. 328. Cf. _Potter's American Monthly_, Dec., 1875.

[718] _The Report of a Constitution or Form of Government for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts: agreed upon by the Committee—to be laid
before the Convention of Delegates, assembled at Cambridge, on the
First Day of September, A. D. 1779, and continued by adjournment to
the Twenty-eighth Day of October following_ (Boston, 1779). Cf. also
_A Constitution or Frame of Government agreed upon by the Delegates
of the People of the State of Massachusetts Bay, in Convention begun
and held at Cambridge on the First of September, 1779, and continued
by adjournment to the Second of March, 1780_. _To be submitted to the
Revision of their Constituents &c._ (Boston, 1779), and _An Address of
the Convention for Framing a new Constitution of Government for the
State of Massachusetts Bay, to their Constituents_ (Boston, 1780). Cf.
also Parsons's _Life of Theophilus Parsons_, p. 46; Brooks Adams's
_Emancipation of Massachusetts_, p. 307.

[719] Cf. Dr. Charles Deane's report on this document in _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, v. 88. The Hon. Alexander H. Bullock read a paper before
the Amer. Antiq. Society in April, 1881, which was printed as _The
Centennial of the Mass. Constitution_ (Worcester, 1881), and the
_Proceedings of the N. E. Hist. Geneal. Society_ in commemoration were
also printed, and embodied a report of the proceedings of the State
authorities.

[720] The Articles of Confederation can be found in Elliot's _Debates_,
i. 79; Ramsay's _Rev. in So. Carolina_, i. 437; Hinman's _Conn. in
the Rev._, 103; George Tucker's _United States_, i. App., p. 636; L.
H. Porter's _Outlines of the Constitutional Hist. of the U. S._, p.
48; Walker's _Statesman's Manual_ (New York, 1849), i. p. 1; _New
Hampshire State Papers_, viii. 747; N. C. Towle's _Hist. and Analysis
of the Constitution of the U. S._ (Boston, 1871), p. 328; Lossing's
_Field-Book_, ii. 859; H. W. Preston's _Documents illustrating Amer.
Hist._ (1886), p. 218, etc. For the debates and contemporary and later
views, see John Adams's _Works_, i. 268, ii. 492, ix. 467; _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Coll._, xliv. 315; Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii. 473, 480;
Bancroft, ix. 436; Hildreth, iii. 266; Parton's _Franklin_, ii. 125;
Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, 569; Pitkin's _United States_;
Story (i. 209) and Curtis (i. 114) on the _Constitution_; Elliot's
_Debates_, i. 70; Von Holst's _Constitutional Hist. of the U. S._, ch.
1; Rives's _Madison_, i. ch. 10; Greene's _Hist. View_, 14; Draper's
_Civil War_, i. 265, etc.

[721] Mother of Lindley Murray, the grammarian.

[722] ... "On the 2^{nd} of November 1776 I sacrificed", says he,
"all I was worth in the world to the service of my King & country,
and joined the then Lord Percy, brought in with me the Plans of Fort
Washington, by which Plans that Fortress was taken by his Majesty's
Troops the 16 instant, together with 2700 Prisoners and Stores &
Ammunition to the amount of 1800 Pounds. At the same time, I may with
Justice affirm, from my knowledge of the Works, I saved the Lives of
many of his Majesty's subjects. These, Sir, are facts well known to
every General officer which was there." . . . . . . . . .

[723] For this New Jersey campaign see chapter v.—ED.

[724] Every true American should be most profoundly grateful that this
incompetent general was placed at the head of the British army, not for
his own merits, but because of his connection with royalty through his
grandmother's frailty. His mother was the issue of George I. and Sophia
Kilmansegge.

[725] After Germain had written out Howe's orders, he left them to
be "fair copied", and went to Kent on a visit, forgetting on his
return to sign them; consequently they were pigeon-holed till May
18th, and did not reach Howe till August 16th, after he had left New
York upon his expedition to the Chesapeake, and when it was too late
to effect a junction with Burgoyne. Cf. Fitzmaurice's _Shelburne_,
i. 358; Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_ (p. 233); Jones's _N. Y. during the
Revolution_, i. App. p. 696.—ED.

[726] In ridicule of this appeal, Burke indulged in an illustration
which delighted the House of Commons. "Suppose", he exclaimed, "there
was a riot on Tower Hill. What would the keeper of his Majesty's lions
do? Would he not fling open the dens of the wild beasts, and then
address them thus: 'My gentle lions—my humane bears—my tender-hearted
hyenas, go forth! But I exhort you, as you are Christians and members
of civil society, to take care not to hurt any man, woman, or child.'"

[727] The familiar portrait of Schuyler is one by Trumbull, both in
civil and military dress, in engravings by Thomas Kelly, H. B. Hall,
and others. Cf. Lossing's _Life of Schuyler_, vol. i.; Irving's
_Washington_, vol. ii. 40; Stone's _Campaigns of Burgoyne_, p. 38;
_Centennial Celebrations of N. Y._ (Albany, 1878); C. H. Jones's
_Campaign for the Conquest of Canada in 1776_; _The Amer. Portrait
Gallery_, etc.

G. W. Schuyler (_Colonial New York_, ii. 253), in his account of
General Philip Schuyler, points out some errors of a personal nature,
into which Lossing and Judge Jones have fallen, respecting Schuyler's
private history. For the Schuyler family, see _N. Y. Geneal. and Biog.
Record_, April, 1874.

Schuyler's house in Albany, at which he entertained Burgoyne after his
surrender, is shown in Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 304; his _Hudson
River_, p. 129; _Mag. of Amer. History_, July, 1884. Cf. _Hours at
Home_, ix. 464. Of Mrs. Schuyler, the hostess, see account in S. B.
Wister and Agnes Irwin's _Worthy Women of our First Century_ (Philad.,
1877). The mansion was sold in October, 1884, to be removed. A plan of
Albany during this period (dated 1770) is in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._,
iii. 697.—ED.

[728] The total losses in this campaign of the Anglo-British army were:
British prisoners, 2,442; foreign prisoners, 2,198; General Burgoyne
and staff officers (including six members of Parliament), 12; sent to
Canada, 1,100; sick and wounded, 598; making the total surrendered,
October 17, 1777, to be 6,350. Then there were taken prisoners before
the surrender, 400; deserters, 300; lost at Bennington, 1,220; killed
between September 17 and October 17, 1777, 600; taken at Ticonderoga,
413; killed at Oriskany, 300; giving an entire loss of 3,233,—which,
with those surrendered, make a total loss of 9,583.

Besides the _personnel_, there were lost in the campaign, 6 pieces of
cannon at Bennington; 2 pieces and 4 royals at Fort Stanwix; 400 set
of harness; a number of ammunition wagons and horses; 5,000 stand of
arms; 37 pieces of brass cannon, implements and stores complete, camp
equipage, etc., etc.

[729] Captain John Montressor, a British "Chief Engineer of America"
in the Revolution, who was with Putnam under Colonel Bradstreet in
1764, goes so far as to intimate (very likely without warrant) a still
stronger reason for the general's inefficiency at Long Island and in
the Hudson Highlands. In his journal (page 136), published by the New
York Historical Society, 1882, speaking of the venality of the American
"Rebel Generals", he says "Even Israel Putnam, of Connecticut, might
have been bought, to my certain knowledge, for _one dollar per day_."

[730] _Life and Times of General Philip Schuyler, by Benson J.
Lossing_, N. Y., 1872; _Battles of the American Revolution, by
General Henry B. Carrington_, N. Y., 1876; _Life and Correspondence
of Lieutenant-General John Burgoyne, by Edward B. de Fonblanque_,
London, 1876; _Burgoyne and the Northern Campaign, by Ellen Hardin
Walworth_, 1877; _The Campaign of Lieutenant-General John Burgoyne and
the Expedition of Lieut.-Col. Barry St. Leger, by William L. Stone_,
1877; Addresses and Papers upon Major-General Philip Schuyler and the
Burgoyne Campaign, by General J. Watts de Peyster, published variously,
1877-83; _Centennial Celebration of the State of New York_, 1879;
_Life of Major-General Benedict Arnold—his Patriotism and Treason, by
Isaac N. Arnold_, 1880; _Sir John Johnson's Orderly Book, annotated by
William L. Stone, with an introduction on his Life by General J. Watts
de Peyster, and Sketch of the Tories or Loyalists by Colonel T. Bailey
Myers_, 1882; _Hadden's Journal and Orderly Book, annotated by General
Horatio Rogers_, Providence, 1881; _The Hessians in the Revolution, by
Edward J. Lowell_, 1884.

[731] _Correspondence and Remarks upon Bancroft's History of the
Northern Campaign of 1777, and the Character of Major-General Philip
Schuyler, by George L. Schuyler_; _The Life and Times of Major-General
Philip Schuyler, by Benson J. Lossing, LL. D._

[732] The ARTICLES of Oct. 16, 1777, were as follows, viz.:—

"I. The troops, under Lieutenant-General Burgoyne, to march out
of their camp with the honors of war and the artillery of the
intrenchments, to the verge of the river where the old fort stood,
where the arms and artillery are to be left; the arms to be piled by
word of command from their own officers.

"II. A free passage to be granted to the army, under Lieutenant-General
Burgoyne, to Great Britain, on condition of not serving again in North
America during the present contest; and the port of Boston is assigned
for the entry of transports to receive the troops whenever General Howe
shall so order.

"III. Should any cartel take place, by which the army under General
Burgoyne, or any part of it, may be exchanged, the foregoing article to
be void as far as such exchange shall be made.

"IV. The army under Lieutenant-General Burgoyne to march to
Massachusetts Bay, by the easiest, most expeditious, and convenient
route; and to be quartered in, near, or as convenient as possible to
Boston, that the march of the troops may not be delayed when transports
arrive to receive them.

"V. The troops to be supplied on their march, and during their being
in quarters, with provisions by General Gates's orders, at the same
rate of rations as the troops of his own army; and if possible, the
officers' horses and cattle are to be supplied with forage at the usual
rates.

"VI. All officers to retain their carriages, bat-horses, and other
cattle, and no baggage to be molested or searched; Lieutenant-General
Burgoyne giving his honor that there are no public stores secreted
therein. Major-General Gates will of course take the necessary measures
for the due performance of this article. Should any carriages be wanted
during the march, for the transportation of officers' baggage, they
are, if possible, to be supplied by the country at the usual rates.

"VII. Upon the march, and during the time the army shall remain
in quarters in Massachusetts Bay, the officers are not, as far as
circumstances will admit, to be separated from their men. The officers
are to be quartered according to rank, and are not to be hindered from
assembling their men for roll-call and other necessary purposes of
regularity.

"VIII. All corps whatever of General Burgoyne's army, whether composed
of sailors, bateau-men, artificers, drivers, independent companies, and
followers of the army, of whatever country, shall be included in the
fullest sense and utmost extent of the above articles, and comprehended
in every respect as British subjects.

"IX. All Canadians, and persons belonging to the Canadian
establishment, consisting of sailors, bateau-men, artificers, drivers,
independent companies, and many other followers of the army, who come
under no particular description, are to be permitted to return there;
they are to be conducted immediately by the shortest route to the first
British port on Lake George, are to be supplied with provisions in
the same manner as the other troops, and are to be bound by the same
condition of not serving during the present contest in North America.

"X. Passports to be immediately granted for three officers,
not exceeding the rank of captains, who shall be appointed by
Lieutenant-General Burgoyne, to carry despatches to Sir William
Howe, Sir Guy Carleton, and to Great Britain by way of New York; and
Major-General Gates engages the public faith that these despatches
shall not be opened. These officers are to set out immediately after
receiving their despatches, and are to travel the shortest routes and
in the most expeditious manner.

"XI. During the stay of the troops in Massachusetts Bay, the officers
are to be admitted on parole, and are to be allowed to wear their side
arms.

"XII. Should the army under Lieutenant-General Burgoyne find it
necessary to send for their clothing and other baggage to Canada, they
are to be permitted to do it in the most convenient manner, and the
necessary passports granted for that purpose.

"XIII. These Articles are to be mutually signed, and exchanged
to-morrow morning at nine o'clock, and the troops under
Lieutenant-General Burgoyne are to march out of their intrenchments at
three o'clock in the afternoon.

(Signed) HORATIO GATES, _Major-General_. (Signed) J. BURGOYNE,
_Lieutenant-General_.

"SARATOGA, October 16th, 1777."

[733] A letter of Glover about the march, dated Cambridge, Jan. 27,
1778, is in the _Sparks MSS._ (lii. vol. iii.). The line of their march
is shown in Anburey's _Travels_. Mrs. Hannah Winthrop's letter, Nov.
11, 1777, describing the entry of Burgoyne's army into Cambridge, is
cited in Mrs. Ellet's _Women of the Revolution_, i. 96. A journal of
the Northern campaign of 1777 (Oct. 6th to Nov. 9th), at which last
date the writer "attended Mr. Burgoyne to Boston", is among the Langdon
Papers, copied in the _Sparks MSS._ (lii. vol. ii.). The commander of
the Eastern department at this time was Gen. Heath (Heath's _Memoirs_,
p. 134; _Hist. Mag._, iii. 170; _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 183). Letters
of Burgoyne to Heath are in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, 1885, p. 482,
etc. A letter of Burgoyne (copy) to the president of Congress, dated
at Cambridge, Feb. 11, 1778, is in _Letters and Papers, 1777-1780_
(MSS. in Mass. Hist. Soc.). Burgoyne preferred charges against Capt.
David Henley, an officer of the guard, for cruel behavior towards the
prisoners. He was tried and acquitted. _An Account of the Proceedings
of a Court Martial held at Cambridge by order of Maj. General Heath
for the trial of Col. David Henley, taken in short hand by an officer
who was present_, was published in London, 1778. The trial lasted from
Jan. 20 to Feb. 25, 1778. The proceedings were also printed in Boston
(_Brinley Catal._, nos. 4,024-25). The trial is epitomized in P. W.
Chandler's _Amer. Criminal Trials_ (ii. 59). There are jottings about
the influence of the prisoners in Boston at the time in Ezekiel Price's
diary in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, October, 1865. The orders
of Burgoyne issued in Cambridge are given in _Hadden's Journal_. Gen.
Phillips commanded the convention troops after Burgoyne's departure.
There are letters of Phillips in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, July, 1885,
p. 91. The parole which the English and German officers signed, to keep
within certain limits of territory, is in the Boston Public Library
(Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 878, and _Burgoyne's Orderly-Book_). There
are details of their life in Cambridge in Schlözer's _Briefwechsel_
(iv. 341); the memoirs of Riedesel and Madame Riedesel; and in
Eelking's _Hülfstruppen_. Cf. Lossing's _Field-Book_; Drake's
_Landmarks of Middlesex_; and Mrs. Ellet's _Domestic Hist. of the Amer.
Rev._ (N. Y., 1850), p. 85. A MS. copy of Nathan Bowen's _Book of
General Orders_ is in the Boston Public Library.—ED.

[734] Bancroft, orig. ed., ix. 466, x. 126. Cf. Lafayette's _Mémoires_,
i. 21; Hildreth's _United States_, iii. 237, 255; Lowell's _Hessians_,
ch. 12.—ED.

[735] Cf. also Geo. W. Greene in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, iii. 231;
De Lancey in Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, i. 698.—ED.

[736] _Hadden's Journal_, p. 397.

[737] Sparks, _Washington_, v. 144.

[738] _Journals of Congress_, ii. p. 18. Cf. Jones, _N. Y. during the
Rev. War_, App. p. 699. Cf. further in _Journals of Congress_, ii. 343,
397; _Pennsylvania Archives_, vi. 162.—ED.

[739] Lafayette told Sparks that there was the strongest circumstantial
evidence that the British intended to take the troops, not to England,
but to New York, the vessels not being provisioned for an Atlantic
voyage, and that they claimed justification in this purpose because the
Americans had themselves broken the convention. He also added that the
British government would not ratify the convention, because they could
not keep faith with rebels.

Much of the correspondence about the detention is copied in the _Sparks
MSS._, no. lviii., part 2. The English files are in the War Office,
London, in the collection "Quebec and Canada, 1776-1780;" and other
papers are in the Headquarters or Carleton Papers.—ED.

[740] There is a map of their route and a view of their encampment
at this place in Anburey's _Travels_, which last is reproduced in
Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 552. Cf. also the print as published by
Wm. Lane, London, Jan. 1, 1789 (_Catal. Cab. Mass. Hist. Soc._, p. 89,
no. 612). The command of the encampment in Virginia was given to Col.
Theodorick Bland, Jr., and copies of some of his papers are in the
_Sparks MSS._ (no. xli.). The _Bland Papers_, edited by Chas. Campbell,
were published at Petersburg, 1840-43. Accounts of the troops' sojourn
in Virginia are given by Anburey, Riedesel, and Eelking. Cf. also
Jefferson's _Writings_ (i. 212); lives of Jefferson, by Tucker (i. ch.
5), Randall (i. 232, 285), and Parton (p. 222); Howison's _Virginia_
(ii. 250); Lowell's _Hessians_. On October 26, Jefferson had urged upon
Washington the removal of the convention troops, as it might not be
possible to protect them in case of an invasion of Virginia (_Sparks
MSS._, lxvi.). In November the English troops were removed to Fort
Frederick. Large numbers deserted (Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._, ii.
324).—ED.

[741] By this exercise of sovereignty, the government of the United
States unhesitatingly repudiated Major-General W. T. Sherman's
agreement with Lieutenant-General Joseph E. Johnston, for the surrender
of the Confederate Army, April 13, 1865, at Durham Station, North
Carolina.

[742] "It matters little what terms are granted, if it be not intended
to fulfil them." Mahon, vi. 278. Cf. Lecky, iv. 96.—ED.

[743] 4 Force's _Amer. Archives_, vol. iii., iv., v., and vi.; Sparks's
_Washington_ (iv. 416); his _Correspondence of the Rev._ (i. 377);
Heath's _Memoirs_, 47; Boynton's _West Point_; Duer's _Stirling_;
Lossing's _Schuyler_, and _Field-Book_ (ii. 135); and particularly
Edward Manning Ruttenber's _Obstructions to the navigation of Hudson's
River; embracing the minutes of the secret committee, appointed by the
Provincial convention of New York, July 16, 1776, and other original
documents relating to the subject_. _Together with papers relating
to the beacons_ (Albany, 1860), being no. 5 of _Munsell's Historical
Series_.

[744] Among the Sparks maps at Cornell University are two sheets
showing the Hudson River with soundings, in part at high tide and in
part at half tide. They are each thirty inches long, and appear to be
by the same draftsman. One of them is indorsed: "Drawn by the request
and under the inspection of the Commissioners of Fortifications in the
Highlands, Province of New York, by JOHN GRENELL." One shows Haverstraw
Bay and Tappan Bay to a point above Dobbs Ferry, and indicates the
site of Tarrytown. The other extends from Stony Point to "Polyphemes
Island", below Newburgh. Constitution Island is called "Martler's
Rock;" and beside Bunn's house, there is indicated at that point
the block house, a "curtain fronting the river, mounting fourteen
cannon", the wharf, barracks, storehouse, and commissioner's room, and
landing place. West Point is opposite, unoccupied, and Moore's house
is above. Fort Montgomery and a higher battery is delineated at "Poop
Lopes Kill", and from it along the river towards West Point is the
inscription: "By good information there is a waggon road from Poop
Lopes Kill to West Point."

Another sheet contains "a plan of a fort proposed on the east of Fort
Constitution, laid down by scale of twenty feet to an inch per Isaac
Nicoll", and indorsed "Received May 10, 1776." Another has a distant
view of fortifications, topping a range of hills, and is marked "Fort
Montgomery." It is not clear what is meant by it.

There is in the same collection "A rough map of Fort Montgomery,
showing the situation on Puplopes [_sic_] Point; ground plot of the
buildings, etc., etc., Pr. T. P. No. 2", which is indorsed also "Plan
of the works at Fort Montgomery, May 31, 1776, no. 2." Mr. Sparks has
written upon the original draft, "For an explanation see Ld. Stirling's
letter to Washington, dated June 1, 1776."

There are likewise two plans in colors among the Sparks maps at
Cornell University, marked "No. 1" and "No. 3", which seem to have
been made in 1776. The first shows the Hudson River from Stony Point
to Constitution Island. West Point, which is opposite, is not named.
It bears no indorsement and no names, but in one corner is a profile
view of the bank in the neighborhood apparently of Peekskill. The works
on Constitution Island are indicated, and Sparks has noted on it, "See
Ld. Stirling's letter to Washington, June 1, 1776." The other plan
shows the neighborhood of Fort Constitution (opposite West Point) on a
larger scale, a sketch of which, reduced, is given herewith and marked
"Constitution Island, 1776." Cf. the map from the _American Archives_
in Boynton's _West Point_, p. 26.

[745] For this period see 4 Force, vol. v.; Heath's _Memoirs_;
Sparks's _Gouverneur Morris_ (i. ch. 5); lives of Putnam; Almon's
_Remembrancer_; histories of New York, city and province. There is much
of detail with references in Dawson's _Westchester County, during the
American Revolution_ (Morrisania, 1886), p. 159, etc., particularly as
respects the political influence of the provincial congress and the
treatment of suspected persons. This book, for the period covered by
it, is one of the thoroughest pieces of work respecting the history
of the Revolution; but it is unfortunately marred by a captious and
carping spirit, so characteristic of Dawson's historical work. This
monograph is a separate issue of a portion of a _History of Westchester
County_, by several hands.

[746] Johnston's _Campaign of 1776_, p. 91. This lighthouse was built
in 1762. There is a view of it in the _N. Y. Mag._, Aug., 1790.

[747] Persifer Frazer to his wife, May 23-June 29, 1776, in _Sparks
MSS._ (no. xxi.). General Glover's letters in Upham's _Glover_. Others
in 5 Force, ii. Colonel Joseph Hodgkin's in _Ipswich Antiquarian
Papers_, vols. ii. and iii. Letter of Samuel Kennedy in June, in
_Penna. Mag. of Hist._ (1884, p. 111). Cf. Diary of the Moravian Ewald
Gustav Schaukirk, 1775-1783, in _Ibid._, x. 418. In July, the statue of
George III. in Bowling Green was pulled down. P. O. Hutchinson's _Gov.
Hutchinson_, ii. 167. George Gibbs's account of the statue in _N. Y.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1844, p. 168.

[748] Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, i. ch. 6. Some of the British
frigates ascending the Hudson in July, an attempt was made to destroy
them. _Worcester Mag._, i. 353; _Hist. Mag._, May, 1866, Suppl., p. 84.
Dawson (_Westchester County_, 192, 207, 213, 214, 215, 216) goes into
detail, faithfully citing all the authorities.

[749] Cf. Bellin's _Petit Atlas Maritime_ (1764), vol. i.

[750] Cf. a MS. map by John Montresor, surveyed by order of General
Gage, and dated Sept. 18, 1766, which is among the Faden maps (no. 96)
in the library of Congress. A plan by Montresor in 1775 of _New York
et Environs_, with the harbor in the corner in much detail, measuring
about 48 inches wide by 22 high, is among the Rochambeau maps (no. 23)
in the same library.

[751] _A Draught of New York harbor from the Hook to New York town,
by Mark Tiddeman_, was issued by Mount and Page in London, and is
reproduced in Valentine's _New York City Manual_, 1855. (Cf. also
_Ibid._, 1861, p. 628.) There is another (1776) in the _North American
Pilot_, no. 24, which was published separately as _A Chart of the
Entrance of Hudson's River from Sandy Hook to New York, with the
banks, etc._ (London, Sayer and Bennett, June 1, 1776). One was made
in 1779 by Robert Erskine; and another is contained in the _Neptune
Americo-septentrional_, no. 19.

A map of New York and Staten Island, with intervening waters, made by
order of General Clinton in 1781, is noted in the _King's Maps_ (Brit.
Mus.), ii. 355. Cf. _N. Y. City Manual_, 1870, p. 845. A MS. draft of
Long Island Sound and the entrance of New York harbor is among the
Faden maps (no. 54) in the library of Congress.

[752] Known as the Hickey Plot. It is detailed in the _Minutes of the
trial and examination of certain persons in the Province of New York,
charged with being engaged in a conspiracy against the authority of
the Congress and the liberties of America_ (London, 1786,—Menzies,
no. 1,400), which was reprinted (100 copies) as _Minutes of Conspiracy
against the liberties of America_, at Philadelphia in 1865. The
ringleader was one of Washington's life guard, Thomas Hickey, who
was hanged in June, 1776. David Matthews, the mayor of New York, was
implicated, and Governor Tryon was charged with a knowledge of the
plot. Matthews was arrested and confined in Connecticut (_Orderly-book
of Sir John Johnson_, 214, 215). Cf. _N. Y. in the Rev._ (papers in N.
Y. Merc. Library), p. 66; Irving's _Washington_, ii. 232; _N. E. Hist.
and Geneal. Reg._, xxiii. 205; Johnston's _Campaign of 1776_, Doc. 129.

[753] _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Jan., 1866, p. 69.

[754] Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 451; _Journals of Congress_, June
3 and July 19, 1776; Journal of Algernon Roberts on an expedition to
Paulus Hook, in _Sparks_ MSS., no. xlviii.; Johnston's _Campaign of
1776_, p. 113. The New Jersey militia were acting in concert under
Livingston. There is a journal of a Lieut. Bangs among them, from April
to July. _N. Jersey Hist. Soc. Proc._, viii.

[755] Cf. letter, Aug. 4, from Staten Island, in Lady Georgiana
Cavendish's _Mem. of Admiral Gambier_, copied in _Hist. Mag._, v. 68.

[756] _Naval Chronicle_, xxxii.

[757] Greene's _Greene_, i. 158.

[758] Col. Moses Little's, beginning April 30, 1776, belonging to Benj.
Hale, of Newburyport, Mass., including orders of Greene and Sullivan;
the latter's orders of Aug. 25 are in _Hist. Mag._, ii. 354, and Col.
Wm. Douglas's, belonging to Benj. Douglas of Middletown, Conn. That of
Capt. Samuel Sawyer, Aug. 22-Nov. 27, is in the Mass. Archives. Cf.
_Journals_ of the New York provincial congress. Greene's apprehensions
as to the situation on Long Island in the early summer of 1776 can be
got from his letters in Greene's _Life of Greene_, ii. 420, etc.

[759] 5 Force, i. 1244, ii. 196; Sparks, iv. 59; Field, 383; Johnston,
Docs., p. 32.

[760] Sparks, iv. 513; Dawson, i. 150.

[761] Field, 369; Dawson, i. 156; _Penna. Hist. Soc. Bull._, i. no. 8;
Sparks, iv. 517.

[762] Gen. Parsons to John Adams, Aug. 29 and Oct. 8, in Johnston.
Smallwood's, Oct. 12, in 5 Force, ii. 1011; Field, 386; Dawson, i.
152; Ridgeley's _Annals of Annapolis_, App. Stirling to Washington
in Dawson, i. 151; Duer's _Stirling_, 163; Sparks, iv. 515. Col.
Haslet's in Sparks, iv. 516; Dawson, i. 152. Col. Chambers's, Sept. 3,
in _Chambersburg in the Colony and the Revolution_; Field, 399. Col.
Gunning Bedford's and Cæsar Rodney's in Read's _George Read_, 170.
Letters of Pennsylvania soldiers in 2 _Penna. Archives_, x. 305.

[763] Col. Samuel J. Atlee's in 2 _Penna. Archives_, i. 509; 5 Force,
i. 1251; Field, 352; _Life of Joseph Reed_, i. 413. Samuel Miles's, in
2 _Penna. Archives_, i. 517.

[764] Graydon's _Memoirs_, ch. 6; _Mem. of Col. Benj. Talmadge_ (N. Y.,
1858), cited in Johnston. James Sullivan Martin's _Narrative of some of
the adventures of a revolutionary soldier_ (Hallowell, 1830, p. 219),
cited in Field, 507. Brodhead in 1 _Penna. Archives_, v. 21, cited by
Johnston. Hezekiah Munsell's account in Stiles's _Ancient Windsor,
Conn._, 714. Cf. further, _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1875, p. 439;
Onderdonk's _Rev. Incidents in Queens County_; S. Barclay's _Personal
Recollections of the American Revolution_ (? fiction).

[765] _Freeman's Journal_ and _Penna. Journal_, quoted in Moore's
_Diary_, i. 295-297. Dr. Stiles's diary, giving the news as it reached
him, is cited by Field and Johnston.

[766] _Gazette Extraordinary_, Oct. 10, also in 5 Force, i. 1255-56;
_Naval Chronicle_ (1841); Field, 378; Moore's _Diary_, 300; Dawson, i.
154. Howe's letters during this campaign are in the _Sparks MSS._, no.
lviii.

[767] Israel Mauduit's _Remarks upon Gen. Howe's account of his
proceedings on Long Island_ (London, 1778). Howe defended himself in
his _Narrative of his Conduct in America_. Field (p. 460) gives the
parliamentary testimony, and the examination of Howe's statements (p.
471) from the _Detail and Conduct of the Amer. War_ (3d ed., 1780,
p. 17). There were mutual criminations by Howe and the war minister,
Lord George Germain. Cf. Stedman, i. 193; Smyth's _Lectures on Modern
Hist._ (Bohn ed., ii. 463-65); _Parliamentary Reg._, xi. 340; Almon's
_Debates_, xii.; Almon's _Remembrancer_, iii. A loyalist's view of the
opportunity lost in not forcing the American lines is in Jones's _N. Y.
during the Rev._, i. 112. Johnston (p. 185) points out how the English
did the real fighting, while the Hessians joined in the pursuit. Major
James Wemys, an officer of the British army serving in America, dying
in New York in 1834-35, left papers, which were copied by Sparks while
in the hands of Rev. Wm. Ware (_Sparks MSS._, xx.). They include his
estimates of various generals of the British army; strictures on the
peculations of some of them; including criticisms of Howe's conduct in
the fights at Long Island, Whiteplains, and Trenton.

[768] _Naval Chronicle_, xxxii., 271. Field (p. 407) gives G. S.
Rainer's account from the journals of Collier. Cf. Ithiel Town's
_Particular Services_ (N. Y., 1835).

[769] _Evelyns in America_, pp. 266, 325. Lushington's _Lord Harris_,
cited by Field (p. 405). A letter of Earl Percy, Newtown, on Long
Island, Sept. 1, in which he says that the English loss was 300, the
American 3,000, with 1,500 privates, beside officers, taken prisoners,
and "he flatters himself that this campaign will put a total end to the
war" (MSS. in Boston Pub. Library). The _Hist. MSS. Com._, 2d _Report_,
p. 48, shows a letter of Sir John Wrottesley to his wife, dated Long
Island, Sept. 3.

[770] Eelking's _Hülfstruppen_, ch. 1; Lowell's _Hessians_, p.
58; and the appendix of Field. There is a French view in Hilliard
d'Auberteuil's _Essais_, vol. ii.

[771] Bancroft made some adverse criticisms of Greene in his orig.
ed., ix. ch. 4. George W. Greene replied in a pamphlet, which he has
reprinted in his _Life of Greene_, vol. ii., in which (book ii. ch.
7) he gives his own version of the battle. Cf. _Hist. Mag._, Feb. and
Aug., 1867.

[772] Respecting the retreat, Washington had ordered Heath (5 Force,
i. 1211) to send down boats from up the Hudson, which he did (Heath,
_Memoirs_, 57). Washington's reasons for a retreat are told in a letter
of Joseph Reed, Aug. 30th, to Wm. Livingston, given in Sedgwick's
_Livingston_, 201. (Cf. Sparks, _Washington_, iv. 81.) Johnston
collates the authorities upon the reasons (p. 215), and thinks Gordon's
account the most probable, that the American lines were unfit to stand
siege operations, which Howe had begun. The proceedings of the council
of war (Aug. 29th) which decided upon the retreat are in 5 Force, i.
1246, and in Onderdonk's _Rev. incidents in Suffolk County_, p. 161.

Bancroft (final revision, v. 38) and Wm. B. Reed (_Life of Jos. Reed_,
i. 121-126) are at issue upon the point whether the lifting of the
fog, which revealed the purpose of the English ships to get between
Brooklyn and New York, took place before the retreat was ordered, or
after it was nearly over. Bancroft's witnesses seem conclusive against
the claim of W. B. Reed that such a revelation induced Joseph Reed to
urge the retreat upon Washington (note in Bancroft, orig. ed., ix. 106;
final revision, v. 38). Joseph Reed's own account is in Sedgwick's
_Livingston_, 203. Cf. Johnston, ch. 5. Col. Tallmadge (_Memoirs_, p.
11) says that Washington never received the credit which was due to him
for his wise and fortunate retreat from Long Island.

[773] Dawson (_Westchester Co._, 224) puts the British army at over
forty thousand men when the campaign opened. Beatson's _Naval and Mil.
Memoirs_, vi.; 5 Force, i.; Bancroft, orig. ed., ix. 85-90; final
revision, v. 28; Johnston, 195-201, and Docs., p. 167, 176, 180; De
Lancey in Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, 600. There is a MS. on the
prisoners taken noted in the _Bushnell Catal._ (1883), no. 791. Lecky
(_England in the XVIIIth Century_, iv. 2, N. Y. ed.) says: "The English
and American authorities are hopelessly disagreed about the exact
numbers engaged, and among the Americans themselves there are very
great differences. Compare Ramsay, Bancroft, Stedman, and Stanhope,
[Mahon]."

There has been a controversy over the death of Gen. Woodhull, who was
captured a few days later, and killed, as was alleged, while trying to
escape. Cf. 5 Force, ii., iii. (index); De Lancey in Jones, ii. chap.
20, and p. 593; Johnston's _Observations on Jones_, p. 73; Luther R.
Marsh's _Gen. Woodhull and his Monument_ (N. Y., 1848); _Hist. Mag._,
v. 140, 172, 204, 229; Henry Onderdonk, Jr.'s _Narrative of Woodhull's
Capture and death_ (1848).

[774] Mercy Warren's _Amer. Revolution_; Bancroft, ix. ch. 4 and 5;
final revision, v. ch. 2; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii.; Gay's _Pop.
Hist. U. S._, iii. ch. 20, etc.

[775] Lives of Washington by Marshall, ii. ch. 7; by Sparks, i. 190;
by Irving, ii. ch. 31, 32; of Sullivan by Amory, p. 25; of Stirling by
Duer; of Olney by Williams; of Burr by Parton, i. ch. 8, etc.

[776] Most elaborate of such is R. H. Stiles's _Hist. of Brooklyn_
(p. 242). Cf. Thompson's _Long Island_; Strong's _Flatbush_; Henry
Onderdonk, Jr.'s _Kings County_. Letters of Onderdonk to Sparks in
1844, on the battle, are in the _Sparks MSS._, no. xlviii. There is
a paper by the Rev. J. W. Chadwick, of Brooklyn, in _Harper's Mag._,
liii. p. 333. Cf. Hollister's _Connecticut_, ii. ch. 11. A personal
narrative of Thomas Richards, a Connecticut soldier, is in _United
Service_ (Aug., 1884), xii. 216.

[777] The earliest special treatment is Samuel Ward in _Battle of Long
Island_ (1839; also see _Knickerbocker Mag._, xiii. 279). Field's
monograph makes vol. ii. of the _Memoirs of the Long Island Hist.
Soc._, and nearly half the volume is an appendix of documents. _The
Campaign of 1776 round New York and Brooklyn_ (Brooklyn, 1878), by
Henry P. Johnston, makes vol. iii. of the same series, and chapter
4 is given to the subject, and his narrative is well fortified by
documentary proofs. In placing the responsibility of the defeat, he
takes issue (p. 192) with Bancroft, Field, and Dawson, who charge it
upon Putnam. Dawson (_Battles_, i. 143) gives numerous references.
Carrington's _Battles of the Amer. Rev._ (ch. 31 and 32).

[778] _Annual Reg._, xix. ch. 5; _Parliamentary Reg._, xiii.; _The
Impartial Hist. of the late War_; Andrews's _Late War_, ch. 21;
Stedman's _Amer. War_, ch. 6; Bissett's _Reign of George III._, i.
401, also speaks of the retreat as "masterly;" Knight's _Pop. Hist.
England_, cited in Field, 447, and Mahon's.

[779] John Adams's _Works_, ix. 438; letters of Franklin and Morris
to Silas Deane, Oct. 1, 1776, noted in _Calendar of Lee MSS._, p. 7;
Stuart's _Jona. Trumbull_; Sedgwick's _Wm. Livingston_, 201; Donne's
_Corresp. of George III. and Lord North_, vol. ii.; _Rockingham and
his Contemp._, ii. 297; Russell's _Life of Fox_, and _Memorials and
Corresp. of Fox_, i. 145; Walpole's _Last Journals_, ii. 70.

[780] This map of Hill's is reproduced in Valentine's _Manual_, 1857,
and in Dunlap's _New York_ (vol. ii.).

[781] _Campaign of 1776_, p. 84.

[782] _Letters from America_, p. 429.

[783] Smith tells us that in 1766 a line of palisades, with
block-houses, still stretched across New York Island, near the line of
the present Chambers St., which had been built in the French war, at
a cost of about £8,000. Crèvecœur described the town in 1772, and his
description is translated in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, ii. 748. Cf.
Dawson's account in his _New York during the Revolution_. There are
various views of the town during the revolutionary period. One from
the southeast and another from the southwest, by P. Canot, 1768, are
reëngraved in Hough's translation of Pouchot (ii. 85, 88). Cf. _Doc.
Hist. N. Y._, octavo, ii. 43. There are others in the travels of Sandby
and Kalm. See Moore's _Diary of the Amer. Rev._, p. 311; Valentine's
_Manual_, 1852, p. 176; Appleton's _Journal_, xii. 464. A view of New
York as seen from the bay, found among Lord Rawdon's papers, is given
in _Harper's Mag._, xlvii. p. 23. Gaine's _N. Y. Pocket Almanac_, 1772,
has "Prospect of the City of N. Y." A bird's-eye view of the island, as
seen from above Fort Washington in 1781, is in Valentine's _Manual_,
1854. This last publication contains various views of revolutionary
landmarks, a of Hellgate (1850,—cf. _London Mag._, April, 1778);
the Battery and Bowling Green (1858, p. 633); the City Hall (1856,
p. 32; 1866, p. 547); the Beekman house, headquarters of Sir William
Howe in Sept., 1776 (1861, p. 496,—see also Gay, _Pop. Hist. U. S._,
iii. 503); the Rutgers mansion (1858, p. 607); Lord Stirling's house
(1854, p. 410); Alexander Hamilton's house (1858, p. 468). Knyphausen's
quarters in Wall St. are shown in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, June,
1883, p. 409.

[784] Gordon shows this. Cf. Putnam's letter to Trumbull, Sept. 12,
1776.

[785] _Correspondence of the Provincial Congress of N. Y._; Sparks's
_Washington_, iv.; _Memoirs of Chas. Lee_; Dawson's _N. Y. during the
Rev._, p. 82; Booth's _New York_, p. 493; Irving's _Washington_, ii.
ch. 33; Johnston's _Campaign of 1776_, ch. 5; Carrington's _Battles_,
ch. 33, and his paper in _Bay State Monthly_, March, 1884. An American
orderly-book, Sept. 1-13, is among the Northumberland Papers, Alnwick
Castle (_Third Rept. Hist. MSS. Commission_, p. 124). A copy of
George Clinton's reasons against evacuating is in the _Sparks MSS._,
no. xlix., vol. i. p. 10. Bancroft (ix. 175; final revision, v. 69)
shows how Stedman and W. B. Reed are in error in supposing that Lee's
counsels prevailed in ordering a retreat.

[786] Cf. Washington's views, 5 Force, ii. 495, and Niles's _Principles
and Acts_, etc. (1876 ed.), p. 464. "As the army now stands", said Knox
in 1776, "it is only a receptacle for ragamuffins" (Drake's _Knox_,
32). Cf. Greene's _Life of Greene_, i. ch. 6. The British army was
perhaps nearly double in numbers. On the extent of the opposing armies,
see 5 Force, i. and ii.; Carrington's _Battles_, p. 224; Johnston's
_Campaign of 1776_, ch. 3; Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev. War_, i. App.
599. On Oct. 3d a committee of Congress reported on the condition of
the army around New York (5 Force, ii. 1385), and _Ibid._ (iii. 449)
there is a return of the entire army made Nov. 3d.

[787] Original sources: Evidence of the Court of Inquiry in 5 Force,
ii, 1251; Washington to Congress in Sparks, iv. 94; Greene to Cooke,
Sept. 17th, in 5 Force, ii. 370 (cf. Green's _Greene_, i. 216); Cæsar
Rodney to Read, Sept. 18th, in _Life of George Read_, 191; Smallwood,
Oct. 12th, in 5 Force, ii. 1013; letter of Nicholas Fish, Sept. 19th,
in _Hist. Mag._, xiii. 33; letter, Sept. 24th, in _Evelyns in America_;
Major Baurmeister's account, Sept. 24th, in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
Jan., 1877, p. 33 (Johnston, p. 95),—a MS. owned by Bancroft; Rufus
Putnam's _Memoirs_ (Johnston, p. 136); Heath's _Memoirs_, p. 60; Jas.
S. Martin's _Narrative_ (Johnston, Doc., p. 81). Cf. note on the
authorities in Bancroft, orig. ed., ix. p. 122; also Gordon, ii. 327.
Later accounts: Johnston, pp. 92, 232; De Lancey in Jones, App. p. 604;
Irving's _Washington_, ii. 333.

Captain Nathan Hale, of the Connecticut troops, had been sent over
to Long Island to discover the intentions of the enemy; but, being
apprehended, was hanged as a spy, Sept. 22, 1776. Cf. Hinman's
_Connecticut during the Rev._, 82, and other histories of Connecticut;
I. W. Stuart's _Life of N. Hale_, Hartford, 1856, and New York, 1874;
_Memoir of N. Hale_, New Haven, 1844; Lossing's _Two Spies_ (N. Y.,
1886); Moore's _Diary of the Rev._, p. 314; _Songs and Ballads of the
Rev._, 130; _Worcester Soc. of Antiquity Proc._, 1879; H. P. Johnston
in _Harper's Monthly_, June, 1880 (vol. lxi. p. 53); Greene's _Hist.
View_, 338; and references in _Poole's Index_, p. 566. Congress voted
him a monument. Poore's _Descriptive Catal._, etc., index, p. 1294.

[788] See the plan in Johnston's _Campaign of 1776_ (ch. vi. p. 259),
with topography based on Randall's map and old surveys.

[789] There is in the N. Y. Hist. Soc. a contemporary view of Harlem
from Morrisania (1765), drawn from an original in the British Museum,
and this is reproduced in Valentine's _Manual_, 1863, p. 611. (Cf.
_King's Maps_, Brit. Mus., i. 476.)

[790] Original sources: Washington's letter to Congress, in Dawson,
i. 163, and Sparks, iv. 97; Geo. Clinton's letter in Dawson, i. 164,
and in Dawson's _N. Y. City during the Rev._ (1861), 108; General
Silliman's in App. of Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev. War_, p. 606; John
Gooch's in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, July, 1876, p. 334; original
documents in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, iv. 375; viii. 39, 627; and in 5
Force, ii.

On the British side, Gen. Howe's letter is in Dawson, i. 165; a letter
(Sept. 22d) in the Lord Wrottesley MSS., noted in _Hist. MSS. Com.
Second Rept._, p. 48; and Lushington's _Lord Harris_, p. 79. Later
accounts: Johnston, _Campaign of 1776_; Dawson's _Battles_, i. 160,
and his account in the _N. Y. City Manual_, 1868, p. 804; Carrington's
_Battles_, ch. 34; Lossing's _Field-Book_; Gay, iii. 509; J. A. Stevens
in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, iv. 351, vi. 260,—also see vii., viii. 39;
E. C. Benedicts _Battle of Harlem Heights_ (N. Y., 1881), read before
the N. Y. Hist. Soc., 1878; John Jay's _Centennial Discourse_, 1876,
with App. of documents, including extracts from Stiles's diary; Smyth
(_Lect. Mod. Hist._, Bohn's ed., ii. 459) on Washington's proposed
Fabian policy. Cf. also Greene's _Greene_, Reed's _Joseph Reed_, i.
237; Colonel Humphrey's _Life of Putnam_; _Memoirs of Col. Tench
Tilghman_ (Albany, 1876). Letters of Tilghman and others at this time,
copied from the papers in the N. Y. Hist. Soc., are in the _Sparks
MSS._, no. xxxix. Cf. histories of New York city. The amplest details
of the movements which led to the actions at Harlem, of the various
changes thereabouts, and of the later retreat to White Plains will be
found in Dawson's _Westchester County_, p. 229 _et seq._, abundantly
fortified with references.

[791] Cf. current accounts from the newspapers in Moore's _Diary_, p.
311. A popular colored print published in Paris not long afterwards
assigned the cause to American incendiaries (Dufossé's _Americana_,
1879, no. 5,480). There is in Valentine's _Manual_, 1866, p. 766, a
diagram marking the spread of the fire in 1776 compared with that of
1778. A view of Trinity Church, in New York, as ruined by the fire, is
given in _Harper's Mag._, xlvii. p. 24; Valentine's _Manual_, 1861, p.
654; and Gay, iii. 510.

[792] There were reports at the time that the British troops had set
the fire. Read's _George Read_, p. 196. De Lancey (Jones, i. p. 611)
collates the accounts, both British and American, citing that of Henry,
who had just been brought by water from Quebec, and who saw it from the
transport, as one of the best descriptions (Henry's _Campaign against
Quebec_). Sparks (iv. 100, 101) gives a note to Washington's account.
Howe's account is in 5 Force, ii., with other documents. Cf. J. C.
Hamilton's _Republic_, i. 127; Reed's _Joseph Reed_, 1, 213. Mahon
(_Hist. England_, vi. 116) believes it was not set. Lecky (_England in
Eighteenth Century_, iv. p. 5, with references), who is usually very
considerate in his criticisms, cites Washington's desire to burn New
York as a sort of justification of the British burning of Falmouth and
Norfolk; but he fails to distinguish between such wanton, isolated
destruction and one of strategical use.

[793] The original map is entitled _A Plan of the Operations of the
king's army under the command of General Sir William Howe, K. B., in
New York and East New Jersey against the American forces commanded by
General Washington from the 12th of October to the 28th of Nov., 1776,
wherein is particularly distinguished the engagement on the White
Plains, the 28th of October, by Claude Joseph Sauthier_. _Engraved
by Wm. Faden, 1777. Published Feb. 25, 1777._ The original MS. draft
is among the Faden maps (library of Congress), no. 58. The engraved
map is given in fac-simile in Dawson's _Westchester County_, p. 227.
The direction of the American movements is indicated by arrows on the
broken line (— — — —), and triple lines ≡ mark camps and positions.
The British marches are shown by line and dot (—·—·—·) and their
camps by □.

