Contents—Republicanism—The lesson of the first rebellion—The late civil war—The Loyalists; their losses and hardships—Ignored by Americans—Unrecorded—The world kept in ignorance—American glory—Englishmen—Question of Colonial treatment—The reason why Great Britain failed to subdue the rebellion—Character of the rebel bravery—The great result—Liberty in England and United States contrasted—Slavery—The result to U. E. Loyalists—Burgoyne—Mobocracy—Treatment from “Sons of Liberty”—Old men, women and children—Instances of cruelty—Brutality—Rapacity—Torture—The lower classes—“Swamp Law”—Fiendish cruelty—Worse than Butler’s Rangers—Seward and the Fenians—Infamous falsification—Close of the war—Recognition of independence by Great Britain—Crushed hopes of the Loyalists—In New York—Their conduct—Evacuation day—The position of the Loyalists—Confiscation—“Attainting”—Seizing estates—Paine—Commissioners at Paris—British Ministry—Loyalists’ petition—King’s speech—Division of claimants—Six classes—The number—Tardy justice—Noble conduct of South Carolina—Impostors—Loyalists in Lower Canada—Proclamation—The soldiers’ families—Journeyings—Meeting of families.
Almost a hundred years have passed away since the war-cloud arose which swept away thirteen of Britain’s colonies upon the uncertain and tempest-tossed ocean of Republicanism. That storm is long since stilled, as well as the hearts of those who took part therein.
While the statesman and politician may, with advantage, study the lesson then read, and which has been but lately annotated by the United States civil war, by the determined subjection of eight millions of Southerners, who desired freedom to establish a new government, let it be our humble occupation to record some of the immediate individual results of that great tempest, of which American writers, with but few exceptions, have never spoken fairly. Writers among them are not wanting to give lively pen pictures of their revolutionary heroes; not only forgetting the sufferings of the loyalists—the devoted ones, who gave up all—property, homes, friends, all the associations of a birth-place, rather than bow the knee to Baal; but who have wilfully misrepresented them; have charged them with crimes, at once atrocious and unfounded. The sufferings, the losses, the hardships, incident to pioneer life, with the noble purposes and undeviating loyalty of the British American tories, have never been fully related—never engaged the pen of the faithful historian. American writers, on the contrary, have recorded in glowing colors the deeds and actions of the “fathers of the Republic.” To this no objection; can be made; but may we not charge those historians with uncharitableness, with unnecessary neglect of the claims of the loyalists to pure motives, with ignoring their brave deeds, their devoted sufferings, and with unduly ascribing to the “king’s men” motives base and cruel. But the sufferings of the U. E. Loyalists are unrecorded. The world has rarely been told that they were persecuted, their homes pillaged, their persons maltreated, their valuables seized, their houses made desolate, their real estate taken from them, without legal proceedings. The world has been so flooded with the writings of Americans, describing their own excellencies and eulogizing their own cause, that no space has been found to do simple justice to the noble ones who preferred British rule to the uncertain and untried. Indeed, so strongly and for so long a time has the current been flowing to swell the ocean of American glory, that hardly a voice or pen is found doing service for the unfortunate loyalists, who chose to endure a little rather than rush into the vortex of rebellious strife. Even Englishmen have so long listened to one-sided statements, that no one of them can be found to say a word for the old tory party of America. Hence it is that the U. E. Loyalists are very imperfectly known; their history unwritten, their tales of sorrow unattended to, their noble doings unsung. Had there been a hand to guide a describing pen,—to picture the doings, the sufferings, the self-denying heroism of the loyal party; to recount the motives underlying all they did; and had there been ears as willing to listen, and eyes to read, and hearts to receive the facts as those of a contrary nature have obtained, then a far different impression would have been made, and fixed upon the world.
That the British Government was right or wise in its treatment of the American colonies we now have every reason to doubt. At the same time, that England might have subdued that rebellion, had she put forth her undivided strength, there is but little reason to question. Had she not been engaged in a formidable war with France; or even with that, had her statesmen acquired a correct knowledge of America as to topography, and as to the feelings and wishes of the people and their just complaints; or had able generals been entrusted with the command of the armies, instead of incompetent favorites; or had a little diplomacy been practiced, and the ringleaders of the whig faction—often hungry agitators—been conciliated by office; in either event the rebellion might have been nipped in the bud, or easily overcome. The American Republic owes its independence to the circumstances in which Great Britain was then placed, and the incapacity of a few of the British Generals, rather than to superior bravery, extraordinary military talent, or any high-toned longing for liberty. No doubt many of the rebelling party were brave; but it was often the bravery of the guerilla, or the desperate adventurer.
Of the great result—the recognition of the independence of the rebelling provinces by the mother country—we design not to speak at length. It will always remain a question, whether it would not have been better for the States themselves, and the world at large, if they had remained a part of the British Empire. That the evils of which they complained would, in due time, have been removed, upon proper representation, there is no substantial reason to doubt. That the principles of true freedom would have advanced and spread quite as rapidly, and that, to-day, liberty, in the broadest sense, would have reigned in the world fully as triumphant, the whole history of England and the United States sufficiently attest. It was many long years after Britain had struck off the chains of slavery before the United States reached the same point; and then only because it became a “military necessity.” Looking at the two nations to-day, and judging by the utterances of the two respective people, whether enunciated in the halls of legislature, by the head of the nation, by the bar, in the pulpit, by the press, or from the platform; or if we be guided by the public deeds of each, it is submitted that the more genuine ring of the metal sounds from beneath the wide-spreading banner of old England.
The effect of the successful rebellion, to which it is intended to refer, has reference to the United Empire Loyalists of America. And first, the effect upon them during the war.
The defeat of Burgoyne was the first event which immediately led to severe disaster of the loyalists. This general, with more assurance than foresight, and perhaps more courage than military skill, succeeded, not only in leading his army to destruction, but in placing the friendly inhabitants on his route in such a position that no mercy was subsequently extended to them by the ruthless rebels. When he surrendered, instead of securing for them immunity from any harm, he entirely neglected their interests; notwithstanding they had supplied his troops with provision. The relentless conduct of the rebels in arms and the whig government was bloodthirsty and vindictive. Their hate towards those who would not take sides with them, whether in arms for the Crown or not, was barbarous. Persons suspected of sympathy with the tories were subjects of continued molestation. Mobocracy reigned. Vagabond bodies of men were sent abroad to range the country, to lay waste and destroy the property of the loyalists, imprison the suspected, and seize the goods of the unprotected. Tarring and feathering was of common occurrence. Massachusetts especially gained a name for cruelty far exceeding any which has been applied to the Indians, with all their barbarism. There was a villainous band who called themselves the “Sons of Liberty,” who carried fire and sword—not against an open enemy in the light of day, but to peaceful firesides in the darkness of night. Their victims were the old men, the women and children, and the defenceless. Old men and children were driven to the woods for shelter, or placed in a closed room, and, with chimney stopped, smoked to suffocation. Females were subject to insult and the most fiendish treatment. Dwellings were fired at night, and their occupants left houseless, and exposed to the inclemency of the weather.
Suspected persons were arrested and put to terrible torture, such as attaching a rope to the neck and hauling the individual through the water till insensible; or suspending him to a tree till life was almost gone. This was frequently done with the object of extracting information as to the whereabouts of a father or a brother, or as to the place where money and valuables were concealed. The tales of cruelty the writer has heard related concerning the treatment the loyal party were exposed to, would harrow up the soul of any one possessing feelings of pity and commiseration.