The American army extended from Fort Washington to Kingsbridge, when
Howe began a movement to threaten their communications with the upper
country. Leaving Percy to cover New York at McGowan's Pass, near
Bloomingdale (A), the British embarked at Turtle Bay, Harlem, and
Long Island (B) in detachments which landed at Frog's Neck (D, under
cover of the "Carysfoot", man-of-war, C) on Oct. 12, 16, and 17, when
the Americans (at E) on the 12th broke down the bridge in their front
across the marsh, and retired part towards Kingsbridge and part towards
New Rochelle. A MS. "Survey of Frog's Neck and the route of the British
army to the 24th of Oct., 1776, by Charles Blaskowitz", on a scale of
2,000 feet to an inch, is among the Faden maps (no. 57) in the library
of Congress. The British now proceeded farther by water to Pell's Point
(F), where they landed Oct. 18, and pushing forward had the same day
a skirmish with the retiring Americans (H), and still farther pursued
them and occupied the lower bank at Mamaroneck (M) while the Americans
held the opposite bank, Oct. 22. That same day, Knyphausen with his
Germans landed at Myer's Point (G), and moving forward took ground (at
K), and remained there from Oct. 22 to 28, while close by (at J) the
main body from Pell's Point were already in camp (Oct. 18-21), when, on
the 21st, they moved forward and encamped under Heister and Clinton (at
L), where they remained till Oct. 25, and then proceeded to N, where
they stayed till Oct. 28.

Meanwhile, the Americans (at Z) had passed Kingsbridge, breaking it
down after their passage, and then dividing into two detachments. One
of these proceeded and occupied the ridge of land from X to the White
Plains, intrenching at intervals along the summit running parallel to
Bronx River. The other division proceeded north through Wepperham,
and both reunited Oct. 25 within the lines at White Plains (Q). The
British (at N) advanced on the same day, and formed, Oct. 28, opposite
the American lines (at O), while on the same day Leslie attacked the
American corps of Spencer (at P), and Oct. 29 the Americans occupied
the lines at R, and Nov. 1 fell back across the Croton River. During
Oct. 30, a part of Percy's force from Bloomingdale had come up,
leaving the road as they came north at N, and joining the left of
the British line, in place of the troops which after the fight of
the 28th had encamped at S. The British now marched, part direct and
part by Tarrytown, to Dobbs Ferry (T), where they were in camp Nov.
6, and proceeding south they were at U, Nov. 13. Dawson, _Westchester
County_, 239, points out some errors in the names in this map, which
were allowed to stand in Stedman's map, and in the first edition of
Lossing's _Field-Book_. On the American side there is a _Plan of the
Country from Frog's Point to Croton River, showing the positions of
the American and British armies from the 12th of Oct., 1776, until the
engagement on the White Plains on the 28th_, drawn by S. Lewis from the
original surveys made by order of Washington, and published in 1807. It
has been reproduced in Dawson's _Westchester County_, from the original
edition of Marshall's _Washington_. Later eclectic plans can be found
in the _Life of Washington_, by Sparks; in Hamilton's _Republic of the
United States_, i. 132; and in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 820-826.

For Washington's headquarters (Miller house) see _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
vii. 108; and for a view of Chatterton's Hill, Gay, iii. 514.

[794] Documents in 5 Force, ii. (statement of the regiments, 1,319) and
iii.; Sparks's _Washington_, iv. 524-526, including Harrison's letter,
which is also in Dawson, i. 183, as well as a letter of Col. Haslett to
Gen. Rodney (i. 183). A letter in Johnson, Docs. p. 135. A letter of
James Tilton (Brunswick, N. J., Nov. 20, 1776) to Cæsar Rodney, among
the Pettit papers in the Amer. Philosophical Society, and a copy in the
_Sparks MSS._ (lii. vol. ii.). Allen's diary in Smith's _Pittsfield,
Mass._, i. 252. _Memoirs_ of Heath, and the _Rev. Services_ of Gen.
Hull, ch. 4. Newspaper accounts in Moore's _Diary_, 335; and the
statements of De Lancey in Jones, i. App. 621.

On the English side Howe's despatch (Nov. 30), which appeared in a
_Gazette_ of Dec. 30, is reprinted in Dawson, i. 184. This gave rise to
_Observations upon the Conduct of Sir Wm. Howe at the White Plains_,
London, 1779, known to be the work of Israel Mauduit, though published
anonymously. It included Howe's despatch. In this he criticises Howe
severely, as well as in his _Three Letters to Lt.-Gen. Sir William
Howe_ (London, 1781), with an appendix and map. When the brothers
Howe, general and admiral, were appointed, it was Hutchinson's opinion
(_Diary_, ii. 40) that "no choice could have been more generally
satisfactory to the kingdom." Hutchinson (_Ibid._, ii. 121) at this
time speaks of a letter from Major Dilkes (Nov. 3) describing the
series of actions, in which he calls White Plains the principal one,
and adds, "Though the king's troops had the advantaged pursuing them,
it does not appear that the loss was much different." Stedman's account
is in his ch. 7, and Eelking's in ch. 2 of his _Hülfstruppen_. Lowell
in his _Hessians_ uses several German accounts.

[795] Johnston, p. 262. Carrington, ch. 35. Bancroft, ix. ch. 10; final
revision, v. ch. 3 and 5. Dawson, ch. 14. Lossing's _Field-Book_,
vol. ii. For biographies: Washington, by Marshall, ii. ch. 8, and by
Irving, ii. ch. 37. J. C. Hamilton's _Republic_, i. 132. Reed's _Jos.
Reed_, i. ch. 12. Read's _George Read_, 210. _Memoirs_ of Col. Benj.
Tallmadge (N. Y., 1858). Dawson is still the amplest in detail. His
list of authorities on the action at White Plains is one of his longest
(_Westchester County_, 256, 271).

[796] JOHNSTON'S MAP.—Percy advancing from McGowan's Pass (T),
the several American outposts withdrew from Snake Hill (V), Harlem
Plains (D D), and across the hollow way (U), and under Cadwallader
resisted for a while the attack of Percy at W, till Lt.-Col. Stirling,
dispatched from the redoubt at F F, and landing at X, threatened to
intercept Cadwallader, when the Americans fell back to the lines above
Fort Washington. Meanwhile, two columns of attack approached the fort
from the other side. Cornwallis, embarking at Kingsbridge (B B), went
down Harlem River and landed at A A, under cover of batteries at F F,
and there attacked Col. Baxter at the redoubts, who retreated to the
fort. Knyphausen and Rall, advancing also from Kingsbridge (B B) to
Z, attacked Col. Rawling at Y, who also retreated to the fort. The
immediate outworks being carried on all sides, the fort surrendered
Nov. 16, 1776.

SAUTHIER-FADEN PLAN.—On the day of the fight at White Plains, Oct.
28, Knyphausen had left his camp (at K), and marching west had crossed
above Kingsbridge; and had encamped, Nov. 2, at W. The Waldeck regiment
stationed at New Rochelle had also marched, and Nov. 4 were at V, and
then proceeded towards Wepperham. The same day a portion of the British
under Grant, coming south from Dobbs Ferry, had left the main line at
4 and proceeded to 5 and 6, continuing their march next day to 7. The
American outposts on Tetard's Hill withdrew to the works about Fort
Washington, when Knyphausen threatened to cut them off. The siege and
capture of Fort Washington now followed. This accomplished, Cornwallis
embarked a part of his force at "Spiting Devil Creek" and part at 8,
united them on landing, Nov. 18, at 1, and encamped that night at
2, the garrison of Fort Lee having already fled towards 3, whither
Cornwallis followed them.

NOTE TO THE OPPOSITE MAP.—This sketch follows _A topographical map
of the north part of New York Island, exhibiting the plan of Fort
Washington, now Fort Knyphausen, with the rebel lines to the southward,
which were forced by the troops under the command of the Rt. Hon^{ble}
Earl Percy the 16th Nov. 1776, and surveyed immediately after by order
of his lordship by Claude Joseph Sauthier, to which is added the attack
made to the north by the Hessians, surveyed by order of Lieut.-Gen.
Knyphausen_. London, Wm. Faden, March 1, 1777.

The broken lines (— — —) represent roads. The Hessians advanced from
Westchester County by Kingsbridge, under Knyphausen, with detachments
of his corps, the brigade of "Raille", and the regiment of Waldeck.
They crossed the little stream L in two columns. That of Raille's
[Rall, Rahl] mounted the hill, forced the battery of twelve-pounders
and howitzers at H, and was joined before G by Knyphausen's column,
which had followed up the stream. Both pushed on and carried the works
at A. The British light infantry under Brig.-Gen. Matthews, to be
supported by the grenadiers and 33d regiment under Cornwallis, landed
at B under cover of batteries at E, whereupon the Americans on the
hill at J retired to the main works. The 42d regiment under Lt.-Col.
Stirling, with two battalions of the second brigade, crossed the river
by the dot and dash line (·—·—) and landed at C as a feint, and
advanced by the battery M. Earl Percy with a brigade of English and
another of Hessians left the advanced posts of the British at McGowan's
Pass, and following the main road (— — —) forced the successive
American lines through their abatis (× × × ×) and attacked at D.
Philip's or Dightman's bridge is at F. The British vessel "Pearl" at
K assisted the attack at A. The buildings marked _a_ were barracks
erected for winter-quarters by the Americans, but burned by them when
the British landed at Frog's Neck.

Sauthier's plan is included in _The American Atlas_, no. 23, and in
Stedman (i. 210). Three MS. plans of the attack on Fort Washington,
one of them surveyed by Sauthier on the day of the attack by order of
Lord Percy, are among the Faden maps (nos. 59, 60, 61) in the library
of Congress. The engraved map is reproduced in _The Evelyns in America_
(p. 318), in Valentine's _Manual_, 1859, p. 120 (see 1861, p. 429), and
in the _Calendar of Hist. MSS. relative to the War of the Revolution_
(Albany, 1868), i. 532.

There is in the _Geschichte der Kriege in und ausser Europa_,
Nuremberg, 1777, _Sechster Theil_, a folding plan of the operations
on New York Island in the autumn of 1776, showing the attack on Fort
Washington, "nun das Fort Knyphausen genannt" (see also "Achter
Theil"). A German plan belonging to Mr. J. C. Brevoort, after an
original preserved in Cassel, is given in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
Feb., 1877.

The leading American later accounts give eclectic plans,—Sparks's
_Washington_, iv. 96, 160; Guizot's _Washington_; Carrington's
_Battles_, p. 254,—but they include all the movements in the north
part of the island. Cf. also Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 816, and
Grant's _British Battles_, ii. 147.

A drawing found among Lord Rawdon's papers, representing the landing of
the British forces under Cornwallis, Nov. 20, 1776, on the Jersey side
of the Hudson, after the fall of Fort Washington, is given in _Harper's
Mag._, xlvii. p. 25.

[797] Original sources: Documents in 5 Force, iii.; Washington to
Congress in Sparks, iv. 178, and Dawson, i. 193; letters of Samuel
Chase, Nov. 21-23, in the _Sparks MSS._, ix.; letter in _Hist. Mag._,
March, 1874, p. 180; newspaper accounts in Moore's _Diary_, 345, 348;
Graydon's _Memoirs_, 197; Heath's _Memoirs_, 86; Gordon's _Amer.
Rev._, ii. 350; _N. Hampshire State Papers_, viii. 408. On the British
side, Howe's despatch to Germain is in Dawson, i. 194; Lowell, in his
_Hessians_, p. 80, uses German diaries (cf. Eelking's _Hülfstruppen_,
i. 84).

Later accounts: Bancroft, orig. ed., ix. ch. 11; final revision, v.
ch. 5; Johnston, 276; Carrington, ch. 37; Dawson, i. 188; Lossing's
_Field-Book_, ii.; Gay, iii. 517.

G. W. Greene, in his _Life of Gen. Greene_, as it was the first
military mistake of that officer, is at pains to treat the history of
the siege at considerable length, enlarging upon antecedent events
(i. ch. 10 and 11). Greene had urgently claimed that it was advisable
to attempt to hold the fort, and letters giving his reasons are in
Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._, i. 297, and Drake's _Knox_, 33. G. W.
Greene holds that Gen. Greene had a right to expect a better defence,
and championed his ancestor in a tract against the criticisms of
Bancroft (Greene's _Greene_, ii. 431, 470), who put the responsibility
of the disaster upon Green's persistent refusal to evacuate the fort.
This Bancroft maintains in his original edition, and in his final
revision, where, however, he recognizes, but does not deem essential
to the British success, the treachery of Magaw's adjutant, William
Demont. There had been an intimation in Graydon's _Memoirs_ that Howe
had been helped by some kind of faithlessness in the American ranks.
In February, 1877, in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (i. 65, 756), Mr. E.
F. De Lancey first made public a letter of Demont written in 1792, in
which he acknowledged having carried the plans of the fort to Percy,
"by which the fortress was taken", and this information is thought to
have induced Howe to make his sudden withdrawal from Washington's front
at White Plains. De Lancey's paper was published separately as _Capture
of Mount Washington, 1776, the result of treason_ (New York, 1777),
and he repeated the story in the notes (i. p. 626) to Jones's _N. Y.
during the Rev. War._ Johnston (p. 283) doubts if this treachery was
decisive of the result. Cf. further in lives of Washington by Marshall
and Irving (ii. ch. 38, 40); Reed's _Joseph Reed_ (i. ch. 13); and a
paper by W. H. Rawle on the part taken by Col. Lambert Cadwalader, in
the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, April, 1886, p. 11. There is a portrait of
Cadwalader in the _Penna. Archives_, vol. x. A letter (Dec. 23, 1778)
of Robert Magaw on the surrender of Fort Washington is in the _Sparks
MSS._, no. xlix. vol. iii. Cf. the account of Magaw in the _Mag. of
Western History_, September, 1886, p. 678.

[798] Sparks, iv. 186; Greene's _Greene_, ch. 12. Cf. on Fort Lee
_Appleton's Journal_, vi. 645, 660, 673, 688. Cf. the present volume,
ch. v.

[799] There is a fac-simile of it in Valentine's _Manual_, 1864, p.
668. A German map is given in the _Geschichte der Kriege in und ausser
Europa_ (Nuremberg, 1776).

[800] A map was annexed to Israel Mauduit's criticism on Howe's
conduct of this campaign, _Three letters to Lt.-Gen. Sir Wm. Howe_
(London, 1781). Marshall gives maps in both the large and small atlases
accompanying his _Life of Washington_. A MS. plan is in the Heath
Papers (i. 224) in Mass. Hist. Soc. library.

[801] The _Calendar of the Lee MSS._, p. 8, shows a letter, Dec. 20, of
Robert Morris, on the campaign's misfortunes, which is printed in the
_Diplomatic Corresp._, i. 225.

[802] The _Journal of Samuel Nash_, Jan. 1, 1776, to Jan. 9, 1777;
diary in _Hist. Mag._, Dec., 1863, covering Aug.-Dec., 1776; N. Fish's
account in _Ibid._, Jan., 1869 (iii. 33). Rufus Putnam's journal in
Mary Cone's _Life of Rufus Putnam_ (Cleveland, 1886); Moravian Journals
in N. Y. City, in _The Moravian_, 1876; _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, i. 133,
250; Johnston, p. 101. There is in _The Evelyns in America_ (p. 319) a
"Journal of the operations of the American army under Gen. Sir William
Howe from the Evacuation of Boston to the end of the Campaign of 1776",
by a British officer. Cf. _Gent. Mag._, Nov. and Dec., 1776. The
letters of Maj. Francis Hutcheson are in the _Haldimand Papers_ (Brit.
Museum). Howe's letters to Germain are in the _Sparks MSS._, lviii.,
part 2. The military movements near New York are chronicled in papers
in the London War-Office, "North America, 1773-1776."

Respecting New York city during this period, there are data in _New
York City during the American Revolution_, being a _Collection of
original papers, now first published from MSS. in the possession of
the Mercantile Library_, with an introduction by H. B. Dawson (N. Y.,
privately printed, 1861), which includes an account by William Butler;
and in papers in Valentine's _Manual_ (1862, p. 652). Cf. _Harper's
Mag._, xxxvii. 180, and _Scribner's Monthly_, Jan., 1876.

[803] Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 433; _Corresp. of the Rev._, i. 225;
Wilkinson's _Memoirs_, i. ch. 2.

[804] 4 _Force's Archives_, vi., and 5, vols. i., ii., and iii.;
Lossing's _Schuyler_, ii. 92; John Adams's _Works_, iii. 47.

[805] Various letters of this period about the army are in the Persifer
Frazer Papers (_Sparks MSS._, xxi., from July 9 to Nov. 18, 1776); in
the Gates Papers (copies in part among the _Sparks MSS._, xxii.); in
the Schuyler Papers as used in Lossing's _Schuyler_, and as existing
in the N. Y. Archives (copies in part in the _Sparks MSS._, xxix.). A
letter of Thomas Hartley (Ticonderoga, July 19, 1776) in _Mag. West.
Hist._, Sept., 1886, p. 677; one of Wayne (July 31) to Franklin in
_Sparks MSS._, no. lvii. The _N. H. State Papers_, viii., 311, 315,
325-6, 329, throw light on the feelings of the adjacent country,—Col.
Asa Potter seeking to throw the people upon Burgoyne's protection
against the Indians. The _N. H. Rev. Rolls_, ii. 2, 22, show how troops
were sent to Ticonderoga as the spring opened.

Orderly-books and army diaries of the period have been noted as
follows: Col. J. Bagley's, Lake George (_Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, new
ser., i. 134). Col. Ruggles Woodbridge, Ticonderoga, Aug. 25 to Oct.
27, 1776 (_Sparks MSS._, lx. p. 317). Col. Wheelock's, Aug.-Nov., 1776
(in _Mass. Archives_). Anthony Wayne's _Orderly book of the northern
army, at Ticonderoga and Mt. Independence, from October 17th, 1776,
to January 8th, 1777, with biographical and explanatory notes, and an
appendix_ (Albany, 1859, being no. 3 of Munsell's historical series).
It gives the daily orders issued by General Gates and himself. Letters
of Wayne from Feb. to April, 1777 are in the _St. Clair Papers_, i.
384, etc. Moses Greenleaf, Ticonderoga, March 23 to April 4, 1777
(among the _Greenleaf MSS._, in Mass. Hist. Soc.).

_Journal of Rev. Ammi R. Robbins_ [a chaplain in the American army] _in
the northern campaign of 1776_ (New Haven, 1850). It extends from March
18 to Oct. 29, and covers a part of the retreat from Canada. Diary of
Lieutenant Jonathan Burton, Aug. 1 to Nov. 29, 1776 (_New Hampshire
State Papers_, xiv.).

[806] The original is among the Gates Papers (cf. _Sparks MSS._, xxii.
and xxxix.). They are printed in Wilkinson's _Memoirs_ (i. 83) and
Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._ (i. 537).

[807] They are printed in 5 _Force's Amer. Archives_ (ii. 1102); Dawson
(i. 171, 172); Arnold's _Arnold_ (p. 118). See also Sparks's _Corresp.
of the Rev._ (i. App.), and 5 _Force_ (vols. i., ii., iii.).

[808] Other contemporary American accounts are in Wilkinson's _Memoirs_
(ch. 2); Trumbull's _Autobiography_ (p. 34); Marshall's _Washington_
(iii. ch. 1).

[809] Later accounts are in Cooper's _Naval Hist._; Bancroft's final
revision (v. ch. 4); Irving's _Washington_ (ii. ch. 39); Lossing's
_Schuyler_ (ii. 116, 137), his _Field-Book_ (vol. i.), and a paper
in _Harper's Monthly_ (xxiii. 726); Dawson's _Battles_ (i. ch. 13);
Arnold's _Arnold_ (ch. 6); W. C. Watson in _Amer. Hist. Record_,
iii. 438, 501 (Oct., Nov., 1774); Palmer's _Lake Champlain_ (ch.
7); _Wayne's Orderly-Book_, where Arnold's tactics are particularly
examined; a pamphlet, _Battle of Valcour_ (Plattsburg, 1876); and
Osler's _Life of Viscount Exmouth_. W. L. Stone in his notes to Pausch
(p. 85) thinks the account by that German artillerist and that in
_Hadden's Journal_ as edited by Gen. Rogers are the best ones.

[810] A MS. draft of Brassier's survey (1762) is in the Faden
collection, no. 20-1/2 in the library of Congress.

[811] Vol. i. p. 163; and for a view of the spot, p. 162.

[812] The catalogue of the _Brit. Mus. additional MSS._ (no. 31,537)
refers to a similar map. See the map in _The North American Atlas_
(1777). The original MS. draft of the map engraved by Faden is in the
library of Congress (Faden collection, no. 21). There are maps of the
lake in _Wayne's Orderly-Book_, and in Palmer's _Lake Champlain_. An
elaborate survey of Lake Champlain, made in 1778-1779, one inch to the
mile, is also among the Faden maps (no. 64,—the library of Congress).

[813] It was printed in the _Gent. Mag._, April, 1778. In the appendix
of Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_ it has the king's comments on it, and it was
given in this way from a manuscript in the royal hand in Albemarle's
_Rockingham and his Contemporaries_ (ii. 330). Lord Geo. Germain's
instructions to Carleton relative to the campaign are in the _Gent.
Mag._, Feb., 1778. The _Gent. Mag._ (Oct., 1777, p. 472) warned the
public of the difficulties which Burgoyne must expect to encounter.

[814] Comment from a British officer is in Anburey's _Travels_. Lecky
(iv. 31) shows the way in which the army was raised. The organization
of the army is explained in a chapter in _Hadden's Journal_. The
details of the dispatching of troops are embraced in the volume
"Secretary of State, 1776", War Office, London. The letter of Carleton
to Germain, Quebec, May 20, 1777, expressing his chagrin at not being
appointed to lead the expedition, but promising aid to Burgoyne, is
printed in Brymner's _Report on the Canadian Archives_ (1885, p.
cxxxii.) with Germain's answer. Howe in New York had notified Carleton
at Quebec, April 5, that he should not be able to communicate with
Burgoyne. Walpole records in his _Last Journals_ (ii. 160), "Lord
George Germain owned that General Howe had defeated all his views
by going to Maryland instead of waiting to join Burgoyne." There
may have been a purpose to help create the impression of Burgoyne's
destination, which that officer tried to spread, in professing to aim
at Connecticut, when Howe in April sent an expedition, under Tryon,
to Danbury, in Connecticut, to destroy stores. This was accomplished,
but Wooster and Arnold pressed the returning party with vigor and
inflicted a considerable loss. Wooster was killed. Congress ordered a
monument to his memory (_Journals_, ii. 168. Cf. Deming's oration at
the dedication of a monument in 1854, and Hinman's _Connecticut during
the Rev._, 155). The contemporary accounts are Howe's despatch to
Germain, and the narrative in the _Connecticut Journal_, April 30 (both
given in Dawson's _Battles_, i. 217, 219); current reports in Moore's
_Diary_, 423, 441; Trumbull's and Sullivan's letters in _N. Hampshire
State Papers_, viii. 547, 549, 556; a letter of James Wadsworth, dated
at Durham, May 1, 1777, in _Trumbull MSS._, vi. 94; with accounts in
Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, i. 178, and Stedman's _Amer. War_,
ch. 14. Marshall's account in his _Washington_ was controverted by E.
D. Whittlesey (_N. Y. Hist. Coll._, 2d ser., ii. 227). Cf. Sparks's
_Washington_, iv. 404; Leake's _Lamb_, ch. xi., with a map; Stuart's
_Gov. Trumbull_, ch. 27; Irving's _Washington_, iii. 47; I. N. Arnold's
_Gen. Arnold_, ch. 7; Bancroft, ix. 346; Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii.
543; Hollister's _Connecticut_, ii. ch. 12. For local associations
see Dwight's _Travels_, iii.; Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 407-416
(with views); Teller's _Ridgefield_, p. 69 (1878), with a view of the
battlefield, April 27, 1777; C. B. Todd's _Redding_ (1880, p. 47).

[815] These include the Riedesel Memoirs, Schlözer's _Briefwechsel_
(iii. 27, 321, iv. 288), Eelking's, _Deutsche Hülfstruppen_ (ch. 4).
There is a letter from a Brunswick officer in Canada in J. H. Hering's
_Weeklijksche Berichten_ (Amsterdam,—noted in Muller's _Books on
America_, 1877, no. 1,410).

[816] There is a contemporary broadside of it in the Mass. Hist. Soc.
library, and it was printed for the English public in the _Gentleman's
Mag._ in August. Walpole, in London, in August, records his opinion of
it, "penned with such threats as would expose him to derision if he
failed, and would diminish the lustre of his success if he obtained
any" (_Last Journals_, ii. 130). The dates given to it vary from
June 29th to July 4th. It will also be found in Anburey's _Travels_;
Thacher's _Military Journal_; Moore's _Diary_ (p. 454), from the
_Penna. Evening Post_, Aug. 21; Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_ (App. F);
Riedesel's _Memoirs_; _Hadden's Journal_ (p. 59); _Proceedings_ of the
Mass. Hist. Soc. (xii. 189) and N. Y. Hist. Soc. (Jan., 1872); _Vermont
Hist. Soc. Collections_ (i. 163); _Niles's Register_ (1876 ed., p.
179); _N. Hampshire State Papers_, viii. 660. It instigated various
burlesques (Moore's _Diary_, 459; his _Songs and Ballads of the Rev._,
167).

[817] A map by Montresor, made in 1775, showing the antecedent
knowledge of the country, is given in the _American Atlas_.

_A topographical Map of Hudson's River, ... also the Communication with
Canada by Lake George and Lake Champlain, as high as Fort Chambly, by
Claude Joseph Sauthier. Engraved by Wm. Faden, published (London) Oct.
1, 1776._

_A map of the inhabited parts of Canada, from the French surveys, with
the frontiers of New York and New England, from the large survey by
Claude Joseph Sauthier, engraved by Wm. Faden_ (London), 1777. It is
dedicated to Burgoyne, and in the margin is a table showing the various
winter-quarters of the king's army in Canada in 1776. In 1777, Le
Rouge, in Paris, reproduced Sauthier's drafts as _Cours de la rivière
d'Hudson et la Communication avec le Canada par le lac Champlain
jusqu'au Fort Chambly_. (Cf. the map in the _Atlas Amériquain_, no.
23.) Sauthier's surveys were also used in a map of New York and
adjacent provinces, published at Augsburg in 1777, which is reproduced
in Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._ (vol. i.). The _Gentleman's Mag._,
Jan., 1778, had a map of the Hudson River and the adjacent country. The
_London Mag._, 1778, had a map showing the country between Albany and
Ticonderoga. It was drawn by Thomas Kitchin, who in the same year made
a map of the Hudson and adjacent parts from Albany to New York.

In 1780 (Feb. 1st) Faden published a more detailed map as drawn by Mr.
Medcalfe, and called _A map of the Country in which the army under
Lieutenant-General Burgoyne acted in the Campaign of 1777, shewing the
marches of the army and the places of the principal actions_. (Cf. map
in Stedman, reproduced in illus. ed. of Irving's _Washington_, iii. 93.)

The maps as given in Burgoyne's _State of the Expedition from Canada_
(London, 1780) are those usually followed. The original MS. drafts of
these, used for engraving them, are among the Faden maps (nos. 66-69)
in the library of Congress. A general map of the campaign is given in
Hilliard d'Auberteuil's _Essais_ (i. 205).

There is in _Hadden's Journal_ (p. 90) a drawn map of the campaign
between Crown Point and Stillwater, showing the marches of the British
army and the points of conflict. Among the Faden maps (nos. 62, 63)
in the library of Congress is a MS. map of "Lake Champlain and Lake
George, and the country between the Hudson and the lakes on the west
and the Connecticut on the east." There are later and eclectic maps
given in Gordon's _American Revolution_; Anburey's _Travels_; Neilson's
_Burgoyne's Campaign_, used and corrected by Stone in his _Campaign of
Burgoyne_; Carrington's _Battles_ (312); Burgoyne's _Orderly-Book_;
_Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (May, 1877).

[818] Thomson, _Ohio Bibliog._, no. 1,011; _Brinley Catal._, no. 4,135
($50); Menzies, no. 1,741 ($65).

[819] Cf. also _Ibid._, ii., App. pp. 510, 513.

[820] _The life and Public services of Arthur St. Clair, with his
correspondence and other papers arranged and annotated by Wm. Henry
Smith._ The correspondence begins in 1771. H. P. Johnston thinks Smith
too sweeping and injudicial in his editing (_Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
Aug., 1882). St. Clair took command at Ticonderoga June 12th. Smith
includes in his book the proceedings of the councils of war (pp. 404,
420), and the various letters of St. Clair, respecting his retreat,
to Bowdoin (also in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, vi. 356), Hancock, Jay,
Washington, and others (pp. 396, 414, 423, 425, 426, 429, 433). Cf.
Dawson's _Battles_. St. Clair's letter, July 7th, at Otter Creek, to
the president of the Convention of Vermont, is in _N. H. State Papers_,
viii. 618.

[821] _Sparks MSS._, no. xxix. The papers of the trial of St. Clair
are in _Ibid._, xlix., vol. ii. Congress ordered the inquiry (_N. H.
State Papers_, viii. 649). There are other contemporary accounts of the
evacuation in Moore's _Diary of the Revolution_ (p. 470); Wilkinson's
_Memoirs_ (ch. 4 and 5); original documents in _5 Force's Archives_,
vols. i., ii., and iii., and in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (Aug., 1882);
letter of Asa Fitch, _Hist. Mag._ (iii. 7); a diary among the _Moses
Greenleaf's MSS._ (Mass. Hist. Society), beginning April 23, 1777, and
ending Nov. 22d, near Philadelphia; a diary of Samuel Sweat (June 18,
1777, etc.) in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ (vol. xvii. 287). A letter of
one Cogan complains of the unnecessary retreat (_N. H. State Papers_,
viii. 640), and other accounts and comment of that day, in Sparks's
_Washington_, vol. v.; _Heath Papers_ (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._), p.
65. Cf. further, Lossing's _Schuyler_ (ii. ch. 10, etc.); _General
Hull's Revolutionary Services_ (ch. 7); Dawson's _Battles_ (ch. 20);
Van Rensselaer's _Essays_; Jay's _Life of Jay_ (i. 74); Sparks's
_Gouverneur Morris_ (i. ch. 8); J. C. Hamilton's _Life of Hamilton_ (i.
79, 91); Hamilton's _Works_ (i. 31); Sedgwick's _Livingston_ (p. 233);
Watson's _Essex County, N. Y._ (ch. 11); De Costa's _Fort George_;
Smith's _Pittsfield, Mass._ (i. 282); _Hist. Mag._, Dec., 1862, July,
1867 (p. 303), Aug., 1869 (p. 84, by Hiland Hall); Lewis Kellogg's
_Hist. Discourse_ (Whitehall, 1847).

[822] Cf. Palmer's _Lake Champlain_ and Watson's _Essex County, N. Y._

[823] It is also in the _St. Clair Papers_, i. 76. See _post_, p. 352.

[824] Cf. further, Wilkinson's _Memoir_ (ch. 5); Lossing's _Schuyler_
(ii. 223), and his _Field-Book_ (i. 145); Carrington's _Battles_
(ch. 45); Henry Clark's _Hist. Address_, July 7, 1859 (Rutland,
1859); Stone's _Beverley, Mass._ (p. 75); Amos Churchill's _Hist. of
Hubbardton_ (1855); _Hadden's Journal_ (App. no. 15); W. C. Watson in
_Amer. Hist. Record_ (ii. 455); beside such personal narratives as Enos
Stone's Journal in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._ (1861, p. 299,—he
was made a prisoner), and the _Narrative of the captivity & sufferings
of Ebenezer Fletcher, of New Ipswich, who was severely wounded and
taken prisoner at the battle of Hubbardston, Vt., in 1777, by the
British and Indians_ (New Ipswich, N. H., 1813?).

There are letters of Stephen Peabody and Col. Bellows in _N. H. State
Papers_, viii. 625. There is a British diary by Joshua Pell, Jr.,
published in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (ii. 107).

[825] There is a composite map in Carrington's _Battles_ (p. 322),
and another in Lossing's _Field-Book_ (i. 145), with a view of the
battlefield (p. 146).

[826] Cf. _Vermont Hist. Soc. Coll._, i. 181, 182, where much will be
found from the Council of Safety's records and in letters from Schuyler
and Warner. Cf. also _N. H. State Papers_, viii. 658.

[827] An earlier letter of Willet, July 28th, warning the people at
German Flats, is in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (1884), p. 285. Cf. also
Wm. M. Willet's _Narrative of the Military actions of Col. Marinus
Willet_ (N. Y., 1831), for Willet's hasty and his more leisurely
accounts, which differ somewhat in minor details.

[828] This orderly-book was originally printed in the _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._ (March and April, 1881). The appended essays are incisive
expressions of individual views at variance with general beliefs (cf.
_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, March, 1883, p. 219), De Peyster defending
Johnson, who was his great-uncle, from the charge of violating his
parole, and Myers agreeing with him.

[829] It is reprinted in the _Cent. Celebrations of N. Y._ (1879, p.
55), where will be found other addresses and engraved views of the
present aspect of the scene of the conflict (pp. 91, 127). These local
associations are also traced in S. W. D. North's "Story of a Monument"
in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (xii. 97,—Aug., 1884; cf. also vol. i. p.
641), giving views of the monuments, a suspicious portrait of Herkimer
(p. 103), and a view of Herkimer's house (p. 111,—cf. Lossing, i.
260). On the various spellings of Herkimer's name, see _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, Aug., 1884, p. 283. Measures for erecting a monument to him
are recorded in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1845, p. 172. The later
writers are H. R. Schoolcraft in the _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc._ (1845, p.
132); Bancroft (ix. 378); Irving's _Washington_ (iii. ch. 15, 16, 17);
Lossing's _Schuyler_ (ii. 273), and his _Field-Book_ (vol. i.); I. N.
Arnold's _Benedict Arnold_ (ch. 8); J. W. De Peyster in _Hist. Mag._
(xv. 38) and _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (ii. 22); T. D. English in _Harper's
Monthly_ (xxiii. 327); H. C. Goodwin's _Pioneer History of Cortland
County_; Benton's _Herkimer County_ (ch. 5); Campbell's _Tryon County_
(ch. 4); Pomroy Jones's _Annals of Oneida County_, with some local
touches; Ketchum's _Buffalo_; S. W. D. North's "Historical Significance
of the Battle" in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (i. 641); the appendix of
_Hadden's Journal_ (no. 17) for La Corne St. Luc; Hull's _Revolutionary
Services_ (ch. 8); Dawson's _Battles_ (i. ch. 21); Carrington's
_Battles_ (ch. 45). The German accounts are given in Eelking's _Die
Deutschen Hülfstruppen_, with more prominence naturally from the
Hessian participants than the English or American narratives afford;
and in Frederick Kapp's _Die Deutschen im Staate New York_ (N. Y.,
1884), equally glowing for his countrymen under Herkimer, on the other
side. Cf. Lowell's _Hessians_. The story of Hanyost Schuyler's carrying
a deceitful message from Arnold, which Dr. Belknap in 1796 picked up on
the spot (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xix. 408), and as told in Dwight's
_Travels_ (iii. 183), in Benton's _Herkimer County_ (p. 82), and other
later books, is denied by Dawson (i. 247).

[830] _Gent. Mag._, Mar., 1778; Burgoyne's _State of the Expedition_;
App. to Roberts's _Address_; Dawson, i. 250; _Cent. Celebrations of N.
Y._, p. 131, and the letter of Col. Daniel Claus, dated at Montreal,
Oct. 16, 1777, (_N. Y. Col. Docs._, viii. 718; _Cent. Celebrations
of N. Y._, p. 141; Roberts's _Address_, App.) The Tory account is
in Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._ (i. 216, with App., p. 700). St.
Leger's retreat is described in a letter, Montreal, Sept. 4, 1777,
in the Stopford Sackville Papers, printed in _Ninth Report of the
Hist. Mss. Commission_ (London, 1883, App. p. 87). The account of the
_Annual Register_, 1777, is copied in the _Cent. Celebrations of the
State of N. Y._ (p. 137), and is the basis of Andrews's _History_. Cf.
Almon's _Parliamentary debates_ (vol. viii.), and Beatson's _Naval and
Military Memoirs_ (vi. 69). The miniature of St. Leger, by R. Cosway,
as engraved in the _European Mag._, 1795, is given in fac-simile in
Stone's _Campaign of Burgoyne_. Cf. _Johnson's Orderly-book_ and
Hubbard's _Red Jacket_.

[831] It is also given in Hough's edition of _Pouchot_, i. 207, with a
plan of the modern city of Rome, superposed. A plan of Rome in 1802,
showing the position of the fort, is in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, iii.
687.

[832] There are other plans in Campbell's _Tryon County_; and in
Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 249,—the last also giving a view of the
site of the fort (p. 231) and of the battlefield of Oriskany (p. 245).

[833] Cf. the _Memoir and official Correspondence of Stark_, by Caleb
Stark (Concord, 1860), and H. W. Herrick On "Stark and Bennington", in
_Harper's Monthly_ (vol. lv. 511).

[834] De Lancey (Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, i. 685) has a note on
the forces engaged.

[835] In "Mather and other papers", no. 78. There is a contemporary
copy among the _Trumbull MSS._, viii. 176.

[836] Also in Stone's _Burgoyne's Campaign_, App., iii.; _Hadden's
Journal_ (p. 111); Moore's _Diary of the Rev._ (p. 488); Burgoyne's
_State of the Expedition_; _N. H. State Papers_, viii. 664; Guild's
_Chaplain Smith and the Baptist_ (differing somewhat, p. 203). Cf.
Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_ (p. 271), and his _State of the Expedition_.

[837] "Of an affair which happened near Walloon Creek" (_Sparks MSS._,
lviii., Part 2). Much on this expedition is in the English Public
Record Office, "vol. 351, Quebec, xvii."

[838] Cf. Lowell's _Hessians_, p. 136; Riedesel, who in his
_Memoirs_ (i. 259, 299) somewhat differs from Burgoyne; Schlözer's
_Briefwechsel_; and Stedman's _Amer. War_ (i. ch. 17).

[839] Other contemporary narratives are in the Appendix of Stone's
_Campaign of Burgoyne_ (p. 286); Wilkinson's _Memoirs_ (i. ch. 5);
and _Hadden's Journal_ (p. 120). There are letters by Peter Clark in
the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._ (April, 1860, p. 121). A letter of
the Council of Safety, written during the action, is in _N. H. State
Papers_, viii. 669, where is also Stark's letter, when he sent the
trophies, and the communication of the news to the militia (_Ibid._ p.
623). Stark was thanked by Congress, and made a brigadier (_Ibid._ p.
702). He had felt hurt at the failure of such recognition by Congress
earlier (_Ibid._ p. 662).

[840] Cf. also the _Vermont Hist. Gazetteer_, (vol. i.); A. M.
Caverley's _Pittsford, Vt._; Frisbie and Ruggles's _Poultney, Vt._;
the _N. H. Adj.-General's Report_, 1866 (ii. 315); C. C. Coffin's
_Boscawen_, N. H. (p. 257); H. H. Saunderson's _Charlestown, N.
H._ (ch. 7); O. E. Randall's _Chesterfield, N. H._; N. Bouton's
_Concord, N. H._ (ch. 11); D. A. Goddard's paper on the part borne by
Massachusetts in the battle, in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ (xvii. 90,
May, 1879); Holland's _Western Mass._ (ch. 15); Smith's _Pittsfield,
Mass._ (i. 293); Hammond's _N. H. Rev. Rolls_ (ii. 139).

[841] Cf. Bancroft (ix. ch. 22); Irving's _Washington_ (iii. ch. 16);
Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._ (iii. 581); Lossing's _Schuyler_ (ii. ch.
14), his _Field-Book_ (vol. i.), and his article in _Harper's Monthly_
(vol. v.); Dawson's _Battles_ (i. 255), and his account in the _Hist.
Mag._ (xiii. 289, May, 1870); Carrington's _Battles_ (i. 334); Isaac
Jenning's _Memorials of a Century_ (Boston, 1869, ch. 12; see _N. E.
Hist. Geneal. Reg._, 1870, p. 94).

[842] Hiland Hall's paper on Warner's share in the battle of Bennington
is reprinted from the _Vermont Quarterly Mag._ (1861, p. 156), in the
_Vermont Hist. Coll._ (i. p. 209). Cf. _Hist. Mag._ (vol. iv., Sept.,
1860, p. 268), and Chipman's _Life of Warner_.

[843] Albert Tyler's _Bennington: the Battles, 1777. Centennial
celebration, 1877_ (Worcester, 1878).

_Centennial anniversary of the independence of the state of
Vermont and the battle of Bennington, Aug. 15 and 16, 1877.
Westminster—Hubbardton—Windsor_ (Rutland, 1879). This volume contains
an oration by S. C. Bartlett and an historical paper by Hiland Hall,
with engraved portraits of some of the chief participants.

F. W. Coburn's _Centennial Hist. of the Battle of Bennington_ (Boston,
1877).

A Bennington Historical Society was formed in 1876.

[844] The original of this, a carefully drawn MS. map of "the position
of Col. Baum, 16th Aug., 1776, with the attack of the enemy at
Walmscook near Bennington, by Lieut. Durnford, engineer", is among
the Faden maps (no. 65). This Faden map is reproduced in Jenning's
_Memorials of a Century_ (Boston, 1869), and sketches of it will
be found, with views of the field, in Lossing's _Field-Book of the
Revolution_ (i. 395, 396); Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._ (iii. 583);
_Harper's Monthly_ (xxi. 325). Carrington says the map of Baum's march
in _Harper's Mag._, October, 1877, is incorrect. Stone, _Campaign of
Burgoyne_ (p. 35), gives a view of the house in which Baum died.

[845] Cf. Lossing's _Schuyler_ (ii. 299); Wells's _Sam. Adams_ (ii. ch.
45); Sparks's _Washington_ (iii. 535; v. p. 14), his _Correspondence of
the Rev._ (i. 427), and his _Gouverneur Morris_ (i. 138).

[846] Cf. _Amer. Hist. Record_, April, 1873; Hamilton's _Repub. of
the United States_ (i. 306). There is a view of the army headquarters
at Troy (1777) in Weise's _Troy_, 1876, p. 17; and of the Dirck Swart
house, still standing (used by Schuyler as headquarters), in the _Mag.
of Amer. History_ (vii. 226, etc.). The house subsequently used by
Gates has disappeared.

[847] Cf. also Kidder's _First N. H. Regiment_ (p. 35). Other
narratives are in Lossing's _Schuyler_ (ii. ch. 19) and his
_Field-Book_ (i. 51); in Graham's _Morgan_ (ch.7-9); in Arnold's
_Arnold_ (ch. 9); Headley's _Washington and his Generals_; Dawson's
_Battles_ (i. ch. 25); Carrington's _Battles of the Rev._ (ch. 46);
Lowell's _Hessians_ (p. 151); and the memoirs of Riedesel; and on the
English side Burgoyne's _State of the Expedition_, and Fonblanque's
_Burgoyne_. The Smith or Taylor house, in which Fraser died, is
depicted in Stone's _Campaign of Burgoyne_ (p. 72), and as to a story
about the removal of his remains, see _Ibid._, App. 6. Robert Lowell
read a poem, "Burgoyne's last march", at the centennial of this action.

[848] The accounts of the day, as Marshall says, give him the command,
and in his _Life of Washington_, first edition, that writer so states
it. Wilkinson, who was with Gates two miles from the fight, said in his
_Memoirs_ that there was no general officer on the field; and this led
Marshall in his second edition to leave the question open. A letter
of R. R. Livingston, Jan. 14, 1778, to Washington (_Correspondence of
the Revolution_, ii. 551) is capable of counter conclusions on this
point; and Mr. Bancroft (orig. ed., ix. 410) who holds that Arnold was
not engaged during the day, judges that a letter of Colonel Richard
Varick to General Schuyler, written on the day of battle, supports that
view. Bancroft's opinion is maintained by J. A. Stevens in his paper
"Benedict Arnold and his apologists", in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._
(March, 1880). That the victory was won largely by Arnold's personal
exertions is the opinion of nearly every other writer, and they find
in the letters of Livingston and Varick as much to sustain their
view as Bancroft does to support his. Wilkinson writes to St. Clair:
"Gen. Arnold was not out of camp during the whole action" (_St. Clair
Papers_, i. 89, 443). The evidences in rebuttal of Wilkinson, who is
the only positive witness on the negative side, are numerous, and have
been best arrayed by Isaac N. Arnold in his _Life of Arnold_ (p. 175),
and in the paper "Benedict Arnold at Saratoga" (_United Service Mag._,
Sept., 1880; also printed separately), in which he added much new
testimony, gathered after he had published his _Life of Arnold_. This
consists of the statements in _The Revolutionary Services of General
Wm. Hull_ (N. Y., 1848); in a MS. account by Ebenezer Wakefield, who
was in Dearborn's light infantry, and written after Wilkinson, whom
he controverts, had published his _Memoirs_; in the narratives of the
Germans Von Eelking and Riedesel. Moore (_Diary of the Revolution_, p.
498) cites a letter of Enoch Poor, which seems to allow Arnold's share
in the battle. Later still the diary of a chaplain of the army has been
published, _Chaplain Smith and the Baptists_, and this says distinctly
(p. 209) that Arnold commanded. Mr. R. A. Guild, the editor of that
book, collates the evidence on this point. Washington Irving, Lossing,
Sydney H. Gay, William L. Stone,—not to name others,—have contended
for Arnold's participancy in the day's doings. Lecky (iv. 67) expresses
himself satisfied with the proofs adduced by I. N. Arnold. Cf. Rogers
in _Hadden's Journal_, p. 27.

[849] Cf. _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (May, 1879, p. 310), and B. W.
Throckmorton's address on Arnold in W. I. Stone's _Memoir of the
Centennial Celebration of Burgoyne's Surrender_ (Albany, 1878). Col.
Brooks, as reported by Gen. W. H. Sumner in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._
(Feb., 1858, ii. 273), gave some reminiscences of Arnold's conduct. The
surgeon attending Arnold said "his peevishness would degrade the most
capricious of the fair sex" (_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1864, p.
34).

[850] Stone (_Campaign of Burgoyne_, App. 5) also gives Woodruff's
and Neilson's reminiscences. See also Stone's _Life of Brant_ (i.
475). Cf. Wilkinson's _Memoirs_; Lossing's _Schuyler_ (ii. 365), and
his _Field-Book_; Hull's _Revolutionary Services_ (ch. 10); Bowen's
_Lincoln_; Irving's _Washington_ (iii. ch. 22); Creasy's _Decisive
Battles of the World_; Dawson (p. 291); Carrington (ch. 47); A. B.
Street in _Hist. Mag._ (March, 1858). Silliman's account of his visit
to the battlefield is in the App. of Stone's _Burgoyne's Campaign_.
Stone in the notes to his translation of Pausch (pp. 175-6) enumerates
what remains there are at the present day on the battle-ground of Oct.
7 to enable one to identify the points of the conflict. Gen. Hoyt's
description of the battlefield in 1825 is given in Hinton's _United
States_, Amer. ed., i. p. 264.

[851] Cf. Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_, p. 300; Rogers's _Hadden's Journal_,
p. liii.; _Hist. Mag._ (ii. 121); _Once a Week_ (xviii. 520); _Potter's
Amer. Monthly_ (vii. 191); Ellet's _Women of the Amer. Rev._, vol.
i. There are portraits of Lady Acland in _Burgoyne's Orderly-Book_,
in Bloodgood's _Sexagenary_, and Stone's _Campaign of Burgoyne_.
Reminiscences of her later life are given in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
Aug., 1886, p. 193. The house to which the wounded Major Acland was
borne is still standing, though much changed (_Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
vii. 226). It was the Neilson house, used as headquarters by Morgan and
Poor.

[852] A naval brigade under young Pellew, afterwards Viscount Exmouth,
was not allowed by Burgoyne to cut its way through the American lines,
in place of surrendering (Osler's _Life of Exmouth_, London, 1835, p.
39).

A view of the field of surrender is in the _Cent. Celebrations of N.
Y._ (p. 301). An old print of Burgoyne's camp is copied in Lossing's
_Field-Book_ (i. 57). Cf. Anburey's _Travels_.

[853] It is also in the _Brief Examination_; Dawson (i. 305, with
accompanying private letter); _Gent. Mag._ (Dec., 1777); Fonblanque's
_Burgoyne_ (p. 313). Riedesel in his _Memoirs_ comments on Burgoyne's
despatch.

In general, for American authorities on the surrender, see Wilkinson
(ch. 8); Bancroft (ix. ch. 24); Irving's _Washington_ (iii. 22);
Lossing's _Schuyler_ (ii. ch. 21); Stone's _Campaign of Burgoyne_;
Bloodgood's _Sexagenary_, which shows the effect of Burgoyne's march
on the country people; Lowell's _Hessians_ (p. 162); _Harper's Mag._
(Aug., 1876); Mrs. E. H. Walworth in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (May,
1877,—i. 273-302). Loubat, _Medallic Hist. of the U. S._, describes
the medal given to Gates.

On the British side there are Jones's _New York during the Rev._ (i.
201, etc.); Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_ (ch. 7); Mahon's _England_ (vi.
207); G. R. Gleig in _Good Words_ (xii. 849); _Blackwood's Mag._
(lxiii. 332, cxiii. 427; or _Living Age_, xvii. 226, cxvii. 543).

[854] There is an account of prisoners and stores in _N. H. State
Papers_, viii. 708.

[855] See accounts of the papers of Schuyler, Gates, Lincoln, etc.,
elsewhere. No. liv. of the _Sparks MSS._ is given to papers on
this campaign. Cf. letters of Roger Sherman to William Williams in
_Ibid._, lviii. no. 12; of General Armstrong in _Ibid._, xlix., i. 7.
The correspondence of Schuyler and Gouverneur Morris is in Sparks's
_Morris_, i. 141.

[856] Also _N. Y. Hist. Coll._, 1879. Cf. Geo. W. Schuyler's _Colonial
New York_, ii. 267; _Amer. Hist. Record_, ii. 145. The jealousy,
or rather dislike, of Schuyler on the part of New England men was
the natural result of the contact of commander and subordinates so
strongly opposed as an aristocratic Knickerbocker and the self-willed
democrats of the Eastern States. Cf., on this antagonism, _John
Adams's Works_, iii. 87; Graydon's _Memoirs_, passim; Gordon, ii.
331; Irving's _Washington_, iii. 128, etc. A survival of the feelings
had doubtless colored some of the later estimates of Schuyler's
character, and the opposing views can be seen in Lossing's _Schuyler_
(ii. 325, etc.) and in Bancroft's _United States_. Cf. also Geo. L.
Schuyler's _Correspondence and Remarks upon Bancroft's History of the
Northern Campaign of 1777 and the character of General Schuyler_.
The dissatisfaction with Schuyler was not, however, confined to New
England. Reference seems to be made to him as an "infamous villain"
in the letters of Samuel Kennedy, a surgeon of Pennsylvania troops
(_Penna. Mag. of Hist._, viii. 114, where he is presumably spoken of as
"G. S ... r").

[857] Lincoln's orders, Aug. 4th, are in the _Sparks MSS._, lxvi.

[858] The following orderly-books and journals of the campaign have
been noted:—

_Orderly book of lieut. gen. John Burgoyne, from his entry into the
state of New York until his surrender at Saratoga, 16th Oct. 1777.
From the original manuscript deposited at Washington's head quarters,
Newburgh, N. Y. Edited by E. B. O'Callaghan_ (Albany, 1860), being no.
7 of _Munsell's Historical Series_. (Cf. J. T. Headley in _The Galaxy_,
xxii. 604.) Gen. Horatio Rogers is satisfied that this Newburgh MS. is
not an original record; and he has printed in his _Hadden's Journal_
such records as are either defectively printed by O'Callaghan or not
printed at all. Burgoyne's orders to the inhabitants of Castleton are
in the _N. H. State Papers_, viii. 625, 658. There was published at
Albany in 1882, as no. 12 of _Munsell's Historical Series_, a book
entitled _Hadden's journal and orderly books. A journal kept in Canada
and upon Burgoyne's campaign in 1776 and 1777, by Lieutenant James
Murray Madden. Also orders kept by him and issued by Sir Guy Carleton,
Lieut. General Burgoyne and Major General William Phillips, in 1776,
1777, and 1778. With an explanatory chapter and notes by Horatio
Rogers_. Respecting this publication, Mr. William L. Stone says:—

"The journal of Lieutenant Hadden is, perhaps, one of the most
important manuscript documents bearing upon Burgoyne's campaign
that has yet been discovered. This journal formerly belonged to
William Cobbett of London. The elaborate maps with which the writer
has interspersed his journal fully indicate the importance of the
strategical positions taken by Schuyler previous to Gates assuming
the command. Besides the journal there are several orderly-books, in
which the proceedings of the British army from day to day are minutely
set forth. In the manuscript book at Washington's headquarters at
Newburgh, the order of the day for 19th of August, 1777, is missing.
This missing link, however, is supplied by Hadden, who gives it in
full, and it proves to have been an order issued by Major-General
Phillips, in the absence, that day, of General Burgoyne, as follows:
'Major-General Phillips,' reads the missing order for the 19th, 'has
heard with the utmost astonishment, that, notwithstanding his most
serious and positive orders of the 16th instant, that no carts should
be used for any purpose whatever but the transport of provisions,
unless by particular orders from the commander-in-chief as expressed in
the order, there are this day above thirty carts on the road laden with
baggage _said to be their Lieutenant-General's_.'"

The Hadden journals and orderly-books were bought in 1875 by General
Rogers, having passed through Henry Stevens's hands, and are carefully
printed, with fac-similes of the MS. maps accompanying them.

Supplementing these, the following orderly-books may be mentioned:—

_Henry B. Livingston's.—Troops under Gen. Schuyler, St. Clair, &c.
Ticonderoga, Stillwater, &c., June 13 to August 19, 1777._

_Gen. Philip Schuyler's.—Fort Edward, Albany, June 29 to August 18,
1777._

_Camp at Stillwater, Saratoga and Albany, &c. August 12 to November 4,
1774._

_Col. Thaddeus Cook's, of Wallingford, Conn., Stillwater, September 6
to October 6, 1777. Weekly Returns of the Regiment, September 13, 27,
and October 21, 1777._

_Capt. William Gates's Company, of Col. Timo. Bigelow's Regiment,
Weekly Returns, various dates from October, 1777, to September, 1778._
Also in same covers, _Orderly Book of Lieut. David Grout's Company, of
Timothy Bigelow's Regiment, February 15, 1779, to June 15, 1779, and
Weekly Returns of Capt. Peirce's Co., same Regiment, in 1780_.

These are all in the library of the Amer. Antiq. Soc. at Worcester,
Mass. An orderly-book of James Kimball, of Croft's regiment, June,
1777, to Dec., 1778, has been published by the Essex Institute (Salem,
Mass.).

The following diaries may be named:—

The journal of Henry Dearborn, Aug. 3-Dec. 3, which was in the J. W.
Thornton sale, 1878, no. 501. It is now in the Boston Public Library,
and is included in Dearborn's journals as printed in the _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, 1886, edited by Mellen Chamberlain, and separately as
_Journals of Henry Dearborn_, 1776-1783 (Cambridge, 1887).

Chaplain Smith's diary, July and Aug., 1777, in R. A. Guild's _Chaplain
Smith and the Baptists_, p. 197; Ralph Cross's journal, beginning Aug.
29, 1777, at Newburyport, and ending there on his return, Dec. 5th,
in the _Hist. Mag._ (vol. xvii. pp. 8-11); diary of Ephraim Squier,
Sept. 4 to Nov. 2, 1777, preserved in the Pension Office, Washington.
Extracts from the diary of Capt. Benj. Warren are preserved in the
_Sparks MSS._ (no. xlvii.). A copy of the journal of Samuel Harris,
Jr., of Boston, during the campaign of 1777, after he joined the army
at Stillwater, Sept. 20th, and describing the fight of Bemis's Heights,
Oct. 7th, and the surrender of Oct. 17th, is in the _Sparks MSS._
(xxv.). Cf. McAlpine's _Memoirs_, published in 1788.

The British journals of Burgoyne's campaign by actors in it, which
have been printed, are Roger Lamb's _Original and authentic journal
of occurrences during the late American war_ (Dublin, 1809), and his
_Memoir of his own Life_ (Dublin, 1811),—he was sergeant of the Royal
Welsh Fusileers,—and Thomas Anburey's _Travels through the interior
parts of America_ (London, 1789 and 1791; French versions, Paris, 1790
and 1793; German, Berlin, 1792). Anburey was attached as a volunteer
to the grenadier company of the 29th foot. (Cf. Rogers's _Hadden
Journals_, explanatory chapter.) There is an English diary in the _Mag.
of Amer. Hist._ (Feb., 1878).

For other personal records of the campaign, reference may be made to
the brief summary of Maj. Hughes, one of Gates's aides (_Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, Feb., 1858, iii. 279); the autobiography of Col. Philip
van Cortlandt, of the second New York regiment (_N. Y. Geneal. and
Biog. Rec._, July, 1874, vol. v. 123, and _Hist. Mag._, 1878).

Similar records on the British side are Maj. Edward M'Gauran's
_Memoirs_, privately printed in London in 1786, in two volumes, and
_The narrative of Captain Samuel Mackay, commandant of a provincial
regiment in North America; by the appointment of Lieut.-Gen. Burgoyne_
(Kingston, 1778). The author gives an account of his services as a
royalist in command of a company of provincials attached to General
Burgoyne's army, and complains of the refusal of the British generals
to recognize him as an officer.

The British Museum has recently acquired a contemporary military
critique of the campaign, by one of the actors in it, Lieut. Digby, of
the British army.

The diary of the Hanau artillerist, Pausch, is preserved at Cassel,
and a copy is in the hands of Mr. Edw. J. Lowell, from which a second
copy was made, and from this no. 14 of _Munsell's Hist. Series_ was
printed as _Journal of Capt. Pausch, chief of the Hanau artillery
during the Burgoyne campaign. Translated and annotated by W. L.
Stone. Introduction by E. J. Lowell_ (Albany, 1886). Pausch covers
the interval from the day he left Hanau, May 15, 1776, to the close
of Burgoyne's last battle, Oct. 7, 1777. There is in the notes (p.
149) a letter of one John Clunes, which shows some of the perils of
the attempt to keep Burgoyne's rear open at Ticonderoga. A journal of
Johann Konrad Döhla, a private of the regiment of Anspach, 1777-1783,
is in the _Deutsch-Amerikanisches Mag._, 1886-1887.

[859] Less important accounts are in Hildreth and Gay; in Thaddeus
Allen's _Origination of the Amer. Union_, etc.

[860] Mr. Stone adds a note (p. 149) on the periodical contributions of
Gen. J. Watts De Peyster to the history and criticism of the campaign,
aimed in large part to vindicate Schuyler and portray the patriotism
of New York State. Cf. his paper in the _United Service_, ix. 365. A
paper on the campaign in the _Mag. of Amer. History_, Dec., 1881, p.
457, refers to an article on the same topic in _Graham's Magazine_
(Apr., 1847), by N. C. Brooks, mentioning original documents. A. B.
Street printed a paper on Saratoga in the _Hist. Mag._, March, 1858.
Cf. Lemoine's _Maple Leaves_, second series (Quebec, p. 123).

[861] Stone says it is "characterized by great fairness and liberality."

[862] Other German authorities are given in Lowell's _Hessians_, App. A.

[863] In Burgoyne's _State of the Expedition_ is a "Plan of the
encampment and position of the army under Gen. Burgoyne at Sword's
House, on Hudson River, near Stillwater, on Sept. 17th, with the
positions of that part of the army engaged on the 19th Sept., 1777.
Drawn by W. C. Wilkinson, Lt. 62d Reg. Engraved by Wm. Faden", and
published in London, Feb. 1, 1780. It has a portion superposed, showing
later positions. There is a composite map in Carrington's _Battles_ (p.
344); and in _Hadden's Journal_ (p. 164) fac-simile of drawn plans of
the order of march and order of battle on Sept. 19. There is a map of
the battle of the 19th in _Pausch's Journal_, p. 163. Loosing (i. 53)
gives a view of the Stillwater ground.

Burgoyne's _State of the Expedition_ also contains a "Plan of the
encampment and position of the army under Gen. Burgoyne at Bræmus
Heights, on the 20th Sept., with the position of the detachments in
the action of the 7th Oct., and the position of the army on the 8th
Oct. Drawn by W. C. Wilkinson. Engraved by Wm. Faden", and published
Feb. 1, 1780. This is reproduced in Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_ (p. 292).
Carrington (p. 350) gives an excellent eclectic map.

A plan of the battles of Freeman's Farm and Bemis's Heights, made by
Col. Rufus Putnam, is preserved at Marietta, Ohio, and a copy is in
Col. Stone's collection at Jersey City. There is also a plan given in
Charles Wilson's _Account of Burgoyne's Campaign_ (Albany, 1844), which
is revised in Stone's _Campaign of Burgoyne_. Stedman's plan (_American
War_, i. 352) traces the movements from Sept. 10th to the capitulation.
Cf. Grant's _British Battles_, ii. 150.

The positions from Oct. 10th, when the investment of Burgoyne's camp
began, to the 16th, when the surrender took place, are shown on the
American side in a map sketched by Chapman from an original of an
officer, which appeared in the _Analectic Mag._ (Philad., 1818, p.
433), and is reproduced herewith.

In Burgoyne's _State of the Expedition_ is Faden's "Plan of the
position which the army under Lt.-Gen. Burgoyne took at Saratoga on
the 10th of Oct., 1777, and in which it remained till the convention
was signed." It is reproduced in Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_ (p. 302).
Carrington (p. 354) gives a careful plan, and there are others in
_Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (vol. i. 273) and Lowell's _Hessians_ (p. 163),
taken from Lossing's _Field-Book_ (i. 77). Lossing also gives a view
(p. 80) of the field of surrender, the signatures to the convention
(p. 79), the medal given to Gates (p. 83), the house used by Gates as
headquarters (p. 75), and the house occupied by the Baroness Riedesel
(pp. i. 89, 557; cf. also Stone's _Campaign of Burgoyne_, p. 94).

Upon the landmarks and topography of this series of movements, see
papers in the _Boston Monthly_ (i. 505) for a visit to Bemis's Heights;
a paper by W. L. Stone in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (Nov., 1885, p. 510)
on the remains of the works as now seen; and an examination of the
localities in G. W. Schuyler's _Colonial New York_ (ii. 128). Cf.
Lossing's _Field-Book_ and his _Book of the Hudson_.

[864] Cf. also _Trumbull MSS._ (vol. vi. and vii.); the _Sparks MSS._
(lii. vol. iii, p. 223); the lives of Putnam; and Upham's _Life of
Glover_.

[865] A letter of Gen. Parsons to Gov. Trumbull, on the capture of Fort
Montgomery, is in Hildreth's _Pioneer Settlers of Ohio_ (p. 534). The
personal narrative of Thomas Richards is in _United Service_ (xii. 274).

[866] Cf. also Clinton's letter in _Rockingham and his Contemporaries_
(ii. 334), and his annotations on the account in Stedman (ch. 18)
in Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._ (i. 704). A journal of a British
officer is printed in Scull's _Evelyns in America_ (p. 345).

The journal of Capt. Scott, who was sent by Burgoyne to open
communication with Clinton, is in Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_ (p. 287).

The later accounts are in Irving's _Washington_ (iii. ch. 21);
Lossing's _Schuyler_ (ii. ch. 20), and his _Field-Book_ (ii. 165);
Leake's _John Lamb_ (p. 179), where is controverted the opinion
expressed in Hamilton's _Life of Alex. Hamilton_ (i. 321), that the
defence of the forts was feeble; Carrington's _Battles_; and Sargent's
_André_ (p. 102).

[867] There was also a map of the river in the _Gent. Mag._, 1778.

[868] Letters of Greene and others, May 17, 1777, respecting the
obstructions in the North River at Fort Montgomery, are in the _Sparks
MSS._ (lii. vol. iii.).

[869] _Boston Monthly Mag._, July, 1826; Loring's _Hundred Boston
Orators_, 174; Parton's _Franklin_, ii. 283. The brief letter sent by
Gates to the Mass. Council is in the Mass. Archives, and is printed in
Hale's _Franklin in France_, p. 160. The letter of the Mass. government
to Franklin (Oct. 24th) covered a copy of Gates's letter (Hale, p. 155).

[870] The effect in England is seen in the _Debates in Parliament_;
Curwen's _Journal_ (p. 175); P. O. Hutchinson's _Diary of Thomas
Hutchinson_ (vol. ii.); Donne's _Corresp. of Geo. III. and Lord North_
(ii. 93, 111); excerpts in Moore's _Diary_, i. 525, Macknight's _Burke_
(ii. 202); Russell's _Mem. and Corresp. of Fox_ (i. 161); Fitzmaurice's
_Shelburne_ (iii. 12); Bancroft's _United States_ (ix. 478); Mahon's
_England_ (vi. 206, and App. p. xxxix.); Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_ (ch.
8); Madison's _Writings_ (i. 31). Walpole (_Last Journals_, ii. 170)
tells us how the king received the news of Burgoyne's disaster.

[871] Fonblanque, p. 333, and _Almon's Remembrancer_, vi. 207; but they
do not agree upon the name of the vessel by which he sailed.

[872] Walpole (_Last Journals_, ii. 278) describes Burgoyne's
appearance in the Commons.

[873] Cf. Bancroft's character of Burgoyne, in his orig. ed., vii.
245. Fonblanque (p. 5) charges Bancroft with coarseness in speaking
of alleged but unfounded statements of Burgoyne's shame of birth.
A certain swagger about the man laid Burgoyne open to the stinging
burlesques of the small writers of the day. Cf. _The Lamentations of
Gen. Burgoyne_ (Sabin, iii. 9,262); _Calendrier de Philadelphie_, 1779
(_Ibid._ xiv. 61, 511), Moore's _Songs and Ballads of the Rev._ (176,
185, 189); Stone, _Campaign of Burgoyne_ (App. xvi.).

[874] There were six editions printed in London, and one in Dublin, in
1778 (Sabin, iii. no. 9,257; Menzies, no. 264). These speeches were in
response to a motion of inquiry made by John Wilkes, whose copy of this
pamphlet belongs now to Mr. Charles Deane; and, by Wilkes's annotations
upon it, it seems that Wilkes recalled a good deal that Burgoyne said
and did not print, and qualified other parts which he did print.

[875] Sabin, iii. no. 9,257. There were six editions the same year.
Menzies, no. 266.

[876] Sabin, iii. no. 9,266,—three editions; Menzies, no. 268.

[877] Sabin, iii. no. 9,263; Menzies, no. 267.

[878] Sabin, iii. no. 9,258; Menzies, no. 265.

[879] Sabin, iii. no. 9,260; _Sparks's Catal._, no. 405. Menzies, no.
272.

[880] Sabin, iii. no. 9,261; Menzies, no. 273.

[881] It appeared in two editions, and the book is now usually priced
at about £3 (Sabin, iii. no. 9,255; Sparks, no. 404; Stevens, _Bibl.
Amer._ (1885), no. 58; Menzies, no. 269.)

Burgoyne's documents, as laid before Parliament, had been printed in
the _Parliamentary Register_. The _Gentleman's Mag._ had chronicled the
progress of the investigation. Cf. _Annual Register_ (xxi. 168) and
Russell's _Memoirs and Correspondence of Fox_ (i. 176).

The principal English MS. sources for the study of the whole campaign
are these: The minutes of inquiry into the causes of Burgoyne's failure
in the volume "Secretary of State, 1777-1781", in the War Office,
London; Quebec series, in the Public Record Office, vols. xiv., xvi.
(Cf. Brymner's _Reports on Canadian Archives_, 1883, p. 77; 1885, p.
xi.)

[882] The volume contains Burgoyne's speech, prefatory to his
narrative; his narrative; the evidence of Carleton, Balcarras,
Harrington, Major Forbes, Lieut.-Colonel Kingston, and others; a
review of the evidence and conclusion. In the Appendix are Burgoyne's
"Thoughts for conducting the war from the side of Canada;" various
letters of Burgoyne, Carleton, etc.; Burgoyne's speech to the Indians;
Baum's instructions; St. Leger's letter from Oswego, Aug. 27, 1777;
Burgoyne's letter from Albany, Oct. 20th; his councils of war, Oct.
12th and 13th; the terms proposed by Gates. There are added various
plans of battle, elsewhere mentioned.

[883] Sabin, iii. no. 9,256; Menzies, no. 270. Privately reprinted in
New York (75 copies) in 1865. It is said to have been printed without
the sanction of Burgoyne.

[884] Sabin, iii. no. 9,265.

[885] Menzies, no. 271; Sabin, iii. no. 9,264. Sabin also notes, no.
9,267, _Reponse à un des articles des Annales politiques de M. Linguet
concernant la défaite du Général Burgoyne en Amérique_ (Londres, 1788).
Cf. on Burgoyne's subsequent exchange, Rogers's _Hadden's Journal_.

[886] Other addresses are N. B. Sylvester's _Saratoga and
Hay-ad-ros-se-ra_ (July 4, 1876); George G. Scott's Saratoga County
address; J. S. L'Amoreaux at Ballston Spa (July, 1876); Edward F.
Bullard's, at Schuylerviile (July 4, 1776); H. C. Maine's _Burgoyne's
Campaign_. The remarks of Messrs. Edward Wemple and S. S. Cox in
Congress, Dec. 4, 1884, on the Saratoga monument, have been printed.

[887] The evidence on this point is overwhelming. "Those", wrote
Washington, in a letter intended only for the eye of his step-son,
"who want faith to believe the accounts of the shocking wastes of
Howe's army—of their ravaging, plundering, and the abuse of women—may
be convinced to their sorrow ... if a check cannot be put to their
progress."

[888] Cf. letter of the Secret Committee of Congress to Silas Deane
in Paris, Aug. 7, 1776 (_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1877, p.
99). Pertaining to this movement is a journal of a campaign from
Philadelphia to Paulus Hook, by Algernon Roberts (_Sparks MSS._), which
is printed in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, vii. 456. It covers Aug.
16-Sept. 17, 1776. Cf. orderly-book in _Hist. Mag._, ii. 353; and a
journal in the _Penna. Hist. Soc. Coll._, i. 223.

[889] His letters (Sparks, iv., and 5 Force, iii.) give details of
this retreat. Cf. also G. W. P. Custis's _Recollections_, p. 538. Howe
has been much blamed for his want of enterprise in allowing Washington
to escape (Galloway's _Examination_; Gordon's _Amer. Rev._, ii. 355;
Wilkinson's _Memoirs_, i. 120).

[890] Lee was wrought upon by Joseph Reed writing to him, Nov. 21st, of
Washington's "indecisive mind" (C. Lee's _Memoirs_; Moore's _Treason of
Lee_, p. 46), and the next day Lee wrote in the same spirit to Bowdoin
(_Ibid._, p. 49), and on the 24th he wrote to Reed of Washington's
"fatal indecision." Moore examines this hesitancy of Lee (pp. 48, 57).
For suspicions as to Lee's conduct at this time, see Moore's _Treason
of Lee_; Heath's _Memoirs_, 88; Reed's _Jos. Reed_, i. 253; Drake's
_Knox_; J. C. Hamilton's _Republic_, i. ch. 6; Lee Papers (_N. Y. Hist.
Soc. Coll._), ii. 337, etc.

[891] Cf. Force's _Archives_, 5th ser., vol. iii.; Jones's _N. Y.
during the Rev._, i. 173; Wilkinson's _Memoirs_, i. 105; Sparks's
_Washington_, iv. App. p. 530; Robert Morris's letter, Dec. 17th,
in _Pa. Hist. Soc. Bull._, vol. i.; Moore's _Treason of Lee_, 61;
Bancroft, ix. 210; Irving's _Washington_, ii. 433; Scull's _Evelyns in
America_, 211; _Memoir of Mrs. E. S. M. Quincy_ (1861); Fonblanque's
_Burgoyne_, p. 50.

A contemporary picture of the capture of Lee, in Barnard's _Hist. of
England_, represents him in uniform at the door of his house, handing
his sword to a mounted officer, whose horse prances among dead bodies,
while a platoon of dragoons stands at a little distance.

[Illustration]

Lee's exchange was rendered possible when Washington acquired a
prisoner of equal rank by the exploit of Colonel Barton. This
Rhode Island officer summoned a party, and in whale-boats crossed
Narragansett Bay, and (July 10, 1777) surprised Gen. Richard Prescott
in bed at his headquarters, a few miles north of Newport where he
held command of the British who, under Clinton and Percy, had taken
possession of that port in Dec., 1776 (Almon'S _Remembrancer_, iii.
261; Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, i. 639). The parole of Gen.
Prescott, July 14, 1777, given at Providence, as well as a letter
from Lambert Cadwalader, "being greatly indebted to his politeness
and generosity while a prisoner in New York", are in the _Trumbull
MSS._ (vol. vi.). The parole is printed in Arnold's _Rhode Island_,
ii. 403. General Smith's letter, July 12th, to Howe is in the _Sparks
MSS._, lviii. Contemporary accounts are in Moore's _Diary_, i. 468. Cf.
Force's _Archives_, 4th ser., vol. iv., and Thacher's _Mil. Journal_.
Barton was assisted by a negro. _Livermore's Historical Research_,
143. There was an address by Professor Diman on the centennial of the
capture, which was printed as no. 1 of the _R. I. Hist. Tracts_. Cf.
_Narrative of the surprise and Capture of Maj.-Gen. Richard Prescott,
July 9, 1777_ (Windsor, Vt., 1821), and a tract of similar title,
Philadelphia, 1817; Mrs. C. R. Williams's _Biog. of Revolutionary
Heroes_ (William Barton and Stephen Olney), Providence, 1839; Andrew
Sherburne's _Memoirs_, App.; Sparks's _Washington_, iv. 495; Arnold's
_Rhode Island_; Scull's _Evelyns in America_, 280. Diman gives a
photograph of a portrait of Barton, and a fac-simile of his orders.
Cf. Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 75. Scull (p. 140) gives a likeness
of Prescott. Views of the house where the capture took place are in
Mason's _Newport_, p. 8; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 76, and his
_Cyclo. U. S. Hist._, p. 1133.

[892] _Penna. Archives_, vi. (1853); _Colonial Records of Pa._, xi.
(1852); Hazard's _Register_, iii. 40; Rev. Dr. Muhlenberg's journal in
_Pa. Hist. Soc. Coll._, i.; Robert Morris's letters in _Pa. Hist. Soc.
Bull._, i. 50, etc.; broadsides enumerated in Hildeburn's _Issues of
Pa. Press_, ii.; the diary of Christopher Marshall (Philad., 1839, to
Dec. 31, 1776; again to Dec. 31, 1777; in full, Albany, 1877).

[893] See _ante_, p. 272.

[894] Wallace's _Col. W. Bradford_, p. 140. Mr. Stone indicates the
following authorities on these points: Charles Thomson's letter to
Drayton (_Pa. Mag. of Hist._, ii. 411; _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1878,
p. 274); Reed's _Reed_ (ii. ch. i.); Anna H. Wharton on Thomas Wharton,
Jr., in _Pa. Mag. Hist._ (v. 431, 437,—also in _The Wharton Family_);
_St. Clair Papers_ (i. 370, 373); _Proceedings relative to calling the
Conventions of 1776 and 1780_ (Harrisburg, 1825); _Journals of the Ho.
of Rep. of Penna._ (vol. i.—Philad., 1782); _Pa. Col. Rec._, xi.; and
other titles in Hildeburn.

[895] For further aspects of a political nature, see Wells's _Sam.
Adams_, ii.; Ellery's letter to the governor of Rhode Island (_R. I.
Col. Rec._, viii.), and the _Corresp. of the Executive of New Jersey,
1776-1786_ (Newark, 1846); Read's _George Read_, 212, 216, and (Cæsar
Rodney's letter) 256. The leading biographies give some original
aspects: Greene's _Greene_, i. 299 (in which Bancroft's statements
are controverted); Reed's _Reed_, ch. 14; Drake's _Knox_, 36; Stone's
_John Howland_, who was with the troops from Lee, which reinforced
Washington; Williams's _Olney_. There is a contemporary "Relation of
the Engagement at Trenton and Princetown on Thursday and Friday the 2d
and 3d of January, 1777, by Mr. Wood, 3d Battalion", in the _Penna.
Mag. of Hist._, x. 263.

A journal of Sergeant William Young is in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._,
Oct., 1884, vol. viii. 255. A little chapbook, _Narrative of events
in the Revolutionary war; with an account of the battles of Trenton,
Trenton-bridge and Princeton_ (Charlestown [1833]), by Joseph White, an
orderly-sergeant of artillery, gives some personal experiences.

[896] C. C. Haven's tracts: _Washington and his army in New Jersey_
(Trenton, 1856), _Thirty days in New Jersey ninety years ago_
(1867), _Annals of the City of Trenton_ (1867), and _Historic Manual
concerning Trenton and Princeton_. (Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iii.
335.) Joseph F. Tuttle's papers: _Annals of Morris County_ (187-),
_Revolutionary forefathers of Morris County_ (Dover, 1876), "Washington
in Morris County", in _Hist. Mag._, June, 1871. E. D. Halsey's _Hist.
of Morris County_ (N. Y., 1882). W. A. Whitehead's _Perth Amboy_ (p.
329), and _Penna. Hist. Coll._, i. 223. Hatfield's _Hist. of Elizabeth_
(ch. 20). A paper, "Washington on the west bank of the Delaware", by
Gen. W. W. H. Davis, giving local details, in _Penna. Mag. of Hist._
(iv. 133). _Historical Mag._, xix. 205. _Harper's Mag._, July, 1874.
_Potter's Amer. Monthly_, Jan., 1877. Johnston's _Campaign of 1776_
(ch. 8).

[897] Gordon (vol. ii.); Bancroft (orig. ed. ix. ch. 12; final
revision, v. ch. 6, 7, 8); Irving's _Washington_ (vol. ii.); Gay, _Pop.
Hist. U. S._ (iii. 520).

[898] Bancroft, ix. 218; Reed's _Reed_, i. 270.

[899] Other contemporary American accounts are by Major Morris (_Sparks
MSS._, no. liii.; Chalmers's MSS. in Thorpe's _Catal. Suppl._, 1843,
no. 632); by R. H. Lee (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1878, xix. 109); by
Sullivan (_N. H. State Papers_, viii. 492); in Stirling's letter (Dec.
28, 1776) (Sedgwick's _Livingston_, 211). The order of march to Trenton
is in Drake's _Knox_, 113. Capt. Wm. Hull's letter, Jan. 1, 1777, is
in Bonney's _Legacy of Hist. Gleanings_, 1875, i. p. 57. (Cf. Hull's
_Rev. Services_, ch. 5.) See also Greene's _Greene_ (book ii. ch. 13);
Reed's _Reed_ (i. 273); Wilkinson's _Memoirs_ (ch. 3); Smith's _St.
Clair_; Stone's _John Howland_ (p. 72); Marshall's _Washington_ (ii.
ch. 8); Drake's _Knox_ (p. 37); _Memoirs_ of Tench Tilghman (p. 148);
_Journals_ of Samuel Shaw; Capt. Thomas Rodney's letter in Niles's
_Principles_ (1822, p. 341); Force's _Amer. Archives_ (5th, iii.);
_Freeman's Journal_ in Moore's _Diary_ (p. 364). The account in the
_Penna. Evening Post_, Dec. 28, 1776, is copied in _Penna. Mag. of
Hist._, July, 1886, p. 203.

Local publications are: Raum's _Trenton_ (1866); C. C. Haven's _Annals
of Trenton_; Henry K. How's _Battle of Trenton_ (N. Brunswick, 1856).

Of the more general accounts, Bancroft (ix. 218) is the best. Cf.
_Hist. of First Troop of Pa. Cavalry_, p. 7. Cf. also Gordon (ii. 393);
Irving's _Washington_ (ii. 449); Dawson (i. 196); Carrington (ch. 39);
Johnston's _Campaign of 1776_ (p. 288, with docs. pp. 151, 153). Also
articles in _Godey's Mag._ (xxxii. 51) and _Harper's Mag._ (vii. 445),
and details in Lossing's _Field-Book_.

[900] Cf. Lowell's _Hessians_, ch. 8; Eelking's _Hülfstruppen_, i.
113, 132. The oft-printed letter of the Prince of Hesse-Cassel to
Baron Hohendorf or Hozendorf is a forgery (Kapp's _Soldatenhandel_, 2d
ed. 199). A court-martial of the Hessian officers was held at Cassel
in 1782, and the report of it is in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, vii.
45 (April, 1883), a paper of much use to the writer of the preceding
narrative.

The battle is the subject of one of Trumbull's pictures. On a Hessian
flag captured, see Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 413. Moore, _Songs and
Ballads_, 150, 156, 165, gives some of the current verses.

The movements of Washington after Trenton in recrossing the Delaware,
are easily followed in Washington's letters to Congress, in Reed's
narrative (_Penna. Mag. Hist._, viii. 391); in Sergeant William
Young's Journal (_Ibid._ viii. 255); in Reed's _Reed_ (i. 277); and in
Wilkinson's _Memoirs_ (i. 133).

[901] Gordon (ii. 398); Bancroft (ix. 248); Dawson (ch. 17); Carrington
(ch. 41); Irving's _Washington_ (ii. 477); Johnston's _Campaign of
1776_ (p. 293,—quoting from a Rhode Island officer's statement in
Stiles's diary). G. W. P. Custis's _Recollections_ (ch. 3).

[902] The narrative of George Inman is in the _Pa. Mag. of Hist._, vii.
240; and he tempers on some points the assertions of Stedman.

Upon Howe's evacuation of New Jersey and the sluggishness of his
subsequent movements, see Sparks's _Washington_ (iv.); Bancroft (ix.
ch. 20); Graydon's _Memoirs_; Green's _Greene_: Graham's _Morgan_;
_Life of Timothy Pickering_, i.; Irving's _Washington_, iii. ch. 8;
Eelking's _Hülfstruppen_; Lecky, iv. 58. Cf. Journal of Capt. Rodney in
_Campaign of 1776_, Doc. 158, and the Journal of Capt. John Montresor
(_N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1881, p. 420; and in part in _Pa. Mag. of
Hist._, v. and vi.). Howe's losses, Aug.-Dec., 1776, are tabulated in
the _War in America_ (Dublin, 1779). The campaign is examined in Gen.
Carrington's _Strategic Relations of New Jersey to the War of Amer.
Independence_ (Newark, 1885).

[903] The principal controversial tracts upon the charges of
incompetency preferred against Howe are these: The _Narrative of
Lieut.-Gen. Howe relative to his Conduct during his late command in
North America_ (London, 1780, several eds.). _Letters to a nobleman
on the Conduct of the War in the middle Colonies_, (London, 1780,
various eds.). Howe replied in _Observations_; and this led to a _Reply
to the Observations_ (London, 1781). Another severe critic appeared
in _Two letters from Agricolas to Sir William Howe_ (London, 1779).
Galloway was sharp in his _Examination_. The loyalists felt Howe's
shortcomings poignantly, as they prolonged, as was thought, their exile
(_Life of Peter Van Shaack_, 167). The contemporary historians, like
Murray and Gordon, did not spare him. The later ones, like Andrews
(ii. ch. 26), Adolphus (ii. ch. 31), Smyth (_Lectures_, no. 34), were
quite as severe. The American historians have not disputed the adverse
conclusion (Marshall, Bancroft, Irving, etc.). Cf. Sargent's _André_,
ch. 7, and a note in his _Stansbury and Odell_, 137. The current story
that the charms of Mrs. Loring paralyzed the English general finds
occasional record (John Bernard's _Recoll. of America_, N. Y., 1887, p.
60). On General Howe's lineage, as affecting his characteristics, see
_General Sir William Howe's Orderly-Book, 1775-1776_, etc., _collected
by B. F. Stevens, with hist. introd. by Edw. E. Hale_ (London, 1884);
also Dawson's _Westchester_, p. 217.

[904] Jones, i. 187, 252, 256, 714; ii. 431.

[905] The charge of treason is also disputed (_Hist. Mag._, v. 53). Cf.
G. W. Greene's _Gen. Greene_, i. 385; his _Historical View_, 62, 265;
Lossing in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, July, 1879, p. 450.

[906] Cf. W. T. Read in the _Hist. Mag._, July, 1871, p. 1. Cf. Gordon;
_Penna. Archives_, 1st and 2d series; Reed's _Reed_, i. ch. 15, 16;
Drake's _Knox_, 43; Greene's _Greene_; Irving's _Washington_, iii. ch.
18, 19; Hamilton's _Republic_, i. ch. 10; Mahon, in the main just;
histories of Pennsylvania; McSherry's _Maryland_, ch. 11; Quincy's
_Shaw_, ch. 3; _Evelyns in America_, 302. For political aspects,
Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii. ch. 44; Lee's _R. H. Lee_; Adams's _John
Adams_.

[907] Hutchinson, in London, seems to have thought Boston the object
of the campaign (_Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 165; Adams's _Familiar
Letters_, 286; Hutchinson's _Diaries_, ii. 152). James Lovell writes
from Philadelphia, July 29, 1777, that Howe seems bound up the
Delaware; but he warns his friends in New England that his present
movements may be undertaken to cloak an ultimate design upon the New
England coast (_Charles Lowell MSS._).

[908] J. F. Tuttle's _Washington at Morristown_, in _Harper's Mag._,
xviii. 289; _Potter's Amer. Monthly_, v. 665.

[909] There are in the Persifer Frazer papers (_Sparks MSS._, xxi.)
some letters from the Mount Pleasant camp, near Bound Brook and
Morristown, in June and July, 1777. For the British movements at this
time, cf. the journal in Scull's _Evelyns in America_, p. 328.

[910] Sparks, iv. 442, 453, 501, 505; v. 42; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._,
xliv.; Greene's _Greene_, i. 400, 429; _N. H. State Papers_, viii. 620.

[911] _N. H. State Papers_, viii. 652, 653; Adams's _Familiar
letters_, 294; Heath Papers in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, p. 71. Howe's
_Narrative_ gives his reason for not going up the Delaware.

[912] Various papers relating to the raid and the inquiry are in the
_Sparks MSS._, no. liv. For the inquiry, see also the _N. H. State
Papers_, viii. 704. A diary of Andrew Lee is in the _Penna. Mag. of
Hist._, iii. 167. The current American and British accounts are in
Moore's _Diary_, i. 482.

[913] Hamilton's _Works_, vii. 519; _N. H. State Papers_, viii. 673;
Jones's _New York_, ii. 431. His advance is followed in Futhey's Paoli
address, and in his notes as printed in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._ Cf.
also Montresor's journal.

[914] The orders of march are recorded in W. T. R. Saffell's _Records
of the Rev. War_ (p. 333), and John Adams's account of the march
through Philadelphia is in his _Familiar Letters_. A sermon preached
on the eve of the battle of Brandywine, by Rev. Jacob Trout, Sept.
10th, is given in L. M. Post's _Personal Recoll. of the Amer. Rev._
(1839,—App.) _Penna. Hist. Soc. Coll._, i.; _Mag. Amer. Hist._, March,
1885, p. 281 (fac-simile). Confidence prevailed in Philadelphia that
Howe could be beaten. Shippen letters in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal.
Reg._, 1864, p. 32.

[915] _Washington_, vol. v. App. p. 456. Some confusion has arisen from
the fact that the ford called Buffenton's at a later day was not the
one so known at the time of the battle, and there are in the _Sparks
MSS._ (lii. vol. iii.) some letters upon this point from William B.
Reed (with a small pen-map) and Alfred Elwyn.

There has been some question upon the responsibility of Sullivan for
the defeat; but Washington asked to be allowed to suspend the execution
of the orders of Congress, withdrawing Sullivan from the army. Bancroft
(ix. 395) has been the chief accuser of late, and T. C. Amory, in his
_Mil. Services of Gen. Sullivan_ (pp. 45, 50), the principal defender.
Sullivan's letter to Congress, Sept. 27th, which Bancroft (ix. 397)
considers "essential to a correct understanding of the battle", is in
_N. H. Hist. Coll._, ii. 208; Dawson, i. 279; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
Dec., 1866, p. 407; his letter of vindication, Nov. 5th, is in _N. H.
State Papers_, viii. 743. A copy of Sullivan's defence (Nov. 9, 1777)
is among the Langdon Papers, and is copied in the _Sparks MSS._ (lii.
vol. ii. p. 199). The counter-arguments of the case are examined in
the _Penna. Hist. Soc. Bulletin_, vol. i. Read's _George Read_, 273,
questions Sullivan's vigilance. Cf. Sparks's _Washington_, v. 108, 456,
for the charges against Sullivan. Bancroft also criticises the conduct
of Greene, and Geo. W. Greene (_Life of Greene_, i. 447, 453; ii. 460)
defends that general.

[916] Cf. Reed's _Reed_, i. ch. 15; Read's _George Read_; Lee's _War
in the Southern Dep't._, 16; Muhlenberg's _Muhlenberg_, ch. 3, and the
_Bland Papers_. For special treatment, see Carrington, ch. 50; Dawson,
ch. 24; the account by Joseph Townsend, and the sketch by J. S. Bowen
and J. S. Futhey, in _Penna. Hist. Soc. Bull._, i., where various
essential documents are printed; H. M. Jenkins in _Lippincott's Mag._,
xxx. 329; _Potter's Amer. Monthly_, vii. 94. There are local aspects
in Smith's _Delaware County_, p. 305, and Lewis's _Chester County_.
The services of John Shreve, of the New Jersey line, are told in _Mag.
Amer. Hist._ (1879), iii. 565. The widow of a wounded guide, Francis
Jacobs, applied for a pension as late as 1858 (_Senate Repts., no.
213, 35th Cong., 1st sess._). Washington's headquarters are shown in
Smith's _Del. County_, p. 304, and _Penna. Hist. Soc. Proc._, i.; and
Lafayette's in _Smith_, 310. A view of the field is given in Day's
_Hist. Coll. Penna._, p. 213.

Accounts more or less general are in Gordon, Irving (iii. ch. 18),
Lossing, Gay (iii. 543), Thaddeus Allen's _Origination of the Amer.
Union_; Hollister's _Conn._, ii. ch. 16; _Mag. Amer. Hist._, ii. 310.
Washington seems to have been poorly informed about the country, and to
have relied on false intelligence.

[917] The Journal of Capt. John Montresor, July 1, 1777, to July 1,
1778, edited by G. D. Scull, is in _Penna. Mag. Hist._, v. 393; vi.
34, 189, 284, 295, with corrections, 372. There are letters in Scull's
_Evelyns in America_, 244; Moore's _Laurens Correspondence_, 52; and
others from Gen. Fitzpatrick in _Walpole's Letters_.

[918] Cf. Eelking, ch. 6, and Du Portail in Mahon, vi. App. 27.

[919] Bisset's _George III._, ch. 19, 25; _N. E. Hist. and Gen.
Reg._, April, 1879, p. 240, and July, p. 351; J. Watts de Peyster in
_Scribner's Monthly_, April, 1880, p. 940.

[920] Cf. also Moore's _Diary_, 498; Pennypacker's _Phœnixville_, 101;
Bell's address in Hazard's _Register_; _Laurens Correspondence_, 53;
_Hist. Mag._, iii. 375; iv. 346; J. W. De Peyster in _United Service_,
1886, p. 318; and lives of Wayne by Armstrong and Moore.

[921] Howe's _Narrative_; the _Conduct of the War_; Ross's
_Cornwallis_; papers on the war in _Penna. Archives_, 1st, v., and 2d,
iii.; Thomas Paine's letter to Franklin (_Penna. Mag. Hist._, ii. 283);
_Penna. Evening Post_; Watson's _Annals of Philad._; Drake's _Knox_;
Greene's _Greene_; _Mem. of B. Tallmadge_; Bancroft, ix. ch. 23, etc.
Howe's proclamations during this period are noted in the _Catalogue
Philad. Library_, p. 1553; Hildeburn's _Issues of the Press_ (under
1777).

Congress fled to York, and occupied the old court-house, of which a
view, in fac-simile of an old print is given in _Mag. Amer. Hist._,
Dec., 1885, p. 552.

[922] _Washington_, v. 463; Dawson, 326; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
Dec., 1866, p. 418; Amory's _Sullivan_, 57; and in part in _N. H. State
Papers_, viii. 705.

[923] Sparks, v. 78, 86, 102; Dawson, i. 325; Heath Papers, _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Coll._, xliv. 76. Other contemporary evidence is in the
letters of Wayne (Dawson, i. 328; cf. lives of Wayne); Gen. Adam
Stephen (Sparks, v. 467): Gen. Armstrong (Dawson, 329); Knox (Drake,
52); William Heth (Leake's _Lamb_, 183). Other contemporary statements
and documents are in Moore's _Diary_, 504; _Penna. Archives_, v.
646; _Pa. Mag. of Hist._, i. 13, 399, 400, 401; ii. 283; Tilghman's
_Memoirs_, 160; Davis's _Lacey_, 48; Watson's _Annals of Philad._,
ii. 67; _Hist. Mag._, xi., 82, 148; Moore's _Laurens, Corresp._, 54.
Accounts of participants given at a later day are by C. C. Pinckney
(1820), who was on Washington's staff (_Hist. Mag._, x. 202), and Col.
J. E. Howard, who addressed a letter to Pickering in 1827, a copy of
which in his own hand, with a rude plan, is in the _Sparks MSS._, no.
xlix. vol. i., and it is printed in Sparks, v. 468.

[924] Cf. _No. Amer. Rev._, April, 1825, p. 381; Oct., 1826, p. 414;
_National Intelligencer_, Dec. 5, 1826, and Jan. 27, Feb. 24, 1827. Cf.
Hazard's _Register_, i. 49. On the 21st November, 1777, James Lovell
at York expressed the discontent with Washington in a letter to Joseph
Whipple at Portsmouth. He complained that the naval force at Fort
Mifflin was not properly seconded by the land force; and adds: "I have
reason to think the battle of Germantown was _the_ day of salvation
offered by Heaven to us, and that such another is not to be looked for
in ten campaigns."

[925] Lives of Washington by Sparks (vol. i.), Irving (iii. ch. 23); of
Greene by Johnson and Greene; Muhlenberg's _Muhlenberg_; the collated
narrative in Dawson (i. 318); the military criticism in Carrington
(ch. 51), and accounts in Bancroft (ix. 424,—controverted in Amory's
_Sullivan_); Reed's _Reed_ (i. 319); Sargent's _André_ (p. 112);
Lossing, Gay, etc. Cf. Lowell's _Hessians_ (p. 197); notes in _N.
Y. Hist. Soc. Proc._, ix. 183; _Harper's Mag._ (i. 148; vii. 448);
_Potter's Amer. Monthly_ (vii. 81); T. Ward on the Germantown Road, in
_Penna. Mag. Hist._, v. p. 1, etc. At the centennial ceremonies in 1877
there were addresses by Judge Thayer and by A. C. Lambdin (_Penna. Mag.
Hist._, i. 361).