The loyalists who immediately suffered, that is, while the war was in progress, were many. Military forts were established here and there, to which many fled precipitately from the several States.
It is a matter of extreme astonishment how men who set up the standard of revolt under the sacred name of liberty, could so far ignore the principles of liberty in the treatment of innocent old men, women and children, as we find stated by honest witnesses. The darkest tales of savage dealing come to us from our fathers. Families, whose sole offence consisted in being unwilling to rebel, and in being desirous to remain faithfully neutral, were the objects of the rapacious prey of a brutal soldiery. Their substance when not available for the rebel horde, was scattered to the winds. Devouring fire was cast into peaceful homes. How gross the hypocrisy, how base the motives that actuated very many of the adventurers in rebellion. The most hellish means were adopted at times, to force away persons of property, that the so-called “Sons of Liberty” might enjoy their substance and homes. Attending these scenes of desolation and refined cruelty, their imprisonments and torture, were incidents of thrilling interest, of fearful suffering, of hairbreadth escapes, of forlorn rescues.
The lower classes of those who rebelled were men of bold and lawless nature: whether we pass along the shores of New England, among the fishermen, or travel thorough the woods of Maine and New Hampshire, and become acquainted with woodmen of the forest, or as they were called “Loggers and Sawyers.” The spirit that animated the merchants of Boston and Salem, in their extended operations of smuggling, lived, also, in the reckless fishermen and woodmen; and for years before the rebellion really commenced they had been resisting, even by physical force, the revenue officers, who were often expelled from the woods by what was called “swamp law.” Men with such nature, finding that their lawlessness had become popular, and that steps were being taken to resist the government on a general plan, were not slow to act their part. One result of the rebellion was a determined and systematic course of retaliation upon those who had recognized the majesty of the law. A continued and uncompromising persecution was entered upon toward them.
No history can parallel the deeds of atrocity enacted by the villainous “Liberty men.” Said an old lady, on the verge of the grave, and with voice tremulous in remembrance of fiendish acts she had witnessed, “The Rebels, on one occasion entered a house and stripped it of everything, even the bed on which lay a woman on the point of confinement. But a single sheet was left to cover the woman upon a winter’s night, who, before morning became a mother.” In 1776, there arrived at Fort George, in a starving state, Mrs. Nellis, Mrs. Secord, Mrs. Young, Mrs. Buck and Mrs. Bonnar, with thirty-one children, whom the circumstances of the rebellion had driven away. Talk about the cruelty of Indians and of Tory oppression. The unprincipled rebels did well to try to hide their ignominious deeds behind the fabrications respecting the doings of Butler’s Rangers, and the noble-minded Brant. May we not cease to wonder that the descendants of the rebels in the year 1866, endeavour to hound on a pack of thieves and murderers to possess themselves of the homes our fathers sought out for us. The self-applauding writers of the revolutionary war, found it convenient to forget the doings of the “Sons of Liberty” and of Sullivan, while they laid to the charge of Butler’s Rangers and the Indians, acts of inhumanity (which we are informed on good authority are unfounded, Butler having never abused woman or child.) In the same manner, Secretary Seward found it desirable to falsify dates, by saying the Fenians invaded Canada on the 6th of June, that it might appear he had vindicated promptly their neutrality laws; whereas they actually crossed, and engaged in battle, on the morning of the 2nd. But as time will fully bring out the facts connected with the first American rebellion, and place them face to face with one-sided history, so will faithful history record the whole truth of the infamous invasion of our country by a band of American citizens with United States arms in their hands. Those deeds of blood, enacted by men under the hypocritical cry of liberty have not been forgotten by the United Empire Loyalists, but have been handed down to us, to place on record against the cruel actors.
Hostilities ceased 19th April, 1783, and on the 20th September, the independence of the United States was acknowledged.
The recognition of independence by Great Britain, was the death knell to the cherished hopes of the loyalists. Many had escaped into the provinces, and many were in the army, and not a few were in England. Although the majority of them had been driven away, a few still remained in those places, yet held by the British forces, as New York. “When the news of peace became known, the city presented a scene of distress not easily described. Adherents to the Crown, who were in the army, tore the lapels from their coats and stamped them under their feet, and exclaimed that they were ruined; others cried out they had sacrificed everything to prove their loyalty, and were now left to shift for themselves, without the friendship of their king or country. Previous to the evacuation, and in September, upwards of 12,000 men, women, and children, embarked at the city, at Long and Staten Islands, for Nova Scotia and the Bahamas,” and for Canada. “Some of these victims to civil war tried to make merry at their doom, by saying they were bound to a lovely country, where there are nine months winter and three months cold weather every year, while others, in their desperation tore down their houses, and had they not been prevented, would have carried off the bricks of which they were built.” The British had possessed New York since 15th September, 1776, and on the 25th November, 1783, yielded it up to the Americans. This is “Evacuation day.”
When Cornwallis surrendered he vainly tried to obtain a promise of protection for the Loyal Americans, who, in part, formed his army. Failing in this, he sent an armed vessel away with a large number.
At this time beside the many who had become refugees, there were some loyalists scattered through the States. Many of these remained in the now Independent States, and many of them would have returned, to become faithful citizens under the new order of things, had they been allowed so to do. But the young Republic knew not how to be magnanimous to those whom the fortunes of war had left in great distress—whom they had conquered, and the United Empire Loyalists were made aliens from their native homes. Their property must be confiscated, and many being large land owners, rich prizes were thus secured. While the conflict continued to rage there was some excuse, but when war had ceased, and everything had been accomplished that the most craving rebel could wish, it was a ruthless, an ungenerous, nay, a base proceeding on the part of the revolutionists, to force away their very brethren, often related by the ties of consanguinity. But it was a spirit as unprincipled as this, which instigated the rebellion, and which characterized the vast majority of those who fought under the sacred name of liberty, and such was the spirit of the conquerors.
The successful rebels determined to possess themselves of the lands and property of the loyalists, even in violation of treaty. The action of Congress was sufficiently high-handed and wanting in generosity; but the proceedings of the State Legislatures, with a few exceptions, were execrable—characterized by ignoble and vindictive passion.
The Legislatures of each state took early steps to punish the adherents of Britain, to dispossess them of their property, and to banish them. Massachusetts took the lead in dealing severely against the loyalists. A rebel magistrates’ warrant was sufficient to banish one. Hundreds of Massachusetts Loyalists were prohibited from returning on penalty of imprisonment and even death. And the other States were active in “attainting” and confiscating, often without the form of trial. Each State carried on its function as a government, and trials ought to have been granted, in common justice to every one. But the Whigs were intolerant, hot-headed, malevolent, unforgiving. It has been said that “if it be conceded that rebellion against England was right, then every step necessary to success was justifiable.” If we grant all this there remains the fact that after success had crowned rebellion, persecution and confiscation continued. New York, on the 12th May, 1784, passed “An act for the speedy sale of the confiscated and forfeited estates within the States.” The powers consisted in the appointment of “commissioners of forfeitures.” Among those who lost their land was one Davoe. He had 300 acres near New York, twenty miles, which was confiscated and given to the notorious Tom Paine, the infidel, whose extreme liberal views expressed in his work, “Common Sense,” made him the friend of Washington, and revolutionists generally. Paine, after taking part in the French Revolutions, came, in 1802, to his place in New York, where he enjoyed the loyalists’ confiscated property until his death, 8th June, 1809.
In the terms of peace signed at Paris, there was no security effected for the losses sustained by the American Loyalists.
As Burgoyne at his inglorious surrender at Saratoga, thought not of the innocent inhabitants of the Mohawk and Hudson, who had identified themselves with the loyal cause, and supplied his troops with provisions, and left them to the merciless “Sons of Liberty,” to be despoiled of their all, and exposed to fearful cruelty, so at the last, when the British Government relinquished the attempt to subdue rebellion, the American Loyalists were of remote consideration. We can gather now but the outlines of this great wrong done unto noble men. The particulars are buried in the wreck of fortune, and of happiness, respecting all worldly matters. The after life of the loyalists was of too earnest a nature to allow time to place on record the sufferings, and the wanderings of the disinherited. The lost cause did not stimulate men to draw upon imagination, such as may be found in gaudy-hued descriptions of American revolutionary heroes, male and female. But there is sufficient of facts recorded, and engraven by the iron pen of extreme anguish upon hearts, that were of flesh, to stamp the persecutors with infamy, and mark the refugees, that clustered around the border forts, and found homes at Sorel, Lachine, and Montreal, with the highest attributes of patriotism and love of country.
The conduct of the ministry, and the commissioners at Paris is open to the severest censure. They left the claims of the loyalists to be decided by the American Congress. We may allow them the credit of having held the belief, that this body would be actuated by a feeling of justice and right, but the error was a grave one, the wrong grievous and hard to be endured. In pursuing this course, the British ministry did not escape condemnation by members of Parliament, and a feeling of sympathy was evoked that led to a tardy dispensing of justice. Lord North said “that never were the honor, the principles, the policy of a nation, so grossly abused as in the desertion of those men, who are now exposed to every punishment that desertion and poverty can inflict, because they were not rebels.” Mr. Sheridan “execrated the treatment of those unfortunate men, who, without the least notice taken of their civil and religious rights, were handed over as subjects to a power that would not fail to take vengeance on them for their zeal and attachment to the religion and government of the mother country,” “and he called it a crime to deliver them over to confiscation, tyranny, resentment and oppression.” Lord Loughborough said that “in ancient nor modern history had there been so shameful a desertion of men who had sacrificed all to their duty and to their reliance upon British faith.” Others, in terms of equal severity, denounced the ministry in Parliament for their neglect. The ministry admitted it all, but excused themselves by the plea that “a part must be wounded, that the whole of the empire may not perish”—that they “had but the alternative, either to accept the terms proposed, or continue the war.”
“A number of loyalists in England, came to the United States to claim restitution of their estates, but their applications were unheeded,” except to imprison, and banish them.
The treaty of peace signed, without any provision for the suffering loyalists, they at once took steps to petition the Imperial Parliament for justice. “They organized an agency, and appointed a Committee, composed of one delegate, or agent from each of the thirteen States, to enlighten the British public.” “At the opening of Parliament the King, in his speech from the throne, alluded to the ‘American sufferers’ and trusted generous attention would be shewn to them.” An act was consequently passed creating a “Board of Commissioners” to examine the claims preferred. The claimants were divided into six classes.
“First Class.—Those who had rendered service to Great Britain.”
“Second Class.—Those who had borne arms for Great Britain.”
“Third Class.—Uniform Loyalists.”
“Fourth Class.—Loyal British subjects residents in Great Britain.”
“Fifth Class.—Loyalists who had taken oaths to the American States, but afterward joined the British.”
“Sixth Class.—Loyalists who had borne arms for the American States, and afterwards joined the British navy or army.”
The claimants had to state in writing, and specifically the nature of their losses. Great and unnecessary caution was observed by the Board. The rigid rules of examinations caused much dissatisfaction and gave the Board the name of “Inquisition.”
The 26th of March, 1784, was the latest period for presenting claims, which was allowed, and on or before that day, the number of claimants was two thousand and sixty-three. A “second report which was made in December of the same year, shows that one hundred and twenty-eight additional cases had been disposed of.” In May and July 1865, one hundred and twenty-two cases more were disposed of. In April 1786, one hundred and forty more were attended to. The commissioners proceeded with their investigations during the years 1786 and 1787. “Meantime” and to her honor be it said “South Carolina had restored the estates of several of her loyalists.”
Years passed away before the commissioners had decided upon all the claims, and great and loud was the complaint made by the claimants. The press was invoked to secure a more prompt concession of justice, pamphlets were published on their behalf, and one printed in 1788, five years after the peace, contained the following: “It is well that this delay of justice has produced the most melancholy and shocking events. A number of the sufferers have been driven by it into insanity, and become their own destroyers, leaving behind them their helpless widows and orphans to subsist upon the cold charity of strangers. Others have been sent to cultivate a wilderness for their subsistence, without having the means, and compelled through want, to throw themselves on the mercy of the American States, and the charity of their former friends, to support the life which might have been made comfortable by the money long since due from the British Government, and many others, with their families are barely subsisting upon a temporary allowance from government, a mere pittance when compared with the sum due them.”
The total number of claimants was 5,072, of whom 924 withdrew or failed to make good the claim. The sum of money allowed was £3,294,452. We have seen there was, in addition, given to the widows and orphans, between 20,000 and 30,000 pounds.
There is no doubt that a certain number of the claimants were impostors, while many asked remuneration above what their losses had actually been, and this caused the commissioners to examine more closely the claims proffered. But it is submitted that they ought, in dealing with the money already granted by a considerate Parliament, to have leaned on the side of clemency.
At the close of the contest there were a large number of Refugees in Lower Canada, especially at Fort St. John, about twenty-nine miles from Montreal. In the main these were American born, and principally from the New England States; yet there were representatives from England, Ireland, Scotland and Germany. Besides the Refugees, there were several Provincial Corps, which were no longer to be retained in the service, but to be disbanded. Of these there was the 84th, often called Johnson’s regiment, this was 800 strong, mostly Dutch, from the Mohawk, and Hudson, descendants of the old stock. This regiment consisted of two corps, one under Major Jessup, stationed at St. John’s, and the other under Rogers, a part of which at least, was stationed at Fort Oswego. Jessup’s corps became the first pioneers upon the St. Lawrence, and Rogers among the first along the Bay of Quinté. Both settled in 1784. There were other troops stationed at St. John’s, and likewise not a few who had discharged irregular, but important duties, as scouts, and in other ways.
It has been generally estimated that at the close of the struggle, and as a result, there were distributed of American Loyalists upon the shores of Canada, about 10,000. At the first, most of these were in Lower Canada, but there were likewise a few at the frontier forts upon the Upper waters, and a few detached squatters. Then, “there was not a single tree cut from the (present) Lower Province line to Kingston, 150 miles; and at Kingston there were but a few surrounding huts; and from thence all around Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, with the exception of a few Indian huts on some desolate spot of hunting ground, all was a dense wilderness.” (Ex Sheriff Sherwood.)