[926] Cf. Stedman (i. ch. 15); Mahon (vi. 163); Hamilton's _Grenadier
Guards_ (vol. ii.). Also see Wilkinson's _Memoirs_, i. 369, for Howe's
orders; Hunter's diary in Moorsom's _Fifty-second Reg._, 20; Lord
Lindsay in _Memoirs of Admiral Gambier_ (_Hist. Mag._, v. 69); Harcourt
in _Evelyns in America_, 244.

[927] Wallace's _Col. Wm. Bradford, the patriot printer of 1776_
(Philad., 1884), ch. 30; Bancroft, ix. ch. 25.

[928] Local details are in Smith's _Delaware County_, p. 289.
Washington was opposed to trying to match an inferior navy with the
British (Wallace, p. 271), and Wallace weighs the advantages (p. 296).
There are some current observations in Adams's _Familiar Letters_, p.
257. The ultimate destruction and scuttling of the American vessels
is described by Wallace (p. 247), referring in connection to the
_Universal Mag._, vol. lxii. Cf. _Hist. Mag._, iii. 201. The principal
loss of the British fleet was the blowing up of the frigate "Augusta"
(Wallace, P. 187; _United Service_, May, 1883, p. 459).

[929] For other contemporary records see 2 _Penna. Archives_, v.;
Moore's _Diary_, 514; Pickering's in _Life of Pickering_, i. 174;
Joseph Reed's letter, Oct. 24, to President Wharton (cf. Reed's _Reed_,
i. 336); Jones (i. 193) gives the accredited British reports. The best
later narrative is in Wallace's _Bradford_ (p. 183). Cf. Bancroft, ix.
430; Smith's _Delaware County_, p. 321.

[930] Varnum's and Angell's letters in Cowell's _Spirit of '76 in
R. I._, 296; Col. Laurens' diary in the _Army papers of Col. John
Laurens_, p. 74, and his letter to Henry Laurens in Moore's _Laurens
Correspondence_ (1861), p. 63; Major Fleury's diary in Marshall and
in Sparks (v. 154); Robert Morton's diary in _Penna. Mag. of Hist._
(i. 28); Bradford's letter in Force (vi. p. 11). The story as given in
the _United States Mag._, May, 1779 (p. 204), used by Bancroft (ix.
434), is reprinted in the _Penna. Mag. Hist._, App. 1887, p. 82. Moore
(_Diary_, i. 520) reprints the account in the _N. Jersey Gazette_.
Washington's instructions and his report to Congress are in Sparks (v.
100, 112, 115, 151, 154; Dawson, i. 364).

Other details are found in Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._, ii. 3, 7,
12, 18, 20, 42; _Penna. Archives_, v. and vi.; Chastellux's _Travels_,
Eng. tr., i. 260; _Hist. Mag._, xxi. 77; Tuckerman's _Com. Talbot_;
Hamilton's _Repub. U. S._, i. 297; _Life of Pickering_, i. 174;
Greene's _Greene_, i. 501; Potter's _Amer. Monthly_, Feb., 1877.

[931] There is some confusion in the accounts of the grounds given for
the defence (Arnold's _Rhode Island_, ii. 410).

[932] Pickering's Journal in his _Life_ (i. 180); Knox's letters
in Drake's _Knox_, 135, and in Leake's _Lamb_, 192; the account in
Williams's _Olney_; and further in Gordon, Marshall (i. 178), Henry
Lee's _Memoirs_; Reed's _Reed_ (i. ch. 16); Almon, v.; Stone's
_Invasion of Canada_ (p. 75); _Hist. Mag._, Feb., 1872; Dawson, i. ch.
29, 30; Carrington (ch. 52); Lossing, etc.

[933] The broadside orders of the British commanders can be found in
Sabin, xv. p. 577, etc.; Hildeburn's _Issues of the press_, under 1777
and 1778; some of them are in fac-simile in Smith's _Hist. and Lit.
Curios._, 2d series.

[934] Those of Christopher Marshall; James Allen (_Penna. Mag. of
Hist._, Oct., 1885, p. 278; Jan., 1886, p. 424); Robert Morton
(_Ibid._, i. p. 1); Miss Sally Wister (_Ibid._, 1885 and 1886; Howard
Jenkins' _Hist. Coll. relating to Gwynedd_; extracts in Watson's
_Annals_); Margaret Morris, _Private journal kept for the amusement of
a sister_, Philadelphia, 1836, p. 31,—(also copy in _Sparks MSS._, no.
xlviii.); notes in _Evelyns in America_ (also in _Penna. Mag. Hist._,
1884, p. 223). Cf. also a letter, Oct. 23, 1777, in Lady Cavendish's
_Admiral Gambier_ (also in _Hist. Mag._, v. 68); the letters of
Samuel Cooper in _Penna. Mag. Hist._, April, 1886; the account of a
Hessian captain, Henrich, is in the _Schlözer Correspondenz_, vol.
iii.,—translated in _Penna. Mag. Hist._, vol. i. 46; cf. Lowell's
_Hessians_, p. 100.

[935] Scharf and Westcott's _Philadelphia_; Sargent's _André_, p.
119; _Penna. Mag. Hist._, iii. 361, by F. D. Stone; _Life of Esther
Reed_, p. 278, by W. B. Reed; _United Service Journal_, 1852. The house
in Market Street, occupied successively by Washington and Howe as
headquarters, is depicted in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 302; Scharf
and Westcott, i. 351; Brotherhead's _Signers_ (1861), p. 3.

[936] The contemporary accounts of it are in the _Annual Register_,
1778, p. 264; _Gent. Mag._, August, 1778; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 52;
_Bland Papers_, i. 90; Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, i. 242,
718. André played a conspicuous part and described it (Sargent's
_André_, 168; Lossing's _Two Spies_, 46). Israel Mauduit made it the
occasion of a severe condemnation of Howe in his _Strictures on the
Philadelphia Mischianza, or Triumph upon leaving America unconquered_
(London, 1779,—_Sparks Catal._, no. 2,550). Later accounts will be
found in the _Lady's Mag._ (Philad., 1792); Anna H. Wharton's _Wharton
Genealogy_, and her paper in the _Philadelphia Weekly Times_, May 25,
1878; Watson's _Annals_, vol. iii.; Egle's _Penna._, 185; Mrs. Ellet's
_Women of the Rev._, i. 182, and _Domestic Hist._, etc., ch. 12;
Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 303. Views of the Wharton house and other
illustrations are in Smith and Watson's _Lit. and Hist. Curiosities_;
Lossing; Scharf and Westcott (i. 377-380).

[937] Sparks's _Washington_, i. 276; v. 240, 522; _Corresp. of the
Rev._, ii.; Custis's _Recollections_, ch. 9.

[938] Henry Dearborn's, the original of which is in the Boston Public
Library, is printed in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Nov., 1886, p.
110; Surgeon Waldo's, in _Hist. Mag._, May, 1861, vol. v. p. 129; of
John Clark, in _N. Jersey Hist. Soc. Coll._, vii. There is illustrative
material among the John Lacey papers in the N. Y. State Library, and
various letters from the camp in the _Trumbull MSS._ (vol. vi. pp. 46,
50,—from Jed. Huntington, speaking of their "shameful situation");
others in _Hist. Mag._, April, 1867; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, July,
1860 (v. 48), and Feb., 1874 (xiii. 243),—the last from Col. John
Brooks. More or less of personal experience and observation of the
suffering will be found in Greene's _Greene_ (i. ch. 24, 25); Reed's
_Reed_ (i. ch. 17); Pickering's _Pickering_ (i. 200); Read's _Geo.
Read_ (326); Hull's _Rev. Services_ (ch. 12).

General treatment will be found in Bancroft (ix. ch. 27); Egle's
_Penna._, 955; Irving's _Washington_ (iii. ch. 27, 31); T. Allen's
_Origination of the Amer. Union_ (vol. ii.); Lossing's _Field-Book_
(ii. 331); Mrs. Ellet's _Domest. Hist._; T. W. Bean's _Washington and
Valley Forge_; Potter's _Amer. Monthly_, May, 1875, and July, 1878.

[939] Col. H. A. Dearborn's, Jan. 12-Feb. 4, in J. H. Osborne's
collection at Auburn, N. Y.; of a German battalion of Continentals,
Jan., 1777-June, 1781, in the Penna. Hist. Society. General Wayne's was
sold in the Menzies sale, no. 2,095 ($100); it covered Feb. 26-May 27,
1778, and had been used by Sparks, Irving, and Bancroft. One covering
May-June is in the Boston Athenæum, extracts from which are in the
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ (vii. 133), which speaks of the mud being
removed towards spring from the chinks of the huts, to increase the
fresh air. Records of some courts-martial are in the Moses Greenleaf
MSS. (Mass. Hist. Soc.). Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, vii. 133.

[940] Cf. further, on this reorganization of the army, Hamilton's
_Works_, ii. 138; Bancroft, ix. ch. 27. In the spring (May 5th) a new
impulse was given in this direction by the appointment of Steuben
as inspector-general (_Journals of Congress_, ii. 539; Sparks's
_Washington_, v. 349, 526; Greene's _Hist. View_, 233; Kapp's
_Steuben_; Greene's _German Element_; Wells's _Sam. Adams_, iii. 2).

[941] Cf. _Washington at Valley Forge, together with the Duché
Correspondence_ (Philad., 1858?); Graydon's _Memoirs_, 429; Scharf and
Westcott's _Philadelphia_; Wilson's _Memoir of Bishop White_.

[942] Cf. Simcoe's _Journal_; Reed's _Reed_, i.; Greene's _Greene_, i.
ch. 24; Pickering's _Pickering_, i. 193; Graham's _Morgan_.

[943] Moore's _Songs and Ballads_, 209; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii.;
_Mag. Amer. Hist._, April, 1882, p. 296; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 5.

[944] Cf. Simcoe; Stedman, ii.; Dawson, i. ch. 33, 34; Lossing, ii.
344; Johnson's _Salem, N. Jersey_.

[945] Dawson, i. 386; W. W. H. Davis's _John Lacey_, Doylestown, 1868;
_Hist. Mag._, vi. 167; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 41.

[946] Sparks, v. 368, 378, 545; _Sparks MSS._, xxxii., for Lafayette's
narrative given to Sparks; Wilkinson's _Memoirs_, i. 822; Irving, iii.
33.

[947] Sparks, v. 320; _Sparks MSS._, lii. vol. iii.; Muhlenberg's
_Muhlenberg_, chap. 5.

[948] Wayne's letter, May 21st, in _Penna. Mag. Hist._, April, 1887, p.
115; journal by Andrew Bell, Clinton's secretary, of the march through
New Jersey, in _N. Jersey Hist. Soc. Proc._, vi., and journal of Joseph
Clark in _Ibid._, vii. 93; Eelking, ch. 10; _Mag. Am. Hist._, Jan.,
1879, p. 58. A British orderly-book, Philad., April-June, 1778, is in
the Amer. Antiq. Society. The American vessels scuttled above the city
were raised (Wallace's _Bradford_, 292).

[949] Sparks, v. 422, 431; Dawson, i. 412; _Lee Papers_, N. Y., 1872,
p. 441. Cf. _Recollections_ by Custis, ch. 5.

[950] _Lee Papers_, p. 467; _Pa. Mag. Hist._, ii. 139; Hamilton's
_Works_, ed. Lodge, vii. 550; Hamilton's _Repub. U. S._, i. 468, 478.

[951] _Sparks MSS._, xxxii., printed in Sparks's _Washington_, v. 552,
and his letter in Marshall's _Washington_, i. 255.

[952] By Col. John Laurens (_Lee Papers_, pp. 430, 449); by W. Irvine
(_Penna. Mag. Hist._, ii. 139); by Colonel Richard Butler, July 23,
1778, to General Lincoln, in _Sparks MSS._, lxvi., and other light in
the Lincoln papers as copied in _Ibid._, xii.; by Generals Wayne and
Scott (_Sparks's Corresp. of the Rev._, ii. 150; _Lee Papers_, 438); by
Wayne to his wife (_Ibid._, 448); by Knox (_Sparks MSS._, xxv.; Drake's
_Knox_, 56); by Persifer Frazer (_Sparks MSS._, xxi.); the account in
the _N. Jersey Gazette_, June 24, 1778 (_Lee Papers_); the narrative
from the _N. Y. Journal_ (Moore's _Diary_, ii. 66); the journal of
Dearborn (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Nov., 1886, p. 115); diary of John
Clark (_N. Jersey Hist. Soc._, vii.). Cf. James McHenry in the _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, iii. 355.

[953] Other editions: Cooperstown, 1823; N. Y., private ed., 1864;
Sabin, x. nos. 39,711, etc. It is reprinted in the _Lee Papers_ (_N.
Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 3 vols., 1873), as is also (iii. 255) Lee's
vindication, printed in the _Penna. Packet_, Dec. 3, 1778. Cf. also
Langworthy's _Lee_, p. 23; Sparks's _Lee_; Davis's _Burr_; Reed's
_Reed_, i. 369; and the correspondence of Washington and Lee after the
battle, in Sparks, v. 552, etc.

The _Sparks MSS._ contain various papers, including the statement
of John Clark, who bore Washington's orders to Lee (dated Sept. 3,
1778), and a statement of John Brooks, who had personal knowledge of
Washington's treatment of Lee in the field.

Sargent (_André_, 188) is inclined to acquit Lee of blame for his
retreat at Monmouth.

Colonel Laurens called Lee out for using language disrespectful to
Washington, when Lee was slightly wounded (account by the seconds in
Hamilton, Lodge's ed., vii. 562).

The more general accounts, early and late, are in Marshall (iii.
ch. 8,—who was present); Heath's _Memoirs_ (p. 186); Hull's _Rev.
Services_ (ch. 14); Reed's _Reed_ (i. ch. 17); Williams's _Olney_ (p.
243); Armstrong's _Wayne_; _Washington_, by Sparks (i. 298), and Irving
(iii. ch. 34, 35); Drake's _Knox_; Kapp's _Steuben_ (p. 159); Quincy's
_Shaw_ (ch. 4); Hamilton's _Hamilton_ (i. 194), and his _Repub. U. S._
(i. 471); Bancroft (ix. ch. 4); Gay (iii. 603).

Henry Armitt Brown delivered the oration in the Centennial ceremonies
(_Memoir with orations, edited by J. M. Hoppin_, Philad., 1880).

Critical examinations of the battle have been made by Gen. J. W. De
Peyster in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._, July and Sept., 1878; March and
June, 1879; cf. 1879, p. 355 (by J. McHenry); by Dawson (ch. 37,
praised by Kapp); and by Carrington (ch. 54-56).

Cf. for various details, C. King in _N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iv. 125;
_Amer. Hist. Rec._, June, 1874; Barker and Howe's _Hist. Coll. N. J._;
Linn's _Buffalo Valley_, 159; the Moll Pitcher story in _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, Sept., 1883, p. 260, and _Penna. Mag. Hist._, iii. 109. For a
visit to the field a few days after the battle, _U. S. Mag._, Philad.,
1779, by H. H. Brackenridge, reprinted in _Monmouth Inquirer_, June,
1879. For landmarks, Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 356, and _Harper's
Mag._, vii. 449, lvii. 29.

[954] Cf. further Simcoe's _Journal_; Stedman (ii. ch. 22); Murray (ii.
448); Mahon (vi. ch. 58).

[955] Vol. v. 483-518; cf. also _Ibid._, i. 266; v. 97, 390; and his
_Gouverneur Morris_, i. ch. 10.

[956] Hamilton's _Works_, i. 100; J. C. Hamilton's _Repub. U. S._, i.
339; Irving's _Washington_, iii. ch. 25.

[957] Vol. i. 311; v. 530 (App.); vi. 106, 114, 149. There are extracts
from the Lafayette papers in _Sparks MSS._, no. xxxii. Cf. Marshall,
iii. 568; Irving, iii. 334; Jay's _Jay_, i. 83; Stone's _Brant_, ch. 14.

There is a good account of the conspiracy in Greene's _Greene_ (ii. p.
1; also see i. 22, 34, 483). The account in the _Memoirs_ of Wilkinson
(i. ch. 9) is called grossly inaccurate in Duer's _Stirling_ (ch.
7). Cf. Lossing's _Schuyler_ (ii. 390); Kapp's _De Kalb_; Hamilton's
_Hamilton_ (i. 128-163); Reed's _Reed_ (i. 342); Wirt's _Patrick Henry_
(p. 208); Stone's _Howland_ (ch. 5); Marshall's _Washington_ (iii. ch.
6); Irving's _Washington_ (iii. ch. 25, 28, 29, 30); Bancroft (ix.
ch. 27); Lossing's _Field-Book_ (ii. 336); the account of Col. Robert
Troup, written for Sparks in 1827 (_Sparks MSS._, xlix. vol. i. no. 3);
Dunlap's _New York_, ii. 131, and a note in Sargent's _Stansbury and
Odell_, p. 176.

[958] Vol. x. 378.

[959] It was at this time, Feb., 1779, that a story reached Christopher
Marshall, in Lancaster, Pa., that Arnold had gone over to the British.
_Hist. Mag._, ii. 243.

[960] _Report to Germain._

[961] _Life and Treason of Arnold._

[962] _Life of André._

[963] Clinton says Arnold "found means to intimate to me", etc.

[964] The question of Mrs. Arnold's privity to her husband's plot has
been much discussed, but most investigators acquit her. Her innocence
is maintained by Irving (_Washington_, iv. 151), Isaac N. Arnold
(_Arnold_ ch. 17), Sargent (_André_, p. 220), and Sabine (_Loyalists_,
i. 122). The chief accusations are in Leake's _General Lamb_, 270, and
in the Lives of Aaron Burr by Davis (i. 219) and Parton (p. 126). Cf.
Mrs. Ellet's _Women of the Rev._, ii. 213; Stone's _Brant_, ii. 101;
Reed's _Joseph Reed_, ii. 373. The scene in which she showed disorder
of mind, when she accused Washington of attempting to kill her child,
is held by some to have been mere acting. (Cf. Jones, _N. Y. during
the Rev._, i. 745.) It seems clear that she did not wish to join her
husband when the authorities of Pennsylvania drove her to New York.

[965] He wrote to Gates, "By heavens! I am a villain if I seek not a
brave revenge for injured honor!" Bancroft, ix. 335.

[966] Sparks's _Washington_, iv. 344, 351, 408.

[967] Irving's _Washington_, iv. 96.

[968] Sparks's _Washington_, v. 529; Austin's _Gerry_, i. 356.

[969] The writing in which Washington conveyed this reprimand is about
the most adroit piece of literary composition which we have from his
pen, and he contrived, while complying with the sentence of the court,
to signify his estimate of the venial character of the offences, and to
pronounce what some have considered a practical eulogy on a brilliant
soldier. (Isaac N. Arnold's _Arnold_, Irving's _Washington_.) The
former book gives a full examination of Arnold's career during his
command in Philadelphia (chapters 12-14). For the trial, see Sparks's
_Washington_, vi. 231, 248, 261, and App. p. 514. The trial closed
Jan. 26, 1780. Congress ordered the report of the trial to be printed:
_Proceedings of a general Court-Martial for the trial of Benedict
Arnold_. Philadelphia, 1780. It was reprinted in a few copies for
presentation, with introduction, notes, and index, by F. S. Hoffman,
in New York in 1865. A letter of Arnold, transmitting the report to
President Weare of New Hampshire, dated March 20, 1780, is in MS.
_Miscell. Papers_, 1777-1824, vol. i. p. 156 (Mass. Hist. Soc. library).

[970] It is believed that the writer of this letter was Beverley
Robinson, a loyalist in the British service. The letter is only known
through the French version in Marbois' _Complot_, and it has not passed
without some suspicion of its genuineness. (Cf. Arnold's _Arnold_, p.
275; Sargent's _André_, 446; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Sept., 1878, p.
756; Reed's _Jos. Reed_, ii. 54, etc.)

[971] Several attempts at invasion from Canada are supposed to have
been timed in unison with Arnold's plot (Hough's _Northern Invasion_,
New York, 1866; Lossing's _Schuyler_, ii. 407.)

[972] Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 2; Irving's _Washington_; Lossing's
_Schuyler_, ii. 52; Arnold's _Arnold_.

[973] For views of this house, see Boynton's _West Point_; Lossing's
_Field-Book_, ii. 140; his _Hudson_, 236; his _Two Spies_, p. 95;
_Harper's Mag._, iii. 827. Cf. Sargent's _André_, 263; _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._ (Feb., 1880), iv. 109, by C. A. Campbell.

[974] Johnson says (_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, viii. 731) that Varick's
papers show that Arnold's letter to Anderson of Aug. 30th never reached
André, though Sparks and Sargent print it as having been received.
This is the letter which Sargent supposes may have been conveyed to
André by Heron. This and Arnold's of Sept. 15th are the only ones of
"Gustavus" preserved. Fac-similes of a part of one of these letters,
with a portion of one of "Anderson's", are given in Sparks's _Arnold_;
in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 146; in the _Cyclop. of U. S. Hist._,
ii. 1410, etc. Cf. _Harper's Monthly_, lii. 825. Fac-similes of
Arnold's passes are in Lossing, ii. 155. These passes are printed in
Dawson's _Papers_, 60; H. W. Smith's _Andreana_; McCoy's edition of the
_Proceedings_, etc., and in other places.

[975] There are views of this house in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, i.
25; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 152; _Harper's Mag._, iii. 829; his
_Two Spies_, 82; his _Cyclop. U. S. Hist._, ii. 1411.

[976] This view is given in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 185.

[977] Percy Greg, in his _History of the United States_ (London, 1887),
vol. i. p. 304, thinks Joshua Smith was in the pay of Washington,
and persuaded André to put on a disguise in order that he might be
condemned as a spy if caught! This opinion is of the character of most
of the speculations in the book; of course it condemns the execution.

[978] Sargent's _André_, p. 306.

[979] These papers, having been used in André's trial, were passed over
to Governor Clinton to be used in the civil trial of Smith, and from
Clinton's descendant Sparks procured them when he was writing his _Life
and Treason of Arnold_. Lossing also got them from the same source,
and collated them with Sparks's copies before he printed them in his
_Field-Book_, ii. 153. They were subsequently bought by the State of
New York, and are now in the State library at Albany. They have since
been printed by McCoy in his edition of the _Proceedings_ of André's
examination; by Boynton in his _West Point_, ch. 7; by Dawson in his
_Papers_ ("Gazette series"), 51; in the Appendix of his edition of
Smith's trial, and in _Revolutionary Relics or Clinton Correspondence,
comprising the celebrated papers found in André's boots, etc.,
published originally in the N. Y. Herald_, N. Y., 1842 (Menzies, no.
1,687); and in _Cent. Celeb. of the State of N. Y._ (1879).

[980] There is a view of his quarters in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii.
188.

[981] View of the breakfast room in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 158.

[982] Some memoranda of his aide, Colonel Varick (_Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, viii. 727) show that Arnold's movements were hastened by the
arrival of Washington's servant at this moment, announcing the near
approach of his master.

[983] They were subsequently released in New York. Dr. William Eustis's
account of this flight to the "Vulture", written May 8, 1815, is in
the Mass. Hist. Soc. cabinet (_Letters and Papers_, 1777-1824, vol.
ii. 206), and is printed in their _Collections_, xiv. 52. Its purport
is to emphasize the patriotic resistance of the boatmen to Arnold's
offers for their desertion. He says some of them were sent ashore in an
inferior boat, Arnold keeping the barge. Cf. Heath's _Memoirs_.

[984] The Varick memoranda (_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, viii.) would seem to
indicate that Varick, Franks, and Dr. Eustis had already begun to be
suspicious, and Arnold's barge had been observed by some one to go down
stream and not to West Point.

[985] Arnold had, before leaving, cautioned this messenger to keep
quiet, and this also becoming known increased the suspicion of his
aides (_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, viii.).

[986] These aides were Colonel Richard Varick and Major David S.
Franks. Henry P. Johnston, in a paper, "Colonel Varick and Arnold's
Treason", printed in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Nov., 1882 (viii. p.
717), has thrown some new light, from papers of Colonel Varick, on
the life at Robinson's house previous to the flight of Arnold, and
on the evidence, both of Varick, Franks, and Dr. Eustis, brought out
before a board of inquiry, Nov. 2, which acquitted these officers of
any complicity in the plot. On the night when Smith had been dragged
from his bed and put in confinement, Arnold's aides had been put under
arrest. This paper also shows, from a deposition of General Knox, that
Varick had found in one of Arnold's trunks, after his desertion, some
plans and profiles of the West Point works.

[987] These orders are in Dawson's _Papers_, p. 63. Colonel Lamb had
command of the immediate works at West Point at the time; but being
absent, Col. Nathaniel Wade had temporary charge (_Ipswich Antiq.
Papers_, ii. no. 19). Lamb's orderly-book, July-Dec., 1780, is owned by
the Cayuga County Hist. Society.

St. Clair succeeded Arnold in command of the post, and his instructions
from Washington are in the _St. Clair Papers_, i. 528.

[988] There are views of the De Wint house at Tappan, occupied by
Washington as headquarters, in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (v. 105; cf.
p. 21), with a paper by J. A. Stevens. Cf. also Irving's _Washington_,
4^o ed., vol. iv.; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 196, etc., his _Hudson_,
p. 336, and his _Two Spies_, 100; Ruttenber's _Orange County_ (1875),
p. 215.

The house in which André was confined, known as the "Seventy-six Stone
House", is described, with a plan of its rooms and the village, and a
view of the building, in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, (Dec., 1879), iii.
p. 743, etc. Cf. Lossing's _Two Spies_, 97. The earliest description
was written in 1818, and is cited in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, v. 57.

[989] It is only within a few years, and since the publication of
Clinton's record of the secret service of headquarters, that it has
been known that Gen. S. H. Parsons, of Connecticut, was at this time
acting as a spy for the British general. André, who saw him in the
court, may have known this.

[990] _Proceedings of a board of General Officers, by order of General
Washington, ... respecting Major John André, ... Sept. 29, 1780; to
which are appended the several letters which passed to and from New
York on the occasion. Published by order of Congress_ (Philad., 1780).
There is a copy in Harvard College library, and others are noted in
Menzies (no. 63, $63); Morrell (no. 20, $26); Brinley (ii. no. 3,937);
John A. Rice (no. 45, $67.50). There were editions the same year at
Hartford (Brinley, ii. 3939) and at Providence (no date; Cooke, iii.
91, now in Harvard College library). Cf. also _N. Y. Gazette_, Nov. 6,
1780, and _Political Mag_., i. 749. It was reprinted in London, 1799,
in conjunction with Dunlap's _Tragedy of André_. Later reprints are:—

_Proceedings, etc., A Reprint with additional matters_ (Philad., 1865;
50 copies in quarto, 100 in octavo). _Andreana: containing the trial,
execution, and various matters connected with the history of Maj.
John André_ (Philad., 1865), with an introduction by Horace W. Smith
(Brinley, ii. 3943; Cooke, iii. 94). _Minutes of a Court of Inquiry
upon the case of Maj. John André, with accompanying documents and an
Appendix_ (Albany, 1865; privately printed, 100 copies, for John F.
McCoy; Brinley, ii. 3941; Cooke, iii. 92).

Sargent, in printing it in his _André_, collated the original MS.,
which is preserved at Washington. It is also to be found in Boynton's
_West Point_, 127; in Dawson's _Papers_ (Gazette series). The Cooke
Catalogue (iii. 92) gives an edition, New York, 1867.

The original edition (1780) contains: Washington's letter, Sept. 26th,
to the president of Congress; André's letter to Washington, Sept. 24th;
Arnold's letter to Washington, Sept. 25th; B. Robinson's to Washington,
Sept. 25th; Clinton to Washington, Sept. 26th; Arnold to Clinton, Sept.
26th; and the award of the court. The appendix has André's letter
to Clinton, Sept. 29th; Washington to Clinton, Sept. 30th; Arnold's
commission left at West Point; Arnold to Washington, Oct. 1st; André to
Washington, Oct. 1st.

André's statement is not given in full, but only in substance, in
this volume, but it is included as written by him in Sargent, p. 349;
Boynton's _West Point_; Dawson's _Papers_. (Cf. _Amer. Bibliopolist_,
1870, p. 15.)

[991] By Clinton and Capt. Sutherland of the "Vulture", dated Oct. 4th
and 5th. They are in the _Sparks MSS._, vol. lviii. Cf. Sargent, p. 385.

[992] One of these is preserved in the Trumbull gallery at New Haven.
It represents André himself sitting in a chair at a table on which is
an inkstand and pen. It has been engraved in fac-simile in Sparks's
_Arnold_, 280; in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 203; in George C. Hill's
_Arnold_, etc. Another is a sketch of the landing by boat from the
"Vulture", showing André rowed ashore. An aquatint engraving from it
was published in New York in 1780, of which there is a reproduction in
_Harper's Mag._, lii. p. 835, and Lossing's _Two Spies_. Cf. _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, vol. xiii. (Feb., 1885), p. 173, for a paper by L. Wilson
on André's landing-place at Haverstraw.

[993] An engraving of the scene is given in Barnard's _History of
England_ (p. 694), which is reproduced in H. W. Smith's _Andreana_.

[994] The amount of the removal by James Buchanan, who effected it, is
in the _United Service Journal_, Nov., 1833. Cf. for other details W.
Sargent's _André_; Stanley's _Westminster Abbey_; _Penna. Hist. Soc.
Mem._, vi. 373; _N. Y. Evangelist_, Jan. 10 and Feb. 27, 1879; _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, iii. 319; L. M. Sargent's _Dealings with the Dead_, i. 58.

[995] This monument has been often represented in engravings (for the
first time in _The Universal Mag._, 1782; cf. Lossing's _Field-Book_;
_Cyclo. U. S. Hist._, i. 46; _Two Spies_; and guide-books to the
Abbey). Germain informed Clinton, Nov. 28, 1780, that a pension had
been bestowed on André's mother, and the offer of knighthood made to
his brother, "in order to wipe away all stain from the family."

Col. John Trumbull, who had been Washington's aide, was arrested in
London with threats of retaliatory treatment; but he was released at
the intercession of Benjamin West, the painter. Trumbull tells the
story in his _Autobiography_. Cf. Walpole's _Last Journal_, ii. 434,
436.

[996] View of it in Lossing's _Two Spies_, 109; his _Field-Book_, ii.
204. It was placed there in 1847.

[997] View and account in Lossing's _Two Spies_, 110.

[998] The amount received was £6,315 (Sargent's _André_, 450). He
issued an address of exculpation to the inhabitants of America, dated
New York, Oct. 7, 1780, which is printed by Isaac N. Arnold (p. 330)
from the original MS. in a text varying slightly from other printed
copies, as in the _Political Mag._, i. 734. A fortnight later (Oct.
20th) he issued a proclamation to induce defection among the officers
and soldiers of the army, the original draft of which is among the
Force Papers in the library of Congress. It is printed in I. N. Arnold,
p. 332; in _Polit. Mag._, i. 766, etc.

Sargent thinks that a vindication of Arnold which appeared in _Remarks
on the Travels of M. de Chastellux_, London, 1787, was instigated by
Arnold himself.

[999] Cf. "Arnold at the Court of George III.", by I. N. Arnold, in
_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Nov., 1879, and in his _Life of Arnold_. Cf.
Sargent's _André_, App. i.; and Walpole's _Last Journal_, ii. 493, 494,
501, 511.

[1000] _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Oct., 1883, p. 307; _Amer. Hist. Record_,
iii. 495; _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, xxxiv. 196.

[1001] The original records of this trial are said to have disappeared
from the State archives at Albany, but they had been printed in the
_New York Herald_. Dawson reprinted this Herald text in the _Historical
Mag._, vol. x., July-Nov., 1866, and issued it separately as _Record
of the trial of Joshua Hett Smith, Esq., for alleged complicity in the
treason of Benedict Arnold, 1780, Ed. by H. B. Dawson_ (Morrisania,
1866). Sparks made use of the record; and the evidence has been
examined in P. W. Chandler's _American Criminal Trials_, ii. 155, 183.
The _Gentleman's Mag._, 1780, Supplement, p. 610, gave an account of
the trial and printed the chief documents.

[1002] Sargent's _André_, p. 281.

[1003] Smith published in London in 1808, and there was reprinted in
N. Y. in 1809, _A Narrative of the causes which led to the death of
Major André_ (Cooke, iii. 101; Brinley, ii. 3,954). Sargent found that
it must be used with caution. Sparks says (p. 298) that as "a work of
history this volume is not worthy of the least credit, except where the
statements are confirmed by other authorities."

[1004] Sargent, 266; George W. Greene, _Hist. View_. Marbois was
translated by Walsh in the _Amer. Register_, vol. ii. Cf. a French view
in Léon Chotteau's _Les Français en Amérique_, p. 199.

[1005] There are in the _Sparks MSS._, xlix., no. 14, various papers
used by Sparks in writing his life of Arnold, including the action of
Congress on the seizure of Arnold's papers, and copies of the papers;
letters written in 1833-1834 to Sparks and others, by David Hosack,
Benj. Tallmadge, James Thacher, Nathan Beers, Professor Woolsey, John
D. Dickinson, Samuel Eddy, James Lanman, James Stedman, J. Bronson, and
William Shimmin,—mainly reminiscences. Cf. for some of these letters,
the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Dec., 1879. Copies of Arnold's letters from
Philadelphia in 1779-1780 are in _Ibid._, lii. vol. ii. no. 3. There is
a "Genuine history of Arnold by an old acquaintance" in the _Political
Mag._, i. 690.

[1006] Duyckinck's _Cyclo. Am. Lit. Suppl._, p. 130.

[1007] André had been a prisoner at Lancaster, Pa., after his capture
at St. John, Nov. 2, 1775, to Dec., 1776, when he was exchanged. He
was paroled in Feb., 1776 (_Penna. Mag. of Hist._, i.). Afterwards
he served with General Grey, and in 1780 was placed on Clinton's
staff. There are contemporary accounts of him by "intimate friends"
in _Political Mag._, i. 688; ii. 171. His lineage is traced by J.
L. Chester in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, March, 1876 (xiv. 217). His
will is in the _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, vi. 63, and in Dawson's
_Papers_, 241. For bibliography, see Sabin, i. no. 1,449, and _Mag.
of Amer. Hist._, viii. pp. 61, 145, 149. A daily record of his life
from Sept. 20 to Oct. 2, 1780, is _Ibid._, iii. 157 (1879). On his
career in general, see articles in _No. Amer. Review_, vol. xxxviii.,
by Bancroft and Bigelow; vol. lxxx., by Sargent; vol. xciii., by C. C.
Smith; _Harper's Mag._, 1879, p. 619; _N. Y. Semi-weekly Evening Post_,
March 3, 1882; Earl Stanhope's _Miscellanies_; _Atlantic Monthly_,
Dec., 1860; L. M. Sargent's _Dealings with the Dead_; Sabin's _Amer.
Bibliopolist_, 1869-1870; _N. Jersey Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1876; _Poole's
Index_, p. 38.

The _Monody on Major André by Miss Seward, to which are added letters
addressed to her by Major André in 1769_, was published at Lichfield,
Eng., in 1781, and reprinted in New York in 1792; in Boston, 1798
(fourth Amer. ed.); in Smith's _Narrative_, London, 1808; in Lossing's
_Two Spies_, N. Y., 1886. Cf. _The Galaxy_, Feb., 1876.

His fate has been the subject of several tragedies: by William Dunlap
(1799); by W. W. Lord (1856); by George H. Calvert (1864), etc. W. G.
Simms has examined the story as a subject for fiction in his _Views and
Reviews_.

[1008] It passed to a second edition in 1871. A company orderly-book
showing the disposition of troops at West Point on the discovery of the
plot is in the Mass. Hist. Soc. (_Proc._, xix. 385).

[1009] Orig. ed., x. 395; final revision, v. 438, where, contrary to
his custom, he retains a part of his note.

[1010] Isaac N. Arnold was of very remote kin to Benedict. He had
access to the Shippen Papers, the papers owned by Arnold's descendants
in England and in Canada, and used the letters of Arnold, his wife and
sister, in the Department of State. His praise of Arnold's "patriotism"
in the earlier years of the war, which he thought was evinced by his
brilliant acts in the field, induced a paper by J. A. Stevens on
"Arnold and his Apologist" (_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, March, 1880), who
contended that there was "no evidence that the heart of Arnold ever
beat with one patriotic thrill." The biographer, while condemning the
treason, makes the best show which he can of the provocations which
led Arnold to be false. He adds considerable that is new to Arnold's
story. Mr. I. N. Arnold died in 1884, and addresses upon him before the
Chicago Hist. Society were printed.

Lossing has written much on the subject of Arnold's treason:
_Field-Book_, ii. ch. 6, 7, and 8; _Harper's Monthly_, iii., xxiii.,
and liii.; _Two Spies_ (Hale and André), N. Y., 1886. Cf., on these two
spies, Hull's _Rev. Services_.

Other American treatments of the subject are in the lives of Washington
by Marshall (iv. 274) and Irving (iv. ch. 9-11); Greene's _Greene_
(ii. 227); Leake's _Lamb_, ch. 19 and App. D; Reed's _Reed_, ii. 252
Hamilton's _Hamilton_, i. 262; Quincy's _Shaw_, 77; Dunlap's _New
York_, ii. ch. 13; E. G. Holland's "Highland Treason", in his _Essays_;
Winthrop Atwill's _Treason of Arnold_, Northampton, 1837; _Niles's
Register_, xx.

[1011] There remained for a long time no doubt as to the unalloyed
patriotism of the three men who captured André. Washington praised
their resistance to bribes, and Congress gave them a medal (figured
in Loubat's _Medallic Hist. U. S._, and in Lossing's _Field-Book_,
ii. 205). Some of those who came in close contact with André after
his capture, and heard his account of the arrest, were convinced that
André felt that if he could have made any considerable sum certain
to them they would have let him go. This belief, on their part, of
these keepers of André did not come to public notice till, in 1817,
John Paulding, one of the captors, and the leader of them, petitioned
Congress for an additional pension. This gave occasion to Benj.
Tallmadge, who had been André's chief-keeper, and who was then in
Congress, to oppose the bill on the grounds of André's statements. The
_Journals_ of the House of Representatives show the debate, which is
reprinted in Dawson's _Papers_, 127. A letter of Gen. Joshua King, also
in André's confidence at the time, confirms Tallmadge's view, and there
is also a similar statement by Bowman, one of André's guards (Sparks's
_Arnold_; _Notes and Queries_, ix.; _Niles's Register_; _Hist. Mag._,
i. 204, 293; iii. 229; Dawson's _Papers_, 45; Jones's _N. Y. during the
Rev._, i. 733; _Boston Sunday Herald_, Sept. 14, 1879).

The captors did not want for friends. Judge Egbert Benson published a
_Vindication of the Captors of Maj. André_, 1817 (cf. _Analectic Mag._,
x. 307), which was reprinted in N. Y. in 1865, in two editions, with
additional matter, one by Sabin, the other by Hoffman. John Paulding,
the son of one of the captors, published a paper in their defence
(_Hist. Mag._, i. 331). The three captors were then all living, and
each made statements and affidavits respecting the event. These can
be found, whole or in part, in Benson; in the _Hist. Mag._, ix. 177,
xviii. 365; in Dawson's _Papers_, 119, 123, 182; in H. J. Raymond's
_Address_ (N. Y., 1853) at Tarrytown; in _Cent. Celebrations of N.
Y._ (1879); in Sabin's _Amer. Bibliopolist_, 1869, p. 335; in Simms's
_Schoharie County_, 646. Sargent thinks that Paulding (of whom there is
a portrait in H. W. Smith's _Andreana_) was the one of the three that
most firmly resisted André's bribes.

A monument was erected at Tarrytown in 1853, when Henry J. Raymond
delivered an address; it was remodelled in 1883, and capped with a
statue of a captor, when Chauncey M. Depew spoke in defence of the
good names of the captors; and a _Centennial Souvenir_ was prepared
by Nathaniel C. Husted (N. Y., 1881). Monuments have been erected at
the graves of the three captors: for Paulding's and Van Wart's, see
Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 171, 192; for Williams's, erected at Old
Fort Schoharie in 1876, when addresses were given by Daniel Knower and
Grenville Tremain, see _Centennial Celebrations of the State of N. Y._
(Albany, 1879). For memorials of Williams, see _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
Feb., 1887, p. 168.

A letter of Maj. Henry Lee describing the capture is in the _Penna.
Mag. of Hist._ (1880), iv. 61. Cf. _Amer. Hist. Rec._, Dec., 1873;
_Potter's Amer. Monthly_, vii. 167; Bolton's _Westchester_, i. 213.

Respecting André in confinement, Major, later Colonel, Tallmadge has
left several statements,—letters, Sept. 23, 1780 (_Sparks MSS._, xlix.
vol. iii.); to Heath, Oct. 10, 1780 (_Heath MSS._, printed in Dawson,
194, and in Sargent, 469); his letters to Sparks in 1833-4 (_Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, 1879, pp. 748, 752); his _Memoir_, privately printed by
his son, F. A. T., and the extracts from it (_Hist. Magazine_, Aug.,
1859; and Dawson's _Papers_).

Washington gave his version of the conspiracy at a dinner-table in
1786, which is contained in Richard Rush's _Washington in Domestic
Life, being letters addressed to his secretary, Lear, 1790-97_ (also
in Dawson, 139). There are many references in the letters of 1780 in
Sparks's _Washington_ (vii, 205, 212-222, 235, 241, 256, 260-65, 281,
296, and in the App. pp. 520-552, most of the documentary proofs), and
in his _Letters to Washington_ (iii. 101-111), much of which is given
in Dawson.

Several letters of Hamilton, contained in his _Correspondence_, are
of interest: one to Greene; one to Miss Schuyler, usually dated Oct.
2, but Bancroft says it is without date and must have been written
later, and, as usually printed, has omissions and interpolations.
Of particular value is a letter of Hamilton's to Henry Laurens, in
which he wished André's desire for a soldier's death could have
been gratified (Lodge's ed. _Works_, viii.; Dawson; H. W. Smith's
_Andreana_; McCoy's ed. _Proceedings_. Cf. _Pennsylvania Packet_, in
Moore's Diary, ii. 333).

Lafayette's account is in his _Memoirs_, Eng. trans., N. Y., i. 253-56,
349, as well as letters to Luzerne and others (Dawson, 204, etc.).
Sparks held various conferences with Lafayette in later life, and his
notes are in the _Sparks MSS._, xxxii. J. F. Cooper, in his _Notions of
the Americans picked up by a travelling Bachelor_, has an account which
he says he derived from Lafayette in later years and from a British
officer who had heard Arnold tell his story at a dinner.

In Dawson's _Papers_ are included various other contemporary accounts:
letters of Alex. Scammell (Oct. 1st, in Mass. Hist. Soc. cabinet;
_Misc. Papers_, 1777-1824, i. 192; Oct. 3d, in _Hist. Mag._, xviii.
145; and Farmer and Moore's _Hist. Coll. N. H._); of Anthony Wayne,
Sept. 27 and Oct. 1, 1780 (_Amer. Bibliopolist_, 1870, p. 62); extracts
from the _Bland Papers_, ii. 33-38; and Maj. Samuel Shaw to the Rev.
Mr. Eliot, in Shaw's _Journals_, 77-82.

Some papers of Timothy Pickering, formerly possessed by the Hon. Arad
Joy, of Ovid, N. Y., and now in the War Department, were printed in the
_N. Y. Tribune_. Letters of General Greene are in Greene's _Greene_,
ii. 227-40, and in the _R. I. Col. Records_, ix. 246, and in the _R.
I. Hist. Coll._, vi., and one of R. R. Livingston in the _Sparks
MSS._, xlix. vol. iii. Moore's _Diary_ (ii. 323, etc.) gives various
contemporary newspaper reports.

The records of observers of André's last hours and execution have been
precise: Dr. Thacher's _Military Journal_, 274 (Dawson, 130; McCoy;
Smith's _Andreana_, 58), and his additional statements, together with
Maj. Benjamin Russell's account in the _N. E. Mag._, vi. 363 (also in
Dawson and _Andreana_); letter of Col. Van Dyk in 1821 (_Hist. Mag._,
Aug., 1863, vol. vii. 250); Todd's _Joel Barlow_, 35; the _Military
Journal of Gen. Henry Dearborn_, a MS. (J. W. Thornton's sale, no.
284, bought by Dr. T. A. Emmett); _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, 1879, p. 574;
_Amer. Whig Rev._, v. 381; _Southern Lit. Messenger_, vii. 856; xi.
193; Sparks's _Arnold_ (p. 255); Irving's _Washington_ (iv. 149, 157);
Sargent's _André_, 395; and others cited by Dawson.

[1012] In a letter by Clinton, Oct. 11, 1780, to Germain, he details in
an accompanying narrative the rise of the correspondence with Arnold,
which began eighteen months before. Sargent notes it as being in the
State Paper Office, "America and West Indies, vol. cxxvi.", and says
it has not been printed. The _Sparks MSS._ (no. xxxii.) has a copy,
where is his next letter of the 12th, telling the story of André's
execution, which is printed in the _Remembrancer_, vii. part 2, p. 343,
and in Dawson, p. 240. Clinton also wrote to Lord Amherst on the 16th;
and on the 30th he wrote a secret letter to Germain, in which he says
that he has paid £6,315 to Arnold (_Sparks MSS._, xxxii. and xlviii.).
Germain's letters to Clinton and Arnold of Nov. 28th and Dec. 7th are
in _Sparks MSS._, xlviii. On a fly-leaf of Stedman's _History of the
Amer. War_, Clinton, having dissented to that writer's narrative (vol.
ii. p. 249,—given in Dawson, 196), wrote what he called an extract
from his MS. History of the War, no other portion of which is known.
This is printed in Mahon, vii. App.; Sargent's _André_; Dawson, p. 177,
and Jones's _N. Y. during the Rev._, vol. i. App. p. 737. Washington
in this extract is severely criticised, and this is also the case in
a pamphlet, _The Case of Major John André, who was put to death by
the Rebels, Oct. 2d, 1780, candidly represented, with remarks on said
case_ (pp. 28), New York, Rivington, 1780,—a copy in proof-sheets
in the Carter-Brown library, being the only one known, and it has
been supposed that it was prepared under Clinton's supervision and
suppressed (Sargent, 274; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Dec., 1879, iii. 739).
The introduction is dated N. Y., Nov. 28, 1780.

Cf. also Simcoe's _Mil. Journal of the Queen's Rangers_, pp. 150, 292
(in Dawson, 149, 151). Simcoe offered to try to rescue André. Mahon's
_England_, vii. ch. 62; journal of Gen. Matthews, cited in Balch's
_Les Français en Amérique_. A long letter on the conspiracy and events
attending it, varying in some ways from the American account, and
possibly furnishing Arnold's story, was written by Andrew Elliott to
William Eden, Oct. 4 and 5, 1780, and is among the Auckland MSS. in the
Cambridge University library (England). Mr. B. F. Stevens has furnished
to me a printed copy of it. The account in Jones's _N. Y. during the
Rev._ (i. 370) misses or perverts the story throughout, and gives
that writer the occasion to abuse Clinton, which he does not fail to
use. Any opinion of Jones is liable to be confused by his cynical and
misplaced irony, which singularly accords with the countenance of the
man as portrayed in his picture.