“A proclamation was issued,” says Croil in his history of Dundas, “that all who wished to continue their allegiance to Britain, should peaceably rendezvous at certain points on the frontiers. These were, Sackets Harbour, Carleton Island, Oswego and Niagara, on the Upper Canada confines; and Isle Aux Nois, on the borders of Lower Canada. Jessup’s Corps was stationed at Isle Aux Nois, and late in the autumn of 1783, the soldiers were joined by their wives and little ones, who had wandered the weary way on foot, to Whitehall, through swamps and forest,—beset with difficulties, dangers, and privations innumerable. The soldiers met them there with boats, and conveyed them the rest of their journey by water, through Lake Champlain. Imagination fails us when we attempt to form an idea of the emotions that filled their hearts, as families, that had formerly lived happily together, surrounded with peace and plenty, and had been separated by the rude hand of war, now met each other’s embrace, in circumstances of abject poverty. A boisterous passage was before them, in open boats, exposed to the rigors of the season—a dreary prospect of the coming winter, to be spent in pent up barracks, and a certainty should they be spared, of undergoing a lifetime of such hardships, toil and privation, as are inseparable from the settlement of a new country.” As soon as the journey was accomplished, the soldiers and their families, were embarked in boats, sent down to Richelieu to Sorel, thence to Montreal, and on to Cornwall, by the laborious and tedious route of the St. Lawrence. (See settlement of Ernest town.)
Contents—A spirit of strife—The French war—British American Troops—Former comrades opposed—Number of U. E. Loyalists in the field—General Burgoyne—Defeat—First reverse of British arms—The campaign—Colonel St. Leger—Fort Stanwix—Colonel Baume—Battle of Bennington—General Herkimer—Gates—Schuyler—Braemar Heights—Saratoga—Surrender—The result upon the people—Sir John Johnson—Sir William—Sketch—Indian Chief—Laced coat—Indian’s dream—It comes to pass—Sir William dreams—It also comes to pass—Too hard a dream—Sir John—Attempt to arrest—Escape—Starving—Royal Greens—Johnson’s losses—Living in Canada—Death—Principal Corps of Royalists—King’s Rangers—Queen’s Rangers—Major Rogers—Simcoe—The Rangers in Upper Canada—Disbanded—The Hessians.
The seven years’ war between Canada and New England, in which a large number of the Colonists were engaged, had created not a few officers of military worth and talent, while a spirit of strife and contention had been engendered among the people generally. The Colonial war, carried on with so much determination, was stimulated, not so much by the English nation at home as by New Englanders. It was they who were chiefly interested in the overthrow of French power in Canada. While money and men had been freely granted by the Imperial Government, the several colonies had also freely contributed. They “furnished in that war quite twenty-eight thousand men, in more than one of the campaigns, and every year to the extent of their ability.” “On the ocean, full twelve thousand seamen were enlisted in the Royal Navy and in the Colonial Privateers.” In this manner had been formed a taste for military life, which waited to be gratified, or sought for food. When, therefore, the unsavory acts of England wounded the Colonial vanity, and demagogues traversed the country to embitter the feelings of the mass against the king, the hot-headed were not slow to advise an appeal to arms. At the same time, the loyal in heart, the conservators of Imperial interest, viewing with wonder and alarm the manifestation of fratricidal war—of rebellion, felt it their duty to take up arms against the unprincipled (and often dishonest) agitators, and endeavor to crush out the spirit of revolt. And thus it came, that very many who had fought side by side at Ticonderoga, Crown Point, Duquesne, Niagara, Oswego, Frontenac, Montreal, and around Quebec, under a common flag, were now to be arrayed in hostile bands. Not state against state, nor yet merely neighbor against neighbor, but brother against brother, and father against son! Civil war, of all wars, is the most terrible: in addition to the horrors of the battle-field, there is an upheaving of the very foundation of society. All the feelings of brotherhood, of Christian love, are paralyzed, and the demon of destruction and cruelty is successfully invoked.
Behold, then, the British Americans divided into two parties; each buckling on the armor to protect from the other, and sharpening the weapons of warfare to encounter his kindred foe. The contest of 1776-‘83 is most generally looked upon as one between the English and Americans; but in reality it was, at first—so far as fighting went—between the conservative and rebel Americans. In an address to the king, presented by the loyalists in 1779, it is stated that the number of native Americans in his service exceeded those enlisted by Congress. Another address, in 1782, says that “there are more men in his Majesty’s provincial regiments than there is in the continental service.” Sabine says that “there were 25,000, at the lowest computation.” If such be the case, the question may well be asked, how came it that the rebels succeeded? Looking at the matter from our distant stand-point, through the light of events we find recorded, there seems but one conclusion at which we may arrive, namely, that the disaster to the British arms was due—altogether due—to the incapacity of certain of the generals to whom was intrusted the Imperial interests in America.
The most notable instance of mistaken generalship was that of Burgoyne. His campaign in the summer of 1777, and the final overthrow of his army and surrender at Saratoga, will engage our particular attention; inasmuch as it was the first decided reverse to the British arms, and by giving courage to the rebels, assisted much to further their cause. Thereby their faith was strengthened, and the number of rebels increased from no inconsiderable class, who waited to join the strongest party. Again, the scene of this campaign was close to the borders of Canada, and there followed a speedy escape of the first refugees from the Mohawk valley and the Upper Hudson to the friendly shores of the St. Lawrence.
A year had elapsed since the Declaration of Independence, and England had sent troops to America, with the view of assisting the forces there to subdue the malcontents. In the early part of July, Burgoyne set out from Lower Canada with about 8,500 soldiers, 500 Indians, and 150 Canadians, intending to traverse the country to Albany, possessing himself of all rebel strongholds on the way, and thence descend along the river Hudson, to New York, to form a junction with General Howe, that city having been captured from the rebels the 15th September previous. Passing by way of Lake Champlain, he encountered the enemy on the 6th July, and captured Ticonderoga and Mount Independence, with 128 cannon, several armed vessels, a quantity of baggage, ammunition and provisions. “This easy conquest inflamed his imagination.” The first step towards the defeat of his army was the unsuccessful attempt of Colonel St. Leger, with 800 men, who ascended the St. Lawrence to Oswego, and thence up the river, to take Fort Stanwix (Rome), intending to descend the Mohawk and join Burgoyne with his main force, as he entered the head of the valley of the Hudson. Colonel St. Leger arrived at Fort Stanwix on the 3rd August, 1777. For a time he was the winner; but for some reason, it is said that the Indians suddenly left him, and his troops, seized with a panic, fled. In the meantime, General Burgoyne was pursuing his way, having driven General Schuyler from Lake St. George to the mouth of the Mohawk river.