[1013] The questions at issue were these: Was André protected by
a flag? Arnold says Yes, and André himself says No. They were the
principal parties who could know the fact. If there was a flag, does
such use of a flag come within the purport of the military law which
defines flags? Is the question of good faith in flags one only between
the giver and the receiver of a flag, and can the giver of a flag act
in good faith to the receiver and with perfidy to his own principal,
with that perfidy known to the receiver? Can the passport of a general
engaged in treasonable correspondence with the enemy protect an officer
of that enemy when clothed in a disguise and bearing papers to the
enemy, such as might give that enemy an unfair advantage?

These are questions which Washington and the board of inquiry and all
American writers have decided in the negative. Clinton, in his notes
on Stedman already referred to, Cornwallis (_Corresp._, i. 78), Simcoe
(_Mil. Journal_, pp. 152, 294), and other British military writers
then, as well as historians like Adolphus (_Hist. England_, iii. ch.
39) and Mahon (both in his _History_, vii., and his _Miscellanies_),
have supported the affirmative view. The most conspicuous dissent to
the general English opinion at the time was Sir Samuel Romilly, in
a letter to Roget, Dec. 12, 1780 (_Memoirs_, i. 140, quoted in P.
W. Chandler, _Amer. Crim. Trials_). The more reasonable among the
Tories, like Curwen (_Journal_, p. 323), defended the sentence. Later
English military writers like Mackinnon (_Coldstream Guards_), and
historians like Massey (_England_, iii. ch. 25) and Lecky (_England_,
iv. 155), have held that "the justice of the sentence cannot be
reasonably impugned;" and this seems to be the drift of the best
current English opinion to-day (cf. Dawson's _Papers_, 211, etc.;
Sargent, p. 413, who in chapter 22 gives the characters of the members
of the board, which English writers have attacked), though there is
an occasional exception. The _Saturday Review_, for instance, in
1872 (_Amer. Bibliopolist_, Oct., 1872), contended that a technical
construction of the law should not have guided Washington. The last
considerable discussion of the case was raised by Mahon, whose views
were controverted in Chas. J. Biddle's _Case of Major André_ (_Penna.
Hist. Soc. Mem._, vi. 317-416, Philad., 1868; _Hist. Mag._, i. 193),
and in Arnold's _Life of Arnold_. Irving (_Washington_, iv. 101) is the
most signal instance among American writers of the power to hold the
judgment apart from sympathetic emotion, when he pronounces André's
exploits are "beneath the range of a truly chivalrous nature." (Cf.
Bancroft, x. 393, and _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Dec., 1885, p. 620.) There
is some evidence to show that André in the spring of 1780 had been a
deliberate spy at Charleston.

If there are any aspects of the circumstances attending the discovery
of the plot with which one would willingly dissociate the name of
Washington, it is the countenance which he gave to the proposition to
Clinton to exchange André for Arnold, and his encouragement of the
attempt of Sergeant Champe, a little later, to abduct Arnold from New
York. Henry Lee (_Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department_, ii.
159-187; R. E. Lee's ed., p. 394) gives the most detailed account of
Champe's connived-at desertion, but he evidently mixes together the
later with the earlier incident, and has brought the story in some
minds into the category of myths. Lee's story appeared in New York
in 1864 in a separate brochure as _Champe's Adventures in attempting
to capture Gen. Arnold_ (pp. 48). _The House Reports, no. 486,
Twenty-seventh Congress, 2d session_, ii. (1842), show a petition
of "Sergeant-Major Champe" for reward for services. Cf. Sparks's
_Washington_, vii. 546; Niles's _Principles_, etc. (1876), p. 307;
Arnold's _Arnold_, 336; Sargent's _André_, 451; Lossing's _Field-Book_,
ii. 207.

[1014] Lincoln's order-books bear witness to the seriousness of the
trouble. Even Moultrie became alarmed, and wrote to C. C. Pinckney that
he was afraid lest by straining after too much liberty they might lose
all.

[1015] A court-martial, presided over by Moultrie, censured Ashe for
his lack of the proper precautions, while acquitting him of the charge
of cowardice on the field of battle.

[1016] Curry, the deserter, was taken at Hobkirk's Hill by his former
friends and hanged.

[1017] The Santee in its upper course as far as the line separating the
two Carolinas is known as the Catawba; thence to its junction with the
Congaree it is called the Wateree. The three names should be borne in
mind.

[1018] It seems, however, tolerably certain that he had greatly
overestimated the size of his army, rating it at seven thousand,
while in reality the returns showed an effective force of only "three
thousand and fifty-two, rank and file." When Williams explained this to
Gates, the latter replied: "Sir, the number of the latter (privates)
are much below the estimates formed this morning; but these are enough
for our purpose." It seems never to have occurred to Gates that
Cornwallis would attempt to bring him to action.

[1019] What brought these men together is not certainly known; but a
determination to keep the war away from their homes seems to have been
the main cause of their action. Probably the threats which Ferguson
made, in the vain hope of intimidating them, may have had a good deal
to do with it.

[1020] The court of inquiry into Gates's conduct was never convened; at
first, because it was impossible to get it together without injury to
the service, since Steuben's presence was necessary. Later, when Greene
became cognizant of the whole affair, he became convinced that Gates
was the victim of circumstances, and advised against holding the court.

[1021] Afterwards, when his attention was called to this hazardous
position, Morgan declared that had he passed the Broad River his
militia would have left him. As to the unprotected condition of his
flanks, he asserted that had there been a swamp in the neighborhood the
militia would have taken refuge in it. He added that he should have
viewed the surrounding of his army with unconcern, as then his men
would have been obliged to fight it out. In fact, like his great chief,
Morgan had a very poor opinion of the militia. He placed them in the
front rank with orders to fire at least two shots, and then to retire
behind the regulars, who were posted on a slight eminence in their
rear. A skirmish line of militia sharpshooters protected the front,
while the cavalry remained in reserve. The best proof of the excellence
of these dispositions is to be found in the results of the encounter.

[1022] Tarleton had some "grasshoppers" at the Cowpens, but they did
little execution. For grasshoppers, cf. Stone's _Brant_, ii. 106, and
_Centennial Celebration of Sullivan's Expedition_, p. 109, note.

[1023] In numbers the two commands were about equal,—not far from
one thousand on either side, excluding detachments. In discipline
and equipment the British were far superior. Their defeat was mainly
due to the rash impetuosity of their young commander, to his unwise
dispositions, and especially to his unmilitary conduct in leading his
men into action before the formation was complete. Above all, however,
their defeat was due to the confidence of Morgan's men in their leader,
to his admirable tactics, and to the splendid behavior of the Maryland
line. The "unaccountable panick", as Tarleton calls it, which seized
the British infantry, and the poor use the "Legion" commander made
of his horse contributed in no small degree to the result which was
probable whenever Tarleton should meet with a real soldier.

[1024] A court of inquiry, summoned at Gunby's request, found that his
order "was extremely improper and unmilitary, and, in all probability,
was the only cause why we did not obtain a complete victory." At the
same time the court declared that Gunby's spirit and activity were
unexceptionable. This court was presided over by Huger, or Hugee, as
his name is not infrequently spelled in the old books.

[1025] This seizure of Fort Granby greatly displeased Sumter, who
had marked it for himself. He tendered his commission to Greene, who
returned it with such an effusion of compliments that Sumter could not
refuse to keep it. But his conduct at a time when it was especially
important for the patriots to act in concert was a good illustration of
the way in which he systematically thwarted Greene. Before the Cowpens
he had ordered his subordinate to obey no orders coming from Morgan.
And now, instead of coming to the aid of Greene, when hard pressed,
he contented himself with desultory operations of no utility in the
campaign. They secured to himself, however, a separate command.

Even Marion, that most steadfast and gallant leader of Southern
militia, was impatient at the way in which he was treated by the
commander-in-chief. It seems that Greene thought Marion might easily
spare a few horses in order that Washington's men could be mounted.
It will be remembered that Greene had before this taken occasion to
declaim against the practice of the Southern irregulars in always
wishing to serve mounted, as it added greatly to the expense. Marion
took the implied censure to himself, and wrote that as soon as the
siege of Motte's was over he wished to give up his present command and
go to Philadelphia. Greene induced him to give over his contemplated
retirement, and Marion's reply to Greene's urgent letter furnishes the
real reason for his wish to attain to some other command than that of
"Marion's men", for whom he appears to have had any but the kindest
feelings. Indeed, the popular idea of "Marion's men" seems to be far
from correct, for his band was composed largely of renegades, drawn
together by the hope of booty. They deserted their leader when anything
serious was to be attempted, and this "infamous behavior", as Marion
rightly terms it, was very distressing to him. However, for a time the
storm blew over, and for the future Lee was regarded as under Greene's
own immediate orders.

[1026] It was at this time that Grierson himself was shot by one of
the militia after he had surrendered. Lee asserts that the murderer
could not be discovered, though a large reward was offered for his
apprehension; but Brown has declared that his name was well known, and
that he was purposely shielded by the American commanders

[1027] That chieftain showed at this time a disregard for the orders
and wishes of Greene which counterbalanced whatever good his former
vigorous though unfortunate conduct may have produced. Instead of
acting in harmony with Marion, and delaying Rawdon by every means
within his reach, Sumter by contradictory letters neutralized Marion's
force, and rendered his own quite harmless by shutting himself up in
Fort Granby and allowing the British to march by unopposed. Greene
seems never to have forgiven Sumter for his behavior at this time; and,
indeed, it cannot be too warmly censured.

[1028] He then went to Charleston, and soon after the hanging of Hayne
sailed for home.

[1029] Four cruisers had been sent out by the Americans to give them
warning of the English fleet then in the neighborhood. _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, xii. 229. Cf. letters of Gerry in _Letters of Washington
to Langdon_ (1880), p. 111.—ED.

[1030] Ternay was buried in Newport. Cf. _N. E. Hist. and Genial.
Reg._, 1873, p. 409, and _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiii. 105; and
Anthony's speech on a bill to repair the tomb (H. B. Anthony's
_Memorial Addresses_, Providence, 1875).—ED.

[1031] The Marquis of Rochambeau, in his _Memoirs_, took to himself
the credit of appointing the Chesapeake as a rendezvous for the fleet.
He also claims to have intimated to De Grasse that perhaps it would
be best to attack the English in Virginia. At all events, the French
admiral sent word that he should go into the Chesapeake, and he hoped,
as his stay on the coast would be short, that the land forces would be
ready to coöperate with him. This decided the matter. There is in print
(dated Mount Vernon, July 13, 1788; Carey's _Museum_; also in Niles,
_Principles and Acts_, 1st ed, p. 273) a letter from Washington to the
effect that, although the point of attack was not decided on at the
outset, the movement against New York was a feint.

[1032] The documents recently printed by the Royal Commission on
Historical Manuscripts convey the impression that Rodney preferred not
to act in conjunction with Sir Henry Clinton.

[1033] It was while reconnoitring on the morning of this day that Col.
Alexander Scammel, of the New Hampshire line, was captured by a party
of Legion dragoons, and mortally, though accidentally, wounded after he
had surrendered.

[1034] _History of the Revolution of South Carolina from a British
Province to an Independent State_, Trenton, 1785,—cited in this
chapter as _Rev. in S. C._

[1035] There is no formal biography of Moultrie. Brief sketches of his
career may be found in Hartley's _Heroes of the South_, 231-268, and
in _A New Biographical Dictionary or Remembrancer of Departed Heroes,
compiled by T. J. Rogers_, Philadelphia, 1829, pp. 317-322. Cf. also
_ante_, p. 171, 229.

[1036] _Memoirs of the American Revolution, so far as it related to the
States of North and South Carolina, and Georgia. By William Moultrie._
New York, 1802. This work, though written long after the event,
consists so largely of letters and other original material that it may
be regarded almost as a contemporary work.

[1037] _Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department, by Henry Lee,
lieutenant-colonel commandant of the Partisan Legion during the
American War_, Philadelphia, 1812; reprinted in 1819. In 1827 appeared
_A New Edition, with corrections left by the author, and with Notes
and Additions by H. Lee, the author of the Campaign of '81_. Many
years later, in 1869, _A New Edition, with Revisions, and a Biography
of the Author, by Robert E. Lee_, was published in New York. This is
the best memoir of "Legion Harry" that has yet appeared. Cf. also G.
W. P. Custis's _Recollections_, p. 354, and Rogers, _Biog. Dict._,
p.271. There are portraits of Henry Lee as a young man in Continental
uniform in the Penna. Hist. Society. Cf. Irving's _Washington_, quarto
ed., iii. 197; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 591; R. E. Lee's ed. of the
_Memoirs_. Cf. C. C. Jones, _Last days, death, and burial of General
Lee_ (Albany, 1870).—ED.

[1038] And the same criticism applies with still greater force to the
writers who have based their narratives on this work.

[1039] Cf. Charles C. Jones, _Reminiscences of the Last Days, Death,
and Burial of General Henry Lee_, Albany, 1870.

[1040] For Washington's opinion of Lee, see _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, iii.
81.

[1041] H. E. Turner's _Greenes of Warwick_ (Newport, 1877).

[1042] See especially Greene's _Greene_ (all references in this chapter
are to the three-volume edition, unless otherwise stated), iii.,
Appendix, pp. 541-547; Johnson's _Greene_, i. 218-221 and 326; Sparks,
_Correspondence of the Revolution_, iii. 118-189; Reed's _Reed_, ii.,
_passim_ and App.; _Maryland Papers_; _Charleston News and Courier for
May 10th, 1881_; _Rhode Island Colonial Records_, vol. ix., and _R. I.
Hist. Soc. Coll._, vol. vi. Many of these letters will be referred to
in the notes. In two letters from Knox to Greene (Drake's _Knox_, 67
and 68) the lighter side of Greene's character appears.

[1043] Caldwell sought interviews with Greene's relatives, and says
that his sources were "as ample and authentic as any now existing;"
and he represents that his account of the fight at Ramsour's Mill is
the only event of moment in which he differs materially from other
writers.—ED.

[1044] _Sketches of the Life and Services of Nathanael Greene,
Major-General of the Armies of the United States, in the War of the
American Revolution. Compiled chiefly from original materials. By
William Johnson of Charleston, South Carolina, 1822._ Two volumes,
folio. A good review of this work is in the _United States Magazine and
Literary Repository_ for January, 1823, pp. 3-23.

[1045] This of course provoked the reviewers, and especially Jared
Sparks,—then editor of the _North American Review_,—though his
criticisms are for the most part directed against portions of the work
that do not concern us here.

[1046] _The Campaign of 1781 in the Carolinas, with remarks, historical
and critical, on Johnson's Life of Greene, to which it added an
Appendix of original documents, by H. Lee_, Philadelphia, 1824.

[1047] _The Life of Nathanael Greene, ... by George Washington
Greene_, N. Y., 1871. The life intermediate between these two was
written in Rome, far away from the proper materials. It therefore is
of little value compared with the larger work. It forms volume xx.
of Sparks's _American Biography_. In 1877 appeared _A Biographical
Discourse delivered at the unveiling of the statue ... to the memory
of Major-general Nathanael Greene, by his Grandson, G. W. Greene_. But
the address, owing to the ill-health of the author, was not delivered.
It contains a good short summary of the Southern campaign. Cf. an
_Eulogium on Major-general Greene, delivered before the Society of
the Cincinnati by Alexander Hamilton, July 4, 1789_, in Hamilton's
_Works_, ii. 481; and Lodge's ed., vol. vii.; see also Headley's
_Washington and his Generals_, ii. 7-77; _Lives of the Heroes_, 27-75;
Wilson, _Biography_, 278-286; Rogers, _Biog. Dict._, 170-185; _American
Biography_ (1825), pp. 158-182, etc., etc.

On the grant to Greene for his services, see the paper on the
sea-islands, in _Harper's Mag._, Nov., 1878. Cf. B. P. Poore, _Desc.
Catal. of gov't publ._, p. 1293. Recently published personal detail is
in _Providence Plantations_ (Providence, 1886), p. 62; John Bernard's
_Retrospections_, p. 103.—ED.

The place of Greene's burial has aroused some controversy. Cf. C. C.
Jones, _Sepulture of Greene and Pulaski_ (1885). A description of the
monument to his memory at Savannah is in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, xvi.
297. Cf. _Hist. Mag._, iii. 369.

[1048] _The Life of General Daniel Morgan, with portions of his
correspondence, compiled by James Graham_, N. Y., 1856. Besides this
there is a sketch of Morgan's career in Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 386. Cf.
also _Lives of the Heroes_, 76-89; Wilson, _Biography_, etc., 31-38;
Rogers, _Biog. Dict._, 309-316; Headley, ii. 366-372. _The Hero of
Cowpens, A Centennial Sketch by Mrs. McConkey_, N. Y., 1881, is of no
value. _Am. Hist. Record_, i. 111, contains an account of _The Grave of
Daniel Morgan_, with illustrations.

Portraits of Daniel Morgan were painted by C. W. Peale (engraved by
David Edwin) and John Trumbull (engraved by J. F. E. Prud'homme).
Cf. Dennie's _Portfolio_, viii.; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 637
(also, _Cyclo. U. S. Hist._, p. 920, etc.). The picture (_Mag. Amer.
Hist._, April, 1884), representing him sitting on a chest, and dressed
in a hunting-shirt, is no further a likeness than his features are
preserved. There is a statue of him by Ward. Morgan lived after the war
in the Shenandoah Valley, and a view of his house, "Saratoga", is given
in _Appleton's Journal_, 1873, July 16, p. 67; Mrs. Lamb's _Homes of
America_; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, x. 455.—ED.

[1049] _The Life of General Francis Marion, by Brig.-gen. P. Horry, of
Marion's Brigade, and Mason L. Weems_, Baltimore, 1815. This volume
went through many editions. (Cf. Sabin.) The _Sketch of the Life of
Brig.-gen. Francis Marion, and a History of his Brigade, by William
Dobein James_ (Charleston, 1821), is now very rare. John James based
on it a _Life of Marion_ (N. Y., 1856). For an appreciative sketch of
the noted partisan, see Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 394. Cf. also _The Life of
Francis Marion_, by W. G. Simms, N. Y. (1846 and 1860); Headley, ii.
225; Lossing, in _Harper's Monthly_, xvii. 145; P. D. Hay, _The Swamp
Fox_, in _Ibid._, lxvii. 545,—especially valuable as containing some
original entries from the general's order-book; Hartley, _Heroes_,
1-212; Wilson, _Biography_, 82; Rogers, _Biograph. Dict._, 284;
_Charleston Year Book_ (1885, p. 338), where Marion's epitaph is given,
etc. For portraits of Marion, see Irving's _Washington_, quarto ed.,
iv. 196; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 684.—ED.

[1050] _Documentary History of the American Revolution, consisting of
letters and papers relating to the contest for liberty, chiefly in
South Carolina, by William Robert Gibbes._ There are three volumes
with titles not unlike the above. The first relates to events not
touched on in this chapter, the second (N. Y., 1855-57) covers the
period 1776-1782, while the third volume (Columbia, 1853) relates
more especially to the years 1781-1782. Many of the documents are of
interest to local readers only, and as a whole the volumes are of less
value than their titles would indicate.

[1051] Hartley, _Heroes_, 269-290; Dawson, _Battles_, i. 487; and Lee,
_Memoirs_ (2d ed.), App. p. 442. Some autographic letters of Pickens
are in the _Sparks MSS._, lix. 24.

[1052] In Sparks, _American Biography_, xxiii. pp. 205-434. Cf. also
_Notices of the Life of Major-General Benjamin Lincoln_, by "P. C." in
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 2d series, iii. 233-255,—pp. 238-244 deal
with his Southern campaigns; Thacher, _Military Journal_, 504-517;
J. T. Kirkland, _Notices of the Life of Benjamin Lincoln_; Headley,
_Washington and his Generals_ (N. Y., 1847), ii. 104; Rogers, _Biog.
Dict._, 276, etc., etc.

[1053] There are among the Lincoln Papers (copied in the _Sparks
MSS._, xii.) a considerable mass of documents relating to Lincoln's
service in Carolina in 1779-1780; his correspondence with Marion,
Pinckney, Rutledge, Pulaski, Moultrie, Horry, John Laurens, Commodore
Whipple, etc., and the public authorities of Congress and the Assembly
of Georgia. His Journal, Sept. 3—Oct. 19, 1779, covers his plans of
normally coöperation with D'Estaing. There are records of the councils
of war in Charleston, April 20, 21, 26, May 11,—the latter advising
him to capitulate. Letters of Adj.-Gen. Ternant recount the strength
and losses of the garrison during the siege. Various letters between
Clinton and Lincoln concern the provisions and interpretation of the
terms of surrender. A proclamation of Clinton and Arbuthnot to the
South Carolinians is dated June 1, 1780.—ED.

[1054] There is a _Life of Anthony Wayne by John Armstrong_ in Sparks,
_Amer. Biog._, iv. pp. 1-84. See especially pp. 56-71 for his Southern
campaigns.

[1055] General Joseph Graham contributed many of these articles in
vols. i., iii., iv., and v. He took part in many of the operations. Cf.
_N. C. Univ. Mag._, iii. 433; Wheeler's _North Carolina_, ii. 233, and
Foote's _Sketches of Western North Carolina_, 251. There are sketches
of Caswell's life in the above-mentioned magazine, vols. vii. pp. 1-22,
and iv. 68. For a loyalist's view of the war in general, see Col.
Robert Gray in _Ibid._, viii. 145. Hugh Williamson collected material
for N. C. revolutionary history. Cf. _Pennsylvania Magazine of Hist._,
vii. 493. Cf. _Harper's Mag._, xv,. 159.

[1056] _Interesting Revolutionary Incidents and Sketches of Character,
chiefly in the "Old North State", by the Rev. E. W. Caruthers, D. D._,
second series, Philadelphia, 1856. The title of the first series,
which relates to the Camden campaign, wants the word "_Interesting_."
Cf. the same author's _Sketch of the Life and Character of the Rev.
David Caldwell, ... with Account of the Revolutionary Transactions
and Incidents in which he was concerned_, etc. (Greensborough, N. C.,
1842), and W. A. Graham's _British Invasion of N. C._, in W. D. Cooke's
_Rev. Hist. of N. C._ (1853).

[1057] _Traditions and Reminiscences chiefly of the American Revolution
in the South, by Joseph Johnson, M. D., of Charleston, S. C._,
Charleston, 1851.

[1058] The best biography of Steuben is the life by Friedrich Kapp, 2d
ed., N. Y., 1859. But Kapp is often ridiculously partial to his hero.
In the _Magazine of American History_, viii. pp. 187-199, is a valuable
and graphic account of Steuben, written in 1814 by his former aide,
William North. See also Thacher, _Military Journal_ 517-531; Professor
Ebeling in _Amerikanisches Magazin_, 1797, iii. 148; G. W. Greene,
_German Element in the War of American Independence_, N. Y., 1876, pp.
11-87; Francis Bowen, _Life of Baron Steuben_, in Sparks, _Am. Biog._,
ix. pp. 1-88; Headley, _Generals_, i. 293; Rogers, _Biog. Dict._, 370;
and his character, by Richard Peters in _Mag. of Western Hist._, 1886,
p. 680.

[1059] Light-Horse Harry Lee in his _Memoirs_ was especially severe
on Jefferson's actions at this time, and later during Cornwallis's
campaign. To this Jefferson replied in a letter to the younger Henry
Lee, dated May 15, 1826, in Lee's _Memoirs_ (2d edition), p. 204. In
his _Notes on Virginia_, Jefferson attempted a defence of his conduct,
and in his _Writings_ (ix. 212 and 220) there appeared an attack on the
elder Lee. This brought forth a pamphlet entitled _Observations on the
Writings of Thomas Jefferson, with particular reference to the attack
they contain on the memory of the late Gen. Henry Lee_, by Henry Lee,
New York, 1832. This was suppressed (cf. Sabin, x. 172), but in 1839 a
second edition, "with an introduction and notes by Charles C. Lee", was
published. See especially pp. 119 to 141 of the 1st ed., and pp. 129
to 147 of the 2d. See also Randall's _Jefferson_, i. 291-343; Giradin,
_Continuation of Burk_, iv. 452-470; and, on the other side, Howison,
ii. 251-265.

[1060] Parton in his interesting life of the Virginia statesman, pp.
224-256, gives a lifelike picture of Jefferson's share in the war. He
dwells on the more picturesque incidents, like Tarleton's raid, which,
though giving a pleasant color to the story, had little influence on
the course of events.

[1061] _The History of Virginia, commenced by John Burk, and continued
by Skelton Jones and Louis Hue Giradin_, Petersburg, 1816. What
part Jones took in the work is not clear. Volume iv. relates to the
Revolution. The editors of _Jefferson's Works_ (i. 41) say of Giradin:
"Mr. Jefferson supplied him with a large amount of manuscript matter
which greatly enriched his volume. His admiration for Mr. Jefferson
sometimes approaches the ludicrous." Cf. also Howison, ii. 278. The
volume closes abruptly after the capitulation of Yorktown. Further
publication seems to have been suspended on account of what M. Giradin
terms in his preface "typographical difficulties."

[1062] _Calendar of Virginia State Papers and other Manuscripts
preserved in the Capitol at Richmond_, 1652-1781. Volume i., arranged
and edited by Wm. P. Palmer. Volume ii. prepared for publication by
Sherwin McRae (Richmond, 1875 and 1881). Volume ii. deals almost
entirely with the period covered by this chapter.

[1063] _Letters of Thomas Nelson, Jr., Governor of Virginia_, Richmond
1874; (No. I. of the New Series of the _Publications of the Va. Hist.
Soc._)

[1064] _Mémoires Militaires, Historiques, et Politiques de Rochambeau_,
Paris, 1809, vol. i. pp. 237-330, relating to his share in this war.
This portion was translated by M. W. E. Wright, Esq., and printed
as _Memoirs of the Marshall Count de Rochambeau relative to the War
of Independence of the United States_, Paris, 1838. It is generally
thought that the portion of Soulés' _Troublés_ dealing with Yorktown
was the work of Rochambeau, or written by his inspiration.

[1065] See also appendices to the _Third_ and _Fifth Reports_ for
other papers of interest in the present examination. Some notes in
the Westmoreland Papers (_Tenth Report_, App., iv. 29) supplement the
Sackville Papers.

[1066] Volume xxv. pp. 88 _et seq._, _Hansard_, xxii. 985 _et seq._,
contains the debates in the "Lords", but no documents. Abstracts of the
important papers are in the _Political Magazine_.

[1067] For some account of the career of Cornwallis, see
_Correspondence of Charles, First Marquis Cornwallis_. _Edited with
Notes by Charles Ross, Esq._, London, 1859 (ably reviewed by C. C.
Smith in _North American Review_, lxxxix. 114). Most unfortunately,
many of the letters are printed in extract without any indication
being made of the fact. Several of the most important documents in
the book are printed in the appendix. Cf. also _Lives of the Most
Eminent British Commanders, by the Rev. G. R. Gleig_, iii. 115, being
vol. xxxvi. of Lardner's _Cabinet Cyclopædia_; G. W. Kaye's _Lives of
Indian Officers_, i. 1; the contemporary _Political Magazine_, ii. 450;
Jesse's _Etonians_; E. E. Hale in _Christian Examiner_, lxvii. p. 31;
and Poole's _Index_, p. 303.

[1068] Cf. Cornwallis to Clinton, dated New York, Dec. 2, 1781, in
_Parliamentary Register_, xxv. 202; _Political Magazine_, iii. 350;
_Germain Correspondance_, 269; and Cornwallis's _Answer_, App., p.
228. This was followed by _The Narrative of Lieutenant-general Sir
Henry Clinton, K. B., relative to his conduct ... particularly to
that which respects the unfortunate issue of the campaign in 1781,
with an appendix containing copies and extracts of his correspondence
with L^d G. Germain, Earl Cornwallis_, etc. (London, 1783, several
editions. Reprinted in Philadelphia (1865) as _Narrative of the
Campaign of 1781 in America_ (250 copies).) Next came _A Reply to Sir
Henry Clinton's Narrative ... by Themistocles_ (Cornwallis?) (London,
1783, two editions), and _An Answer to that part of the Narrative of
Lieutenant-General Sir Henry Clinton, K. B., which relates to the
conduct of Lieutenant-general Cornwallis during the campaign in North
America in the year 1781, By Earl Cornwallis_ (London, 1783, and
Philad., 1866). In reply to this appeared _Observations on some parts
of the answer of Earl Cornwallis to Sir Henry Clinton's Narrative
by Lieutenant-general Sir Henry Clinton, K. B._ (London, 1783). In
_Notes and Queries_, Oct. 28, 1882, mention is made of a copy of the
_Correspondence between Clinton and Cornwallis_, July-Dec., 1781, with
marginal MS. notes by Clinton. Cf. On this controversy Jones's _New
York during the Rev._, ii. 464, 466.—ED.

[1069] Cf. _Ninth Report_ of the Royal Commissioners, as above, App.,
iii. p. 100. Soon after his arrival at New York, Clinton demanded that
either the admiral or himself should be relieved (see Eden to Germain,
enclosing letters from Clinton, in _Ibid._, p. 106). Arbuthnot asking
to be relieved on account of his advanced age, the command of the fleet
was given to Graves. Soon, however, Clinton found himself involved in a
similar dispute with a more influential man. _The Seventh Report of the
Commissioners appointed to examine, take, and state the Public Accounts
of the Kingdom_ appeared in 1782 (also printed in _Parliamentary
Register_, xxiv. pp. 517-622). In his evidence before this board (cf.
above, p. 537) Cornwallis repeated Arbuthnot's charge, and plainly
implied that the final cessation of the plundering was due to his
own efforts. To this Clinton replied in a _Letter from Lieut.-gen.
Sir Henry Clinton, K. B. to the Commissioners on Public Accounts,
relative to some observations in their Seventh Report_ (London, 1784).
The order of Cornwallis, on which so much emphasis was laid, is in
_Parliamentary Register_, xxiv. 617. Stedman, as commissary under
Cornwallis, had excellent facilities for observation. He repeated the
old accusations in a note to his _History_. Clinton deemed the attack
worth noticing. Cf. his _Observations on Mr. Stedman's History of the
American War_ (London, 1794; reprinted, New York, 1864). It is but fair
to say that Cornwallis seems to have done everything in his power to
prevent plundering during his march through North Carolina. Cf. his
"Order-Book" in Caruthers' _Incidents_, 2d series, App. Cf. further,
Clinton's _Memorandum respecting the Unprecedented Treatment which
the Army have met with respecting Plunder taken after a Siege and of
which Plunder the Navy had more than ample share_ (privately printed,
1794).—ED.

[1070] _A History of the Campaigns of 1780 and 1781 in the Provinces of
North America, by Lieutenant-colonel Sir Banastre Tarleton, Commandant
of the late British Legion_ (London, 1787). There is in the Boston
Public Library a copy of this book which has bound with it a MS. diary
of Lieutenant Eld, of the Coldstream Guards, from his arrival at New
York, in the summer of 1779, to March, 1780, at the South (_Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, xviii. 70). There is a statement of Tarleton's losses in
the _Sparks MSS._, lvi.—ED.

Tarleton rose to the rank of lieutenant-general. He was a member of the
House of Commons, 1790-1806, and again 1807-1812. Ross, the editor of
Cornwallis's _Correspondence_, says (note to p. 44) that "in the House
of Commons he [Tarleton] was notorious for his criticisms on military
affairs, the value of which may be estimated from the fact that he
almost uniformly condemned the Duke of Wellington." Cf. also a sketch
of his career in _Political Magazine_, ii. 61.

There is a well-known portrait of Tarleton by Reynolds (1782),
representing him in uniform, with hat, and his foot on a cannon. It
was engraved in mezzotint by J. R. Smith. Cf. E. Hamilton's _Catal.
raisonné of the engraved works of Reynolds_ (London, 1884), p. 67,
and John C. Smith's _Brit. Mez. Portraits_, iii. 1305. It is engraved
on wood in _Harper's Mag._, lxiii. 331. Cf. also _London Mag._, 1782;
Johnston's _Yorktown Campaign_, p. 41; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii.
607.—ED.

[1071] _Strictures on Lt.-Col. Tarleton's History, &c., by Roderick
Mackenzie, late Colonel of the 7th Regiment_ (London, 1787). This in
turn called forth _An Address to the Army; in reply to the Strictures
... by Roderick M'Kenzie_, by George Hanger, Tarleton's second in
command. Hanger, afterwards Lord Colerain, also wrote or inspired a
work entitled _The Life, Adventures, and Opinions of Col. G. Hanger,
Written by himself_ (London, 1801). As to the authorship of this, see
_Gentleman's Magazine_, vol. xxxvii.

[1072] _A Journal of the Operations of the Queen's Rangers, From the
end of the year 1777 to the conclusion of the late American War, by
Lieut.-colonel Simcoe, commander of that corps_ (Exeter, "printed
for the author", 1787). Reprinted, with some slight alterations and
additions, as _A History of the Operations of a Partisan Corps called
The Queen's Rangers, commanded by Lieut.-col. J. G. Simcoe, during
the War of the Revolution_. _Now first published. With a memoir of
the author and other additions_ (New York, 1844). The memoir is by an
unknown hand.

[1073] _Memoir of General_ [Samuel] _Graham, edited by his son Colonel
J. J. Graham_, "privately printed" (Edinburgh, 1862). The portions of
this book dealing with America were reprinted in a condensed form in
_The Historical Magazine_ for August and November, 1865.

[1074] _An Original and Authentic Journal of Occurrences during the
late American War, By R. Lamb—late Serjeant in the Royal Welsh
Fuzileers_ (Dublin, 1809).

[1075] _The Origin and History of the First or Grenadier Guards, By
Lieut.-Gen. Sir F. W. Hamilton_ (London, 1874).

[1076] Major Weemys, who commanded in the night assault on Sumter at
Fishdam Ford, was unfortunate in his later career, and died in poverty
in the city of New York. His manuscripts came into the possession
of the Massachusetts Historical Society. Among them is one entitled
_Sketches of Characters of the General Staff Officers ... in the
British Army_. It is the work of a disappointed man, but probably
reflects the opinions of many officers in the British army.

[1077] The number of men nominally under Howe's orders cannot be
stated. He probably had not over 700 in action. Cf. Huger in Moultrie's
_Memoirs_, i. 251. Campbell had with him 3,500 men. Of these 2,500 were
in the fight. The total American loss in this preliminary campaign was
not far from 900 killed, wounded, and missing; while the British do
not seem to have lost more than 40 men. Probably many of the Americans
missing sought safety on their plantations. See further returns annexed
to the official reports as above; Gordon, iii. 218; and _Proceedings_
of the Robert Howe Court-Martial, _passim_.

[1078] C. C. Jones has a description of Sunbury in his _Dead Towns of
Georgia_ (_Ga. Hist. Soc. Coll._, iv.).

[1079] Portrait in _London Mag._, 1781.—ED.

[1080] Cf. also Moultrie, _Memoirs_, i. 252.

[1081] For some account of Howe, see _Charleston Year-Book_ for 1882,
p. 359, and Dawson's _Battles_, i. 479. There is a "Sketch of Gen.
Robert Howe", by Archibald M. Hooper, in _North Carolina University
Magazine_, ii. 209-221, 305-318, 358-363, and iii. 97-109, and 145-160.
The first number of this magazine was printed in March, 1844, and it
was continued to 1860. L. C. Draper writes to me that of vol. vi.
he has "only one number, issued in March, 1857." He adds: "I have
been told that none others appeared of that volume." This statement
is confirmed by K. P. Battle, the present head of the university.
Mr. Draper tells me also that "there are some valuable Revolutionary
papers in the _Magnolia_, a magazine published in Georgia, and then in
Charleston in ante-war times; some in the _Orion_, a Georgia magazine;
some, I think, in _Russell's Magazine_, published at Charleston."

[1082] For other accounts, see Dawson, _Battles_, i. 472; Marshall,
_Washington_, iv. 62; F. D. Lee and J. L. Agnew, _Historical Record of
the City of Savannah_, Savannah, 1869, p. 45; T. S. Arthur and W. H.
Carpenter, _Georgia_, Phila., 1853, p. 134; Stevens, _Georgia_, ii.
160; Eelking, _Die deutschen Hülfstruppen_, ii. 23; Lowell, _Hessians_,
239; Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 524; Beatson, _Military Memoirs_, iv.
371; James Grant, _British Battles on Sea and Land_, ii. 156-160;
Allen, _American Revolution_, ii. 214; _An Impartial History_ (Bost.
ed.,) ii. 361; Botta (Otis's trans.), iii. 15; and Andrews' _History_,
iii. 63.

This attack on Savannah is illustrated in the Faden map (1780)
called _Sketch of the Northern Frontiers of Georgia, from the mouth
of the River Savannah to the Town of Augusta, by Lieut.-Col. Archd.
Campbell_.—ED.

[1083] Cf. Moultrie's _Memoirs_, i. 241, and _Remembrancer_, viii. 177.
An abridgment is in Dawson, _Battles_, i. 482. There is an interesting
account of the affair in Johnson's _Traditions_, p. 211. See also
Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 12, and Gordon, iii. 230. The numbers
given in the text are derived from Moultrie's "Orders" of February
7th (_Memoirs_, i. 296), and from a letter written by General Bull
to Moultrie (_Memoirs_, i. 312). Des Barres published a large map of
this region under the title of _Port Royal in South Carolina, taken
from surveys deposited at the Plantation Office, 1777_. Cf. _Neptune
Americo-Septentrional_ (1778), no. 23, and _N. Amer. Pilot_ (1776),
nos. 30, 31.

[1084] _Georgia_, ii. 192. See also Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 14;
Gordon, ii. 230; Stedman, ii. 106; White, _Hist. Coll._, p. 683; and
Stevens, _Georgia_, ii. 188. In the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1st
ser., vol. ii. pp. 41-240, there is a valuable "Historical Journal of
the American War." Pp. 178-234 relate to the events described in this
chapter.

[1085] This is given entire by Moultrie, who presided over the court
(_Memoirs_, i. 337-354. The finding of the court is on p. 353). The
assertion of Lossing that Ashe was acquitted "of every charge of
cowardice and deficiency of military skill" is not correct, as the
court expressly stated that it was of the opinion that "Ashe did not
take all necessary precautions." There is a "Sketch" of Ashe's career
in _North Carolina University Magazine_, iii. pp. 201-208 and 366-376.

[1086] Accounts of varying degrees of excellence are in McCall,
_Georgia_, ii. 206; Moultrie, _Memoirs_, i. 310-330; Gordon, iii. 232;
Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 16; Stedman, ii. 107. See also Lossing,
_Field-Book_, ii. 507; Marshall's _Washington_, iv. 23; C. C. Jones,
_Georgia_, ii. 346, etc.; Stevens, _Georgia_, ii. 180; Moore's _Diary_,
ii. 138; _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, 1880, p. 249.

[1087] Cf. Prevost to Lord G. Germain in _The London Gazette_,
April 17-20, 1779; reprinted in _Remembrancer_, viii. 168; and in
_Gentleman's Magazine_ (1779), p. 213.

[1088] Prevost had about three thousand men, but of these only two
thirds were fit for duty when he retired from Charleston. Moultrie
(_Memoirs_, i. 430) gives his own force at three thousand one hundred
and eighty, including eight hundred Continentals. According to
Prevost, Maitland had at Stono not far from eight hundred men, though
Lowell (_Hessians_, 241) gives him only five hundred. The attacking
party numbered twelve hundred. The American loss was one hundred and
sixty-two; that of the British one hundred and thirty-one.

[1089] See also Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 23; Gordon, iii. 254;
Stedman, ii. 109, 120 (115-120 deal with Stono); Johnson's _Greene_, i.
271; Johnson's _Traditions_, 217; Flanders's _Rutledge_, in his _Lives
of the Chief Justices_, ii. 358-365. Something has also been gleaned
from Eelking, ii. 24; Lowell, _Hessians_, 240 (giving June 19 instead
of 20 as the date of the attack on Stono); Marshall's _Washington_,
iv. 28; and P. J. S. Dufey, _Résumé de l'histoire des Revolutions de
l'Amérique Septentrionale, depuis les premières découvertes jusqu'au
voyage du Général Lafayette_, Paris, 1826, i. 293-312. The British are
supposed to have carried away a large amount of plate and more than
a thousand slaves. The terror they inspired in the souls of the fair
Carolinians is well set forth in the _Letters of Eliza Wilkinson during
the invasion and Possession of Charleston, S. C., by the British in the
Revolutionary War_. _Arranged by Caroline Gilman_, N. Y., 1839.

[1090] _Life of Lincoln_ in Sparks's _Am. Biog._, xxiii. 285.

[1091] Judge Johnson, in his _Greene_, went out of his way to assert
that Pulaski slept at his post just before the battle at Germantown. In
a defence of his former commander, Paul Bentalou put forth the claim
that the retreat of Prevost was due to Pulaski. Unless the documents
(cited above) are untrustworthy this claim cannot be maintained. On
the contrary, a gallant charge that the brave Pole made had no other
effect than to dispirit the garrison. Cf. _Pulaski Vindicated by Paul
Bentalou, a captain in his "legion",_ Baltimore, 1824, p. 27; Jared
Sparks in the _North American Review_, xx. 385; _Remarks_, etc., on the
above article, by Judge Johnson, Charleston, 1825; Bentalou's _Reply to
Judge Johnson's Remarks_; and another article by Sparks in the _North
American Review_, xxiii. 414.

[1092] There are two editions of this book in the Harvard College
library bearing the same date. One contains 158 pages, the other 126,
but in other respects they seem to be the same. The portion dealing
with Savannah, which Mr. Jones has translated (_Siege_, pp. 57-76),
runs from page 128 to 158 in one edition, and from page 101 to 126
in the other. In Sabin this journal is attributed to D'Estaing. (Cf.
Sabin, under Estaing.) There seems to be no authority for this, and
it would certainly be astonishing for an officer to speak of his own
conduct as the writer of this journal constantly speaks of D'Estaing's
motives and actions.

[1093] In F. B. Hough's _Siege of Savannah by the combined American
and French forces, in the Autumn of 1779_, Albany, 1866, p. 171, it is
reprinted from the _New Jersey Journal_, June 21, 1780, as a _Summary
of the Operations of the King's squadron commanded by the Count
D'Estaing, Vice Admiral of France, after the taking of Grenada, and the
Naval Engagement off that Island with Byron's Squadron_.

[1094] Reprinted in _Remembrancer_, ix. 71; _Gentleman's Magazine_,
1779, p. 633; and, in an abridged form, in _Political Magazine_, i. 50,
also 106; and _Historical Magazine_, viii. 290.

[1095] It usually precedes Prevost's report, and may also be found
in Hough, _Savannah_, 134, and in White, _Hist. Coll._, 343. T. W.
Moore, one of Prevost's aides, wrote a long letter to his wife, which
was printed in Rivington's _Royal Gazette_, Dec. 29, 1779; reprinted
by Hough in his _Savannah_, p. 82. Governor Tonyn, of Florida,
inclosed some interesting letters to Clinton bearing on the siege
(_Remembrancer_, ix. 63, and elsewhere).

[1096] The first (pp. 25-52, with some "additions" running from p. 52
to p. 56) is by an unknown hand. It was copied from Rivington's _Royal
Gazette_, Dec., 1779. The second journal, which he for convenience
calls "Another Journal" (cf. his _Savannah_, pp. 57-79), was also
copied from Rivington. It appears, however, to be identical with the
"Journal" (Sept. 3d-Oct. 20th) which E. L. Hayward sent to John Laurens
in December, 1779,—reprinted in Moore's _Materials for History_, N.
Y., 1861, pp. 161-173, and in _Historical Magazine_, viii. 12-16. It is
interesting, but hardly worth so many repetitions.

[1097] To this should be added an extract from a letter of Anthony
Stokes, the colonial chief justice of Georgia to his wife, which Moore
found in Orcutt's _Collection of Newspaper Scraps_ in the library of
the N. Y. Hist. Soc., and printed in his _Diary_, ii. 223.

[1098] Cf. Garden, _Anecdotes of the American Revolution_ (Brooklyn
ed.), iii. 19, and Hough, _Savannah_, 157. It was not written till
long after the event, and has no value for fixing dates, as Pinckney
confesses to having relied on Moultrie for the dates he gives.

[1099] The French, in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (1878), P. 548, where
it is stated that they were "translated from an original MS. in the
possession of Mr. Frank Moore." Lincoln's orders, as then given, are
stated to be on the same sheet and in the same handwriting as those of
the French, though in English. A somewhat different and more accurate
copy of Lincoln's orders is printed in Moultrie's _Memoirs_, ii. 37.
Cf. Lincoln's MS. order-book.

There has been much dispute as to the size of the opposing armies. In
the report which I have somewhat incautiously attributed to D'Estaing,
the French army actually on shore is given at 2,823 Europeans, 165
volunteers from Cape François, and 545 "volunteer chasseurs, mulattoes,
and negroes newly raised at St. Domingo." The American force is rated
at 2,000, or 5,524 men in all. Cf. Hough, _Savannah_, 173, and Jones,
_Savannah_, p. 40, note. Moultrie (_Memoirs_, ii.) increases the
number of the Americans to 4,000, while lowering that of the French
to 2,500. Stedman (_Am. War_, ii. 127) is even wilder when he says
that the combined armies numbered more than ten thousand men, of whom
about five thousand were French. In this he is followed by Mackenzie
(_Strictures_, p. 12), and as both were officers in the force which
came South with Clinton, it is probable that that was the impression
prevalent in the British army. Chief-Justice Stokes (_View of the
British Constitution_, etc., Lond., 1783, p. 116) estimates the
Americans at 2,500 and the French at 4,500, while Jones (_Savannah_,
p. 39) rates the French at 4,456, and the Americans at 2,127. This is
probably as accurate an estimate as can now be made.

The writer of the so-called D'Estaing report says that the force in
Savannah was composed of 3,055 English European troops, 80 Cherokee
savages, and 4,000 negroes, or 7,155 men in all. Stedman gives the
garrison at 2,500 "of all sorts", while T. W. Moore says that there
were but 2,000 in the town. The legend on Faden's _Plan_ gives the
number at 2,360, while the writer of the first journal in Hough (p. 43)
says that there were but 2,350 "effectives" in the place.

The Allies lost in the sortie of the 23d, 24th, or 25th of
September—for the journals differ as to the date—from 70 to 150 in
killed, wounded, and missing. Cf. Jones, _Savannah_, 22, 53. The writer
of the _Extrait_, ec. of 158 pages, p. 141, says that this great loss
was due to the fact that M. O'Dune, who had the immediate command at
the time, was intoxicated, and pursued the assaulting column too far.
The assault of Oct. 9th cost D'Estaing, according to the _Extrait_
(as above, p. 148), 680 men, while the author of the other journal
translated by Jones gives it as high as 821. The American loss was
not far from 312, though Moultrie rates it at 457, or a total loss
of about 1,133 in killed, wounded, and missing. The French suffered
severely from sickness,—malaria on shore and scurvy in the fleet.
So that Captain Henry, when he wrote (_Remembrancer_, ix.) that "we
have every reason to believe that this expedition cost the enemy two
thousand men", was probably not far from correct. In the document which
I have called the D'Estaing report the French losses are given as
follows (Hough, _Savannah_, p. 174): "Killed, 183; wounded, 454." But
the figures have not been verified by a comparison with the original
_Gazette_.

The English loss in the sortie was very slight,—not more than
twenty-one. Repelling the assault on the 9th cost Prevost 16 killed
and 39 wounded. But to these numbers should he added those picked off
from time to time, which swelled the total to 103 in killed and wounded
(Prevost's report in _Remembrancer_, iv. 81). He lost, in addition,
52 in missing and deserters, or 155 in all. But this was more than
counterbalanced by desertions from the French ranks. It should be
stated, however, that T. W. Moore, Prevost's aide, gave the loss of the
garrison in killed and wounded alone at 163.