Burgoyne, flushed with this renewed success, after his late capture of Ticonderoga and Mount Independence, vainly supposed he could advance steadily down the Hudson. He sent a body of men, 500 strong, under Colonel Baume, into the interior, eastward, with the view of encouraging the inhabitants to continued loyalty, and of arresting the machinations of the rebels. Near Bennington the rebels had an important post, with magazines, and a large force under General Stark. Baume, ignorant of their strength, rushed headlong against the enemy. Nothing daunted, he led on his 500 brave men. For two hours he contended with the unequal foe, when his troops were almost annihilated, and he fell from his horse, mortally wounded. But few escaped to tell the tale. Meanwhile, Burgoyne, apprised of the danger surrounding Baume, had sent assistance under Colonel Breynan. Unfortunately, they had not much ammunition, and, after fighting until all was exhausted, they had to flee. These three reverses paved the way for the final overthrow of Burgoyne. He was still marching forward, bent on reaching Albany, to accomplish the object of the campaign—a juncture with the army of General Howe. But now in his rear, to the west, instead of Colonel St. Leger descending the Mohawk, was General Herkimer, who had dispersed St. Leger’s force; and to the east was General Stark, flushed with his victories over Baume and Breynan. Burgoyne met Gates at last on Braemar heights, and again, and for the last time, led his troops on to victory, although the contest was well sustained. General Schuyler had intrenched his forces at the mouth of the Mohawk, and Burgoyne, having waited until his provision was exhausted, at last resolved to make an assault. It was bravely made, but without success; and before night-fall the army was retreating. Night, instead of enabling them to regain their spirits and renew their ardor, only brought the intelligence of the defeats previously sustained at Stanwix and Bennington. This was the 7th October. Flight now was the only possible chance for safety. The tents were left standing; his sick and wounded forsaken. But the enemy now surrounded him; the places he had taken were already re-taken; and upon the 10th of the month he found himself helpless upon the fields of Saratoga, where he surrendered. The whole of the men were sent to Boston and other places south, there to languish in prison.
Thus it came that the inhabitants in this section of the country came under the power of the rebels, and those who had adhered to the loyal side were mercilessly driven away at the point of the bayonet. The writer has heard too many accounts of the extreme cruelty practised at this time to doubt that such took place, or question the fiendish nature of the acts practised by the successful rebels against, not foes in arms, but the helpless. Many thus driven away (and these were the first refugees who entered Canada) suffered great hardships all through the winter. Most of the men entered the ranks subsequently, while not a few, from their knowledge of the country, undertook the trying and venturesome engagement of spies. The families gathered around the forts upon the borders had to live upon the fare supplied by the commissariat of the army. A large number were collected at Mishish; and the story goes that a Frenchman, whose duty it was to deal out the supplies, did so with much of bad conduct and cruel treatment.
Among the officers who served with General Burgoyne was Sir John Johnson, who had been the first to suffer persecution, the first to become a refugee, and who became a principal pioneer in Upper Canada.
“His father, Sir William Johnson, was a native of Ireland, of whom it was said, in 1755, that he had long resided upon the Mohawk river, in the western part of New York, where he had acquired a considerable estate, and was universally beloved, not only by the inhabitants but also by the neighboring Indians, whose language he had learned and whose affections he had gained, by his humanity and affability. This led to his appointment as agent for Indian affairs, on the part of Great Britain, and he was said to be ‘the soul of all their transactions with the savages.’”
Of Sir William’s talents and shrewdness in dealing with the likewise shrewd Indian, the following is found in Sabine: “Allen relates that on his receiving from England some finely-laced clothes, the Mohawk chief became possessed with the desire of equalling the baronet in the splendor of his apparel, and, with a demure face, pretended to have dreamed that Sir William had presented him with a suit of the decorated garments. As the solemn hint could not be mistaken or avoided, the Indian monarch was gratified, and went away, highly pleased with the success of his device. But alas for Hendrick’s shortsighted sagacity! In a few days Sir William, in turn, had a dream, to the effect that the chief had given him several thousand acres of land. ‘The land is yours,’ said Hendrick, ‘but now, Sir William, I never dream with you again, you dream too hard for me.’”
At the breaking out of the revolutionary war, Sir John, who had succeeded to his father’s title, appears, also, to have inherited his influence with the Indians, and to have exerted that influence to the utmost in favor of the Royal cause. By this means he rendered himself particularly obnoxious to the continentals, as the Americans were then called. Accordingly, in 1776, Colonel Dayton, with part of his regiment, was sent to arrest him, and thus put it out of his power to do further mischief. Receiving timely notice of this from his tory friends at Albany, he hastily assembled a large number of his tenants and others, and made preparations for a retreat, which he successfully accomplished.
“Avoiding the route by Lake Champlain, from fear of falling into the hands of the enemy, who were supposed to be assembled in that direction, he struck deep into the woods, by way of the head waters of the Hudson, and descended the Raquette river, to its confluence with the St. Lawrence, and thence crossed over to Canada. Their provision failed soon after they had left their homes. Weary and foot-sore, numbers of them sank by the way, and had to be left behind, but were shortly afterwards relieved by a party of Indians, who were sent from Caughnawaga in search of them. After nineteen days of hardship, which have had few parallels in our history, they reached Montreal. So hasty was their flight, that the family papers were buried in the garden, and nothing taken with them but such articles as were of prime necessity.” Soon after his arrival at Montreal he was “commissioned a colonel, and raised two battalions of loyalists, who bore the designation of the Royal Greens. From the time of organizing this corps, he became one of the most active, and one of the bitterest foes that the whigs encountered during the contest. So true is it, as was said by the wise man of Israel, that ‘a brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city, and their contentions are like the bars of a castle.’ Sir John was in several regular and fairly conducted battles. He invested Fort Stanwix in 1777, and defeated the brave General Herkimer; and in 1780 was defeated himself by General Van Rensselaer, at Fox’s Mills.”
The result of his adherence to the Crown was, that his extensive family estates upon the Mohawk were confiscated; but at the close of the war he received large grants of land in various parts of Canada, beside a considerable sum of money. He continued to be Superintendent of Indian affairs, and resided in Montreal until his death, in 1822.
The following are the principal corps and regiments of loyalists who took part in the war against the rebels, and who were mainly Americans:
“The King’s Rangers; the Royal Fencible Americans; the Queen’s Rangers; the New York Volunteers; the King’s American regiment; the Prince of Wales’ American Volunteers; the Maryland Loyalists; De Lancey’s Battalions; the Second American regiment; the King’s Rangers, Carolina; the South Carolina Royalists; the North Carolina Highland Regiment; the King’s American Dragoons; the Loyal American Regiment; the American Legion; the New Jersey Volunteers; the British Legion; the Loyal Foresters; the Orange Rangers; the Pennsylvania Loyalists; the Guides and Pioneers; the North Carolina Volunteers; the Georgia Loyalists; the West Chester Volunteers. These corps were all commanded by colonels or lieutenant-colonels; and as De Lancey’s battalions and the New Jersey Volunteers consisted each of three battalions, there were twenty-eight. To these, the Loyal New Englanders, the Associated Loyalists and Wentworth’s Volunteers, remain to be added. Still further, Colonel Archibald Hamilton, of New York, commanded at one period seventeen companies of loyal Militia.”
Respecting the officers and more prominent men of the corps, who settled in Canada, we have succeeded in collecting the following account.
This corps acted a very conspicuous part during the war. It was raised by Major Robert Rogers, of New Hampshire, son of James Rogers. He had served during the French war, with distinction, as commander of Rogers’ Rangers, and was, “in 1776, appointed Governor of Michilimackinac. During the early part of the rebellion he was in the revolting states, probably acting as a spy, and was in correspondence with the rebel Congress, and with Washington himself. He was imprisoned at New York, but was released on parole, which, it is said, he broke (like General Scott in 1812), and accepted the commission of colonel in the British army, and proceeded to raise the corps mentioned.” About 1777 “he went to England, and Simcoe succeeded him as commander of the Queen’s Rangers.”