[1100] C. C. Jones, _Georgia_, ii. 375-416; Lee and Agnew, _Historical
Record_, 50-64; Arthur and Carpenter, _Georgia_, 174-193. Cf. also
Allen, _History_, ii. 264; _An Impartial History_, p. 605; Andrews,
iii. 309-318; and Beatson, _Memoirs_, iv. 516-534. The most inaccurate
account known to the present writer is in E. Ryerson, _The Loyalists of
America and their Times_, Toronto, 1880, vol. ii. p. 22.

[1101] Dufey, _Résumé_, i. 312-321; François Soulés, _Histoire des
Troublés de l'Amérique Anglaise_, Paris, 1787, iii. 211-219. See also
Botta (Otis's trans.), iii. 66-75; and Giuseppe Colucci, _I casi della
Guerra per l'Independenza narrati dall' ambasciatore della Republica di
Canova presso la corte D'Inghilterra nella sua corrispondenza officiale
inedita_, Genoa, 1879, ii. 536.

[1102] Eelking, _Hülfstruppen_, ii. 57, and Lowell, _Hessians_, 242.
Major-General John Watts De Peyster has an article on the siege in the
_New York Mail_ for Sept. 24, 1879. Something may also be found in
Lossing, _Field-Book_; Stone, _Our French Allies_, etc. A description
of Ebenezer, a town which constantly figures in this campaign, is in
C. C. Jones, _Dead Towns of Georgia_, p. 183; also in _Ga. Hist. Soc.
Coll._, vol. iv.; while the experience of the Salzburg settlers of that
region is well set forth in P. A. Strobel's _The Salzburghers and their
Descendants_, Balt., 1855, pp. 201-211.

[1103] Cf. _A Journal_, in Hough, p. 46; _Another Journal_, in _Ibid._
79; and the other original sources as above.

[1104] As to the sufferings of the sailors and the lack of energy
displayed by the officers of the fleet, see _Extrait du Journal_ (158
page edition), p. 138 _et seq._ This part is translated in Jones,
_Savannah_, p. 61.

[1105] The verses of the royalist wits are in Moore's _Songs and
Ballads_, 269, 274.

[1106] The former had come into notice during the gallant defence of
Fort Moultrie. Later he rendered important service, and was wounded in
the lungs while carrying off the colors from the deadly Spring Hill
redoubt at Savannah. There is no doubt of the truth of this intrepid
bravery of Sergeant Jasper. Cf. McCall, _Georgia_; Horry, _Life of
Marion_, p. 66; Stevens, _Georgia_, ii. 217. Cf. especially C. C.
Jones, _Serjeant William Jasper, An Address delivered before the Ga.
Hist. Soc. in 1876_.

The "impetuous Polander" was mortally wounded while making some kind of
a charge in the rear of the enemy's line on the right. As to Pulaski,
see, beside the general accounts and C. C. Jones's Address in _Georgia
Hist. Coll._, iii., the _Life of Count Pulaski_ by Sparks, in his
_American Biography_, xiv. 365-446; pp. 431-443 relate to the Southern
campaign. Cf. also an article in _American Historical Record_, i.
397-399; and note in Hough, _Savannah_, p. 175, abridged from Stevens,
_Georgia_, ii. According to Paul Bentalou, who claimed to have been
with him when he died, his body became so offensive immediately after
his death that it was thrown overboard from the vessel which was
bearing the wounded to Charleston. Nevertheless, at the laying of the
corner-stone of a monument to his memory in Savannah, a metallic box
supposed to contain his remains was placed within the plinth alongside
the corner-stone. With regard to his place of burial, see Bentalou,
_Pulaski Vindicated from a charge in Johnson's Greene_ (Balt., 1824),
p. 29; C. C. Jones, _Sepulture of Major-General Nathanael Greene and
of Brigadier-General Count Casimir Pulaski_, Augusta, Ga., 1885; and a
letter from James Lynch, of South Carolina, to the editor of the _New
York Herald_, Jan. 7, 1854,—reprinted in the _Hist. Mag._, x. 285;
Johnson, _Traditions_, note to p. 245, where another Pole, who claimed
to have been aide-de-camp to Pulaski, and to have supported him in the
death struggles, says that he was buried under a large tree, about
fifty miles from Savannah.

The Maryland Historical Society has the banner presented to Pulaski by
the Moravian Sisters of Bethlehem in 1778. It was saved when Pulaski
fell at Savannah in 1779, and came into the possession of the society
in 1844 (_Penna. Archives_, 2d ser., xi.). There is a portrait of
Pulaski, engraved by H. B. Hall in Jones's _Georgia_, ii. 402. (Cf.
Lossing, ii. 735.) The history of efforts to establish Pulaski's
service and recompense by the United States Government is traced in
_Senate Exec. Doc. 120, 49th Cong., second session_ (1887).—ED.

[1107] Printed in various places,—as, for example, in Hough,
_Charleston,_ p. 173; _Remembrancer_, x. 140. Other letters from
Lincoln to Washington are in _Corresp. Rev._, ii. 344, 385, 401, 403,
418, and 433, etc. Some of them, especially one of April 9th, are of
considerable value. Among Lincoln's MSS. is a long letter from Lincoln
to Washington, dated Hingham, July 17, 1780, defending his conduct. It
is of value, but, if sent, has never, to my knowledge, been printed.
The reasons for abandoning the defence of the bar are given in a letter
from Captain Whipple and other commanders and pilots to Lincoln, dated
Charleston, Feb. 27, 1780, in Ramsay, _Rev. S. C._, ii. 397. See
Lincoln MS. defence as above. There are also several papers relating to
this portion of the siege in the third volume of the _Commodore Tucker
Papers_ in the Harvard College library. But see Moultrie (_Memoirs_,
ii. 50) for his strictures on the giving up the position near Fort
Moultrie. It is probable that, had the British fleet been kept out of
the Cooper River, the surrender would have been long deferred, perhaps
even until the hot season and the arrival of the French at Newport had
compelled its abandonment.

[1108] There are several other descriptions from American sources.
The most valuable, so far as it goes, is the report of Du Portail
to Washington (_Corresp. Rev._, ii. 451). It relates, however, to a
limited period. The same must be said of a few letters from the younger
Laurens and from Woodford, the commander of seven hundred Virginians
who arrived on the 21st of April. Laurens's first letter, bearing
date of Feb. 25th, is in Moore's _Materials for History_, p. 173. The
second, written on March 14th, is in _Corresp. Rev._, ii. 413. The
third, which bears date of April 9th, is in _Ibid._ 435. Woodford's
letter of April 8th is in _Ibid._ 430. Cf. also _Ibid._ 401, 420, and
Moore's _Materials_, 175.

The contemporary journals of value are: _Diary of Events in Charleston,
S. C., from March 20 to April 20, 1780, by Samuel Baldwin_, in New
Jersey _Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1st series, vol. ii. pp. 78-86,—Baldwin
was a schoolteacher in Charleston; cf. _Ibid._ p. 77; _Journal of the
Siege of Charleston in 1780_, by De Brahm (Feb. 9, 1780-May 12, 1781),
in Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._ (1776-82), p. 124; and _Memoirs of Andrew
Sherburne, written by Himself_ (a "boy" on the American ship "Ranger"),
first printed at Utica in 1828, and reprinted in an "enlarged and
improved" form at Providence, in 1831. His curious journal begins
on p. 24 of the 1st ed., and on p. 27 of the 2d. Maj. Wm. Croghan's
journal at Charleston, S. C., Feb. 9-May 4, 1780, etc., is copied in
the _Sparks MSS._, vol. lx. There are two journals in _The Siege of
Charleston by the British Fleet and Army, which terminated in the
surrender of that place May 12, 1780_, with notes, etc., by Franklin
B. Hough (Albany, 1867). The first is contained in two letters by
an unknown hand, and relates to the operations on Lincoln's line of
communications. The author was not present at the siege itself. The
other journal relates to the operations against the town, but it has
little value. Indeed, this volume of Hough's is not so interesting
as the similar work on Savannah. Another journal, which relates more
especially to the movements in the country, is the _Diary of Anthony
Allaire_, a lieutenant in Ferguson's corps, printed by Draper in his
_King's Mountain and its Heroes_, p. 484. Allaire corroborates in a
most striking manner the accuracy of the charges of cruelty and outrage
made by the author of the "Notes" in Stedman's _American War_. The
account of the defence in Johnson's _Traditions_ was written by an
eye-witness, though long after the event. It is often very inaccurate,
but nevertheless interesting. The assertion therein made that Gadsden
signed the capitulation, and that therefore all of South Carolina was
included in its terms, cannot be substantiated.

[1109] According to Lincoln's official report, the Continental troops,
"including the sick and wounded", surrendered prisoners of war at
Charleston numbered 2,487. Adding to this the 89 Continentals killed,
we have 2,576, or within five of the number of the garrison as given
in the _New Jersey Gazette_ for June 23, 1780 (Hough, _Charleston_,
198). Lincoln says further that at the time of surrender the militia
"effectives" did not exceed 500 men (Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 141), in all
not over 3,000. Clinton, in his report as usually printed, gives the
total as 5,612, or 5,618, "together with town and country militia,
French and seamen, make about six thousand men in arms." In Beatson,
_Memoirs_, vi. 209, the number of seamen is printed as 100 instead of
1,000—a considerable reduction, and perhaps nearer the mark. Clinton's
estimate was further increased in the royalist newspapers of the time
to "between seven and eight thousand men." Lincoln's figures are
probably the nearest to the truth, as all the contemporary writers on
the American side insisted that Clinton counted among his prisoners
every man capable of bearing arms in Charleston. At any rate, whatever
their number, the militia, excepting the artillery company, seem to
have been of but little service, as their loss in killed and wounded
was not over forty, and in this estimate is included the total loss to
those inside the lines not otherwise accounted for. Lincoln stated his
killed at 89, and wounded at 140. But both Ramsay and Moultrie say that
from five to six hundred Continentals were in the hospital at the time
of the surrender.

In Beatson's _Memoirs_ (vi. 204) there is a _List of the different
regiments and corps selected by Sir Henry Clinton to accompany him on
the expedition against Charlestown_. It gives the total, exclusive of
staff, at 7,550. There were in Savannah at the time about 2,000 more,
and the reinforcement which arrived in April numbered about 3,000
men. Clinton therefore had about 13,000 men at his disposal in May,
1780. Of course, a large proportion of this force was employed in
detachments,—guarding Savannah, breaking up Lincoln's communications,
and the like; so that it is impossible to say how many men Lincoln had
in his front at any one time.

Clinton's loss from Feb. 11th to May 12th is given by himself at
76 killed and 189 wounded. To this should be added the loss of
the sailors, who seem to have participated in a good many land
expeditions,—23 seamen killed and 28 wounded, or a grand total of 316.
None of these figures include the losses and numbers engaged in the
minor actions. But there is so little data with regard to them that it
has seemed best to omit them in these estimates.

[1110] It was widely reprinted, as, for instance, in _The New Annual
Register_ for 1780, under _Principal Occurrences_, p. 55; _Pol. Mag._,
i. 455; _Remembrancer_, x. 41; Tarleton, 38, etc., etc. An abstract
under title of _A memorandum_, etc., is given in the _Ninth Report of
the Hist. MSS. Commission_, App. ii. p. 109. A previous report, bearing
date of March 9th, has been found,—_London Gazette_ for April 25-29,
1780; _Pol. Mag._, i. 397; Tarleton, 34; and Hough, _Charleston_, p.
190. The gap between March 9th and 29th must be filled from other
sources. The instructions as to reducing South Carolina to obedience,
from Germain to Clinton and Arbuthnot, are dated Whitehall, 3 Aug.,
'79 (_Charleston Year-Book_ for 1882, p. 364). Clinton issued in all
six proclamations, including the one signed by him conjointly with
Arbuthnot, as commissioners. The first was dated at James's Island,
March 3, 1780. It promised protection, etc., to all who should take
the oath of allegiance. These protections were given in a most
indiscriminate fashion, and caused the complaint of Cornwallis above
noted. The paper was reprinted by Hough in his _Charleston_, p. 24.
Next came the "Handbill", without date, but sent out soon after the
capitulation (_Remembrancer_, x. 80). The proclamation of May 22d
threatened vengeance on all who should prevent the loyalists from
coming in (_Remembrancer_, x. 82; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 435;
and Tarleton, 71). The most important proclamation, however, and the
one to which Cornwallis took such violent exception, pardoned all not
included in a few specified classes (June 1st), and was signed by the
two chief commanders (_Remembrancer_, x. 85; Hough, _Charleston_, 178;
Ramsay, _Rev. S. C._, ii. 438; Tarleton, 74, etc.). A fac-simile is
in _Charleston Year-Book_ (1882), p. 369. The proclamation of June 3d
called upon those on parole, with a few exceptions, to give up their
paroles, take the oath of allegiance, and thereby secure "protections"
(_Remembrancer_, x. 82; Hough, _Charleston_, 182; Ramsay, _Rev. in S.
C._, ii. 441; Tarleton, 73; Moultrie, _Memoirs_, ii. 384, etc.). _The
Address of divers Inhabitants of Charleston to Sir Henry Clinton_,
June 5, 1780, is (_Remembrancer_, x. 93; Ramsay, ii. 443; Moultrie,
ii. 386, etc.) without names, which are appended to the copy in Hough,
_Charleston_, 148, where it is stated to be reprinted from Rivington's
_Royal Gazette_ of June 21, 1780. The names, however, are from the
_Gazette_ of June 24th. The letters of Cornwallis on this subject are
in his _Correspondence_, i. 40, 46, and 48. There is a very striking
passage in Moultrie, i. 276, with regard to this business. Cf. also
_Ibid._ 314, and Johnson's _Greene_, i. 279.

[1111] Hough in his _Charleston_ (p. 50) has reprinted a despatch
purporting to have been written by Clinton and addressed to Lord George
Germain. It was dated Savannah, Jan. 30, 1780; reprinted in Hough,
_Charleston_, p. 50; and was said to have been captured by a privateer.
In it Clinton described the dispiriting effect on the royalists of
Georgia of D'Estaing's attack on Savannah. It has been regarded as a
forgery, partly on this very account. It probably was a forgery. But
it is curious to observe that the opening pages of Tarleton contain
the same statement, and he repents the despatch without a hint as to
its being a forgery. And this forms the ground of Mackenzie's first
stricture.

[1112] Moore, _Diary_, ii. 269; "Allen", _Hist. Am. Rev._, ii. 296;
_An Impartial History_ (Bost. ed.), ii. 386; Beatson, _Memoirs_, v.
8; Soulés, _Troublés_, iii. 259; Johnson's _Greene_, i. 274; Sargent,
_Life of André_, p. 225; Marshall's _Washington_, iv. 135; Sparks's
_Washington_, vii. 92; Wilmot G. De Saussure in _Charleston Year-Book_
(1884), p. 282; Eelking's _Hülfstruppen_, ii. 59; Ewald, iii. 252; and
Lowell, _Hessians_, 243.

A good account of this and the other operations in South Carolina is
in Mills's _Statistics of South Carolina_, while Mrs. Ellet, in her
_Domestic History of the American Revolution_ (pp. 151-290), has well
set forth the services of the women of the South. Cf. the _Letters of
Eliza Wilkinson, during the invasion and possession of Charleston,
S. C., by the British in the Revolutionary War_. _Arranged from the
original manuscripts, by Caroline Gilman_ (New York, 1838). The
articles of capitulation are in Tarleton, p. 61, and R. E. Lee's ed.
Lee's _Memoirs_, p. 158. The correspondence of the commanders is in
_Polit. Mag._, i. 454. The abject condition of South Carolina after the
reduction of Charleston is set forth in Ardanus Burke's _Address to
the Freemen of South Carolina_, Phil., 1783. The British exhilaration
is shown in Moore's _Songs and Ballads_, 293. The _Memoirs of Josias
Rogers, Commander of H. M. S. "Quebec", by Rev. Wm. Gilpin_ (London,
1808), is said to have passages concerning the siege.—ED.

[1113] Reprinted in _Polit. Mag._, i. 513; _Remembrancer_, x.
76; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 432; Tarleton, _Campaigns_, 83;
_Cornwallis Correspondence_, i. 45, etc. It is often accompanied by two
letters: one from Cornwallis, approving his conduct; the other from
Clinton to Germain, calling the latter's attention to the fact that
"the enemy's killed and wounded and taken exceed Lieutenant-Colonel
Tarleton's numbers with which he attacked them."

[1114] There are good descriptions in Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 148; Ramsay,
_Rev. in S. C._, ii. 108; Moultrie, _Memoirs_, ii. 203; Gordon, iii.
360; and Stedman, ii. 192; though all these writers obtained their
information from others.

[1115] Good accounts of this affair are in Marshall's _Washington_, iv.
208, and Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 458.

[1116] It was reprinted by Wheeler in his _North Carolina_, ii. 227,
and in an abbreviated form in Hunter's _Sketches of Western North
Carolina_, p. 206. It forms the basis of the account in Dawson,
_Battles_, i. 592. See also _Historical Magazine_, xii. 24.

[1117] They can also be found in full in the _Ninth Report of the Royal
Commission on Historical MSS._, Appendix, iii. p. 103; _Cornwallis
Correspondence_, i. 488 and 492; Tarleton, 128; _Annual Register_
(1780), under Principal Occurrences, p. 72; and _Political Magazine_,
i. 675, 678. The second one is in the _Remembrancer_, x. 267; Tarleton,
128; _Gentleman's Magazine_ for Oct., 1780; and in many other places.
Not long before the battle, Gates supposed himself to be at the head
of 7,000 men,—Williams in Johnson's _Greene_, i. 493,—while an
estimate found in De Kalb's pocket (_Remembrancer_, x. 279) gives the
size of the American army at some day before the battle at 6,000,
less 500 deserters. In this estimate the Virginians were reckoned at
1,400,—twice their real number. Jefferson in "Memoranda" (Giradin,
iv. 400) gives the total at 2,800,—the North Carolina militia being
rated at 1,000, far below their real strength. Williams (_Narrative_,
in Johnson's _Greene_) gives the "rank and file present and fit for
duty" as 3,052. Gordon gives the total, including officers, as 3,663.
If we add to this number the light infantry and cavalry we get a total
of 4,033 men of all arms. This is probably as correct an estimate as
can be made. Cf. J. A. Stevens in _Mag. Am. Hist._ (v. 267), where the
subject is fully discussed.

Cornwallis had in the engagement itself 2,239 men, of whom 500
were militia. Cf. _Field Return of the troops under the command of
Lieutenant-general Earl Cornwallis, on the night of the 15th of August,
1780_, in _Remembrancer_, x. 271, etc. This is given by Beatson,
_Memoirs_, vi. 211, as _Return of troops ... at the Battle of Camden_.

As to the American loss, it appears that Cornwallis, without taking
much pains to inquire, wrote to Germain that between 800 and 900 of
the enemy were killed and wounded, about 1,000 being prisoners. Even
supposing the wounded to have been counted twice, this is too high.
Only three Virginia and sixty-three North Carolina militiamen are
anywhere reported as wounded, while none were killed. In fact, from
their speedy dispersal the militia loss must have been very slight. In
any correct return they would have appeared as missing. But no attempt
at such a return was made. The nearest approach to it is _A List of
Continental Officers, killed, captivated, wounded, and missing in the
actions of the 16 and 18 August, 1780_. This is signed by Otho H.
Williams, and is in _Remembrancer_, x. 338; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._,
ii. 454. It is erroneously printed in the _N. E. Hist. Geneal. Reg._,
xxvii. 376, as a _Return of the Killed, wounded, captured, and missing
at the Battle of Camden_, which it certainly is not. There were between
ten and twelve hundred Continentals present. They bore the brunt of
the action and suffered nearly all the loss. Yet Gates wrote on the
29th of August that "seven hundred non-commissioned officers and men of
the Maryland division have rejoined the army." See, also, Williams in
Johnson's _Greene_, i. 505. In view of this it seems that even Gordon's
estimate of 730 is too high, while Cornwallis's figures are simply
ridiculous. He certainly did not overstate his own loss when he gave it
as 68 killed, 245 wounded, and 11 missing, or 324 in all. Cf. return
usually annexed to his report, and printed separately by Beatson in his
_Memoirs_, vi. 211.

[1118] A mystery surrounds the life of De Kalb. But he died as became a
man of worth and honor. The fullest account of his career is _The Life
of John Kalb, Major-general in the Revolutionary Army, by Friedrich
Kapp_, "privately printed" in New York in 1870. In 1884 there seemed
to be a revival of interest in the hero of Camden, and the volume was
published. It is a translation of Kapp's _Leben des Amerikanischen
Generals Johann Kalb_, Stuttgart, 1862. An earlier notice was the
_Memoir of the Baron de Kalb read at the meeting of the Maryland
Historical Society 7 January, 1858, by J. Spear Smith_. Both Kapp and
Smith, from whom Kapp quotes, are unwarrantably severe on Gates, as,
too, is G. W. Greene in his _German Element in the War of American
Independence_, N. Y., 1876, pp. 89-167. See, also, Thomas Wilson, _The
Biography of the Principal American Military and Naval Heroes_, N. Y.,
1817; Headley, _Generals_, ii. 318; Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 378, etc. For an
account of the monument to De Kalb, see H. P. Johnston in _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, ix. 183.

[1119] The whole letter is interesting,—_Third Report of Hist. MSS.
Com._, Appendix, p. 430; a portion was reprinted in _Mag. Amer. Hist._,
vii. 496, and copied thence by Kapp in his _Life of John Kalb_, p. 322.

[1120] Printed under the title of _Gates's Southern Campaign_ in _Hist.
Mag._, x. 244-253.

[1121] There is an extract in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._, v. 258. The whole
is copied in the _Sparks MSS._, xx., from the Gates Papers.

[1122] The editors of Jefferson's _Works_ (q. v. i. 249) omitted
this on the ground that the "circumstances of the defeat of General
Gates's army near Camden" are of "historical notoriety." Cf. Giradin's
_Continuation_, iv. 398, where an account probably identical with this
is given. It is one of the best descriptions.

[1123] The best of this class, perhaps, is that of Colonel Senff, an
engineer officer who was with Sumter at the time. The original is among
the _Steuben Papers_, a portion being printed in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, v.
275. See also two letters written by Governor Nash of North Carolina
(Tarleton, 149, and _Corres. Rev._, iii. 107). The latter is especially
valuable as showing the effects of the disaster on the public mind.
Marion also announced the defeat to P. Horry (Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._,
1776-1782, p. 11).

In a letter dated Kennemark, Sept. 5, 1780, Greene describes the defeat
from Gates's despatches, which had not then been made public (_R. I.
Col. Rec._, ix. 243; _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._, vi. 265; and _Mag.
Amer. Hist._, v. 279). A more valuable letter on the same subject is
one to Reed, written after his arrival in the South (Reed's _Reed_,
ii. 344). But the most important of these Greene letters is one dated
High Hills of Santee, Aug. 8, 1781 (quoted by Gordon, iv. 98), in
which Greene declares that Gates did not deserve the blame with which
his career in the South was so unhappily closed. Moore (_Diary_, ii.
310) gives several extracts from accounts of the affair which appeared
in Rivington's _Royal Gazette_. Another contemporary account from a
British source is in Lamb's so-called _Journal_, pp. 302-307. Lamb was
a standard-bearer in a British regiment at the time, and his narrative
seems to have been written while details were still fresh in his mind.

[1124] _Remembrancer_, x. 276; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 456, etc.
Important letters of Gates as to his dispositions after the action are
in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, v. 308; _Remembrancer_, x. 338; _Corres. Rev._,
iii. 66; _Maryland Papers_, 128, etc., etc.

The charges of undue haste and refusal to take the advice of others, so
recklessly heaped on Gates by Bancroft and the writers who have copied
him, appear to be without foundation. After a careful examination of
the field, in company with Otho H. Williams, Greene advised against
making an inquiry into Gates's conduct, while "Light-Horse Harry" Lee
wrote to Wayne (R. E. Lee's edition of Lee's _Memoirs_, p. 32) that
Gates "has been most insidiously, most cruelly traduced.... An action
took place on very advantageous terms; we were completely routed." In
his _Memoirs_, Lee censured Gates for not using cavalry. But this, too,
seems undeserved, as a note to page 394 of Giradin's _Continuation_
contains evidence to the effect that Gates could not get—though he
made every effort—the cavalry he was blamed for not employing. The
most exhaustive article in his defence is _The Southern Campaign,
1780: Gates at Camden_, by John Austin Stevens, in _Mag. Amer. Hist._,
v. 24-274. It is wholly in favor of Gates, and is so one-sided that
it should be read with the greatest caution. Singularly enough, when
he wrote this article, Mr. Stevens, as he acknowledges (p. 424), did
not know of the existence of the Pinckney letter noted above. For
the other side, perhaps, nothing is better than a short, carefully
written article by Henry P. Johnston, entitled _De Kalb, Gates, and
the Camden Campaign_, in _Mag. Amer, Hist._, viii. 496, and reprinted
without map in Kapp's _Kalb_, Appendix, p. 322. Of the more popular
accounts, that in Marshall's _Washington_ (iv. 169) is still one of
the best. Mention should also be made of the description in McRee's
_Life and Correspondence of James Iredell_, N. Y., 1857, i. 456-461.
Accounts of more or less value will also be found in Greene's _Greene_,
iii. 17; Johnson, _Greene_, i. 296; _Harper's Monthly_, lxvii. 550;
Botta (Otis's trans.), iii. 206; Soulés, _Troubles_, iii. 285; Allen,
_Hist. Amer. Rev._, ii. 318; Andrews, iv. 27; J. C. Hamilton, _Hist.
of the Republic_, ii. 120; Sparks, _Washington_, vi. 214; Irving,
_Washington_, iv. 91; Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 459; Carrington,
_Battles_, 513; Dawson, _Battles_, iii. 613, etc., etc.

[1125] There is some detail in Mrs. Ellet's _Women of the Amer. Rev._,
iii. App. The best known portrait of Sumter is by C. W. Peale. It is
engraved in the quarto edition of Irving's _Washington_. Cf. Lossing's
_Field-Book_, ii. 651.—ED.

[1126] The first, dated Camden, July 7, 1780, is in _Remembrancer_,
xi. 156, and _Pol. Mag._, ii. 339. The more famous letter, without
date, but containing the offer of a reward for the head of every
Irish deserter, is in Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 132; Moultrie,
_Memoirs_, ii. 215; and _Washington's Writings_, vi. 554. See also
Sparks, _Corres. Rev._, iii. 77 (note). The extract of the letter
to Balfour or Cruger, which aroused the ire of Washington, is in
_Washington's Writings_, vii., Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 157, and
Moultrie, _Memoirs_, ii. 240. Cornwallis's own version is in his
_Correspondence_, i. 56, and Draper's _King's Mountain_, p. 140. A
proclamation embodying the British commander's ideas as to confiscation
was issued on either the 6th or 16th. of September, 1780 (Tarleton,
186; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 460; and _Remembrancer_, xi. 25).
Clinton's reply to Washington is in _Cornwallis Correspondence_, i. 60,
with Cornwallis's and Rawdon's explanations (pp. 72, 501).

[1127] Ramsay was a prisoner at the time, and what he says (_Rev. in S.
C._, ii. 158-173, 288-303) has a considerable value. A large portion
of Moultrie's second volume (pp. 117-201) is taken up with the same
subject. Both of them relied on a letter written to Ramsay by Dr.
P. Fassoux, surgeon-general in the hospital at Charleston. Moultrie
declares that the letter "is an exact statement of their conduct in
our hospital at that time." The letter is in Moultrie, _Memoirs_, ii.
397,—the indorsement is on p. 277; Gibbes, _Doc. Hist._ (1781-82),
p. 116; and Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 527. If a tithe of this
statement is true, the conduct of the British officers in charge at
Charleston was simply brutal; but the British surgeon denied most of
the statements. It will do no harm to contrast this with the treatment
of those taken at Yorktown, as told by one of their own number, Gen.
Graham. Cf. his _Memoirs_, 66 _et seq._, and App. p. 306. English
writers have asserted that papers implicating the Charleston prisoners
in a conspiracy to overthrow the government were found in the pockets
of those taken at Camden; but no proof of this has ever been produced.
In fact, in his letter of Dec. 4th Cornwallis alleged as a reason for
their removal to St. Augustine that they were so insolent in their
behavior they could not be allowed to go at large in Charleston.
Indeed, the prisoners seem to have been treated with increased
harshness after Camden. Before that time everything had been done to
induce them to enlist in the British army. A regiment had been raised,
and the command offered to Moultrie, and refused by that sturdy patriot
in a letter which has been printed over and over again. Cf. Moultrie,
_Memoirs_, ii. 166; Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 289; _Charleston
Year-Book_ for 1884; and reprinted as _The Correspondence of Lord
Montague with General Moultrie, 1781_ (Charleston, 1885).

[1128] Hayne's letters to the British authorities are in Gibbes, i. p.
108; _Remembrancer_, xiii. 121; Ramsay, 508-520.

[1129] Greene waited till Gadsden and his fellow-prisoners were safe
within the American lines; and his officers, in ignorance of his
purpose, remonstrated, Aug. 20, 1781, against this delay (Ramsay,
ii. 521; Moultrie, ii. 414; Greene's _Greene_, iii. 558; Gibbes, i.
128). Greene's formal proclamation, Aug. 26th, declared that the first
regular British colonel captured should suffer (Ramsay, _Rev. in S.
C._, ii. 524; Moultrie, ii. 417, _Remembrancer_, xiii. 125, etc.). Cf.
also Greene to Washington, Aug. 26, 1781, in _Corres. of Rev._, iii.
393; Balfour to Greene, Sept. 3, 1781. The letter to which this is an
answer I have not found in Ramsay, _U. S._, 520, extract; and Gibbes
(1781-82), 168. And see also Greene to Balfour, Sept. 19, 1781, in
Gibbes, 168. Before this threat could be carried out a new commander
arrived at Charleston, and the war took on humaner methods.

[1130] Cf. Hansard, xxii. 963; _Parl. Reg._ (Debrett), xxv. 81; _Polit.
Mag._, iii. 45, 73, 237, 383; Lee's _Memoirs_ (2d edition), 326; _Hist.
Mag._, x. 269.

[1131] Lee's _Campaign of 1781_, App.; R. E. Lee's ed. of Lee's
_Memoir_, p. 613.

[1132] Cf. Lieut. Hatton in Mackenzie's _Strictures_.

[1133] Pickens to Greene in Johnson's _Greene_, ii. 135, and Gibbes,
_Doc. Hist._ (1781-82), 91. On the other hand, Browne, the British
commander at Augusta, in a letter to Ramsay, dated Dec. 25, 1786
(White's _Hist. Coll._), asserts that James Alexander, a captain in
Pickens's militia, was the murderer whom Pickens shielded. It would
seem that such was the case. See further Johnson's _Traditions_;
McCall's _Georgia_; Jones's _Georgia_, ii. 455; Stevens's _Georgia_,
ii. 247; White's _Hist. Coll. of Georgia_, 210; Lee's _Memoirs_, ii.
204; and Stedman, _American War_, ii. 219.

[1134] There is an account of this author's life in _Mag. Western
History_, Jan., 1887.

[1135] He gives portraits of John Sevier, Shelby, Samuel Hammond,
Joseph McDowell, and De Peyster; and a view of Ferguson's headquarters.
W. E. Foster, in his review of Draper, gives references (_N. E. Hist.
and Geneal. Reg._, Jan., 1882, p. 92).

[1136] See the "report" in Draper, 522; Foote's _Western North
Carolina_, 126; Moore's _Diary_, ii. 338; and the newspapers of the
time. As to the opposing numbers, Ferguson had when attacked from
nine to eleven hundred men; the Americans numbered a little over nine
hundred. But as to the losses, it is within the truth to say that the
British loss was not under seven hundred and fifty in killed, wounded,
and prisoners; and it has been given as high as eleven hundred and
three in the official report. There is every reason to suppose that
this was an overestimate. The killed and wounded on the American side
did not exceed one hundred, and may be stated at ninety. This is
supposed to have resulted from the fact that the fire of the Tories,
being down-hill, was not so effective as the fire of the patriots in
the opposite direction. Draper (_King's Mountain_, 297) has said all
that can be said on this subject. There is an account of Campbell in
the _Mag. of Western Hist._, Jan., 1887.

[1137] Draper, 546; Foote's _Sketches of Western North Carolina_, 264;
and _Southern Literary Messenger_, xi. 552. It forms the basis of the
account in Ramsay's _Annals of Tennessee_, 225. On the whole, this
account is very favorable to Shelby.

[1138] Many years before this, a dispute had broken out between the
descendants of Campbell and Shelby himself. The portions of the papers
which this brought forth, so far as they relate to King's Mountain, are
reprinted in Draper, 540. What was in some sort a last word was said by
John C. Preston, Campbell's descendant, in his _Address delivered at
the Celebration of the battle of King's Mountain_ (printed separately
at Yorkville, S. C., 1855).

Charges of cowardice were also made on the British side. In February,
1781, a writer in the _Political Magazine_ accused De Peyster of
surrendering too soon; but in the same magazine (iii. 609) are
documents vindicating his character. Ferguson's death deprived
Cornwallis of a most valuable officer. For Ferguson, see _Biographical
Sketch or Memoir of Lieutenant-Colonel Patrick Ferguson, by Adam
Ferguson_ (Edinburgh, 1817). Cf. also _Political Magazine_, ii. 60;
Mackenzie, _Strictures_, 63; Foote, _Sketches of Virginia_, 2d series,
129.

[1139] This was given to Draper by Allaire's grandson, J. De Lancey
Robinson, of New Brunswick. The part relating to this campaign is
in Draper, 505-515. The British Museum has recently acquired a MS.
narrative of one Alexander Chesney, who describes the partisan
warfare in Carolina during the Revolution. He was wounded at King's
Mountain.—ED.

[1140] There are good accounts in the contemporary books, especially
in Ramsay, _Rev. in S. C._, ii. 178; Gordon, iii. 462; Moultrie, ii.
242; Lee, _Memoirs_, i. 207; Stedman, ii. 220; and Tarleton, 164.
Tarleton's account of Ferguson's campaign was displeasing to Mackenzie;
cf. _Strictures_, 58. It was also very distasteful to Cornwallis,
whom his former subordinate censured. Much can be gleaned from the
local histories: W. B. Zeigler and B. S. Crosscup, _The Heart of the
Alleghenies or Western North Carolina_ (Raleigh, N. C., and Cleveland,
Ohio, 1883, p. 219); Hunter, _Sketches of Western North Carolina_,
300; J. H. Logan, _History of the Upper Country of South Carolina_
(Columbia, 1859), vol. i., all ever published, p. 68. Cf. also J.
W. De Peyster in _Historical Magazine_, xvi. 189-197, and _Magazine
of American History_, v. 401-424; Lossing, _Field-Book_, ii. 624,
and _American Historical Record_, i. 529; Marshall, _Washington_,
iv. 397; J. C. Hamilton, _Hist. of the Republic_, ii. 161; _Am. Whig
Rev._, 2d series, ii. 580. Bancroft was present at the celebration in
1855, and made a speech. Cf. _Celebration of King's Mountain_, p. 75;
Moore's _Life of Lacey_, etc. For poetry we have a rude ballad by an
unknown author,—cf. Draper, 591; a poem by Paul H. Hayne in _Harper's
Monthly_, lxi. 942; by W. G. Simms in _Ibid._ xxi. 670; and a stirring
ballad, written shortly after the action, by an anonymous author in
Moore, _Songs and Ballads of the American Revolution_, p. 335, and
Draper, 592.

There is no good plan of this action. Foote (_Sketches of Western North
Carolina_) says that Graham made "several plots of the ground showing
the position of the different bands at different times." One of these,
depicting the situation at the time of the surrender, has been printed.
It should have accompanied the original publication of Graham's account
in the _Southern Literary Messenger_ (xi. 552), but was omitted. What
I take to be the same is given by Major-General John Watts De Peyster
in the _Historical Magazine_ (xvi. 192), who says that it was first
printed in the _Southern Lit. Messenger_, but when he does not say. He
adds that it was copied in the _University of North Carolina Magazine_.
A plan closely resembling it in general features is in Ramsay's _Annals
of Tennessee_, p. 238. A fac-simile of this last is in _Mag. of Am.
Hist._, v. 414. Draper (page 236) gives a _Diagram of the Battle of
King's Mountain_, in which the corps are arranged to suit his ideas,
together with a map of the neighboring region. There seems to be little
doubt but that Graham's arrangement is faulty, and too favorable to
Shelby. As to this officer, cf. _Mag. of Western Hist._ (Jan., 1887).
Lossing gives views of the field (_Field-Book_, ii. 629, 634).

[1141] Cf. _Ninth Report of Hist. MSS. Commission_, App. iii. p. 109.
The second of these is also in _Cornwallis Cor._, p. 495, and Clinton,
_Observations on Cornwallis_, etc., App., 32.

[1142] Cf. _Parl. Reg._, xxv. 124; _Fifth Report of Hist. MSS. Comm._,
236; _Political Mag._, ii. 339; and _Germain Cor._, 10.

[1143] _London Gazette_, Feb. 13-17, 1781; _Annual Register_, 1780
(Principal Occurrences, p. 17); Clinton, _Observations on Cornwallis_,
etc., App. p. 45; and _Cornwallis Corres._, i. 497. A short extract is
in Tarleton, p. 203.

[1144] _Cornwallis Corres._, i. 57-74, and Clinton, _Observations on
Cornwallis_, etc., pp. 29, 35.

[1145] Cf. also Marshall, _Washington_, iv. 336; G. W. Greene,
_Historical View of the American Revolution_ (Boston, 1865), pp.
265-281,—very laudatory. McRee, _Life of Iredell_ (i. 481-565),
contains, besides many interesting letters from and to the subject of
the book, an explanatory text, in which the author endeavors to defend
North Carolina from various charges that have been brought against her
people and militia. _Reminiscences of Dr. William Read_ in Gibbes,
_Doc. Hist._ (1776-82), 270 _et seq._; Randall, _Life of Jefferson_,
i.; Kapp's _Steuben_, Am. edition, pp. 344-369; Le Boucher, i. 280,
and ii. 17; Allen, _Hist. Am. Rev._, ii. 369-392; Caldwell's _Greene_,
pp. 150-388; Reed's _Reed_, ii. 339-381; J. C. Hamilton, _Life of
A. Hamilton_, i. 308, and _History of the Republic_, ii. 41, 133;
Irving's _Washington_, iv. There is an interesting article in _Harper's
Monthly_, xv. 159, on the first part of the campaign, and a good
account of the later portion from the British side in the _Political
Mag._, iv. 25-36.

Various letters of Greene after assuming command are in the _Steuben
Papers_ (copies in _Sparks MSS._, xv.). Washington's instructions are
in Sparks, vii. 271. He reached Charlotte in December (_Corresp. of
Rev._, iii. 165); _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Dec., 1881; by Lewis Morris in
_N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1875, p. 473; by C. W. Coleman in _Mag. of
Am. Hist._, vii. 36, 201.

[1146] For a brief and appreciative notice of Williams, see Lee,
_Memoirs_, i. 410. Cf. also _A Sketch of the Life and Services of
Gen. Otho Holland Williams, read before the Md. Hist. Soc. by Osmond
Tiffany_ (Baltimore, 1851).

[1147] There is a short notice of William Washington in Lee, _Memoirs_,
i. 399. See also Wyatt, 79-83.

[1148] Carrington was less known, but Hartley in his _Heroes_, p. 318,
has devoted a short space to him.

[1149] Cf. _Memoirs of Generals ... who were presented with medals by
Congress_, by Thomas Wyatt (Phila., 1848), pp. 70-78; _Mag. of Am.
Hist._, vii. 276-282,—with portrait; Hartley, _Heroes_, 317; Rogers,
_Biog. Dict._, 228, etc.

[1150] Davie, however, rose into prominence. Cf. Frances M. Hubbard,
_Life of William Richardson Davie_, in Sparks, _Am. Biog._, xxv. pp.
1-135. Pages 13-177 relate to his military career. Cf. also Lee,
_Memoirs_, i. 381; _Lives of the Heroes_, 134; and Rogers, _Biog.
Dict._, 114.

[1151] Cf. Greene's _Greene_, iii. ch. 1. The earliest general map of
the Southern campaigns from American sources appeared in David Ramsay's
_Hist. of the Rev. in So. Carolina_ (vol. i., Trenton, 1785). Gordon,
in 1785, sent this Ramsay map to Greene, asking him to correct it, and
lest it should not answer he sent other maps of the Southern States
for Greene to amend (_Hist. Mag._, xiii. 24, 25). Gordon's own map is
in his third volume, and is reduced in Greene's _Greene_. Other early
American maps are those in Marshall's _Atlas_ to his Washington, and in
Johnson's _Greene_, vol. ii.

The English maps are _A new and accurate map of North Carolina and part
of South Carolina, with the field of battle between Earl Cornwallis
and General Gates_ (London, 1780), and Faden's map of Feb. 3, 1787,
showing the _Marches of Lord Cornwallis in the Southern provinces,
comprehending the two Carolinas, with Virginia and Maryland and the
Delaware Counties_ (20 × 26 inches), which is the one also used in
Tarleton's _Campaigns_. Cf. those in the _Political Mag._, Nov., 1780,
and Kitchen's _Map of the Seat of War_, in _London Mag._, 1781, p. 291.
There are later eclectic maps in Carrington, 556; _Harper's Mag._,
lxiii. 324; and in such lesser works as Ridpath's _United States_,
342, and Lowell's _Hessians_, 265. There are French maps in Hilliard
d'Auberteuil's _Essais_, ii.; Balch's _Les Français en Amérique_, etc.

There was a map of South Carolina published in nine sheets (London,
1771,—_King's maps, Brit. Mus._, i. 209). That by James Cook was
engraved by Bowen in 1773 (_Brit. Mus. Catal. Maps_, 1885, col. 699).
Other maps antedating the active hostilities in the South were those
in the _Amer. Military Pocket Atlas_ (1776); the large sheet (56 ×
40 inches), with considerable detail, called _Map of North and South
Carolina_, the work of H. Mouzon and others (London, Sayer & Bennett,
1775); and upon this and Cook's the map in B. R. Carroll's _Hist. Coll.
of So. Carolina_ is based. Sayer & Bennett (London, 1776) published
a smaller map, 19 × 25 inches, called _A general map of the southern
British colonies in America, comprehending North and South Carolina
[etc.] with the Indian countries. From the modern surveys of de Brahm &
others & from hydrographic survey, by B. Romans, 1776._ It has marginal
plans of Charleston and St. Augustine.

In 1777 there was published both in London and Paris a large map of
South Carolina and Georgia, after surveys by Bull, Gascoigne, Bryan,
and De Brahm. The Paris publisher was Le Rouge, and it was included in
the _Atlas Amériquain_, which also reproduces the Mouzon map and the
English map of the Carolina coasts, by N. Pocock (1770).

The Bull, etc., map of 1777 was reissued by Faden in 1780 as a _Map of
South Carolina and a part of Georgia_. Cf. the map of _Parts of South
Carolina and Georgia_ in the _Political Mag._, i. 454. The _Brit. Mus.
Catal. Additional MSS._, no. 31,537, shows four plans, giving positions
of the British in South Carolina from May to September, 1779.

North Carolina alone was not so well mapped as South Carolina at the
outbreak of the war. There was a map published in London in 1770, after
surveys by Collet, governor of Fort Johnson (_King's maps, Brit. Mus._,
i. 208), and in the same library is a drawn map, also by Collet, of
the back country, made in 1768, in twelve sheets. E. W. Caruthers'
_Interesting Revolutionary incidents chiefly in the old North State_,
second series (Philadelphia, 1856), has a folding map, with the marches
of Greene and Cornwallis, from the Cowpens till the separation at
Ramsey's Mill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1222] Liverpool.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1234] Cf. _ante_, ch. ii.

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

[1236] _Journals of Congress_, i. 213.

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

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

[1239] _American Archives_, ii. 1394.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration]

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

[1245] _Almon's Remembrancer._

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

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

[1248] See Notes, following this chapter.

[1249] It is printed in _Franklin in France_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1254] See chap. vi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1289] Vol. iii., App.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1297] See _ante_, chap. ii.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1318] _Secret Journals_, p. 255.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1370] See _ante_, ch. iv.—ED.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1414] As early as 1774 the minds of the colonists were turned
inquiringly towards this question. Joseph Reed wrote on Sept. 25,
1774, to the Earl of Dartmouth, that "the idea of bringing down the
Canadians and savages upon the English colonies is so inconsistent,
not only with mercy, but justice and humanity of the mother country,
that I cannot allow myself to think that your lordship would promote
the Quebec Bill, or give it your suffrage, with such intention" (Reed's
_Reed_, i. p. 79). The "full power to levy, arm, muster, command, and
employ all persons whatsoever residing within our said province", and
to "transport such force to any of our plantations in America", with
which Carleton was commissioned, was but a renewal of the authority
conferred upon James Murray in 1763 (_Parl. Reg._, iv., App., "The
New Commission of the Governor of Quebec", etc., pp. 8, 26). The same
language was used in the commission of Sir Danvers Osborn, Bart., to be
captain-general of New York in 1754 (_Ibid._ p. 48). In the XV. section
of the charter granted by Charles II. to the Lords Proprietors of South
Carolina, the grantees were authorized to levy, muster, and train "all
sorts of men, of what condition, or wheresoever born", and to pursue
enemies, "yea, even without the limits of the said province" (_Ibid._
p. 64). The clause is repeated in the second charter of Charles II. to
the Lords Proprietors of Carolina (_Ibid._ p. 79). Lord Baltimore was
authorized by Charles I. with the same general powers to levy and arm,
and "to make war and pursue the enemies and robbers aforesaid, as well
by sea as by land, yea, even without the limits of the said province,
and (by God's assistance) to vanquish and take them." (Cf. _The Federal
and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters_, etc., Washington, 1877,
part ii. p. 1388, "Charter of Carolina, 1663, § 15.")

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1431] See _ante_, chap. i.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1444] The reports of Colonel Bouquet to General Amherst, Aug. 5th,
6th, and 11th, give the losses in both actions as 50 killed, 60
wounded, and 5 missing (_Gent. Mag._, 1763, p. 486; _Lond. Mag._,
1763, p. 545; _Mag. of Western Hist._, ii. 650; _Annual Register_,
1763, p. 31). Parkman (ii. 68) makes the losses "8 officers _and_ 115
men." The officers were included in the above enumeration. Of the
losses by the Indians, General Amherst wrote (_Gent. Mag._, 1763,
p. 489): "The number of the savages slain was about 60, and a great
many wounded in the pursuit. The principal ringleaders who had the
greatest share in fomenting the present troubles were killed." As to
the number of Indians engaged, Sir William Johnson (_N. Y. Col. Doc._,
vii. 962) states on the best authorities of white men who were with
the Indians, and of several different Indians, who all agree, that the
true number of Indians who attacked Colonel Bouquet at Bushy Run was
only ninety-five. This statement seems hardly probable, in view of the
number killed and the accounts given by the officers engaged.

[1445] "His Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify to the
commander-in-chief his royal approbation of the conduct and bravery
of Col. Bouquet and the officers and troops under his command in the
actions of the 5th and 6th of August" (General Orders from headquarters
in New York, January 5, 1764).