Sabine, speaking of John Brown Lawrence, says he was imprisoned in the Burlington gaol, New Jersey, and that “Lieut.-Colonel John G. Simcoe, commander of the Queen’s Rangers, was a fellow-prisoner, and when exchanged said, at parting, ‘I shall never forget your kindness.’ He did not: and when appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, he invited Mr. Lawrence to settle there,” and, through the Governor, he acquired a large tract of land.
The Queen’s Rangers were disbanded in 1802, having been associated with the events of the first government of Upper Canada, their colonel (Simcoe) having been the first Governor. A detachment of this regiment were stationed upon the banks of the Don, before there was a single white inhabitant where now stands Toronto.
This corps formed a part of Burgoyne’s army at the time of surrendering, and, “with other provincial prisoners, retired to Canada, by permission of Gates.”
The British Government, during the course of the war, procured some foreign troops from one of the German Principalities upon the Rhine, mostly from Hesse-Hamburg. This foreign legion was under the command of General Baron de Reidesel, of their own country. It would seem from the testimony of their descendants in Marysburgh, that the British Government employed the men from the Government of the principality, and that the men did not voluntarily enter the service, but were impressed. These Hessians were drilled before leaving their country. They were composed of infantry, artillery, and a rifle company, “Green Yongers.” They were embarked for Canada, by way of Portsmouth, and reached Quebec in time to join the British army, and meet the enemy at Stillwater. Conrad Bongard, of Marysburgh, informs us that his father was one of the company under General Reidesel. He was in the artillery, and accompanied Burgoyne in his eventful campaign; was at the battle of Tyconderoga; and, with the rest of the Hessian troops, was taken prisoner at Saratoga. They were taken down to Virginia, and there retained as prisoners of war for nearly two years. Being released on parole, many of them, with their General, were conveyed back to Germany; but some of them, having the alternative, preferred to remain in America, to share with the loyalists in grants of land. (See Marysburgh, where the Hessians settled). Conrad Bongard became the servant of Surveyor Holland, and was with him as he proceeded up the St. Lawrence, to survey. Bongard married a widow Carr, whose husband had been in the 24th regiment of Royal Fusileers, and had died while the prisoners were retained in Virginia. He eventually settled in the fifth township, where he died, January, 1840, aged 89. His wife, Susan, died February, 1846, aged 98. Both were members of the Lutheran church. Mrs. B. was a native of Philadelphia.
The wife of the General, Baroness de Reidesel, has left an interesting record of the battles prior to Burgoyne’s surrender.
Contents—Indian Names—The Five Tribes—The Sixth—Confederation—Government—Subdivisions—Origin—Hendrick—Death—Brant—Birth—Education—Married—Teaching—Christianity—Brant elected Chief—Commissioned a British Captain—Visits England—Returns—Leads his warriors to battle—Efforts of Rebels to seduce Brant to their cause—Attempted treachery of the Rebel Herchimer—Border warfare—Wyoming—Attempt to blacken the character of Brant—His noble conduct—Untruthful American History—The inhabitants of Wyoming—The Rebels first to blame—Cherry Valley—Van Schaick—Bloody orders—Terrible conduct of the Rebels, Helpless Indian families—Further deeds of blood and rapine by the rebel Sullivan—A month of horrible work—Attributes of cruelty more conspicuous in the Rebels than in the Indians—The New Englander—Conduct toward the Indians—Inconsistent—The “down trodden”—The Mohawks—Indian agriculture—Broken faith with the Indians—Noble conduct of Brant—After the war—His family—Death—Miss Molly—Indian usage—The character of the Mohawk—The six Indians as Canadians—Fidelity to the British—Receiving land—Bay Quinté—Grand River—Settling—Captain Isaac, Captain John—At present—Mohawk Counsel.
This once powerful Confederacy styled themselves Kan-ye-a-ke; also, they sometimes called themselves Aganuschioni or Agnanuschioni, which signifies united people. The French designated them Iroquois, from a peculiar sound of their speech. The English knew them as the Five Nations, and Six Nations, more generally by the latter term. The original five tribes that formed the Confederacy, were the Mohawks, Oneidas, Cayugas, Onondagas, and Senecas. Subsequently in 1712, the Tuscaroras came from the south, North Carolina, and made the sixth nation. But according to some authority, there were six nations before the Tuscaroras joined them. However, we learn from several sources, that up to 1712, the English, in speaking of them, referred to only five nations. The Oneidas seem, at one time, to have been omitted, and the Aucguagas inserted in their stead. The oldest members of the confederation were the Mohawks, Onondagas, and Senecas. The union of those three tribes took place prior to the occupation of America by the Europeans. The time at which the confederation of the five nations was formed is uncertain, but it is supposed to have been in the early part of the sixteenth century. The league binding them together was rather of a democratic nature.
Each tribe was represented in the great council of the nation by one principal sachem, with a number of associates.
They were always deliberate in their councils, considerate in their decisions, never infringing upon the rights of a minority, and dignified in their utterances. They were noted, not only as warriors, but as well for their agriculture, their laws, and their oratorical ability.
Each tribe was subdivided into classes, and each of these had a device or “totem,” namely, the tortoise, the bear, the wolf, the beaver, the deer, the falcon, the plover, and the crane.
They were for hundreds of years the terror of the various Indian tribes peopling North America, and most of the time could at will, roam the wide expanse between the Hudson Bay and the Carolinas. Other tribes, too weak to oppose them, were from time to time completely exterminated. Of these was the Erie tribe, which had entirely disappeared by the year 1653. Of those who stubbornly resisted the Six Nations, were the Hurons, the Adirondacks, of the north, the Delawares, the Cherokees, and the Mohicans.
Smith, an historian of New York, says that in 1756 “Our Indians universally concur in the claim of all the lands not sold to the English, from the mouth of Sorel River, on the south side of Lakes Erie and Ontario, on both sides of the Ohio, till it falls into the Mississippi; and on the north side of those lakes, that whole territory between the Outaouais River, and the Lake Huron, and even beyond the straits between that and Lake Erie.”
“When the Dutch began the settlement of New York, all the Indians on Long Island, and the northern shore of the Sound, on the banks of the Connecticut, Hudson, Delaware, and Susquehanna rivers, were in subjection to the Five Nations,” and in 1756, “a little tribe, settled at the Sugar-loaf Mountain, in Orange County, made a yearly payment of about £20 to the Mohawks.”
Among the traditions of this people is one that they had a supernatural origin from the heart of a mountain, that they then migrated to the west, where they lived for a time by the sea shore. Then, in time returned to the country of the lakes. A country now passed into the hands of the white man, who paid no just price. But the names of many places yet indicate the history of the ancient owners of the soil.
Among the Mohawks, in the beginning of the eighteenth century, was a chief known as Old King Hendrick, or Soi-euga-rah-ta, renowned for eloquence, bravery, and integrity. He was intimate with Sir William Johnson, and it was between them that the amusing contention of dreams occurred, that has been narrated.
In 1755, a battle was fought at Lake George, between the French, under Baron Dieskau, and the English, under Johnson, resulting in the defeat of the French. The French and English were supported by their respective allies. At this engagement Old King Hendrick, then seventy years old, but still full of energy and courage, was killed. Strangely enough it was at this battle that Brant, then only thirteen years old, first took part with his tribe in the contest. The mantle of Soieugarahta fell upon the youthful Thayendinagea.