An excellent description of Bouquet's expedition of 1763 and of the
battle of Bushy Run is in _Annual Register_, 1763, pp. 27-32. It was
doubtless written by Edmund Burke from authentic information furnished
by some of the officers engaged. Another account is in the introduction
to Bouquet's second expedition of 1764, in which the writer (Dr.
William Smith) uses freely the account in the _Annual Register_. Cf. T.
J. Chapman on the siege of Fort Pitt in _Mag. of Western Hist._, Feb.,
1886.

[1446] See Parkman's _Pontiac_, i. 305-317; _Annual Register_, 1763, p.
26; and General Amherst's report in _Gent. Mag._, 1763, p. 486; _Lond.
Mag._, 1763, p. 543; _Mag. of West. Hist._, ii. 648. He concludes his
detailed "Return of killed and wounded" with "Total, 19 killed and 42
wounded." The name of Captain Dalzell, whom he had previously reported
as killed, is not included in the return, and the wounded named number
only 39. The _Annual Register_ gives the loss as "only seventy men
killed, and about forty wounded"!

[1447] An orderly-book of Bradstreet's campaign, June-Nov., 1764, is in
the library of the American Antiquarian Society.

[1448] Bradstreet sent Capt. Thomas Morris on a mission to Pontiac,
and an account of Morris's experience and his capture by the Indians
is given in his _Miscellanies in prose and verse_ (London, 1791).
See Field, _Ind. Bibliog._, no. 1,095, and Thomson's _Bibliog. of
Ohio_, no. 854. Morris's original journal, sent to Bradstreet, is in
the Public Record Office, London. He extended the copy from which
he printed. A letter from Morris to Bradstreet is among the papers
of Sir William Johnson in the State Library at Albany (Parkman, ii.
195). The Parkman MSS. (Mass. Hist. Soc.) have minutes of the council
held by Bradstreet with the Indians at Detroit, Sept. 7, 1764, and
the Shelburne Papers (vol. 50) show similar records (_Hist. MSS. Com.
Rept._, v. 218).—ED.

[1449] Sir William Johnson (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 686), writing to
the Lords of Trade, Dec. 26, 1764, and having spoken with much severity
of Bradstreet's bad management of his expedition, says: "On the other
hand, Col. Bouquet, under all the disadvantages of a tedious and
hazardous land march with an army little more than half that of the
other, has penetrated into the heart of the country of the Delawares
and Shawanese, obtained above two hundred English captives from amongst
them, with fourteen hostages for their coming here [Johnson Hall] and
entering into a peace before me in due form; and I daily expect their
chiefs for that purpose." A touching account of the English captives,
the reluctance of some of them to part from their captors and savage
life, and the joy of others again to meet their relatives, is in Dr.
Smith's _Historical Account_, pp. 75-80 (ed. 1868), and in Parkman, ii.
231-240. An engraving, after Benj. West, representing the delivery of
the English captives at the forks of the Muskingum, is in some of the
editions (p. 72) of the _Historical Account_, described in a following
note.

[1450] Cf. a paper on the forks of the Muskingum in the _Mag. of West.
Hist._, Feb., 1885, p. 283.

[1451] _Pennsyl. Mag._, iii. 134. An obituary notice of him appeared in
the _Pennsyl. Journal_, Oct. 24, 1765. In the Haldimand Coll. (Canadian
Archives), p. 21, appears: "June 5, 1765. Bouquet waiting for a vessel
to Florida. Nov. 17. Gen. Gage appoints Lieut.-Col. Taylor to act as
Brig.-Gen. in room of Brig. Bouquet, deceased." Among army promotions,
in _Gent. Mag._, Jan., 1766, is "Aug. Provost, Esq., Lieut.-Col. of the
60th Reg., in room of H. Bouquet, deceased."

[1452] _An Historical Account of the Expedition against the Ohio
Indians in the Year 1764, under the command of Henry Bouquet, Esq.,
Colonel of Foot, and now Brigadier-General_, appeared from the press of
William Bradford, Philadelphia, in 1765 (Wallace's _William Bradford_,
p. 85). The authorship has been ascribed by Rich, Allibone, and others
to Thomas Hutchins, later geographer of the United States; but it
is now known that the writer was Dr. William Smith, Provost of the
College of Philadelphia. It is a quarto, pp. xiii+71, with three maps
by Thomas Hutchins, Asst. Engineer, viz.: (1) "Map [of the route of
Col. Bouquet's expedition of 1763, and] of the country on the Ohio
and Muskingham Rivers; also, on the same sheet, separated by a line,
a map of the country traversed in his expedition of 1764;" (2) plan
of the Battle of Bushy Run; and (3) the order of march. The work has
been several times reprinted: (I.) In London, 1766, 4^o, pp. xiii+71,
with the plates named reëngraved, and two additional plates inserted,
after designs by Benj. West, viz.: (4) conference of Indians with
Col. Bouquet, engraved by Gregnion; and (5) Indians delivering up the
English captives to Col. Bouquet, engraved by Canot (II.) At Amsterdam,
1769, 8^o, pp. xvi+147+ix, a French translation, with the same plates
very neatly reëngraved, the two maps on the first plate being engraved
separately, making in all six plates. (III.) At Dublin, 1769, by John
Millikin, pp. xx+99, no plates. (IV.) In _Olden Time_, i. 203-221,
241-261, no plates. (V.) In the _Ohio Valley Series_, Cincinnati, 1868,
with preface by Francis Parkman, and photo-lithographic copies of the
plates in the London edition. The last two editions have translations
(not the same, however) of C. G. F. Dumas's biographical sketch of Col.
Bouquet, which is prefixed to the Amsterdam edition. The first two maps
are prefixed to Hildreth's _Western Pioneer_, and extracts from the
work are given (pp. 46-64). The map of the expedition of 1763 is in
Parkman's _Pontiac_ (ii. 199). (Cf. Thomson's _Bibliog. of Ohio_, nos.
1,065, etc.)

The _Historical Account_ has an introduction giving a summary of
Col. Bouquet's expedition of 1763, and supplementary matter, viz.,
Reflections on the War with the Savages in North America; and five
appendixes: (I.) Construction of Forts in America; (II.) Account of the
French Forts ceded to Great Britain in Louisiana; (III.) Route from
Philadelphia to Fort Pitt; (IV.) Indian Towns on and near the Ohio
River; (V.) Names of Indian tribes in North America. The supplementary
matter, and doubtless some of the narrative, were furnished by Col.
Bouquet himself, as Dr. Smith, in writing to Sir William Johnson, said:
"I drew up [the work] from some papers he favored me with." Cf. on the
expedition of 1764, Col. Whittlesey's _Cleveland_, p. 105; Darlington's
ed. of Col. James Smith's _Remarkable Occurrences_, pp. 107, 177;
Hildreth's _Pioneer Hist. of Ohio Valley_, p. 46; _Western Reserve
Hist. Soc. tracts_, nos. 13, 14, 25.

[1453] M. D'Abbadie died in February, 1765. Pittman, p. 16.

[1454] The Pontiac War is treated in Doddridge's _Notes_ (ed. 1876), p.
220; Kercheval (taken largely from Doddridge), p. 258; Monette, i. 326;
Stone's _Sir William Johnson_, ii. 191; Perkins's _Western Annals_ (ed.
1851), p. 66; Davidson and Struve's _Illinois_, p. 137; Silas Farmer's
_Detroit and Michigan_ (1884); Sheldon's _Michigan_; Blanchard's _North
West_, 119, with a map; Schweinitz's _Zeisberger_, p. 274; and in an
illustrated article by J. T. Headley, _Harper's Mag._, xxii. 437.
Munsell published at Albany in 1860, as edited by F. B. Hough, and no.
4 of Munsell's "Historical Series", a _Diary of the siege of Detroit
in the war with Pontiac_. _Also a narrative of the principal events of
the siege, by Major R. Rogers; a plan for conducting Indian affairs, by
Col. Bradstreet; and other authentick documents, never before printed._
Rogers MS. diary is noted in the _Menzies Catal._, no. 1,715. There
was a _Life of Pontiac_ published in N. Y. in 1860. See also _Poole's
Index_ for reviews of Parkman's admirable work.—ED.

[1455] Gage's despatch, May 27, 1764 (_Haldimand Coll._, p. 18). Major
Loftus arrived at New Orleans from Mobile with the 22d regiment, Feb.
12, 1764. The French governor "gave him a very bad account of the
disposition of the Indians towards us [the English], and assured him,
unless he carried some presents to distribute amongst them, that he
would not be able to get up the river" (Gage to Earl Halifax, _N. Y.
Col. Doc._, vii. 619). The attack on the command of Major Loftus was
made on the 20th of March, 1764, by the Tunicas Indians, a few miles
above the mouth of the Red River: first from the west bank, and later
from the east bank, of the Mississippi. The spot is indicated on Lieut.
Ross's _Map of the Mississippi_, 1765 (pub. 1775), by the legend
"Where the 22d regiment was drove back by the Tunicas, 1764;" and on
Andrew Ellicott's _Map of the Mississippi_, 1814 (_Journal_, p. 25),
by "Loftus's Heights", on the east bank. Pittman (p. 35) gives some
particulars of the attack, and says, "They killed five men and wounded
four."

[1456] Capt. Pittman was the author of _The Present State of the
European Settlements on the Mississippi, with a Geographical
Description of that River; illustrated by [eight] plans and draughts_
(London, 1770, 4to). It is the earliest English account of those
settlements, and, as an authority in early Western history, is of the
highest importance. He was a military engineer, and for five years was
employed in surveying the Mississippi River and exploring the Western
country. The excellent plans which accompany the work, artistically
engraved on copper, add greatly to its value. They are: (1) Plan of
New Orleans; (2) Plan of Mobile; (3) Draught of River Ibbeville to
Lake Ponchartrain; (4) Plan of Fort Rosalia; (5) Plan of Cascaskies
[Kaskaskia]; (6, 7, 8) Draught of the Mississippi River from the
Balisle to Fort Chartres (in three sheets). Cf. Vol. V. pp. 47, 71.—ED.

[1457] Sir William Johnson, hearing of the failure of the English
troops to reach the Illinois country by way of the Mississippi,
attributed the result to a conspiracy existing between eighteen tribes
of Indians to prevent it, which he charged to the intrigue of the
French residing in New Orleans and the Illinois (_N. Y. Col. Doc._,
vii. 776).

[1458] Fraser, "being too zealous", as Sir William Johnson wrote in
July, 1765, "set out before Mr. Croghan had effected the necessary
points with the Indians;" and "with two or three attendants" (Stone's
_Life of Johnson_, ii. 247) floated down the Ohio, and arrived at Fort
Chartres without casualty. Here he was courteously received by the
French commander; but he and his attendants were ill treated by drunken
Indians, and their lives were saved by the interposition of Pontiac in
their behalf. The story of Fraser's troubles came to Sir William in
another form, and he wrote: "From late accounts from Detroit there is
reason to think that Fraser has been put to death, together with those
that accompanied him, by Pontiac's party" (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii.
746). Fraser, finding the Illinois country at that time an unsafe place
of residence, took a passage in disguise down the Mississippi to New
Orleans, and thence to Mobile.

[1459] _N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 746, 765. The Shawanese, in their treaty
of July 7, stipulated to send ten deputies (_Ibid._ 752); and the
Delawares, in their treaty of May 8, agreed "to send with Mr. Croghan
proper persons to accompany and assist him" (_Ibid._ 739).

[1460] Then called Post Vincent, and later simply "The Post" and
"O'post." It was often erroneously written "_St._ Vincent."

[1461] The savages apologized, saying they supposed the Indians of the
party were Cherokees.

[1462] Now Lafayette, Indiana.

[1463] George Croghan's journals (for there are several) of his journey
to the Illinois country in 1765 are important documents in the history
of the West. "This journal", says Parkman (ii. 296), "has been twice
published,—in the appendix to Butler's _History of Kentucky_, and in
the _Pioneer History_ of Dr. S. P. Hildreth",—implying that they were
publications of the same journal. Dr. Hildreth, in a note appended
to his version (p. 85), makes a statement from which it is evident
that he supposed they were the same journal: "The above journal was
copied from an original MS. among Col. [George] Morgan's papers, and
not copied from Butler's _History of Kentucky_, which had not been
seen by the writer at that time." It is an important fact that these
journals are not the same, no paragraph in one being the same as a
paragraph in the other. Their subject matter is different, and yet they
are in no instance contradictory. The one printed by Dr. Hildreth may
be regarded as an official report, and the one printed by Butler as
a descriptive account. The former gives the details of the official
business which he was sent to transact; the latter is such a journal
as any traveller would keep, giving from day to day the incidents of
the journey, describing the scenery and topography of the country,
the fertility of the soil, the game, and omitting wholly to speak of
public business, or what was done at councils with the Indians. He
describes his being wounded and captured by the Indians, near the
Wabash, as a personal misfortune, but makes no mention of conferences
with the Indians at Ouatanon, or of his meeting Pontiac and making
peace with him. Butler (p. 365, ed. 1834; p. 459, ed. 1836) states
that "the following journal, so curious and little known, is extracted
from the _Monthly American Journal of Geology and Natural Science_,
December, 1831, by G. W. Featherstonhaugh, Esq., Philadelphia, and
purports to be from the original, in possession of the editor." This
text was reprinted at Burlington, New Jersey, 1875, in a tract of 38
pages (Thomson's _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 285). A third version of
Croghan's journal is in the letters of Sir William Johnson to the Lords
of Trade (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 779-788). With some variations it is
the same as that printed by Dr. Hildreth. Each contains passages and
paragraphs which are not in the other. In the Johnson text, words and
passages are omitted, as illegible, which are given in the _Pioneer
History_. Sir William, writing Nov. 16, 1765, says: "A few days ago
[Oct. 21] Mr. Croghan arrived here, and delivered me his journal and
transactions with the Indians, from which I have selected the principal
parts, which I now inclose to your lordships. The whole of his journal
is long and not yet collected; because after he was made prisoner and
lost his baggage, etc., he was necessitated to write it on scraps of
paper procured with difficulty at Post Vincent [Vincennes], and that in
a disguised character, to prevent its being understood by the French,
in case through any disaster he might again be plundered" (_Ibid._
775). Sir William, from May 8 to Sept. 28, 1765, frequently reports
that he has heard from Croghan, and mentions incidents and details
which are not contained in either of the three versions named (_Ibid._
746, 749, 765). Being at Post Ouatanon on the 12th of July, Croghan
said: "I wrote to Gen. Gage and Sir William Johnson, to Col. Campbell
at Detroit, Major Murray at Fort Pitt, and Major Farmar at Mobile, or
on his way up the Mississippi, and acquainted them with everything that
had happened since my departure from Fort Pitt" (Hildreth's _Pioneer
History_, p. 71; _N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 781). In the Butler journal,
writing from the same place, July 15, he said: "From this post the
Indians permitted me to write to the commander at Fort Chartres [St.
Ange]; but would not suffer me to write to anybody else (this, I
apprehend, was a precaution of the French, lest their villainy should
be perceived too soon), although the Indians had given me permission to
write to Sir William Johnson and to Fort Pitt on our march, before we
arrived at this place." In the summary of his report to Sir William,
he said: "In the situation I was in at Ouatanon, with great numbers
of Indians about me, and no necessaries, such as paper and ink, I had
it not in my power to take down all the speeches made by the Indian
nations, nor what I said to them, in so particular a manner as I could
wish." It is evident that Croghan wrote many accounts of his journey,
and only three of them, as now appears, are accessible. A biographical
sketch of George Croghan, by Dr. O'Callaghan, is in _N. Y. Col. Doc._,
vii. 982, 983. For earlier traces of Croghan see Vol. V. 10, 596,
610.—ED.

[1464] _N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 783; Hildreth's _Pioneer History_,
p. 75. Pontiac kept his promise, visited Sir William Johnson in the
spring, concluded a peace, and departed laden with presents. He
returned to his village on the Maumee, and little is known of him for
the next three years. He then reappeared in the Illinois country, and
visited his old friend M. St. Ange, who was in command of the post
of St. Louis, then under Spanish rule. Like other Indians, Pontiac
indulged at times in the excessive use of intoxicating liquors. Against
the advice of his friend, St. Ange, he attended an Indian drinking
carousal, at which he was waylaid and brained with a hatchet by a
Kaskaskia Indian, who had been paid a barrel of rum by an English
trader, named Williamson, to commit the deed. St. Ange claimed the
body, and buried it with the honors of war, in an unknown grave near
the fort of St. Louis. J. N. Nicollet, in his sketch of St. Louis
(p. 82), says: "This murder, which roused the vengeance of all the
Indian tribes friendly to Pontiac, brought about the successive wars
and almost total extermination of the Illinois nation. Pontiac was a
remarkably well-looking man, nice in his person, and full of taste
in his dress and in the arrangement of his exterior ornaments. His
complexion is said to have approached that of the whites. His origin is
still uncertain, for some have supposed him to belong to the Ottawas,
others to the Miamis, etc.; but Col. P. Chouteau, senior, who knew him
well, is of the opinion that he was a Nipissing." (Reprinted in _Olden
Time_, i. 322.)

[1465] _N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 808.

[1466] The account of St. Ange's "Surrender of Fort Chartres to M.
Stirling on the 10th of Oct., 1765", with a detailed description
of the fort, from the French archives, is in _N. Y. Col. Doc._, x.
1161-1165. See also Stone's _Life of Sir Wm. Johnson_, ii. 252. [There
are documents about Fort Chartres referred to in the _Hist. MSS. Com.
Report_, v. 216. Cf. _Hist. Mag._, viii. 257, and H. R. Stiles's
_Affairs at Fort Chartres, 1768-1781_ (Albany, 1864), being letters of
an English officer at the close of the war.—ED.]

[1467] Nicollet (p. 81) states that "Capt. Stirling, at the head of
a company of Scots, arrived unexpectedly in the summer of 1765;" and
Parkman (ii. 298), that "Capt. Stirling arrived at Fort Chartres just
as the snows of early winter began to whiten the naked forests." The
articles of surrender are conclusive as to the fact that the English
troops arrived and took possession of the Illinois country, October
10. Capt. Stirling was relieved by Major Robert Farmar, of the 34th
regiment, about the time of which Parkman speaks. Sir William, writing
March 22, 1766, says: "Just now I have heard that Major Farmar, who
proceeded by the Mississippi, arrived there [the Illinois] the 4th
of December, and relieved Capt. Stirling" (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii.
816; Stone's _Johnson_, ii. 251). Monette (i. 411) states that "Capt.
Stirling died in December; that St. Ange returned to Fort Chartres,
and not long afterward Major Frazer, from Fort Pitt, arrived as
commandant." These errors have been repeated scores of times, and the
last repetition I have seen is in F. L. Billon's _Annals of St. Louis
in early Days_, 1886, p. 26. Capt. Stirling lived until 1808: served
in the Revolutionary War, became colonel in 1779, and later brigadier,
major-general, lieut.-general, general, and was created a baronet.
For a biographical sketch of him, by Dr. O'Callaghan, see _N. Y. Col.
Doc._, vii. 786; and for one of Major Farmar, _Ibid._ 775. F. S. Drake
(_Biog. Dict._) records Capt. Stirling's extraordinary feat of marching
his company of Highlanders overland 3,000 miles, from Fort Chartres to
Philadelphia, without losing a man. The facts were that Capt. Stirling
floated his company in boats down the Mississippi to New Orleans;
thence they sailed to Pensacola, and later to New York, where they
arrived June 15, 1766. Gen. Gage, in a letter of that date, wrote to
Gov. Penn announcing their arrival, stating that they would march on
the 17th for Philadelphia, and asking that quarters be assigned them
(_Penna. Col. Rec._, ix. 318). No officer of the name of Frazer was
ever in command at Fort Chartres. Fort Chartres, built by the French
in 1720, was in its time the strongest fortress in America. Its ruins
are on the left bank of the Mississippi, now a mile from the river,
in Randolph County, Ill., 50 miles south of St. Louis, and 16 miles
northeast of Kaskaskia. It was abandoned in 1772, in consequence of
a portion of it being undermined by a Mississippi flood. See Edw. G.
Mason's _Old Fort Chartres_, in Fergus's Historical Series, no. 12;
Pittman, p. 45; Reynolds, _My own Time_, p. 26, ed. 1879; also his
_Pioneer History_, p. 46, ed. 1887, with plan, from Beck's _Gazetteer
of Illinois and Missouri_. For a plan of the fort, see Vol. V. p.54;
and Mr. Davis's collation of authorities regarding its position, p.
55.—ED.

[1468] _N. Y. Col. Doc._, vii. 775.

[1469] The Six Nations claimed by conquest the supremacy of all the
tribes west of the Alleghanies and as far south as the Cherokees, with
whom the Northern tribes were in perpetual warfare. See Monette, i.
323; and Huske's map in Vol. V. p. 84.—ED.

[1470] A fac-simile of this map is in _N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. 31; and
of the map as the treaty was finally made, _Ibid._ 136. See _ante_, p.
610.—ED.

[1471] _Ibid._ ii. 2.

[1472] _Haldimand Col._, p. 103.

[1473] Stone's _Life of Johnson_, ii. 306. "I was much concerned", Sir
William wrote, "by reason of the great consumption of provisions and
the heavy expenses attending the maintenance of those Indians, each of
whom consume daily more than two ordinary men amongst us, and would be
extremely dissatisfied if stinted when convened for business" (_N. Y.
Col. Doc._, viii. 105).

[1474] Sir William's full report of the council at Fort Stanwix, with
the treaty, which he transmitted to Lord Hillsborough, is in _N. Y.
Col. Doc._, viii. 111-137. In the appendix to Mann Butler's _History
of Kentucky_, 1834, p. 378-394, is an abstract of the proceedings
of the council, with the treaty, for which the author expresses his
obligations to Hon. Richard M. Johnson. The treaty and map are also in
_N. Y. Doc. History_, i. 587.

[1475] In this interval between 1765 and 1774 there was a revival of
the purpose of settlements in the country watered by the Ohio and its
tributaries. The breaking up by the war of the earlier enterprise of
the Ohio Company (see Vol. V., _ante_; Sparks in his _Washington_,
ii. 483, says its papers were entrusted to him fifty years ago by
Charles Fenton Mercer, of Virginia) had led to a plan to buy out the
French settlers in Illinois (Sparks's _Franklin_, vii. 356; Bigelow's
_Franklin_, i. 537, 547; ii. 112); and this being abandoned, the
earlier project had been merged in the scheme known at first as
Walpole's Grant, and subsequently as the Colony of Vandalia, which
had derived some impetus immediately after the conclusion of peace in
1763 by the publication in London of _The Advantages of a Settlement
upon the Ohio_ (now rare; copies in Harvard College library; in
_Carter-Brown Catal._, iii. 1363; Thomson's _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 7),
and in Edinburgh of _The Expediency of securing our American Colonies
by settling the Country adjoining the Mississippi River and the
Country upon the Ohio Considered_ (Harvard College library, 6373. 33).
The scheme had the countenance of Lord Shelburne, and the Shelburne
MSS., as calendared in the _Hist. MSS. Com. Report_, v. p. 218 (vol.
50), show various papers appertaining. Professor H. B. Adams, in the
_Maryland Fund Publications_, no. xi. p. 27, has marked the growth of
the perception of the importance of these lands.

The grant was not secured till 1770, nor ratified till 1772 (account
in Sparks's _Franklin_, iv. 233, and _Washington_, ii. 483). Franklin
had interested himself in securing the grant against the opposition of
Hillsborough. See Franklin's letters in _Works_, iv. 233; the adverse
report of the Lords of Trade (p. 303), and Franklin's reply to it (p.
324). These last papers are also included in _Biog. lit. and polit.
Anecdotes of several of the most Eminent persons of the present Age_
(London, 1797), vol. ii. Provision was made for securing out of this
grant the lands promised to the Virginia soldiers, in which Washington
was so much interested. The coming on of the Revolution jeopardized the
interests of the grantees, and in 1774 they petitioned the king that
the establishment of a government for Vandalia be no longer delayed.
Walpole, in May, 1775, was anxious at the turn of affairs (_Hist.
Mag._, i. 86), and in 1776 the plan was abandoned. A memorial of
Franklin and Samuel Wharton, dated at Passy, Feb. 26, 1780, tracing the
history of these lands, is in the _Sparks MSS._, no. xvii.

On the early settlers of Ohio at this time, see S. P. Hildreth's _Biog.
and Hist. Memoirs of the Early Pioneer Settlers of Ohio_ (Cinn., 1852);
James W. Taylor's _Hist. of Ohio_, 1650-1787 (Sandusky, 1854); and a
paper by Isaac Smucker on the first pioneers, in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
Aug., 1885, p. 326. The position of the Delawares in this region during
the war is discussed by S. D. Peet in the _American Antiquarian_, ii.
132.

The Filson Club of Louisville has published (1886) Thomas Speed's
_Wilderness road, a description of the route of travel by which the
pioneers and early settlers first came to Kentucky_, their previous
publication having been Reuben T. Durrett's _Life and Writings of
John Filson, the first historian of Kentucky_ (1884), which gives
in fac-simile the earliest special map of Kentucky, after a copy
in Harvard College library,—most copies of the book being without
it,—for while the _Discovery, Settlement, and Present State of
Kentucke_ was printed in 1784, at Wilmington, Del., the map was
printed in Philadelphia, and was an improvement upon the general maps
of Charlevoix, Evans, Hutchins, Pownall, and others. Filson's book
was issued in French, at Paris, in 1785, and reprinted in English
in Imlay's _Topog. Description of North America_ (London, 1793 and
1797), in conjunction with Imlay; again by Campbell in New York, in
1793. Filson first presented to the world the story of the adventures
of Daniel Boone in the appendix of his book, and from that it has
been copied and assigned to Boone himself, in the _Amer. Museum_,
Philadelphia, Oct. 1787, and in Samuel L. Metcalfe's _Collection of
some of the most interesting narratives of Indian Warfare in the West_
(Lexington, Ky., 1821,—Thomson's _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 818). The
life of Boone embodies much of the history of the pioneer days of
Kentucky. His subsequent biographers, J. M. Peck (in Sparks's _Amer.
Biog._), E. S. Ellis, G. C. Hill, H. T. Tuckerman (in his _Biog.
Essays_), C. W. Webber (in _Hist. and Rev. Incidents_, Phil., 1861),
Lossing (in _Harper's Mag._, xix.), and others, have depended upon
Filson. E. C. Coleman has told the story as it is centred about Simon
Kenton (_Ibid._ xxviii.), and J. H. Perkins has given it more general
bearings in his "Pioneers of Kentucky", in _No. Amer. Rev._, Jan.,
1846, included in his _Memoir and Writings_, ii. 243. Cf. Marshall
Smith's _Legends of the War of Independence and of the Earlier
settlements in the West_ (Louisville, 1855), and the old fort at
Lexington, Ky., in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Aug., 1887, p. 123.

What is now Tennessee was known after 1769 as the Settlements of the
Watauga Association, and so continued till 1777, when, during the rest
of the Revolutionary War, it was a part of North Carolina (J. E. M.
Ramsey's _Annals of Tennessee_, Charleston, 1853; Philad., 1853, 1860;
Sabin, xvi. no. 67, 729).

There are documents on the Illinois country during this quiet interval
among the Shelburne Papers, as noted in the _Hist. MSS. Com. Report_,
v. pp. 216, 218 (vols. 48 and 50). Cf. John Reynolds, _Pioneer Hist.
of Illinois_ (1852); Breese's _Early Hist. of Illinois_, and the
other later histories (see Vol. V., ante, p. 198). Cf. Arthur Young's
_Observations on the present State of the waste lands of Great Britain,
published on occasion of the establishment of a new Colony on the Ohio_
(London, 1773).

Several journals of voyages and explorations along the Ohio and its
tributary streams, which were made during this period, are preserved to
us, such as that of Capt. Harry Gordon, from Fort Pitt to the Illinois
in 1766, which is printed in Pownall's _Topog. Description_ (London,
1776), and of which the original or early copy seems to be noted in the
English _Hist. MSS. Com. Report_, v. p. 216; that of Washington, who
visited the Ohio region in 1770 to select lands for the soldiers of the
late wars, and which is printed in Sparks's _Washington_ (vol. ii. 516,
beside letters in Ibid. 387, etc. Cf. Irving's _Washington_, i. 330,
and some letters in Read's _George Read_, p. 124); and those of Matthew
Phelps, who was twice in this Western country between 1773 and 1780,
and whose account is given in the _Memoirs and adventures, particularly
in two voyages from Connecticut to the river Mississippi, 1773-80_.
_Compiled from the original journal and minutes kept by Mr. Phelps. By
Anthony Haswell_ (Bennington, Vt., 1802).

The diary of Rufus Putnam, who explored the lower regions of the
Mississippi Valley between Dec. 10, 1772, and Aug. 13, 1773, is
preserved in the library of Marietta College. (Cf. _Mag. Amer. Hist._,
vii. 230.)—ED.

[1476] Connolly was arrested as a Tory in November, 1775, and held as
a prisoner until exchanged in the winter of 1780-81. He then planned a
scheme with Tories and Indians to capture Fort Pitt. See _Olden Time_,
i. 520; ii. 93, 105, 348; Craig's _Pittsburg_, 112, 124; Perkins's
_West. Annals_, 140, 148; Jacob's _Cresap_, 75-91; _Am. Archives_, 4th
ser., i. 774.

[1477] Botta's _Am. War_, i. 250; Doddridge's _Notes_, (ed. 1876), 238;
_Olden Time_, ii. 43.

[1478] Concerning this controversy, see Craig's _Pittsburg_, 111-128.
The right of Pennsylvania to land beyond the Alleghanies is examined in
a paper (1772) entitled "Thoughts on the situation of the inhabitants
on the frontier", by James Tilghman, printed in the _Penna. Mag. of
Hist._, x. 316. Cf. also Daniel Agnew's _History of the Region of
Pennsylvania north of the Ohio and west of the Allegheny River, of
the Indian purchases, and of the running of the southern, northern,
and western State boundaries; also, an account of the division of
the territory for public purposes, and of the lands, laws, titles,
settlements, controversies, and litigation within this region_
(Philadelphia, 1887).—ED.

[1479] No Indian tribes had their homes in Kentucky. The territory was
the common hunting and fighting ground of the Ohio Indians on the north
and the Cherokees and Chickasaws on the south. See Butler's _Kentucky_,
p. 8.

[1480] Brantz Meyer's _Logan and Cresap_, 1867, p. 149. Clark's letter
is also printed in _The Hesperian_ (Columbus, Ohio), 1839, ii. 309;
Jacob's _Life of Cresap_, pp. 154-158, and portions of it in Perkins's
_Western Annals_, 143-146.

[1481] Capt. Cresap was then thirty-two years of age, was a trader,
and had had no experience in a former war. His father, however,—Col.
Thomas Cresap,—was a noted Indian fighter. Clark and his party
evidently supposed it was the father, and not the son, they were
sending for. The Cresaps were a Maryland family, and the party who
wanted a leader were Virginians.

[1482] A few days before, a canoe from Pittsburg, coming down the
river, was fired on by Indians, near Baker's Bottom, two white men
killed and one wounded. Baker's family had been warned, and were
preparing to leave for one of the forts. Baker kept tavern, sold rum,
and the Indians across the river were his habitual customers. Fearing
an attack, he called in his neighbors. Twenty-one of them responded,
but kept out of sight. A party of Indians appeared, and all with the
exception of Logan's brother became very drunk. Logan's brother was
drunk enough to be insolent, and he attempted to strike one of the
white men. As he was leaving the house with a coat and hat which he had
stolen, the white man whom he had abused shot him. The neighbors rushed
from their concealment and killed the whole Indian party, except a
half-breed child whose father was Gen. John Gibson. The Indians on the
opposite shore, hearing the firing, came over in canoes. They were also
fired on, and twelve of them were killed. (See the statements of John
Sappington and others in Jefferson's _Notes on Virginia_, App. iv.,
1800, and later editions; and Withers's _Border Warfare_, p. 113.)

[1483] This comment Jefferson cancelled in his edition of 1800.

[1484] "I appeal to any white man to say if ever he entered Logan's
cabin hungry and he gave him not meat; if ever he came cold and naked
and he clothed him not.... Col. Cresap, the last spring, in cold blood
and unprovoked, murdered all the relations of Logan, not sparing even
my women and children. There runs not a drop of my blood in the veins
of any living creature", etc.

Col. Thomas Cresap, well known in the West as an Indian fighter, was
the father of Capt. Michael Cresap, and it is not strange that the
rank of the father should have been given to the son. Public attention
was not directed to Logan's speech, or the comments of Jefferson
on the character of Capt. Cresap, until 1797, when Luther Martin,
an ardent Federalist and the Attorney-General of Maryland (who had
married a daughter of Capt. Cresap), addressed a public letter to an
elocutionist, objecting to his reciting "Logan's Speech", on the ground
that it was a slander on a noble man and patriot. The speech itself, he
stated, was probably never made by Logan; and the letter had sneering
allusions to the claim that Jefferson was a philosopher. Martin's
letter is in _Olden Time_, ii. 51. Jefferson's letter to Gov. Henry
of Maryland, of Dec. 31, 1797 (_Writings_, viii. 309), shows that he
attributed Martin's attack to political motives, and that his feelings
were greatly disturbed. He immediately set about collecting testimony
(1) to prove the genuineness of Logan's speech, and (2) to justify the
charges he had made against Cresap. On the first point, it was easy for
him to show that he had not invented the speech; that it was common
talk in Dunmore's camp; that he took it, as he printed it, from the
lips of some person in Williamsburg in 1774, and that it was printed
at the time in the _Virginia Gazette_. It appears that the speech
was printed in the _Gazette_ at Williamsburg, Feb. 4, 1775, and that
twelve days later the speech, with important variations, was sent by
Madison to his friend William Bradford, and was printed in a New York
newspaper. Both versions are in _Amer. Archives_, 4th series, i. 1020.
(See also Rives's _Madison_, i. 63, and Mayer's _Logan and Cresap_,
p. 177.) The fact that the speech as printed was actually delivered
was more difficult to prove, as it depended wholly on the statement
of Gen. John Gibson, the interpreter. It will never be known what
part of it was Logan's and how much of it was Gibson's. Jefferson was
not successful in justifying the charges he had made against Cresap.
Such of the collected evidence as answered his purpose he printed in
Appendix iv. in the edition of his _Notes_ of 1800 (Philadelphia).
Some copies of the appendix were printed separately, and it was first
mentioned on the title-page in the edition printed at Trenton, 1803.
(See _Writings_, viii. 457-476.) Such of the testimony as did not
answer his purpose he suppressed. One of these suppressed statements
is the letter of George Rogers Clark to Dr. Samuel Brown, already
quoted. It was found among his papers purchased by the United States
in 1848, and is now in the State Department at Washington. Brantz
Mayer vindicated Cresap in a paper read before the Maryland Historical
Society in 1851, on _Logan the Indian and Cresap the Pioneer_, and
more fully in _Tah-Gah-Jute, or Logan and Cresap_ (Albany, 1867);
Thomson, _Bibliog. of Ohio_, nos. 805, 806. Dr. Joseph Doddridge, in
his _Notes_, 1824 (reprinted 1876, and used by Kercheval, Winchester,
Va., 1833), made severe strictures on Cresap, but did not charge him
with killing Logan's family. An extract from Doddridge, with other
matter, called _Logan, Chief of the Cayuga Nation_, was published in
Cincinnati by Wm. Dodge in 1868. Doddridge's attack on Capt. Cresap
caused the Rev. John J. Jacob, who in youth had been Cresap's clerk,
and had accompanied him in his Western expeditions, to write his
_Life_ (Cumberland, Md., 1826; reprinted, with notes and appendix, for
Wm. Dodge, Cincinnati, 1866; Field's _Ind. Bibliog._, nos. 769, 770;
Thomson, _Bibliog. of Ohio_, nos. 640-1). With slight claim to literary
merit, and much inaccuracy as to dates, it contains some important
documents, and is an earnest vindication of Cresap's character. Charges
of baseness and cruelty against Cresap were older than any publication
of Logan's speech. The early accounts which came to Sir William
Johnson charged the origin of the war upon him. Writing June 20, 1774,
Sir William says: "I received the very disagreeable and unexpected
intelligence that a certain Mr. Cressop [_sic_] had trepanned and
murdered forty Indians on the Ohio, ... and that the unworthy author of
this wanton act is fled.... Since the news of the murders committed by
Cressop and his banditti, the Six Nations have sent me two messages",
etc., and much more of the same character (_N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii.
459, 460, 461, 463, 471, 477; a biographical sketch of Cresap by Dr.
O'Callaghan is on p. 459). The subject is treated in _Olden Time_,
ii. 44, 49-67; Potter's _Amer. Monthly_, xi. 187; _Old and New_, x.
436; _New Eclectic_, 169; _Annual Report, 1879, of the Sec. of State_,
Ohio, Columbus, 1880; Stone's _Sir William Johnson_, ii. 370; Dillon's
_Indiana_ (1859), p. 97; Atwater's _Ohio_, p. 116; Monette, i. 384;
Jacob's _Cresap_ (1866), 92-125; _Amer. Jour. Science_, xxxi. 11;
Withers's _Border Warfare_, p. 118; _Amer. Pioneer_, i. 7-24, 64,
188, 331. The _Amer. Pioneer_, 1842-43, was the organ of the "Logan
Historical Society", the object of the society being to erect a
monument to Logan, on which "his speech as given by Thomas Jefferson
shall be fully engraved in gilt letters." The title is a full-page
woodcut, representing Logan and Gen. Gibson sitting on a log, the
former making his "speech" and the latter taking it down.

Capt. Cresap, in June, 1775, enlisted a company of one hundred
and thirty riflemen in Maryland, twenty-two of whom were his old
companions-in-arms from the country west of the Alleghanies, and
marched them to Boston in twenty-two days. Here his health gave way,
and he was compelled to return. He reached New York, and there died,
Oct. 18, 1775, at the age of thirty-three. His gravestone is in Trinity
churchyard, New York city, opposite the door of the north transept. An
accurate woodcut of his gravestone is in Mayer's _Logan and Cresap_, p.
144, and in _Harper's Mag._, Nov., 1876, p. 808. A view of his house is
in _Harper's Mag._, xiv. 599.

[1485] See Withers's _Border Warfare_; Monette, i. 374; Dillon's
_Indiana_, 93; _Amer. Archives_, 4th series, i. 722.

[1486] Accounts of Cornstalk by W. H. Foote are in the _Southern
Literary Messenger_, xvi. 533, and by M. M. Jones in Potter's _Amer.
Monthly_, v. 583. See Withers, pp. 129, 136, 156. Cornstalk's tragical
death is described in Doddridge, p. 239, and Kercheval, p. 267; also in
J. P. Hale's _Trans-Allegheny Pioneers_, p. 328.

[1487] See _Amer. Archives_, 4th series, i. 1016; _Olden Time_, ii.
33; Monette, i. 376-380; Perkins's _Annals_, p. 149; _Amer. Pioneers_,
i. 381, by L. C. Draper; _Virginia Hist. Reg._, i. 30; v. 181;
narrative of Capt. John Stuart in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, i. 668, in
Virginia Hist. Coll., vol. i., and separately as _Memoirs of Indian
Wars_ (Richmond, 1833); John P. Hale's _Trans-Allegheny Pioneers_
(Cincinnati, 1886), p. 174, and a paper by S. E. Lane in _Mass. Mag._,
Nov., 1885, p. 277. What purports to be a contemporary account in J. L.
Peyton's _Adventures of my Grandfather_ (London, 1867), p. 142, is not
without suspicion.—ED.

[1488] For particulars concerning the Dunmore War, see _Amer.
Archives_, 4th ser., i. 345, 435, 468, 506, 774, 1013-1020; ii. 170,
301; _N. Y. Col. Doc._, viii. 459, 461; _St. Clair Papers_, i. 296,
etc.; C. W. Butterfield's _Washington-Crawford letters_ (Cinn., 1877),
pp. 47, 86; Morgan's autobiographic letter in _Hist. Mag._, xix. 379;
De Haas's _West. Virginia_, 142; Doddridge, pp. 229-239; Kercheval,
p. 148; Withers, 104-138; Perkins's _Annals_, pp. 140-151; Hildreth's
_Pioneer History_, pp. 86-94; Monette, i. pp. 368-385; Atwater's
_Ohio_, pp. 110-119; Walker's _Athens Co., Ohio_, p. 8; Dillon's
_Indiana_, p. 91; and Schweinitz's _Zeisberger_, p. 399. Col. Charles
Whittlesey has treated the subject in his _Discourse relating to the
expedition of Dunmore_ (Cleveland, 1842); in the _Olden Time_, ii. 8,
37; and in his _Fugitive Essays_ (Hudson, Ohio, 1852).—ED.

[1489] For references to the proceedings in Parliament, see _ante_,
chapter i., notes.

[1490] Declaration of Rights, Oct. 14, 1774 (_Jour. of Old Cong._,
i. 22). In similar terms it was complained of in the Articles of
Association, Oct. 20, 1774 (_Ibid._ 23), and again, without naming the
act, in the Declaration of Independence, as follows: "For abolishing
the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing
therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to
render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the
same absolute rule into these colonies" (_Ibid._ 395).

[1491] "The Quebec act was one of the multiplied causes of our
opposition, and finally of the Revolution." (Madison's report, January
17, 1782; Thomson Papers, _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1878, p. 134:
_Secret Journals of Cong._, iii. 155, 192.)

[1492] Butler's _Kentucky_, pp. 26, 27. Just before this, in May,
1775, the few settlers of the Kentucky towns had met and organized for
defence, and had called their country Transylvania. For Boone's defence
of his fort in Aug., 1778, with references, see Dawson's _Battles of
the U. S._, i. 445.—ED.

[1493] Butler, p. 35; Perkins's _Annals_, p. 171.

[1494] Butler, p. 40; Dillon's _Indiana_, 115-118.

[1495] [Dawson gives (_Battles of the U. S._, i. 221) an account, with
references, of the attack on Fort Logan in May, 1777, and (_Ibid._ i.
269) of the assault on Fort Henry (the modern Wheeling, named after
Patrick Henry), Sept. 1, 1777. Cf. the account of Elizabeth Zane in
Mrs. Eliot's _Women of the Rev._, ii. 275. There is a view of Fort
Henry in Newton's _History of the Pan-Handle, West Virginia_ (1879), p.
102.—ED.]

[1496] In Clark's account of Nov., 1779 (_Campaign in Illinois_,
Cincin., 1869, p. 21), he says: "I set out for Williamsburg in Aug.
1777 in order to settle my accounts." In his later and fuller account
(Dillon's _Indiana_, 1843, p. 132; 1859, p. 119) he says: "When I left
Kentucky October 1, 1777."

[1497] See Clark's _Campaign_, 95, 96; Butler's _Kentucky_, 394;
Monette, i. 415; Brown's _Illinois_, 239; _Hist. Mag._, iii. 362.

[1498] Washington had trouble from the same cause in raising troops at
Pittsburg for the Eastern service (_Writings_, v. 244).

[1499] Governor Henry, in a letter to Virginia delegates in Congress,
gives the number as "170 or 180" (Butler's _Kentucky_, 2d ed., p. 533);
Capt. Bowman, in letter of July 30, 1778, to Col. John Hite, gives the
number as "170 or 180" (Almon's _Remembrancer_, 1779, p. 82).

[1500] _Amer. Pioneer_, ii. 345.

[1501] George Rogers Clark's own narratives furnish the most authentic
information concerning his Illinois campaigns, three of which are
accessible in print, as follow in the order of their dates: (1)
Letter to the governor of Virginia, dated Kaskaskia, April 29, 1779,
concerning his capture of Vincennes (in Jefferson's _Writings_, i.
222-226). (2) Letter to George Mason, dated Louisville, Falls of
Ohio, November 19, 1779, which covers the period from setting out on
his second visit to Virginia, in the autumn of 1777, to the end of
his Vincennes campaign. It is printed from the original MS. in the
_Collections_ of the Hist. Soc. of Kentucky, with an introduction
by Henry Pirtle; a biographical sketch of Clark; and the journal of
Capt. (later Major) Joseph Bowman in the expedition against Vincennes.
It is one of the _Ohio Valley Series_, Cincinnati, 1869, and is
here quoted as _Clark's Campaign_. (3) "Memoirs composed by himself
at the united desire of Presidents Jefferson and Madison", printed
(with omissions and interpolations) in Dillon's _Indiana_ (1843, pp.
127-184; and 2d ed., 1859, pp. 114-170). The second edition is here
quoted. H. W. Beckwith used extracts from the same in his _Historic
Notes on the Northwest_, pp. 245-259. It is the most extended of the
three narratives. The original, with a large mass of other MSS. of,
and relating to, Geo. Rogers Clark, is in the possession of Dr. Lyman
C. Draper, of Madison, Wis. The date when it was written is not given;
but it must have been written more than twelve years after the events
occurred which it describes. Jefferson, writing March 7, 1791, to
Col. James Innes, concerning Col. Clark, said: "We are made to hope
he is engaged in writing the accounts of his expeditions north of the
Ohio. They will be valuable morsels of history, and will justify to
the world those who have told them how great he was" (_Writings_, iii.
218). Mann Butler's account of Clark's exploits (_Hist. of Kentucky_,
pp. 35-88) is highly seasoned with popular traditions, and with
incidents which are not consistent with Clark's own statements; and yet
Butler has been more frequently quoted than the narratives of Clark.
(4) The Canadian Archives, at Ottawa, has a journal of Clark, dated
Vincennes, Feb. 24, 1779, the day of the surrender, which has never
been printed nor quoted. (See report of Douglas Brymner, archivist,
for 1882, p. 27, where an abstract of the report is given.) This is
Clark's original report on his Vincennes campaign to the governor
of Virginia. Three days after the surrender, a messenger arrived at
Vincennes with despatches from the governor. On the 14th of March this
messenger (whom Clark calls William _Myres_; Bowman, _Mires_; the
Canadian Calendar, _Moires_; and Jefferson, _Morris_) was sent back
to Williamsburg with letters to the governor. Near the Falls of the
Ohio he was killed by the Indians, and the report of Clark, with nine
other letters captured upon him, appear in the _Haldimand Collection_
in the Canadian Archives. Clark, writing to Jefferson April 29th,
mentions that he had heard of the killing of his messenger, "news very
disagreeable to me, as I fear many of my letters will fall into the
hands of the enemy at Detroit, although some of them, as I learn, were
found in the woods, torn to pieces" (Jefferson's _Writings_, i. 222;
see also Dillon, p. 159). Copies of these captured documents I have
received from Ottawa. Clark's report is very interesting, and gives
details of his interviews with Gov. Hamilton, while negotiating the
surrender, which are omitted in his later narratives, and show that he
treated Hamilton as if he believed he was responsible for the Indian
barbarities inflicted upon the frontier settlers. (5) The _report of
Gov. Hamilton_ to Gen. Haldimand, July 6, 1781, which is an extended
and detailed narrative of his expedition from Detroit to Vincennes in
the autumn and early winter of 1778, of his capture by Clark, and of
his long imprisonment in Virginia. He gives many facts and incidents
which have not before appeared. He earnestly defends himself against
the charges of cruelty made by Clark and the Virginia Assembly; and
while admitting that, under instructions of his government, he sent out
parties of Indians against the white settlements, he claims that he
always gave the savages special instructions to be merciful, and that
they obeyed him! This document, which has not been used by any writer,
or been accessible until recently, is important, and is about the only
statement we have giving the British view of the Vincennes campaign.
With sixty other early manuscripts relating to the Northwest, it was
kindly furnished to me by Mr. B. F. Stevens, of London, who copied it
from the family papers of Lord George Germain. It now appears that it
is also in the _Haldimand Collection_ in the British Museum and in the
Canadian Archives. It has lately been printed in the _Michigan Pioneer
Collections_, ix. 489-516.