Thayendinagea, or Joseph Brant, was born upon the banks of the Ohio, in the year 1742, while his tribe was on a visit to that region. According to Stone, his biographer, he was the son of “Tehowaghwengaraghkwin a full-blooded Mohawk, of the Wolf tribe.”
After the battle at Lake George, Brant continued with his people under Johnson till the close of that bloody war. At its close, about 1760, Brant, with several other young Indians, was placed by Johnson at Moor School, Lebanon, Connecticut. After acquiring some knowledge of the rudiments of literature, he left the school to engage in active warfare with the Pontiacs and Ottawas. In 1765, we find him married and settled in his own house at the Mohawk Valley. It is said he was not married, except in the Indian mode, until the winter of 1779, when at Niagara, seeing a Miss Moore, a captive, married, he was also thus married by Colonel John Butler, to a half-breed, the daughter of Colonel Croghan, by an Indian woman. Here he spent a quiet and peaceful life for some years, acting as interpreter in negotiations between his people and the whites, and lending his aid to the efforts of the missionaries who were engaged in the work of teaching and converting the Indians.
“Those who visited his house, spoke in high terms of his kindness and hospitality.” Sir William Johnson died in 1774, and was succeeded by his son-in-law, Colonel George Johnson, as Indian agent, who appointed Brant his Secretary. The same year Johnson had to flee from the Mohawk, westward, to escape being captured by a band of rebels. He was accompanied by Brant and the principal warriors of the tribe. The rebels vainly tried to win the Indians to their side; but excepting a few Senecas, they preferred their long tried friends. The regular successor of Old King Hendrick, was “little Abraham.” It is said he was well disposed to the Americans, probably through jealousy of Brant. At all events, Brant, by universal consent became the principal chief. He proceeded with the other chiefs, and a large body of Indian warriors to Montreal, where he was commissioned as a captain in the British army. “In the fall of 1775, he sailed for England to hold personal conference with the officers of government. He was an object of much curiosity at London, and attracted the attention of persons of high rank and great celebrity.” Brant returned to America in the spring following, landed near New York, and made his way through his enemy’s country to Canada. He placed himself at the head of his warriors, and led them on to many a victory. The first of which was at the battle of “the Cedars.”
But the rebels did not cease endeavoring to seduce Brant to their cause. In June, 1777, General Herkimer of the rebel militia approached Brant’s head-quarters with a large force, ostensibly to treat on terms of equality. Brant had reason to suspect treachery, and consequently would not, for some time, meet Herkimer. After a week, however, he arranged to see General Herkimer, but every precaution was taken against treachery, and it appears that not without cause. Brant and Herkimer were old, and had been intimate friends. Brant took with him a guard of about forty warriors. It would seem that Herkimer’s intention was to try and persuade Brant to come over to the rebels, and failing in this to have Brant assassinated as he was retiring. Says an American writer, Brownell, “We are sorry to record an instance of such unpardonable treachery as Herkimer is said to have planned at this juncture. One of his men, Joseph Waggoner, affirmed that the General privately exhorted him to arrange matters so that Brant and his three principal associates might be assassinated.” Well does it become the Americans to talk about savage barbarity. Brant thwarted the intentions of his old friend by keeping his forty warriors within call. During all of the repeated attempts to get the Mohawks they never swerved, but reminded the rebels of their old treaties with England, and the ill-treatment their people had sustained at the hands of the colonists.
The head-quarters of Brant was at Oghkwaga, Owego, upon the Susquehanna. During the summer of 1777 while Burgoyne was advancing, the Mohawks under Brant rendered important service. In the attempt to capture Fort Stanwix, they took a prominent part. In the summer of 1778 the Indians, with Butler’s Rangers were engaged principally in border warfare. It was during this season that the affair at Wyoming took place, which event has been so extravagantly made use of to blacken the character of the Indians and vilify the “tories.” That Brant was not inhuman, but that he was noble, let recent American writers testify. Brownell says: “many an instance is recorded of his interference, even in the heat of conflict, to stay the hand uplifted against the feeble and helpless.”
It was in the latter part of June that a descent was planned upon the settlements of Wyoming. Of this event, again we will let Brownell speak:—“It has been a commonly received opinion that Brant was the Chief under whom the Indian portion of the army was mustered, but it is now believed that he had as little share in this campaign as in many other scenes of blood long coupled with his name. There was no proof that he was present at any of the scenes that we are about to relate.”
“No portion of the whole history of the revolution has been so distorted in the narration as that connected with the laying waste of the valley of Wyoming. No two accounts seem to agree, and historians have striven to out-do each other in the violence of their expressions of indignation, at cruelties and horrors which existed only in their imaginations, or which came to them embellished with all the exaggeration incident to reports arising amid scenes of excitement and bloodshed.
Wyoming had, for many years, been the scene of the bitterest hostility between the settlers under the Connecticut grant, and those from Pennsylvania. Although these warlike operations were upon a small scale, they were conducted with great vindictiveness and treachery. Blood was frequently shed, and as either party obtained the ascendency, small favor was shown to their opponents, who were generally driven from their homes in hopeless destitution. We cannot go into a history of these early transactions, and only mention them as explanatory of the feelings of savage animosity which were exhibited between neighbors, and even members of the same family, who had espoused opposite interests in the revolutionary contest.” Such, be it noted, was the character of the inhabitants of Wyoming valley, who have been so long held up as innocent victims of Indian barbarity. By the above, we learn that prior to this, there had been contentions between the loyalists and rebels. The party who entered Wyoming to attack the Fort, were under Colonel John Butler, and were composed of some 300 British regulars and refugees, and 500 Indians. Now, it would seem that the depredation which was committed after Colonel Zebulon Butler, the rebel leader, had been defeated, and the Fort had capitulated, was to a great extent due to retaliatory steps taken by the loyalists who previously had been forced away, and had seen their homes committed to the flames. Such was the border warfare of those days. It was not Indian savagery, it was a species of fighting introduced by the “Sons of Liberty.” And if we condemn such mode of fighting, let our condemnation rest first, and mainly upon those who initiated it. Not upon the Indians, for they were led by white men—not upon Brant, for he was not there—not so much upon the loyalists, for they had been driven away from their homes; but let it be upon those who introduced it.
The rebels were not slow to seek retribution for their losses at Wyoming. Aided by a party of Oneidas who lent themselves to the rebels, “Colonel Wm. Butler with a Pennsylvania regiment, entered the towns of Unadilla and Oghkwaga, and burned and destroyed the buildings, together with large stores of provisions intended for winter use.” In turn, Walter Butler led a party of 700, a large number being Indians under Brant, to attack a fort at Cherry Valley which was “garrisoned by troops under Colonel Ichabod Alden.” It will be seen that the Indians and loyalists did not enter an unprotected place to burn and destroy. They attacked a garrison of troops. But the Indians exasperated by the cruel procedure at Oghkwaga, became ungovernable, and about fifty men, women and children fell by the tomahawk. This was the retaliation which the Indian had been taught to regard as justifiable for the wrongs which had been inflicted upon his own tribe—his little ones; yet be it remembered, and later American writers admit it, that the commanders, Butler and Brant, did all they could to restrain the terrible doings of the exasperated men. “Specific instances are reported in which the Mohawk Chief interfered, and successfully, to avert the murderous tomahawk.”
And now begins the bloody revenge which the rebels determined to inflict upon the Indians, without respect to tribes. In April, 1779, Colonel Van Schaick was despatched with a sufficient force for the purpose, with instructions “to lay waste the whole of their towns, to destroy all their cattle and property.” “The Colonel obeyed his orders to the letter, and left nothing but blackened ruins behind him.” It was merely a march of destruction, for the Indians were not there to oppose their steps. The villages and property that were destroyed belonged to the Onondagas, although they had not taken a decided stand with the loyalist party. It was enough that they were Indians, and would not join the rebels. But this was merely a prelude to what was preparing, in pursuance of a resolution of the rebel congress. The infamous duty of commanding this army of destruction, town destroyers the Indians called them, was entrusted to General Sullivan, whose nature was adequate to the requirements of the command.
On the 22nd August, 1779, five thousand men were concentrated at Tioga, upon the Susquehanna. The men were prepared for their uncivilized duty by promises of the territory over which they were about to sow blood and fire. The Indians had no adequate force to oppose their march westward over the Six Nations territory. Brant with his warriors, with the Butlers and Johnsons made a gallant resistance upon the banks of the Chemung, near the present town of Elmira. But, after suffering considerable loss, the vastly superior force compelled them to flee, and there remained nothing to arrest the devastating rebel army, and during the whole month of September they continued the work of despoliation.
It has been the custom of almost all American historians to give the Indians attributes of the most debasing character. At peace, unworthy the advantages of civilization; at war, treacherous and ferociously cruel. For this persistent and ungenerous procedure it is impossible to conceive any cause, unless to supply an excuse for the steady course of double-dealing the Americans have pursued toward the original owners of the soil, and provide a covering for the oft-repeated treachery practised toward the credulous Indian by the over-reaching New Englander. To the Mohawk Nation particularly, since they proved true allies of the British, have American writers found it agreeable to bestow a character noted for blood and rapine. Nothing can be more untrue than the character thus gratuitously portrayed, nothing more at variance with the essential nature of the Indian, when free from European intrigues, and the cursed fire-water. The aboriginal races of North America are not by nature, blood-thirsty above Europeans. That they are honest, just and true, capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, with a due appreciation of well-kept faith, is well attested by the conduct which has ever been observed by them toward, not alone the Pennsylvanians, but every man found to be a Quaker. No instance can be found recorded throughout the long bloody wars of the Indians, where a hair of the head of a single man, woman or child of that denomination was injured by the Indian; and thus because the upright Penn never defrauded them. The Americans, while British colonists, with the exception alluded to, made themselves obnoxious to almost all Indian tribes. They never secured that hearty and faithful alliance that the French did. There seemed to be something in the air, especially of the New England States, which in a few generations blinded the eye, by which the golden rule is to be observed.
The Americans, who have ever set themselves up as the champions, par excellence, of liberty, to whom the “down-trodden of the old world” could look for sympathy, if not direct support, have signally failed to observe those lofty principles at home toward the natives of the soil, while they continued for eighty years to keep in chains the sable sons of Africa. They have found it convenient and plausible to prate about the political “tyranny of European despots;” but no nation of northern Europe has shown such disregard for the rights of their people as the United States have exhibited toward the original owners of the soil. Avarice has quite outgrown every principle of liberty that germinated ere they came to America. The frontier men, the land-jobber, the New England merchant, as well as the Southern Planter, have alike ignored true liberty in defrauding the Indian, in sending out slavers, and in cruel treatment of the slave. Then can we wonder that the noble-minded Indian, naturally true to his faith, should, when cheated, wronged,—cruelly wronged, with the ferocity natural to his race, visit the faithless with terrible retribution?
The unbiassed records of the past, speak in tones that cannot be hushed, of the more noble conduct of the natives, than of those who have sought to exterminate them. The Mohawks, although brave warriors, fought not for the mere love of it. They even at times strove to mediate between the French and New Englanders.
To the Mohawks, the American writer has especially bestowed a name bloody and ignoble. And all because they listened not to their wily attempts to seduce them to join the rebels, but preferred to ally themselves with the British. No doubt the Indian had long before discriminated between the rule of British officers, and the selfish policy of local governments. And hence, we find, in every scrap of paper relating to the Mohawks, unfounded accounts of savage doings. But taking, as true, the darkest pages written by the Americans against the Six Nations, they present no parallel to the deeds of brutal vengeance enacted by the American army under Sullivan, when he traversed the fruitful country, so long the home of the Iroquois. Says an American writer: “When the army reached the Genesee Valley, all were surprised at the cultivation exhibited, by wide fields of corn, gardens well stocked, their cattle, houses, and other buildings, showing good design, with mechanical skill, and every kind of vegetable that could be conceived. Beautiful as was the scene in the eyes of the army, a few days changed it to utter desolation; neither house, nor garden, grain, fruit tree, or vegetable, was left unscathed.”
Says Stone: “Forty Indian towns were destroyed. Corn gathered and ungathered, to the amount of 160,000 bushels, shared the same fate; their fruit trees were cut down; and the Indians were hunted like wild beasts, till neither house, nor fruit tree, nor field of corn, nor inhabitant, remained in the whole country.” And the poor Indian women, and children, and old men, were thus left at the approaching winter to seek support at the British garrisons. Truly the rebels of ‘76 were brave and civilized!
Thirteen years after, one of the chiefs said to Washington, “Even to this day, when the name of the town-destroyer is heard, our women look behind them and turn pale, and our children cling close to the necks of their mother; our sachems and our warriors are men, who cannot be afraid, but their hearts are grieved with the fears of our women and children.” Thus the brave Sullivan, with his thousand rebels, made war against old men, women and children, who were living in their rightful homes. This was fighting for liberty!
The blood of the Indian, as well as the slave, has risen up to reproach the American, and it required much of fresh blood to wash away the stains remaining from their deeds of cruelty and rapine, inflicted during their revolutionary war, under the name of liberty. The soldiers of Sullivan were stimulated in their evil work by promises of the land they were sent to despoil; and the close of the war saw them return to claim their promises, while the rightful owner was driven away. A certain portion of the Six Nations having received pledges from the United States Government for their welfare, remained to become subjects of the new nation. But excepting Washington himself, and General Schuyler, not one heeded their promises made to the Indian. The most unjust proceedings were begun and ruthlessly carried on by individuals, by companies, by legislators, by speculators, to steal every inch of land that belonged by all that is right, to the Senecas. How unlike the benignant and faithful conduct of the British Government in Canada.
Brant continued during the war to harass the enemy in every possible way, and in the following year, August, planned a terrible, but just retaliation for the work of Sullivan’s horde. It was now the turn of the rebels to have their houses, provisions and crops, despoiled. But all the while “no barbarities were permitted upon the persons of defenceless women and children, but a large number of them were borne away into captivity.” Again, in October, Johnson and Brant, with Corn Planter, a distinguished Seneca chief, invaded the Mohawk Valley. In this foray, the same conduct was observed toward women and children. On one occasion, Brant sent an Indian runner with an infant, that had been unintentionally carried from its mother with some captives, to restore it. Still, again the following year, the Indians under Brant, and the Royalists under Major Ross, were found over-running their old homes along the Mohawk and Schoharie. On this their last expedition, they were met by the rebels in force under Colonel Willet, with some Oneida warriors, and defeated them. Colonel Walter N. Butler, whom the rebels have so often tried to malign, was shot and scalped by an Oneida Indian, under the command of the rebel Willet.