[1502] Butler (p. 52) says "two divisions crossed the river, while
Clark with the third division took possession of the fort on this [the
east] side of the river, in point-blank shot of the town." It is now
the popular belief of the residents in the vicinity, and it has been
the positive statement of all writers on the subject, that the fort in
which Col. Clark captured Rocheblave was on the high bluff opposite the
town, where there is still abundant evidence that a fort once existed,
and now is known by the name of "Fort Gage." The spot is daily pointed
out to visitors as perhaps the most noted locality in the Western
country. During the past year a historical painting (40×20 feet),
illustrating Col. Clark's capture of Kaskaskia, has been placed on the
walls of the State House at Springfield, Ill. In the centre of the
picture is the site of the old fort on the bluff, and near it stands
the Jesuit church. In the foreground is Col. Clark addressing a council
of Indians. There are three historical infelicities in this picture.
The council of Indians which is here represented, was not held at
Kaskaskia, but at Cahokia, sixty miles distant. The Jesuit church, and
the actual fort which Clark captured, were on the other, the western,
side of the river. Only a few points in justification of this statement
can be mentioned:—

(1.) The fort on the bluff opposite the town "was burnt down in
October, 1766", says Pittman (p. 43), who visited Kaskaskia about that
time, or soon after, and whose book was published in London in 1770.
He gives a description and detailed drawing of the town, the river,
and site of the old fort. "It [the old fort] _was_", he says, "an
oblongular quadrangle, 290 by 251 feet; it _was_ built of very thick
squared timber", etc.,—using in every instance the past tense. "An
officer and 20 soldiers are quartered in the village." The evidence
that the old fort was ever rebuilt is wanting.

(2.) No incident appears in the contemporary narratives that Clark
occupied, or even visited, the site of the old fort; and there are
many allusions to his occupying quarters in the town. On one occasion,
expecting an attack from the enemy, he resolved to burn the houses
around the fort. "I was necessitated", he says, "to set fire to some of
the houses _in town_, to clear them out of the way." The people came
to him in distress, fearing he would burn up their town. He took an
occasion for doing this when there was snow on the roofs, and only such
houses were burned as were set on fire (_Campaign_, p. 59). The site of
the old fort was 500 yards from the river, and the river was 150 yards
wide. A fire there would not have endangered the town; and Pittman's
plan shows no houses on the eastern bank, around the old fort.

(3.) Setting out for Vincennes on the 5th of February, 1779, Clark says:
"We crossed the Kaskaskia River with 170 men" (Dillon, p. 139).
Major Bowman, in his journal of the same date, wrote: "About three
o'clock we crossed the Kaskaskia with our baggage, and marched about
a league from town" (p. 100). Crossing the Kaskaskia would have been
unnecessary if they had been quartered on the site of the old fort.

(4.) Clark had heard from the hunters who joined him on the way, and
had been in the town eight days before, that the fort was kept in
good order, and that the garrison was on the alert. He was too good a
soldier, on such information, to divide his scanty force of less than
two hundred men into three divisions, and with one of them attack an
isolated fort on the opposite side of the river, where he could have
no support from his other divisions. Bowman, in a letter to Col. Hite,
said: "This town was sufficiently fortified to have resisted a thousand
men." That Clark passed the site of the old fort without approaching or
even mentioning it, and threw his men across the river a mile north of
the town, is evidence that the site of the old fort was then unoccupied.

(5.) M. Rocheblave, writing from Kaskaskia, "Fort Gage, Feb. 8, 1778",
to Gen. Carleton at Montreal, shows conclusively where the fort was
situated in which he was taken prisoner by Clark five months later.
The MS. is in the Canadian Archives (Brymner's _Report of 1882_, p.
12). Rocheblave reports that "the roof of the mansion of the fort
is of shingles and very leaky, notwithstanding my efforts to patch
it; and unless a new roof be provided very soon, the building, which
was constructed twenty-five years ago and cost the _Jesuits_ 40,000
piastres, will be ruined." By a decree of the king, the Jesuits were
suppressed in France and its colonies in 1763, and their property
was confiscated to the crown. The Jesuits had a valuable estate at
Kaskaskia which was taken possession of by the French commandant, and
the priests were expelled. Father Watrin, Jesuit, in his _Memoir of the
Missions of Louisiana_, 1764 or 1765 (_Mag. of West. Hist._ i. 265),
says "When the Jesuits of the Illinois, recalled by the decree against
them, passed this post [Point Coupée, on the Mississippi], Father
Irenæus [a Capuchin] received and treated them as though they had
been brothers." Such of the property as was needed for public use was
retained, and the remainder was sold. "The Jesuits' plantation", says
Pittman (p. 43), "consisted of 240 _arpens_ [200 acres] of cultivated
land, a very good stock of cattle, and a brewery, which was sold by
the French commandant, after the country was ceded to the English, for
the [French] crown, in consequence of the suppression of the order."
This sale must have taken place before the English occupation, in 1765.
Pittman mentions the church and the "Jesuits' house" as "the principal
buildings, which are built of stone, and, considering this part of the
world, make a very good appearance." The Jesuits' house was doubtless
the one mentioned by Rocheblave, the fort being adjacent to it. On his
plan of Kaskaskia Pittman locates the church in the centre of the town,
and the Jesuits' property at the southeast corner, near the river.
Pittman returned to Pensacola from Illinois in the spring of 1767,
"with the plan of a fort", which, Haldimand reports to Gage, will "cost
a good deal of money" (_Haldimand Coll._, p. 25). In 1772 Fort Chartres
was abandoned in consequence of being undermined during an inundation
of the Mississippi. Gen. Gage gave the order March 16, 1772, and
directed that the troops be stationed at Kaskaskia. After the capture
of the fort in 1778, the name was changed to "Fort Clark" (Bowman, p.
110; _Canad. Arch._, 1882, p. 36). I have found no instance where the
old fort on the bluff, burned in 1766, and now known as "Fort Gage",
had that name during the period when it existed as a fort.

(6.) Lieut. Ross's _Map of the Mississippi from the Balise to Fort
Chartres, made late in 1765, improved from the French surveys_, and
published in London in 1775, places "Ft. Caskaskias" at the southeast
corner of the town, on the west bank of the river,—the spot indicated
in Rocheblave's letter. It shows no fort on the eastern bank.

(7.) Major De Peyster, writing June 27, 1779, from Michilimacinac to
Gen. Haldimand, reports concerning affairs at Kaskaskia, and fixes
without question the location of the fort. He says: "The Kaskaskias no
ways fortified; the fort being still a sorry pinchetted [picketted?]
enclosure round the Jesuits' college." (_Mich. Pion. Coll._ ix. 388.)

It is remarkable that Gov. Reynolds, who resided at Kaskaskia in 1800,
should not have known the location of "Fort Gage"; or, rather, that the
local remembrances of the real spot should have faded out in twenty-one
years. He says (in _My Own Times_, p. 31, ed. 1879): "The English
government [in 1772] abandoned Fort Chartres and established its
authority at Fort Gage, on the bluff east of Kaskaskia." Again, he says
(_Pioneer History_, p. 81, ed. 1887): "The British garrison occupied
Fort Gage, which stood on the Kaskaskia river bluffs opposite the
village." This, in his mind, was the location of the fort which Clark
captured. He says (_Ibid._ p. 94): "Two parties crossed the river; the
other party remained with Col. Clark to attack the fort."

Capt. Bowman, in letter to Col. Hite of July 30, 1778 (Almon's
_Remembrancer_, 1779, p. 82), describes the march and capture as
follows: "Marched for Kaskaskia with four days' provisions, and in
six days arrived at the place in the night of the 4th instant, having
marched two days without any sustenance, in which hungry condition we
unanimously determined to take the town, or die in the attempt. About
midnight we marched into the town without being discovered. Our object
was the fort, which we soon got possession of; the commanding officer
(Philip Rocheblave) we made prisoner, and he is now on his way to
Williamsburg under a strong guard, _with all his instructions_ from
time to time, from the several governors at Detroit, Quebec, etc., to
set the Indians upon us, with great rewards for our scalps, for which
he has a salary of £200 per year." This statement shows that the fort
was in the town, and controverts the assertion of Butler (p. 53) that
the public papers in the fort were not captured, out of delicacy to
the wife of the commander, she "presuming a good deal on the gallantry
of our countrymen by imposing upon their delicacy towards herself."
... "Better, ten thousand times better", Butler adds, "were it so,
than that the ancient fame of the sons of Virginia should have been
tarnished by insult to a female!"

[1503] _Campaign_, p. 31.

[1504] For the details of the conquest of Kaskaskia, see Clark's
narrative of 1779 in _Campaign_ (1869), pp. 24-36; and of his narrative
of 1791 (?) in J. B. Dillon's _Indiana_ (1843), pp. 127-150; (2d
edition, 1859), pp. 114-136. See also Butler's _Kentucky_, p. 49,
Withers's _Border Warfare_, p. 185; Perkins's _Annals_, p. 192;
Beckwith's _Historic Notes_, p. 245; Davidson's _Illinois_, p. 173;
Brown's _Illinois_, p. 230; Monette, i. 414.

[1505] The letter which Gov. Henry addressed to the Virginia delegates
in Congress, Nov. 14, 1778, on receiving intelligence of Clark's
capture of Kaskaskia, is in Butler's _Kentucky_, 2d. ed., p. 532; and
is reprinted from the MS. in the new and excellent life of _Patrick
Henry_ (Boston, 1887), by Professor Moses Coit Tyler (p. 230).—ED.

[1506] Of M. Rocheblave very little is known. His full name, Philippe
François de Rastel, Chevalier de Rocheblave, with his nativity, appears
in the parish records of Kaskaskia for April 11, 1763, in the third
publication of the banns of his marriage to Michel Marie Dufresne (E.
G. Mason's _Kaskaskia_, p. 17). He is mentioned in 1756 (_N. Y. Col.
Doc._, x. 435) as a cadet at Fort Duquesne; in July, 1757, on the
Potomac (_Ibid._ 581); and in July, 1759, at Niagara (_Ibid._ 992).
Many of his letters [in French] are in the Canadian Archives. Several
of them which I have, show him to have been a man of sensibility and
refinement. He said he was a British subject because he had been
abandoned by France at the peace. One of them is a long and interesting
letter dated at "Fort Gage, July 4, 1778", which was probably sent off
by boat a few hours before he was captured by Col. Clark. He was a
prisoner in Virginia until the autumn of 1780, when he broke his parole
and went to New York (Jefferson's _Writings_, i. 258). His family were
left at Kaskaskia; and Gov. Henry of Virginia, in his instructions to
Col. John Todd, Dec. 12, 1778, says: "Mr. Rocheblave's wife and family
must not suffer for want of that property of which they were bereft by
our troops. It is to be restored to them, if possible. If this cannot
be done, the public must support them." (_Calendar of Va. Papers_, i.
314). His wife, signing her name "Marie Michel de Rocheblave", wrote
from Kaskaskia, March 27, 1780, to Gen. Haldimand, appealing to his
humanity for pecuniary help, as the rebels had taken everything from
her but her debts. (MS. letter furnished to me by Mr. B. F. Stevens.)

[1507] The only garrison left in the fort when Gov. Hamilton and his
troops appeared was Capt. Helm and his one soldier, whose name was
Moses Henry. The latter placed a loaded cannon at the open gate, and
Capt. Helm, standing by with a lighted match, commanded the British
troops to halt. Hamilton demanded the surrender of the garrison. Helm
refused, and asked for terms. Hamilton replied that they should have
the honors of war, and the terms were accepted. The comical aspect
of the garrison, consisting of one officer and one soldier, marching
out of the fort between lines of disgusted Indians on one side and
British soldiers on the other, is happily illustrated in Gay's _Hist.
of U. S._, iii. 612. See note in Clark's _Campaign_, p. 52; Butler's
_Hist. of Kentucky_, p. 80; Monette, i. 425; Perkins's _Annals_, p.
207. Gov. Hamilton describes the surrender without mentioning this
humorous incident, thus: "The officer who commanded in the fort, Capt.
Helm, being deserted by the [resident French] officers and men, who to
the number of seventy had formed his garrison, and were in pay of the
Congress, surrendered his wretched fort on the very day of our arrival,
being the 17th day of December, 1778." (Report of July 6, 1781.)

[1508] Gov. Reynolds (_Pioneer History_, p. 101, ed. 1887) says Col.
Vigo was sent to Vincennes by Clark as a spy; that he was captured by
the Indians and taken to Hamilton, who suspected the character of his
mission; and that he was released on the ground of his being a Spanish
subject, and having influential friends among the French residents.
Hamilton in his report makes no mention of Vigo by name, but says that
men were stationed at the mouth of the Wabash to intercept boats on
the Ohio; and that they at different times brought in prisoners and
prevented intelligence being carried from Vincennes to the Illinois,
"till the desertion of a corporal and six men from La Mothe's company,
in the latter end of January, who gave the first intelligence to
Col. Clark of our arrival." In Reynolds's _Pion. Hist._ p. 423, is a
biographical sketch of Col. Vigo, by H. W. Beckwith, and a portrait.
See also Law's _History of Vincennes_, pp. 28-30. Vigo helped Clark by
cashing his drafts, and the story of a consequent suit for recovery
of the money, which did not end till 1876 in the U. S. Supreme Court,
is told by C. C. Baldwin in the _Mag. of West. Hist._, Jan., 1885, p.
230.—ED.

[1509] Clark, in his letter to George Mason, scarcely alludes to the
sufferings endured on this march. He says: "If I was sensible that you
would let no person see this relation, I would give you a detail of our
sufferings for four days in crossing these waters, and the manner it
was done, as I am sure you would credit it; but it is too incredible
for any person to believe except those that are as well acquainted
with me as you are, or had experienced something similar to it. I hope
you will excuse me until I have the pleasure of seeing you personally"
(_Campaign_, p. 66). In his later narrative he spoke on the subject
more freely (Dillon, 139-146), and his account is confirmed by Bowman's
journal.

[1510] She arrived on the 27th, three days after the surrender, "to
the great mortification of all on board that they had not the honor to
assist us", says Bowman. Clark, in his captured report, writing on the
same day, says: "The Willing arrived at 3 o'clock. She was detained by
the strong current on the Wabash and Ohio; two Lieutenants and 48 men,
with two iron four-pounders and five swivels on board."

[1511] An allusion to Gov. Hamilton's practice of paying the Indians
for scalps, and not for prisoners. The proclamation is in Dillon, p.
146; Bowman's _Journal_, p. 104. [See _ante_, p. 683.—ED.]

[1512] Bowman gives (p. 105-108) the correspondence with Hamilton, the
articles of capitulation, etc., some of which are omitted in Clark's
narratives. Hamilton in his _Report_ describes Clark's demand on him to
surrender thus: "About eight o'clock a flag of truce from the rebels
appeared, carried by Nicolas Cardinal, a captain of the militia of St.
Vincennes, who delivered me a letter from Col. Clark requiring me to
surrender at discretion; adding, with an oath, that if I destroyed any
stores or papers, I should be treated as a murtherer." Hamilton asserts
that Clark was supplied with gunpowder by the inhabitants of Vincennes,
"his own, to the last ounce, being damaged [by water] on the march;"
and that "Clark has since told me he knew to a man those of my little
garrison who would do their duty, and those who would shrink from it.
There is no doubt he was well informed."

[1513] Hamilton in his _Report_ enlarges on the barbarity of this
transaction. The indignation and resentment felt by Clark and his men
towards Hamilton, and the occasion for it, appear in a conversation
concerning the terms of surrender, which Clark gives in his captured
despatch: "_Hamilton._ 'Col. Clark, why will you force me to dishonor
myself when you cannot acquire more honor by it?' _Clark._ 'Could I
look on you as a gentleman, I would do the utmost in my power; but
on you, who have imbrued your hands in the blood of our women and
children—honor, my country, everything, calls aloud for vengeance.'
_Hamilton._ 'I know, sir, my character has been stained, but not
deservedly; for I have always endeavored to instill humanity, as
much as in my power, in the Indians, whom the orders of my superiors
obliged me to employ.' _Clark._ 'Sir, speak no more on this subject;
my blood glows within my veins to think on the cruelties your Indian
parties have committed; therefore, repair to your fort, and prepare for
battle'—on which I turned off."

The following incidents illustrate the sort of humanity which Hamilton,
and other British commandants at Detroit, instilled in the Indian
mind: At a council, on July 3, 1778, Gov. Hamilton presented an axe
to the chief, saying: "It is the king's command that I put this axe
into your hands to act against his majesty's enemies. I pray the Lord
of life to give you success, as also your warriors, wherever you go
with your father's axe." The item "60 gross scalping-knives" are among
the official "estimates of merchandise wanted for Indian presents at
Detroit from Aug. 21, 1782, to Aug. 20, 1783", signed by A. S. De
Peyster, Lieut.-Gov. (Farmer's _Hist. of Detroit_, p. 247). The same
writer (p. 246) states that he has seen the original entry of sale, on
June 6, 1783, of "16 gross red-handled scalping-knives, £80;" and on
July 22d, of 24 dozen more to the same parties.

[1514] Among Hamilton's reasons, in the articles of capitulation,
for surrender were: "The honorable terms allowed, and lastly, the
confidence in a generous enemy." For this compliment to Clark he
apologized in his _Report_ as follows: "If it be considered that we
were to leave our wounded men at the mercy of a man who had shown such
instances of ferocity, as Col. Clark had lately done, a compliment
bespeaking his generosity and humanity may possibly find excuse with
some, as I know it has censure from others."

[1515] Hamilton states that Capt. Helm was the officer in command of
the expedition,—a fact which Clark omitted to mention.

[1516] Hamilton says: "The day before Capt. Helm, who commanded the
party sent to take the convoy, arrived at Ouattanon, Mr. Dejean
heard that we had fallen into the hands of the rebels; but he had
not sufficient presence of mind to destroy the papers which, with
everything else, was seized by the rebels. Besides the provision,
clothing, and stores belonging to the king, all the private baggage of
the officers fell into the possession of Col. Clark."

[1517] Dillon, p. 158.

[1518] On March 7th, "Capt. Williams and Lieut. Rogers, with
twenty-five men, set off for the Falls of Ohio to conduct the following
prisoners, viz.: Lieut.-Gov. Hamilton, Major Hays [Hay], Capt. La
Mothe [La Mothe], Mons. Dejean, grand judge of Detroit, Lieut. Shiflin
[Scheifflin], Doct. M'Beth [McBeath], Francis M'Ville [Maisonville],
Mr. Bell Fenilb [Bellefeuille], with eighteen privates" (Bowman, p.
109). Hamilton does not give a list of his fellow-prisoners, but the
above names, as he gives them elsewhere in his _Report_, are inserted
in brackets. He says: "On the 8th of March we were put into a heavy
oak boat, being 27 in number, with our provision of flour and pork at
common ration, and 14 gallons of spirits for us and our guard, which
consisted of 23 persons, including two officers. We had before us 360
miles of water carriage and 840 to march to our place of destination,
Williamsburg, Va." (_Mich. Pion. Col._, p. 506). "On the 16th, most
of the prisoners took the oath of neutrality, and got permission to
set out for Detroit" (_Ibid._ 110). Gov. Hamilton and his associates
were sent to Williamsburg, and by sentence of the executive council
were placed in close imprisonment in irons, for their treatment of
captives and for permitting and instigating the Indians to practise
every species of cruelty and barbarism upon American citizens, without
distinction of age, sex, or condition (see _Journals of Congress_,
ii. 340; Jefferson's _Writings_, i. 226-237, 258, 267; Sparks's
_Washington_, vi. 315, 407; _Corresp. of the Rev._, ii. 323; Hamilton's
narrative from the _Royal Gazette_, July 15, 1780, in _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, i. 186; Monette, i. 431; Farmer's _Hist. of Detroit_, p. 252).
In October, 1780, Hamilton was sent to New York on parole, in order
to procure the release of some American officers (_Sparks MSS._, no.
lxvi.).

For details of the Vincennes expedition, see Clark's _Campaign_
(1869), p. 62-87; Dillon's _Indiana_ (1843), pp. 151-184; 2d edition,
pp. 137-167; Butler's _Kentucky_, p. 79; Beckwith's _Hist. Notes_,
pp. 250-259; Davidson's _Illinois_, p. 193; Brown's _Illinois_, p.
241; Perkins's _Annals_, p. 208; Withers's _Border Warfare_, p. 188;
Monette, i. 427; Hall's _Sketches of the West_, ii., 117; Marshall's
_Washington_, iii. 562; _Mag. of West. Hist._, by Mary Cone, ii. 133;
_Hist. Mag._, i. 168, by John Reynolds; Judge Law's address (1839),
in _Va. Hist. Reg._, vi. 61; Ninian W. Edwards's _Hist. of Illinois_
(1778-1833). There is a map of the campaign in Blanchard's _North-West_.

[1519] The enactment is in _Hening's Virginia Statutes_, ix. 552,
and in _Legal Adviser_ (Chicago, 1886), vii. 284. Cf. "Virginia's
Conquest—the Northwest Territory", by J. C. Wells, in the _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, Nov., 1886.

[1520] Clark's _Campaign_, p. 84. "I am glad to hear of Col. Todd's
appointment", he wrote to Jefferson (i. 225).

[1521] His proclamation of June 15, 1779, is in Dillon, p. 168;
Davidson's _Illinois_, p. 202.

[1522] See lists of the officials in Edward G. Mason's _Col. John
Todd's Record-Book_ (no. 12 _Fergus's Historical Series_, 1882),
p. 54. Mr. Mason's paper is an interesting account of Col. Todd's
administration, and of the state of the Illinois county at that time.
Col. Todd was killed in battle with the Indians at Blue Licks, Ky.,
Aug. 18, 1782. See Col. Logan's account of the battle, _Col. Va. State
Papers_, iii. 280, 300; Perkins's _Annals_, p. 270.

[1523] Butler's _Kentucky_, p. 108; Withers's _Border Warfare_, p. 197.

[1524] An autograph letter of Jefferson to Washington, Feb. 10, 1780,
urging reinforcements for Clark, is in the _Sparks MSS._, xlix. vol.
iii. Various intercepted letters of Clark, including one of Sept. 23,
1779, to Jefferson, about fortifying the mouth of the Ohio, are among
the Carleton Papers, in the London Institution, and are copied in the
_Sparks MSS._, xiii. On May 26, 1780, St. Louis had been attacked by
the English with Indian allies (_Mag. Western Hist._, Feb., 1785, p.
271, by Oscar W. Collet). It was through Vigo that Clark established
intimate relations with the Spanish lieutenant-governor De Leyba, and
Clark is said to have offered assistance in the defence of that Spanish
post.—ED.

[1525] Withers's _Border Warfare_, p. 213; Perkins's _Annals_, p. 235;
Butler's _Kentucky_, p. 110.

[1526] [See _ante_, p. 681.—ED.]

[1527] _Writings_, i. 259. The letter abridged is in Sparks's _Corresp.
of the Am. Rev._, iii. 98.

[1528] _Writings_, i. 280; Sparks's _Corresp._, etc., iii. 175.

[1529] Gen. Washington instructed Col. Brodhead to see that no
Continental officer outranked Col. Clark. "I do not think", he wrote,
"that the charge of the enterprise could have been committed to better
hands. I have not the pleasure of knowing the gentleman personally;
but independently of the proofs he has given of his activity and
address, the unbounded confidence which, I am told, the Western people
repose in him is a matter of vast importance.... In general, give
every countenance and assistance to this enterprise. I shall expect a
punctual compliance with this order. Col. Clark will probably be the
bearer of this himself" (_Writings_, vii. 343-345).

[1530] Sparks's _Corresp._, etc., iii. 244.

[1531] [See _ante_, pp. 495, 546.—ED.]

[1532] _Writings_, i. 288. See Steuben's report to Washington,
Sparks's _Corresp._, etc., iii. 204. At the time of Arnold's descent
on Virginia, a scheme was devised by Jefferson and Baron Steuben to
capture the arch-traitor alive, and hang him. The scheme is set forth
in a letter of Jefferson, with no address (_Writings_, i. 289), dated
Richmond, Jan. 21, 1781; and it immediately follows the one describing
Col. Clark's ambuscade. The purpose of the letter is to enlist the
services of the person addressed in this hazardous enterprise. The
writer says he has "peculiar confidence in the men from the western
side of the mountains, whose courage and fidelity would be above
all doubt. Your perfect knowledge of those men personally, and my
confidence in your discretion, induces me to ask you to pick from among
them proper characters, in such numbers as you think best, and engage
them to undertake to seize and bring off this greatest of all traitors.
Whether this may be best effected by their going in as friends and
awaiting their opportunity, or otherwise, is left to themselves. The
smaller the number the better, so that they be sufficient to manage
him." He offers them a reward of five thousand guineas for bringing him
off alive, and says "their names will be recorded with glory in history
with those of Vanwert, Paulding, and Williams." The editor states in a
note that the person addressed "was probably Gen. [John Peter Gabriel]
Mühlenberg." Gen. Mühlenberg was a Pennsylvanian, and never resided
west of the mountains. The person was doubtless George Rogers Clark,
who was then in Virginia, and was too deeply interested in his Detroit
expedition to engage in the scheme.

[1533] Sparks's _Corresp._, etc., iii. 323.

[1534] _Ibid._ iii. 455. "I think", Gen. Irvine adds, "there is too
much reason to fear that Gen. Clark's and Col. Gibson's expeditions
falling through will greatly encourage the savages to fall on the
country with double fury, or perhaps the British from Detroit to
visit this post [Fort Pitt], which, instead of being in a tolerable
state of defence, is, in fact, nothing but a heap of ruins." The
relations of Detroit to the war in the Northwest, as the centre of
British intrigues among the Indians, and of British instigation of the
savages to make forays on the region of the Ohio, is well set forth
in Charles I. Walker's _Northwest during the Revolution_, the annual
address before the Wisconsin Hist. Soc. in 1871 (Madison, 1871; also
in _Pioneer Soc. of Michigan Coll._, iii., Lansing, 1881). A plan
of the Detroit River at this time is given in Parkman's _Pontiac_,
vol. i. Col. Arent Schuyler De Peyster, who commanded at Detroit,
1776-1785, gives something of his experiences in his _Miscellanies by
an Officer_ (Dumfries, 1813). The latest history of Detroit is Silas
Farmer's _Detroit and Michigan_ (Detroit, 1884), where, in ch. 39, the
revolutionary story is told. He has retold it in the _Mag. of Western
Hist._, Jan., 1886.

Brymner's _Report on the Canadian Archives_, 1882, p. 11, calendars
the correspondence and papers relating to Detroit, 1772-1784, being in
large part the correspondence of Gov. Hamilton and Carleton, including
letters from Vincennes and intercepted letters of G. R. Clark. Much of
the military correspondence with the commandants at Detroit and Quebec,
during this period, are in the series "America and West Indies" of
the Public Record Office, vols. cxxi., etc., which are calendared in
Brymner's _Report_, 1883, p. 50, etc., as well as in the series "Canada
and Quebec", vols. lv., etc. (_Ibid._ p. 73, etc.). There is also among
the Haldimand Papers (_Calendar_, p. 204) a description of the route
from Detroit to the Illinois and Mississippi country, 1774.—ED.

[1535] Virginia, later, made amends for this wrong. See Butler's
_Kentucky_, 2d edition, p. 537.

[1536] See his report to Gov. Harrison, in Butler's _Kentucky_, 2d
edition, p. 536; Almon's _Remembrancer_ (1783), part 2, p. 93.

[1537] See Dillon, p. 179; Perkins's _Annals_, p. 278. In Jefferson's
_Writings_, iii. 217, 218, and _Cal. Va. State Papers_, iv. 189, 202,
will be found some sad incidents which throw light on the habits and
subsequent record of Col. Clark. In 1793 he imprudently accepted from
Genet, the French minister, a position in the service of France,
with the rank of major-general and commander-in-chief of the French
revolutionary legions on the Mississippi River. The purpose of this
revolutionary scheme, which had many supporters in Kentucky and the
West, was "to open the trade of the said river and give freedom to the
inhabitants", by capturing and holding the Spanish settlements on the
Mississippi. The troops were to receive pay as French soldiers, and
donations of land in the conquered districts. Before the scheme could
be put into execution, a counter-revolution occurred in France, Genet
was recalled, and Clark's commission was cancelled. See Collins's
_Kentucky_, i. 277; ii. 140; McMaster, _Hist. of U. S._, ii. 142;
Washington's Message against Genet and his scheme is in _Writings_,
xii. 96. For Clark's reputation and the achievements up to 1781, see
Marshall's _Washington_, iii. 562; Rives's _Madison_, i. 193; Withers's
_Border Warfare_, p. 190; _Harper's Mag._ (by R. F. Colman), xxii. 784;
xxxiii. 52; xxviii. 302; _Potter's Am. Monthly_ (by W. W. Henry), v.
908; vi. 308; vii. 140; _Ibid._ (by S. Evans), vi. 191, 451; _Western
Jour._ (St. Louis, 1850), iii. 168, 216; John Reynolds in _Hist. Mag._,
June, 1857; Collins's _Kentucky_. He was styled by John Randolph "the
Hannibal of the West", and by Gov. John Reynolds "the Washington of the
West." He was never married. He died February 13, 1818, and was buried
at Locust Grove, near Louisville, Ky.

The only portrait of him extant was painted by John W. Jarvis, an
English artist, who began business in New York in 1801, and painted
the heads of many distinguished Americans. He made a trip West and
South, during which he made many portraits. The picture of Clark
represents him about sixty years of age. The best engraving of it is
in the _National Portrait Gallery_, iv., with a biography. It is the
frontispiece of Butler's _Kentucky_, 1834, of Dillon's _Indiana_, 1859,
and in the Cincinnati edition of _Clark's Campaign_; and woodcuts are
in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 287; _Mag. of Western Hist._, ii. 133;
_Harper's Mag._, xxviii. 302, etc. It has been many times reproduced,
with a modification of details. There have been many rumors as to the
existence of a portrait taken earlier in life. Every alleged portrait
of an earlier date which I could hear of, I have looked up, and find
that they are all copies or modifications of the Jarvis picture.

[1538] In 1772, the whole community of Moravian missionaries and their
Indian converts at Friedenshütten, in Pennsylvania, where they had
dwelt for seven years, removed to the valley of the Muskingum, on the
cordial invitation of the Delawares. For many years, when living in
the vicinity of the English settlements, they had suffered much from
persecution; but now that they had their home among savages, it seemed
to them that their trials were ended.

[1539] The Sandusky of that period was on the head-waters of the
Sandusky River, about seventy-five miles east of south from the modern
Sandusky City on Lake Erie. Its location was near what is now known
as Upper Sandusky, in Wyandot County, Ohio. The region was a fertile
plain, and the home of the Wyandots.

[1540] See "The Identity and History of the Shawanese Indians", by C.
C. Royce, in the _Mag. of Western Hist._, ii. 38.

[1541] The fact that the Moravians had accompanied the Wyandots to the
country of Sandusky was used as evidence against them.

[1542] It is to the credit of the British officers at Detroit that they
befriended the Moravians, and assigned them a tract of land in Michigan.

[1543] See C. F. Post's first visit to the Western Indians by T.
J. Chapman, in _Mag. of Western Hist._, iii. 123. For the general
subject of the Moravian missions in Ohio, see Loskiel, _Memoirs of the
United Brethren, Part II._; Heckewelder, _Narrative_, pp. 213-328;
Holmes, _Missions of the United Brethren_, p. 110; Schweinitz, _Life
of Zeisberger_, pp. 368-590; Rondthaler, _Life of Heckewelder_, p.
66; Gnadenhütten, by W. D. Howells, in _Atlantic Monthly_, xxiii.
95; Withers, p. 230; Doddridge, p. 248; Monette, ii. 129; _Amer.
Pioneer_, ii. 425; Perkins, _Annals_, p. 258. Cf. also the _Diary of
David Zeisberger, a Moravian missionary among the Indians of Ohio_
(1781-1798); _translated from the original German manuscript and edited
by E. F. Bliss_, 2 vols. (Cincinnati, 1885).

[1544] Col. Crawford was a friend of Washington, and had been one of
his surveyors. "It is with the greatest sorrow", wrote Washington,
"that I have learned the melancholy tidings of Col. Crawford's death.
He was known to me as an officer of much prudence, brave, experienced,
and active. The manner of his death was shocking to me, and I have
this day communicated to Congress such papers as I have regarding
it." Cf. C. W. Butterfield's _Washington-Crawford letters, 1767-1781_
(Cincinnati, 1877,—Thomson's _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 147).

[1545] See _Narratives of the perils and sufferings of Dr. Knight and
John Slover, among the Indians, during the Revolutionary war; with
short memoirs of Col. Crawford and John Slover, and a letter from H.
Brackinridge, on the rights of the Indians, etc._ (Cincinnati, 1867),
pp. 12-31; (for earlier editions see Thomson's _Bibliog. of Ohio_,
nos. 682-685;) Perkins's _Annals_, p. 262; Doddridge, p. 264; Withers,
p. 242; "Crawford's Campaign", by N. N. Hill, Jr., in the _Mag. of
West. Hist._, ii. 19; McClung's _Sketches_, p. 128. Schweinitz's
_Zeisberger_, p. 564; _Amer. Pioneer_, ii. 177; _Hist. Mag._, xxi.
207; Isaac Smucker's "Ohio Pioneer History" in Ohio Sec. of State's
_Annual Report_, 1879, pp. 7-28. Cf. also C. W. Butterfield's _Hist.
Acc. of the Exped. against Sandusky_ (Cincinnati, 1873,—Thomson's
_Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 146); and, on the general military transactions
of this period in the West, the same editor's _Washington-Irvine
correspondence. The official letters which passed between Washington
and William Irvine and between Irvine and others concerning military
affairs in the West from 1781 to 1783. Arranged and annotated. With an
introduction containing an outline of events occurring previously in
the trans-Alleghany country_ (Madison, Wis., 1882). Cf. _Penna. Mag. of
Hist._, vi. 371. Sparks made copies of many of these Irvine papers in
1847 (_Sparks MSS._, no. liv.).—ED.

[1546] For a summary of these discussions, see Perkins, _Annals_
(Peck's ed., 1850), pp. 242-250. Judge Hall, _Sketches of the West_, i.
171, gives the date "May 6, 1778"; Wilson Primm, _Historical Address_,
1847 (reprinted in _Western Journal_, 1849, ii. 71), gives "May, 1779",
as the date, and says 1779 is an era in the history of St. Louis, and
is designated as "L'Année du coup." Nicollet, _Early St. Louis_, gives
"May, 6, 1780", and Martin, _Louisiana_, "the fall of 1780." Stoddard,
_Sketches of Louisiana_, without naming the month and day, gives the
year and the main facts correctly; but errs in stating that "the
expedition was not sanctioned by the English court, and the private
property of the commandant was seized to pay the expenses of it." As to
the casualties, Stoddard (p. 80) says, "60 killed and 30 prisoners;"
Nicollet (p. 85), "60 killed and 13 prisoners;" Primm, "20 killed;"
and Billon, _Annals of St. Louis_, 1886 (p. 196), "seven persons were
killed", and he furnishes a list of their names. Sinclair, in report to
Haldimand, July 8, 1780, says: "At Pencour [St. Louis], 68 were killed,
and 18 blacks and white people taken prisoners; 43 scalps were brought
in. The rebels lost an officer and three men killed at the Cahokias,
and five prisoners" (_Mich. Pion. Col._, ix. 559). Martin (ii. 53) says
"Clark released about 50 prisoners that had been made."

[1547] Brymner's _Calendar of the Canadian Archives_, including (1) the
_Haldimand collection_; (2) the publication of some of the Haldimand
papers in _Michigan Pioneer Collec._, ix.; and (3) the _Calendar of
Virginia State Papers_, Richmond, v. i., vi.

[1548] In March, 1766, Ulloa, from Havana, landed at New Orleans, and
in the name of Spain took possession of Louisiana; but found himself
obliged to administer the government under the old French officers, and
in 1768 the French set up for a while a republic independent of Spain.
Cf. Gayarré's _Louisiana_, and Lieutenant John Thomas's account of
Louisiana in 1768 in _Hist. Mag._, v. 65.

Congress maintained an agent, Oliver Pollock, at New Orleans during
the war, who, with the aid of the Spanish authorities, sent powder and
supplies at intervals up the river, to be landed on the Ohio (George
Sumner's _Boston Oration_, 1859, p. 14). The correspondence of Pollock
and Congress is in the archives of the State Department at Washington,
and copies are in the _Sparks MSS._, no. xli. An account of an
expedition under Col. David Rogers in 1778, to bring up stores to Fort
Pitt, is in _Hist Mag._, iii. 267.

Various letters about and from New Orleans during the war are in the
_Sparks MSS._ (no. xxiii.), copied from the Grantham correspondence.
Intercepted letters between the Spanish governor at New Orleans and
Patrick Henry (1778-1779), found among the Carleton papers, are in the
_Sparks MSS._, no. xiii.—ED.

[1549] Gayarré, _History of Louisiana, Spanish Domination_, p. 121.

[1550] Brymner, 1885, p. 276.

[1551] "In compliance with my Lord George Germain's requisition in the
circular letter sent from Detroit on 22d January, I sent a war party
of Indians to the country of the Sioux to put that nation in motion
under their own chief, Wabasha, a man of uncommon abilities.... They
are directed to proceed with all despatch to the Natchez, and to act
afterwards as circumstances may require. I shall send other bands of
Indians from thence on the same service as soon as I can with safety
disclose the object of their mission. I am at a loss to judge in point
of time, and can only hazard an opinion that the Brigadier [Campbell]
and his army will be at the place of their destination some time in
May" (_Michigan Pioneer Coll._, ix. 544).

The same day, Sinclair wrote to Capt. Brehm, Haldimand's aide-de-camp:
"I will use my utmost endeavors to send away as many as I can of the
Indians to attack the Spanish settlements as low down [the Mississippi]
as they possibly can, in order to procure the assistance of the others
at home. I am so perfectly convinced of the general's [Haldimand's]
geographical knowledge that I do not know where to look for the
cause of a doubt about giving some aid to General Campbell from this
quarter.... I am at a loss to know whether this preparation may not be
too early, on account of want of secrecy in the people I have employed,
and from their getting too near [New] Orleans before the arrival of the
brigadier. I have confidence in and hopes of their leader, as Wabasha
is allowed to be a very extraordinary Indian, and well attached to his
majesty's interest" (_Ibid._ pp. 541-543).

February 17, he writes again to Haldimand, that the Minomines, Puants,
Sacs, and Rhenards were to assemble at the portage of the Wisconsin
and Fox rivers under a Mr. Hesse, a trader; and later to rendezvous
at the confluence of the Mississippi and Wisconsin rivers, Prairie
du Chien. "The reduction of Pencour [_pain court_ (short bread), the
common nickname of St. Louis] by surprise, from the easy admission
of the Indians of that place, will be less difficult than holding it
afterwards.... The Sioux shall go with all dispatch as low down as the
Natchez, and as many intermediate attacks as possible shall be made"
(_Ibid._ pp. 546, 547).

May 29, he again writes that seven hundred and fifty men, including
traders, servants, and Indians, proceeded down the Mississippi on the
second day of May, with the Indians engaged at the westward, for an
attack on the Spanish and Illinois country. He mentions Prairie du
Chien as the place of assembling. "Capt. Hesse will remain at Pencour;
Wabasha will attack Misère [wretchedness, the popular nickname for Ste.
Geneviève] and the rebels at Kacasia [Kaskaskia]. Two vessels leave
this place on the 2d of June to attend Machigwawish, who returns by
the Illinois River with prisoners. All the traders who will secure the
posts on the Spanish side of the Mississippi during the next winter
have my promise for the exclusive trade of the Missouri during that
time, and that their canoes will be forwarded" (_Ibid._ 548, 549).

[1552] Brymner, _Report_, 1882, p. 34. He writes to Sinclair, March
12: "Your movements down the [Mississippi] shall be seconded from this
place by my sending a part of the garrison with some small ordnance.
Their route shall be to the Ohio, which they shall cross, and attack
some of the forts which surround the Indian hunting-ground of Kentucky.
I have had the Wabash Indians here by invitation; they have promised
to keep Clark at the Falls" (_Michigan Pioneer Coll._, p. 580). His
allusions are to Capt. Byrd's expedition. May 18, he again writes to
Sinclair: "Capt. Byrd left this place (Detroit) with a detachment of
about 150 whites and 1000 Indians. He must be by this time nigh the
Ohio" (_Ibid._ P. 582).

[1553] Among his prisoners were Col. Dickson, in command of the British
settlements on the Mississippi; 556 regulars, and many sailors.

[1554] Gayarré, _Louisiana, Span. Dom._, pp. 121-147. Galvez
discovered, by intercepted letters from Natchez, the scheme of the
English to attack the Spanish settlements as early as it was known by
Sinclair (p. 122), and he was earnest to strike the first blow. Clark
also heard of it very early. Sinclair, writing to Haldimand, says:
"No doubt can remain, from the concurrent testimony of the prisoners,
that the enemy received intelligence of the meditated attack on the
Illinois about the time I received a copy of my Lord George Germain's
circular letter" (_Mich. Pion. Coll._, ix. 559). In the same letter
he gives some details of the raids on St. Louis and Cahokia, which do
not appear elsewhere: "Twenty of the volunteer Canadians from this
place and a very few of the traders and servants made their attack on
Pencour and the Cahokias. The Winnipigoes and Sioux would have stormed
the Spanish lines, if the Sacs and Outagamies, under their treacherous
leader Mons. Calvé, had not fallen back so early. A Mons. Ducharme and
others who traded in the country of the Sacs kept pace with Mons. Calvé
in his perfidy. The attack, unsuccessful as it was, from misconduct,
and unsupported, I believe, by any other against New Orleans, with the
advances made by the enemy on the Mississippi, will still have its
good consequences. The Winnepigoes had a chief and three men killed
and four wounded. The traders who would not assist in extending their
commerce cannot complain to its being confined to necessary bounds."
Writing later to De Peyster (_Ibid._ 586), he says: "The attack upon
the Illinois miscarried from the treachery of Calvé and Ducharme,
traders, and from the information received by the enemy so early as
March last." For statements that the expedition against St. Louis was
organized and led by Jean Marie Ducharme, see _Wis. Hist. Coll._, iii.
232; vii. 176. It is evident that the objective point of the attack,
in Sinclair's mind, was the Illinois country, rather than the Spanish
settlements. Haldimand, writing to De Peyster, Feb. 12, 1779, said:
"Sinclair should strike at the Illinois" (Brymner, 1882, p. 33).
Sinclair, writing to Brehm, Feb. 17, 1780, concerning the attack on St.
Louis, said: "Afterwards they can act against the rebels on this side
[of the Mississippi], which I have pointed out to them" (_Mich. Pion.
Coll._, ix. 543).

[1555] Sinclair seems not to have heard of the capture of Natchez by
the Spaniards, which occurred Sept. 21, 1779, until July 30, 1780,
when he wrote to De Peyster: "The report of the Natchez seems too well
founded" (_Ibid._ 587).

[1556] _Ibid._ 547, 548.

[1557] Stoddard and Martin state that Clark was present; Nicollet
denies the statement, on the ground that Clark was then at Kaskaskia,
and "that gallant officer could not have had time to aid in that
affair." Hall and Billon make no mention of Clark; and Primm and Peck
(in Perkins) say that Clark tendered aid to Leyba in 1779, but not in
1780. It was a part of Clark's policy to be always on friendly terms
with the Spanish commandant at St. Louis (_Campaign_, p. 35), and to
give aid whenever he needed it. In so doing, as they were fighting a
common enemy, he served his own interests. Mr. O. W. Collet, in _Mag.
of Western Hist._, i. 271, has discussed the friendly relations between
Clark and Leyba before the attack on St. Louis, but is unmindful of the
significance given to it in the text. See also Scharff's _Hist. of St.
Louis_, p. 217.

[1558] The expedition of Captain Byrd from Detroit.

[1559] Sinclair reported to Haldimand, July 8th, "Two hundred Illinois
cavalry arrived at Chicago five days after the vessels left" (_Mich.
Pion. Coll._, ix. 558).

[1560] Dr. Lyman C. Draper (_Wisconsin Hist. Coll._, ix. 291) says:
"There was a party of Spanish allies sent out with Montgomery's
expedition from Cahokia in the latter part of May, 1780, in the
direction of Rock River." See also his note (_Ibid._ vii. 176). He
thinks that the Spaniards and some of the Americans probably returned
by way of Prairie du Chien, and that they were the party mentioned by
Long in his _Voyages_, 1791.

[1561] _Michigan Pioneer Col._, ix. 541. Capt. Byrd, writing to De
Peyster, May 21, 1780, reports that a Delaware Indian has come in from
the Falls with this information: "Col. Clark says he will wait for us,
instead of going to the Mississippi; his numbers do not exceed 200; his
provisions and ammunition short" (_Ibid._ 584). Clark was on his way to
St. Louis before this date, and was back to Kentucky in season to block
Byrd's plans.

[1562] Perkins's _Annals_, p. 245.

[1563] It is noticeable that in these decisive campaigns efficient aid
was furnished in the West by Spain, and in the East by France; and that
both these powers, in the negotiations for a treaty of peace with Great
Britain, threw their influence against the interests of the United
States.

[1564] See Gayarré, _Louisiana, Span. Dom._, p. 134; Pitkin's _United
States_, ii. 88, App. 512; _Secret Jour. of Cong._, ii. 326.

[1565] Sparks's _Dipl. Corresp._, viii. 156. The Spanish claims and
the Western boundary question are very fully discussed in this eighth
volume.

[1566] Mr. Jay (Sparks's _Dipl. Corres._, viii. 76-78) gives the
main facts concerning the Spanish expedition to St. Joseph, which he
translated from the _Madrid Gazette_ of March 12, 1782. Mr. E. G. Mason
(_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, xv. 457) has treated the subject more fully in
a paper entitled "March of the Spaniards across Illinois in 1781." See
also Reynolds's _Illinois_, ed. 1887, p. 126; Dillon's _Indiana_, ed.
1843, p. 190; Perkins's _Annals_, ed. 1851, p. 251.

Dr. Franklin, writing from Passy, April 12, 1782, to Secretary
Livingston, said: "I see by the newspapers that the Spaniards, having
taken a little post called St. Joseph, pretend to have made a conquest
of the Illinois country. In what light does this proceeding appear
to Congress? While they decline our offered friendship, are they to
be suffered to encroach on our bounds, and shut us up within the
Appalachian Mountains? I begin to fear they have some such project"
(_Works_, Sparks, ix. 206).

[1567] The diplomacy of the war and the final negotiations for peace,
form the subjects of the opening chapters of the succeeding volume of
the present _History_.—ED.

[1568] Some of the copies bear other dates.

* * * * * *

Transcriber’s note:

—Obvious errors were corrected.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. VI (of 8) - The United States of North America, Part I" ***

Home